EUROPEAN
COMMISSION

Brussels, 14.6.2017
SWD(2017) 232 final

COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENTThe ITER Project Status
Accompanying the document
Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament and to the Council
EU contribution to a reformed ITER project{COM(2017) 319 final}

EN

EN

I.

INTRODUCTION

ITER is a global project to build and operate an experimental reactor with the aim ofdemonstrating the scientific and technological feasibility of fusion as a sustainable andeconomic energy source. ITER contributes therefore to the strategic agenda of the European
Union for clean and secure energy and supports the first objective of the Commission's
political agenda: 'boosting, jobs, growth and investment in future high potential technologies'.
The importance of this project cannot be underestimated. It has the potential to change
globally the way energy is produced and currently it is also one of the largest international
research projects under construction in the world. This pioneering initiative is developed
under the terms of an International Agreement 1 between the European Atomic Energy
Community (Euratom) and 6 other Members - China, India, Japan, Korea, Russia, and theUnited States - signed in Paris in November 2006 and entered into force in October 2007.
ITER is an important step in the development of fusion as an energy source – although over
200 fusion projects currently exist in the world in a number of countries and some havealready achieved important scientific results, no single country has the capacity to develop a
project of the size of ITER, the scale of which is necessary for the breakthrough expected todemonstrate the feasibility of fusion as an energy source.
The ITER project will be followed by a demonstration reactor (provisionally called DEMO)
which will build on the experimental achievements of ITER and demonstrate the economic
feasibility of commercial exploitation of fusion power.
A positive benefit of the ITER investment for the EU

In its present construction phase, ITER is already having a positive economic impact in theregion where the site is located and, more generally, on the European industry, SMEs and theresearch community involved in the development and construction of thousands of first-of-akind technological components.
In fact, between January 2008 (the start of ITER activities) and December 2015, contracts forapproximately EUR 3.6 billion have been awarded in Europe through about 750 procurement
contracts and about 150 grants supporting Europe's ITER activities. These contracts andgrants have benefited companies including SMEs from at least 20 different Member States.
All this translates into new knowledge and cutting-edge technology, market-oriented researchand innovation and high skilled jobs and knowledge all over Europe.
As the project evolves, more procurements and grants will follow, not only in relation to
Euratom in-kind contributions but increasingly also for the assembly and tooling work neededby the project's central executive (the ITER Organization). These procurements will include
new specialisations and activities, like diagnostics, remote handling and heating systems
which require high technology solutions, opening opportunities for businesses from industrial

1

The agreement established the ITER Organization with full international legal personality, responsible for the joint
implementation of the ITER project.

2

sectors and geographical regions that have not so far been prominently represented amongst
the beneficiaries.


Euratom has a unique role (and responsibilities) in the ITER agreement, and has
set up the Domestic Agency "Fusion for Energy" to fulfil its obligations

Pursuant to Article 1.2 of the ITER Agreement, Euratom is the Host Party of the ITER
project, which entails specific responsibilities, in particular, pursuant to Article 26.1 of the
ITER Agreement, the Host Party cannot withdraw from the project. Moreover, in accordancewith the ITER Agreement, during the construction phase Euratom contributes a value of 5/11
(around 45%) of which 80% is funded by Euratom, and 20% by France as the Host State of
the project), while the rest is equally divided among the other 6 ITER Members (1/11 oraround ~9% each). During the subsequent operation and deactivation phases, Euratom willcontribute 34% (of which 80% will be funded by Euratom and 20% by France as Host Stateof the project) of the total costs, while the other Members will increase their contributions
from 9.09% to 10%, with the exception of United States and Japan, who will contribute 13%.
The contribution of each ITER Member is provided both in cash and mostly in kind: in cash
through contributions to the budget of the ITER Organization needed for its functioning andin kind through the delivery of components of the ITER machine. Article 8.4 of the ITER
Agreement foresees that each Member shall provide its contribution to the ITER Organization
through an appropriate legal entity, a so called Domestic Agency. For Europe the Domestic
Agency is the Joint Undertaking "Fusion for Energy" (F4E) established by Council Decision
2007/198/Euratom of 27 March 20072. Fusion for Energy has its seat in Barcelona (Spain).
The Members of Fusion for Energy are the EU Member States, Euratom and Switzerland3.
The Euratom contribution to the ITER project is defined in this document and in theCommunication as the joint contribution of the EU budget, France as Host State and theMembers of Fusion for Energy. This contribution is paid to the budget of Fusion for Energy.
The share of the Euratom contribution to ITER (thus, through Fusion for Energy's budget) is
funded 80% by the EU budget and ~20% by France. The overall budget of Fusion for Energy
also benefits from an additional ~2% paid by its Members.
The European Commission represents Euratom at the ITER Council and its subsidiary bodies
as well as at the Fusion for Energy Governing Board.
The project has already been re-baselined once, in 2010

The ITER agreement was signed in 2006 on the basis of a baseline4 established and agreed by
the Members in 2001 in order to be able to converge on a "Final Design Report" and adivision of the in-kind procurements.

2

OJ L 90, 30.03.2007, p.58.
Article 1.3.c of the Fusion for Energy statutes allows third countries having a cooperation agreement with Euratom in thefield of fusion that have associated their research programme to the Euratom programmes to become Members of the Joint
Undertaking if they so wish.
4
A "baseline" refers to the inter-related elements of scope (specifications of the machine to build), schedule (timetable forconstruction) and cost.
33

The 2001 baseline estimated the total ITER construction costs at about EUR 5.9 billion (5896
million in 2008 values). The Euratom contribution thus amounted to about EUR 2.7 billion(around 45%, EUR 2680 million in 2008 values), composed of about EUR 1.7 billion for thecomponents/systems to be provided “in kind”, and about EUR 1 billion to be provided "incash" to the ITER Organization. Each Party committed to provide the agreed contributions in
kind independently of the final cost of procuring and delivering components. These estimates
for the Euratom contribution to ITER did not include the contribution to Fusion for Energy's
expenditures for other activities5 or its running costs.
Soon after the start of the project in 2007 it became evident that the 2001 baseline was notaccurate. In 2010, a new ITER baseline, focused on the construction phase, was adopted by
the ITER Council based on estimated costs that were much higher than those agreed upon in
2001. As part of the discussions on the agreement of the 2010 revised baseline, the Council of
the EU established a EUR 6.6 billion cap up to 2020 (2008 values), for the construction phaseof ITER, the completion of which was then estimated to be by 2020. This cap was on all theactivities of Fusion for Energy. The annual financing obligations for Euratom stemming fromthe 2010 baseline are provided in table 1 of the annex.
Current challenges: cost and schedule overruns create a need to put the projectback on track

Although the 2010 baseline was based on a more realistic time plan and estimate of costs, theproject has again been facing delays and cost overruns since at least 2012. The delays canpartly be put down to the highly complex and technical nature of such a unique project where
many components are first of a kind and management concerns. However, there is also
recognition that the schedule and cost estimates adopted in 2010 were based on an immaturedesign and initial assumptions that have not been sufficiently robust, and that the managementin the ITER Organization was cumbersome, which led to slow-decision making.
The combination of these factors has led to constant design changes resulting in significant
delays and additional costs to the project. The additional costs accrued both on the side of
Fusion for Energy (as design changes increased the cost of in-kind contributions) and on theside of the ITER Organization (as longer design times result in more personnel costs anddesign changes, which impact other activities, including e.g. future assembly works).
These effects were further exacerbated by insufficient coordination and collaboration between
the Domestic Agencies and the ITER Organization. This meant that the ITER Organization
did not feel directly the impact of these design changes (for which the ITER Organization waslargely responsible) which were mainly impacting the Domestic Agencies who therefore bore
the brunt of the resulting cost increases from their domestic budgets.
This was particularly critical for the delivery of the Tokamak Buildings Complex, which falls
within Europe's in-kind obligations and which suffered from continuous changes to its
5"Other activities" refer to the implementation of the Broader Approach agreement with Japan and activities in preparation
for the construction of a demonstration fusion reactor and related facilities (including the International Fusion Materials
Irradiation Facility (IFMIF, and the ITER Test Blanket Programme).

4specifications, from knock-on effects of design changes to components to be housed within it,
and from increased safety requirements following the Fukushima incident. As a consequence,over the last years Fusion for Energy accumulated substantial cost overruns in its in-kind
contributions. These costs have been quantified and estimated in December 2015 to be overEUR 2 billion6.
The 2013 Management Assessment of the ITER Organization 7 , although underlining thecomplexity of the project, emphasised that important shortcomings in the management andgovernance of the ITER Organization still remained, in particular the poor leadership of the
ITER Organization top management, and recommended, inter alia, the early replacement of
the ITER Organization Director-General, the simplification of the decision-making
procedures and the development of a stronger project culture and nuclear safety awareness.
II.

TURNAROUND OF THE ITER ORGANIZATIONAs a response to the recommendations of the 2013 Management Assessment, the ITER
Organization developed action plans to address the managerial/organisational matters andgovernance issues identified. In addition, the ITER Council decided to accelerate the process
to replace the ITER Organization Director-General, in line with the recommendations of the2013 Management Assessment of the ITER Organization. A new Director-General was
selected and nominated by the ITER Council of November 2014 with official appointment asfrom 5 March 2015 by an Extraordinary ITER Council. The 2013 Management Assessment
was thus a turning point which pointed to the inadequate management and started theturnaround process which led to the 2015 changes.
The European Commission has worked closely with other ITER Members and with the new
ITER Organization management to put in place a comprehensive strategy to put the ITER
project back on track. The main focus of this strategy was to ensure management
improvements of the ITER Organization and increase the effectiveness of governance, inorder to put the project back on track and thus provide a reliable schedule for the construction
and operation of ITER.
The action plan of the new Director-General included major changes to the ITER
Organization both in the project management and globally. The action plan has been built
around the strong integration of the ITER Organization and Domestic Agencies at all levels,
and with centralisation of executive authority through on the ITER Organization DirectorGeneral as the Chief Executive Officer of the entire project, with full authority over alltechnical aspects.
In order to enable effective decision-making, the action plan foresaw the introduction of anumber of new instruments, e.g. an Executive Project Board (in charge of supervising

6
7

Fusion for Energy Report to the Council of the EU 2015.
The ITER Agreement, Art. 18 foresees that "Every two years, the Council shall appoint a Management Assessor who shallassess the management of the activities of the ITER Organization. The scope of the assessment shall be decided by theCouncil […]. The purpose of the assessment shall be to determine whether the management of the ITER Organization has
been sound, in particular with respect to management effectiveness and efficiency in terms of scale of staff".

5technical aspects of the project) and the Integrated Project Teams, formed by the ITER
Organization and the Domestic Agencies, and in charge of key components and actions.
Furthermore, a Reserve Fund was created to cover the additional costs of the Domestic
Agencies caused by changes initiated by the ITER Organization to the design of components.
The provisions for its use were adopted by the ITER Council in 2015 and its implementationis under the direct responsibility of the Director-General of the ITER Organization. It isfunded from the cash contribution of the ITER Members according to their share in theconstruction phase (45% for Euratom). Euratom has insured that its contribution to theReserve Fund is within the capped budget for ITER up to 2020. From 2021 onwards the ITER
Organization has estimated a total contribution to the Reserve Fund which for Euratom istaken into account in the estimates for the in-cash contribution reported in tables 1 and 2 of
the annex. In the same tables a best estimate of the potential revenue from the Reserve Fundto Euratom from currently known design changes is explicitly given. The Fund introduces an
incentive for the ITER Organization to minimize changes as much as possible, and therefore
acts as a risk mitigation measure.
The action plan also suggested some reforms to the ITER Organization, in order to optimise
human resources. The year 2015 was marked by several organisational changes in theappointments of the ITER Organization senior management, including a very rigorous
selection process of the two Deputy Directors-General, as well as the replacement of otherkey division leaders and restructuring of the functions of the ITER Organization departments.
An important change is that one of the two Deputy Directors-General is also the Chief
Operating Officer, supporting the Director-General in all matters related to design,
construction, installation, testing, commissioning and operation, thus providing much needed
technical leadership. The reduction of the top management functions from 7 Deputy
Directors-General (one per Party) to just two was an important step to de-politicise theorganisation. The resulting new senior management structure reflects better the needs of aconstruction project.
In about one year and a half of his leadership, the Director-General of the ITER Organization
has completed about 60% of his action plan, and the rest is making good progress. The
progress in the management turnaround received positive feedback from the Management
Assessment 2015, which acknowledged noticeable efforts of the ITER Organization to makethe ITER project advance. It recognised, in particular, the effectiveness of the DirectorGeneral's leadership and of his action plan, with improvement of the decision making
processes, cooperation between the ITER Organization and Domestic Agencies, humanresource management, and overall performance of the ITER Organization management, thus
leading to a positive momentum change in the construction activities and the achievement of(nearly) all construction milestones.
The positive appreciation of the progress made both by the ITER Organization management
and the project itself was expressed also in other recent independent reviews (see section IV
for details).

6

III.

TURNAROUND IN FUSION FOR ENERGY

Ensuring that Euratom participation in the ITER project is cost-efficient for European
taxpayers and effective in terms of benefits for Euratom requires changes not only in the
ITER Organization but also in Fusion for Energy, where improvements in sound management
practice and effective cost control need to continue. The Commission works on ensuring
further improvements in close collaboration with Fusion for Energy's management.
Fusion for Energy's role in the ITER project is crucial, in line with the dominant (45%) shareof Euratom in the project. The major large contracts for the Tokamak Buildings Complex, thevacuum vessel and the superconductive magnet (toroidal and poloidal) coils have been signed
and construction and manufacturing are in progress. With the progress of the work, Fusion for
Energy has been experiencing difficulties, largely due to the numerous changes requested by
the ITER Organization to the specifications of the components to be delivered, as pointed out
in the previous sections.
Weaknesses in Fusion for Energy's organization and management were first identified in 2009
in an internal management assessment of Fusion for Energy initiated by the Governing Board,which underlined in particular the lack of a project culture and industrial expertise. A series ofchanges in the structure of its governance followed in the period 2010-2015. The Governing
Board took first measures to better prepare the meetings of the Governing Board, but also tofollow up specific critical issues between meetings. The Governing Board also endorsed the
involvement of the Commission Internal Audit Service (IAS) in Fusion for Energy as from2012, complying with a recommendation of the Court of Auditors and thus establishing the
IAS as the internal auditor of Fusion for Energy. In parallel, the Commission repeatedly urged
Fusion for Energy to implement cost-containment measures.
Based on the lessons learned, the Commission has also re-structured the working relations
aiming at establishing efficient and transparent coordination and exchange of information
between Fusion for Energy and the services of the Commission.
The effectiveness of these changes was undermined by the frequency of changes of the Fusion
for Energy Director (in total, 5 persons occupied the function of Fusion for Energy Director
for periods of various lengths over the 9 years of Fusion for Energy's history from 2007 to2015) as well as the instability in project management in the ITER Organization.
The main opportunity to redress the situation came in spring 2015 with the action plan
presented by the acting Director of Fusion for Energy, focused on actions in support of theaction plan of the new Director-General of the ITER Organization. The plan involved thefollowing major points:

Full implementation of audit recommendations;

Improvement of the contract management tools, with in particular reinforcement of theon-site supervision of work at contractors;Gradual merging of configuration management processes and tools with those of the
ITER Organization;

7Implementation of a system to manage cost estimates and fund/contingency withdelivery at the end of 2015 of a new estimation of the cost at completion for the ITER
components to be delivered by Euratom during the construction phase.

It led to important changes in Fusion for Energy, such as the creation of a ProjectManagement Department to reinforce planning and control processes, redeployment of staff
to high priority areas and moving of staff to Cadarache to improve work relations andefficiency with the ITER Organization. Efforts were also made to restructure Fusion for
Energy's management and strengthen project control and cost containment measures.
These steps laid the ground for the arrival in January 2016 of a new Fusion for Energy
Director whose selection in late 2015 focused for the first time on industrial and project
management experience. This is expected to bring a new impulse in the way Fusion for
Energy manages and delivers the Euratom contribution to ITER.
Notwithstanding the above, the European Court of Auditors (ECA) has always issued an'unqualified' opinion on Fusion for Energy's annual accounts since 2007 (when Fusion for
Energy was set up). While this assurance on the legality/regularity of Fusion for Energy's
operations and on absence of material errors in Fusion for Energy's accounting and financialtransactions is very important, it is not sufficient to guarantee a clean bill of health as regards
Fusion for Energy's governance and management record. Indeed, the European Parliament inApril 2016 postponed its decision on granting the Fusion for Energy Director discharge inrespect of the implementation of the Joint Undertaking’s budget for the financial year 2014.
The urgent need for a credible revision of the ITER schedule and for curtailing the risk ofcontinuous cost increase was the major issue underlined by ECA ('emphasis of matter') andwas reflected in the basis for the European Parliament's decision. The discharge was
eventually granted in October 20168 on the basis of the overall progress of both Fusion for
Energy and the ITER Organization, and the revision of the baseline. This confirms that the
project needs a new baseline, a need felt not only in Euratom but also in the ITER
Organization and shared by other ITER Members. The Management Assessment 2015 report,
as its predecessor Management Assessment 2013, also urges that the ITER Organization andDomestic Agencies should be fully committed in developing a realistic ITER projectschedule.
IV.

TOWARDS A REVISED ITER PROJECT BASELINEThe Updated Long-Term Schedule - proposed in November 2015 and rejected by
the ITER Council because it did not address all issues and did not take into
account the constraints of the Members

In November 2015, the ITER Organization submitted to the ITER Council a proposal for an
Updated Long Term Schedule, covering schedule, resource estimates and a preliminary
staffing plan. The proposal did not take into account existing constraints from the Members,
and did not include sufficient risk mitigation actions to provide confidence in the proposed
8

Official Journal of the European Union, L 333/66 (8.12.2016).

8

schedule. It also required significant additional cash contribution from the ITER Members(and especially from Euratom, given the share of construction costs) and requested to double
the number of ITER staff, but without clear and convincing justifications for this request.
Additionally, in this proposal there was no evidence that the resources were concentrated to
finalise the construction phase of the machine, and at the same time it envisaged a delay by
five years for First Plasma (from 2020 to 2025), the critical milestone when the main
construction phase can be considered as completed. For Euratom in particular, endorsement ofsuch a proposal would have required an additional financial contribution of about EUR 0.5
billion above the total Euratom contribution until 2020 compared with the 2010 Baseline.
The ITER Council rejected the proposal and requested that further iterations between the
ITER Organization and the Domestic Agencies take place to ensure reliability, stability andcost sustainability of the schedule over the long term, and to avoid the risk that the forecasted
date of the First Plasma is immediately impacted, because of additional delays in the deliveryof critical path components. The ITER Council additionally requested that a high level
independent assessment be carried out of the ITER Organization proposal on the Updated
Long Term Schedule. The ITER Council agreed therefore to form the ITER Council Working
Group on Independent Review of the Updated Long-Term Schedule and Human Resources(in brief ITER Council Review Group) to assess the rejected Updated Long Term Schedule(with the associated costs/resources) as well as a revised schedule and cost/resource estimatesthat takes into account the financial constraints of the Members.
In parallel, to allow the project to move forward and at the same time monitor the project andgain confidence that the project was under control, the ITER Council also approved a working
schedule for ITER for 2016 and 2017, together with a set of critical milestones for the same
period for monitoring purposes. This two-year schedule requires a modest increase in staffingthat partially satisfied the requests from the ITER Organization, and is funded without
additional in-cash contribution from the ITER Members with respect to the agreed 2010
baseline.


From the Updated Long-Term Schedule to the staged approach

On 27 April 2016, the ITER Council endorsed at an extraordinary meeting the assessment of
the ITER Council Review Group. The final report was fully in line with the concerns
consistently raised by the Euratom Delegation: it acknowledged the good work carried out
with the development of the first schedule proposal of November 2015 but confirmed the two
major weaknesses already identified by the ITER Council. The ITER Council Review Group
recognised that the sequence and duration of activities of Updated Long Term Schedule were
fully and logically mapped and that resource estimates were generally complete and credible,
with no significant overestimates or underestimates. However, it pointed out that bothschedule and cost estimates had no contingency, which represented an important element ofrisk to achieve the First Plasma date in December 2025 and therefore made it impossible tohave confidence in the Updated Long Term Schedule.
The ITER Council Review Group also judged the exercise of revision of the Updated Long
Term Schedule based on additional iterations between the ITER Organization and the9Domestic Agencies to be beneficial and providing important added value. The ITER Council
Review Group report 9 concluded that the revision exercise should continue and further
iterations should be taken by the ITER Organization and the Domestic Agencies incompleting the revision of the schedule and associated resources (the so-called Iteration
Modelling). It recommended a staged approach to the project, focusing on successfulachievement of First Plasma as a first step, and with each following stage focused on clearly
identified key project deliveries. The staged approach would thus be an important tool tocomplete construction while managing and reducing the risks.
In this context, the ITER Council Review Group furthermore recommended to enhance the
ITER Organization risk mitigation management by prioritising risks (in terms of occurrence
and impact), quantifying the cost contingency needed and expanding the scope for use of theReserve Fund.
With regards to the organisation and management of Human Resources within the ITER
Organization, the ITER Council Review Group conducted a benchmarking exercise withother organisations and analysed cost books and staffing for a sample of key activities. The
results show that the size of the organization is reasonable and requests for staff are, for themost part, warranted. The ITER Council Review Group encouraged the use of Domestic
Agencies' expertise as one way to optimise the use of staff resources.


The staged approach focuses available resources on First Plasma in December
2025 (earliest technically achievable date) and ensures that the Euratom
contribution remains within EUR 6.6 billion by 2020

Following the Iteration Modelling exercise in full cooperation with all Domestic Agencies,
the ITER Organization submitted to the 18th meeting of the ITER Council of June 2016 its
proposal for a revised schedule to First Plasma and an overall strategy from First Plasma to
the Deuterium-Tritium phase, which took into account the recommendations of the ITER
Council Review Group report and the constraints of the Members. The ITER Council of June
2016 proposal is built on the staged approach, with the first stage focusing on delivering First
Plasma in December 2025 (the earliest technically achievable date i.e. assuming all risks canbe mitigated). The United States Department of State stressed in its report for Congress10 thatfurther risk of schedule slippages could still materialize. A subsequent detailed review of the
project to First Plasma carried out by the United States Department of Energy in January 2017
further confirmed that the project schedule should have a contingency of 24 months. Rather
than including an explicit time contingency, in the revised schedule project risks are actively
reduced by tackling progressively technical challenges, and providing flexibility foraccommodating placed contracts. Construction activities to First Plasma are to be followed byadditional Final Installations activities (also covered by the construction budget) in theoperation phase from January 2026 until the start of Deuterium-Tritium Operation in 2035.
From the beginning of the schedule revision exercise, the Commission stressed to Fusion for
9

Report of the ITER Council Working Group on the Independent Review of the Updated Long-Term Schedule and Human
Resources, 15 April 2016.
10
U.S. Department of Energy, "U.S. Participation in the ITER Project" (May 2016).

10

Energy that the capped budget of EUR 6.6 billion (2008 values) up to 2020 had to be adhered
to, and furthermore that additional savings were needed for the period after 2020 to containthe overall extra costs to completion. Fusion for Energy's internal restructuring of activities
and resources (the so-called “Straight Road to First Plasma”) was made to ensure this and it
provided its input to the ITER Organization accordingly.
The ITER Council of June 2016 proposal based on the staged approach and taking into
account Fusion for Energy's Straight Road to First Plasma strategy enables Euratom to staywithin the EUR 6.6 billion cap up to 2020 (in 2008 value) thanks to the reduction of in-kind
contributions during the period up to 2020. It also results in lower in-kind contributions forthe period 2021-2025 compared with the Updated Long Term Schedule proposal, as non-First
Plasma components (also included in the construction budget) are largely shifted to after2025.
Staged approach From First Plasma to Deuterium-Tritium operation and cost
containment

The detailed schedule for the period from First Plasma in December 2025 to the DeuteriumTritium phase estimated in 2035 was presented to the ITER Council in November 2016. This
proposal included:a complete schedule and cost including staffing estimate in the form of updated
Overall Project Schedule (OPS), Overall Project Cost (OPC) and Project Plan andResource Estimate (PPRE) for the period up to 2025;

an indicative schedule and cost baseline for the period from 2026 to 2035.

The updated schedule from First Plasma until the Deuterium-Tritium phase now envisages
additional Final Installations activities (also covered by the construction budget) in theoperation phase from January 2026 until the start of Deuterium-Tritium Operation in 2035 byalternating installation stages ,for all remaining components necessary for fusion power
operation, with limited operation campaigns in between. This approach focuses available
resources in a structured way, ensures that the known constraints of the Members are taken
into account and minimises the delay to the start of the Deuterium-Tritium operation. At thesame time, it allows for meaningful experimental campaigns between assembly phases, thus
allowing the fusion community to gain confidence in operating the machine and building up
to full performance before going into the nuclear (DT) phase with fusion power operation.
The total number of staff remains capped to a maximum of 1050.11
Endorsement ad referendum of the schedule

The ITER Councils of June and November 2016 approved the new schedule and associatedestimated costs (costs approved ad referendum) as the basis to prepare a new ITER Baselinethat should be approved by the ITER Members at an ITER Council meeting, most likely in2017 at ministerial level.

11

Record of Decisions of the 19th ITER Council (16-17 November 2016).

11



Potential impact of the staged approach for the European scientific community

ITER remains the most important facility in the European fusion roadmap. ITER is on thecritical path of this roadmap, and any delay in ITER operation will impact on the achievementof the roadmap's long-term objective, that of delivering fusion electricity to the grid within arealistic yet ambitious time horizon. However not all research in the roadmap requires ITER
to be operational and the delay in the start of ITER operation enables crucial long-lead time
research (such as development of new materials for DEMO and eventual fusion power plants)
to progress to a much more advanced stage by the time ITER achieves its operational
objectives.
Delays in ITER can be partially mitigated also through a more concerted approach to the
exploitation of other key tokamaks around the world, thereby better preparing for ITER
operation and enabling the ITER experimental programme to be accelerated as much as
possible. Within Europe, such an approach is already integrated into the EUROfusion12 joint
programme, with the exploitation of the European medium-sized tokamaks, including larger
facilities like JET (in the UK) fully coordinated and focused on support for ITER. This can beextended to the global scale by better coordinating the exploitation and scientific programmesof the large tokamaks operated by the other ITER Members, such as K-STAR (Korea), EAST
(China), and DIII-D (United States.). This is particularly the case for the JT-60SA Tokamak(Japan), being constructed on budget and on time by Euratom, the Voluntary Contributors to
the Broader Approach13 and Japan as part of the ITER Broader Approach project. This could
bring greater confidence in how to operate ITER both technically and with optimum plasma
performance.
The on-going mid-term review of the EUROfusion activities 2014-18, and associated revisionof the fusion roadmap (due to be available by spring 2017), must of course take into accountthe revised ITER schedule. This should further enable crucial long-lead time research for thefusion research community needed to underpin the commercial viability of future fusion
reactors, such as the development of new materials through the construction of suitablefacilities for instance for materials irradiation using a neutron source, e.g. the DEMO Oriented
Neutron Source DONES. In this respect, three EU Members States (Croatia, Poland andSpain) are currently interested to host this facility.


Active risk mitigation through careful monitoring of high level milestones

At ITER Council of June 2016 the Commission also stressed the need to monitor closely the
project's progress in the next two years against the set of milestones selected by both the
ITER Organization and the Domestic Agencies as approved by the ITER Council. The ITER
Council Review Group agreed with this approach, and in its report also recommended to
identify further critical milestones for the years after 2017 in order to provide early warning to
critical path deliverables or assembly risks. The ITER Organization therefore included as part
12

The European Consortium for the Development of Fusion Energy (EUROfusion, https://www.euro-fusion.org/) is a
consortium of 30 national fusion research organisations and laboratories from 26 EU Member States (excluding
Luxembourg and Malta), plus Switzerland and Ukraine (from 1/1/17), that participate in collective fusion research
activities under a European Joint Programme co-financed under the Euratom Research Programme (2014-2018).
13
Belgium, France, Germany, Italy, and Spain.

12

of their reinforced risk mitigation process the careful monitoring of additional high level
milestones, which would be reviewed and complemented at the end of each year by additional
working level milestones for the next two years' period.
The status of the project allows a better planning for longer termoMaturity of the design

The ITER Organization and Domestic Agencies have made significant progress in thedevelopment of the project. Work done by the Domestic Agencies under the Procurement
Arrangements (91% of which have now been signed by the ITER Organization with all
Domestic Agencies in terms of nominal shares of value credits14) is progressing well andmomentum is building. The ITER Organization, together with the Domestic Agencies, has
analysed the global status of First Plasma components15 in areas such as design, procurement,
manufacturing, shipment, on-site installation, and testing and commissioning. This analysis isbased on key elements of the scheduled activities which represent the major ITER systems,
but exclude Assembly and Installation. The percentage completion up to First Plasma has
been estimated by the ITER Organization to be 89% complete through final design, and 24%
manufacturing. The percentage of manufacturing includes partial credit for components
partially completed. The percentage completion for non-First Plasma components was also
estimated by the ITER Organization to be 71% complete through final design, 11%
manufacturing16.
To further reduce the risk of schedule delays and cost overruns, the ITER Council also
requested at ITER Council of June 2016 that the interfaces of the First Plasma components
linked to the schedule be frozen as quickly as possible.
o

Improved governanceThrough his action plan, the Director-General of the ITER Organization reformed the
management of the project in several areas (see section II). At the 18th ITER Council of June
2016 improvement was reported in several areas, in particular:
1. Tight coordination of the activities of the ITER Organization and Domestic Agencies
staff, now jointly in charge of specific equipment or tasks through the creation ofIntegrated Project Teams (to date three Project Teams have been established:
Cryogenics, Vacuum Vessel, and Buildings, Site Infrastructure & Power Supplies
Distribution).
2. Human Resources are being continuously optimised for improved efficiency and costeffectiveness, including the recent replacement of the Head of the Human Resources
Department.

14This nominal share is formally accounted through the ITER Unit of Account (IUA), defined so that 1 IUA = USD 1
thousand (January 1989 value), or EUR 1,690.12 (2016 value).
15
First Plasma systems include: Buildings, Steady State Electrical Networks, Cable Trays, Vacuum Vessel, Gas Injection
System, Magnets, Cryostat, Thermal Shield, Cooling Water, Vacuum System, Cryoplant and Distribution, Coil Power
Supplies and distribution, CODAC, Central Interlock System, Central Safety System, ECRH, Diagnostics and Port Plugs,
In-Vessel Viewing System, Access Control and Security Systems.
16
MAC-21_04.4.1, Report on Activity Plans (21st MAC meeting, 24-26 May 2016).

13

3. Implementation of coordinated tools for establishing a nuclear project culture, inparticular a plan to enhance knowledge on nuclear safety in the ITER Project focusing
on root causes.
In the present context of efforts to put the project back on track, it is necessary to pay further
attention to the governance of the project. Efficiency in the decision-making of the ITER
Council can be increased for instance by structuring the agenda of the meetings so that they
focus on strategic questions. Thorough preparation of the ITER Council discussions should beensured in advance through the Council Preparatory Working Group (CPWG) in addition to
the Management Advisory Committee (MAC) and the Science and Technical Advisory
Committee (STAC). Approval of general non-strategic and/or operational issues could bedelegated to the MAC and to the STAC where relevant. At the initiative of the Euratom andUnited States Delegations, the ITER Council has therefore decided at the ITER Council ofJune 2016 to establish a study group to look into the implementation of the governance of the
project through the various standing committees mentioned above as well as the Financial
Audit Board and the Management Assessment, and formulate recommendations for
improvement where necessary. At the 19th ITER Council (ITER Council of November 2016)
the Study Group presented some solutions for the rationalisation in the work of ITER Council
subsidiary bodies but that further improvements in the efficiency of the ITER Council will benecessary. On this basis, the ITER Members endorsed most of the recommendations of theStudy Group and requested the group to carry out a further analysis to merge subsidiarybodies and improve preparations of ITER Council meetings to achieve further streamlining
and efficiency in decision-making. The ITER Council in November 2016 agreed to reduce thenumber of sub-committees and to eliminate overlaps. In 2017 the ITER Council will further
analyse simplification opportunities with the objective to focus governance on delivery andstrategic issues.
oProfessional risk management is introduced in the management of the projectIn the past there have been attempts to reconcile the different approaches to risk managementof the ITER Members. In particular, there is (in general) a division in how different countries
approach risk management. From the scheduling point of view, it is customary in Europe andthe United States to make a success-oriented schedule and then estimate separately possible
delays and any foreseeable additional work directly from the individual tasks. The associatedrisks are then estimated and folded into the schedule to make it more realistic and establish aconfidence level for the achievement of e.g. First Plasma at a given date. At the same time, arisk register is established and possible mitigation actions are identified. On the contrary,
Asian countries have an almost complete success-oriented approach, without taking into
account risks and delays. This difference in approach implies that the assumptions of theDomestic Agencies in their submissions to the schedule may differ and this causes problems
when integrating them into an overall project schedule.
The approach taken to develop the schedule is to create a technically achievable schedulebased on the submissions from all the Domestic Agencies and then add the risk at the centrallevel, taking into account the risk assessment provided by the Domestic Agencies, especiallyfor those risks that have an important impact at the overall schedule are taken into account.

14

In parallel, the ITER Organization is implementing a reform of the risk management
capability through the preparation of a Management Plan and the creation of an overall
internal risk management system, including Project Risk & Opportunity Management
Committee for joint assessment of risks and mitigation actions by the ITER Organization andDomestic Agencies.
oCritical path issues are being addressed: freezing the design of the buildings,
transfer of vacuum vessel sectors, and realistic estimates for the Assembly

As a result of the above mentioned reforms, there is now more attention to the critical path atproject level and the management is focusing on critical in-kind deliverables and on theassembly process itself. This is particularly important for the Euratom in-kind contribution,
which is 45% of the total and has several important components on the critical path to First
Plasma. Two significant examples of this situation are the buildings and the vacuum vessel,
now managed by Integrated Project Teams that ensure tight coordination of the activities.
In particular, while the buildings have suffered (and continue to suffer to some degree) in thepast from constant design changes, the situation is now that the specifications are gradually
being frozen with floor by floor and building by building due dates being established, after
which new changes can be made only after specific approval of the ITER Organization
Director-General17.
The vacuum vessel is provided by both Euratom and Korea. The original division of in-kind
contribution foresees that Fusion for Energy is responsible for delivering 7 out of 9 sectors,
and the Korean Domestic agency the remaining 2 sectors. Due to serious and prolonged
technical and organizational problems of some companies of the consortium producing theEuropean sectors, at The ITER Council of June 2016 and with the consent of Euratom theresponsibility to procure two of the seven European sectors was transferred from Euratom to
the ITER Organization that will delegate to the Korean Domestic Agency the management of
the manufacturing and delivery of the two transferred sectors in addition to those originallyattributed to Korea. This transfer will allow a better balance of the work between the twoMembers and create float in the European schedule.
Regarding the Assembly, the situation is different: assuming the components are available onsite at the time they are needed, the duration of the assembly and commissioning schedule (~7 years) is determined by the duration of the different tasks and by the use of parallel
execution (in particular in the Tokamak area) as far as possible. The assembly will be
managed by a "Construction Manager as Agent" (CMA), under a contract signed in July 2016
after approval by the ITER Council. While the assembly work has been looked at in detail by
the ITER Organization, the contract foresees that the CMA reviews Contract andManagement Requirements before the tenders for assembly works are launched at the end of
2017. The consequent delay of these contracts (by about one year) has been mitigated bysigning end of 2016 two separate contracts for the Site Services Building and the Sector Sub-

17

Record of Decisions, 18th meeting of the ITER Council (June 2016).

15

Assembly Tooling. As a consequence, the overall assembly should not be delayed, while thepart covered by the CMA contract will have a much more solid base.
oMonitoring of milestones allows the ITER Council to closely supervise the ITER
Organization's progress

The overall monitoring of the ITER Organization has improved. The ITER Council
milestones, requested by the ITER Council at its November 2015 meeting to monitor progress
and adherence to the schedule for the years 2016-2017, are an effective tool to control the
progress of construction and act as an early warning system on the basis of which it ispossible to act swiftly to solve any emerging problems in the construction schedule. At its
June 2016 meeting, therefore, the ITER Council decided to expand this list to cover theschedule up to First Plasma. In parallel, the ITER Organization established a much more
extensive list of so-called Internal Project Milestones, with set threshold dates and an
automatic warning when a forecast date goes beyond its threshold. The delay that can occur
before the warning is given depends on the criticality of the milestone: for more critical
milestones this difference between the threshold date and the reference date is much shorter
than for less critical ones.
V.

THE FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS OF THE NEW BASELINEThe Euratom contribution post 2020 will finance the completion of all critical
path components to First Plasma, and prepare the ground for subsequentassembly phases beyond First Plasma leading to the fusion performance phase(Deuterium-Tritium)

The resources needed by Euratom to enable the successful completion of the facility and thestart of the performance operation phase have been estimated in this section on the basis of
the cash request presented by the ITER Organization to the ITER Council of November 2016
and Fusion for Energy's estimates presented at its Governing Board of December 201618. All
quoted values are in 2008 unless explicitly stated otherwise, while the enclosed tables report
the estimates in both 2008 and current values.
The total amount of cash for the ITER Organization from all the ITER Members for theconstruction phase to First Plasma is now foreseen at about EUR 5.6 billion, for the period
2014-2025 (until First Plasma). Out of that, EUR 3 billion of cash contribution from the ITER
Members concern specifically the period 2021-2025, which covers the construction phase toFirst Plasma19.
As mentioned above, the staged approach proposal presented at the ITER Council of June
2016 restructured the schedule to take into account the financial constraints of the ITER
Members, notably of Euratom. This has been obtained by limiting the in-cash contribution to
the ITER Organization, as well as postponing the procurement and installation of allcomponents not essential for First Plasma. Consequently, Fusion for Energy is on target torespecting the EUR 6.6 billion cap up to 2020.
18
19

Implications of the ITER updated Schedule and Resources Estimates on Fusion for Energy, F4E(16)-GB36-12.1.
Proposal for the Updated Project Plan and Resource Estimates (PPRE), ITER_D_U29DBA v1.1

16

The resources needed after 2020 by Euratom following the revision of the schedule arereported in detail in Table 1 (in 2008 value, and corresponding Table 2 in current values) inannex. The total (2014-2035) estimated Euratom contribution to the cash requirements(including operation and decommissioning/deactivation) of the ITER Organization is EUR
3.7 billion, of which EUR 1 billion is covered by the current Multi-annual Financial
Framework. For the period 2021-2025 (up to First Plasma), the ITER Organization will
require EUR 1.1 billion. The remaining EUR 1.6 billion of Euratom contribution will cover
the period up to the start of the performance operation (2026-2035), and will cover both the
Final Installation activities (paid from the construction budget at 45% of the total
contribution) and operations, including upgrades, spares, decommissioning and deactivation
costs (paid from the operations budget at 34% share of the total contribution). The total
construction budget from 2021 until the end of construction activities includes the estimatedcontribution to the Reserve Fund of the ITER Organization.
Correspondingly as shown in Table 1, Fusion for Energy estimates that an additional EUR 2.2
billion will be needed during the period 2021-2025 to cover the cost of the Euratom in-kind
contributions necessary to complete the critical path components needed to achieve First
Plasma, as well as the cost of the initial stages of design and construction for the components
under Euratom responsibility required for the Final Installation activities.
Regarding the total additional Euratom resources needed to complete construction (i.e.
required by both the ITER Organization and Fusion for Energy, see summary Tables 3 and 4),
while they are still within the current capped budget to the end of 2020, during the period2021-2025 additional EUR 3.8 billion are required to First Plasma. Since construction
continues to some extent after First Plasma with the Final Installation Activities, additional
resources required from the construction budget during the period 2026-3035 are of the orderof EUR 1.5 billion (EUR 0.6 billion in cash and EUR 0.9 billion for the in-kind contribution).
There are a number of conclusions that can be drawn from these figures. Firstly, the measurestaken to restructure the schedule through the staged approach forecast that Fusion for Energy
is on target to respecting the EUR 6.6 billion (up to 2020). This has been obtained by limiting
the in-cash contribution to the ITER Organization, as well as postponing the procurement andinstallation of all components not essential for First Plasma.
The total additional Euratom resources needed to cover fusion for Energy's budget for boththe ITER Organization and Fusion for Energy's needs from 2021 until 2035 are currently
estimated to be ~EUR 7 billion.
A complete overview of the estimated share of the Euratom resources needed for the ITER
project is given in particular in Table 4, where the contributions from the EU budget, Franceand Fusion for Energy Members are shown in detail. This table also shows the estimate of the
EC average administration costs of the project, Fusion for Energy's administrative costs andthe costs of ITER-related activities carried out by Fusion for Energy.
VI.

PRECONDITIONS FOR EURATOM'S CONTRIBUTION

17

Radical changes have been introduced in the last two years to reform the ITER project and put
it back on track. Continued monitoring and additional tools will be needed both at the ITER
Organization level and at European level with Fusion for Energy to ensure that the Euratom
contribution to ITER is used in the framework of sound management practice and on the basisof evident project progress. The revision of the schedule and a restructured project
management working to maintain improved project performance are major conditions thathave been met. However, the following additional initiatives should be considered as the basis
to ensure the future Euratom contribution to the project.
Regular project reviews of the ITER project

Following the example of the independent review on the schedule proposed by the European
Delegation at the ITER Council of November 2015 and carried out by the ITER Council
Review Group, the ITER Council should introduce regular reviews focused on critical areas,such as project management, risk management, technical progress, safety, cost and schedulemonitoring.
On this basis, Euratom has worked with other delegations at the ITER Council of June 2016
and ensured the introduction of regular reviews in the ITER Council plans. It was agreed thatsuch focused additional reviews of ITER management performance and progress on selectedissues should be conducted by the Management Advisory Committee, with involvement ofadditional independent experts to strengthen the value and impact of such reviews. In
November, the ITER Council concretised this agreement and decided to carry out regular sixmonthly in depth risk reviews focused on critical areas of the project, starting with the review
of risk management in early 2017. Such reviews represent another effective way ofidentifying possible shortcomings and risk factors and addressing them before they bear
negatively upon the projectImproved risk management

The ITER Organization must have in place a robust risk management system to ensure that
relevant risk reduction and mitigation measures keep the First Plasma date of December 2025.
For this reason, Euratom considers that it is important for the ITER Organization to
implement the recommendations on risk management of the ITER Council Review Group.
Initiatives already adopted by the ITER Organization, such as a centralised approach for risk
management instead of individually by the Domestic Agencies, need to be further developed.
A central Risk Register, capturing all the risks (including in terms of potential additional cost)of the ITER Organization and the Domestic Agencies would allow more transparency andclarity on the possible impact of risks should they materialise and better control of the
project's schedule and cost.
At the same time, further work has to be undertaken in Fusion for Energy to improve themanagement of risk as regards specifically the European participation in the project.
Improved governance of the ITER Organization

The governance of the ITER project is set up in the ITER Agreement. A formal revision of
the provisions of the agreement is complicated and would probably bring not much benefit for18

the project and would further compromise the First Plasma date by introducing unnecessary
uncertainties in the project at a critical stage of the construction phase. Within the current
framework, there is some margin of maneuver to further streamline the decision-making
process to make it more efficient.
The ITER Council needs to focus on the most strategic decisions, leaving its subsidiarybodies to deal with routine and administrative items, preparing the decisions of the Council
and at the same time be empowered to adopt decisions in a more independent way on the dayto-day work of the ITER Organization. To this end the review should look at how policies are
established (e.g. principles, rules and guidelines to reach the long-term goals) and how
supervision tools can ensure that activities are on schedule to meet the objectives andperformance targets.
The ITER Council, therefore, also decided at in June 2016 to establish a study group toreview the governance of the ITER Organization by the ITER Council assisted At the ITER
Council of November 2016 the study group presented some solutions for the rationalisation in
the work of ITER Council subsidiary bodies but that further improvements in the efficiency of
the ITER Council will be necessary. On this basis, the ITER Members endorsed most of therecommendations of the study group and requested the group to carry out a further analysis tomerge subsidiary bodies and improve preparations of ITER Council meetings to achieve
further streamlining and efficiency in decision-making. The ITER Council in November 2016agreed to reduce the number of sub-committees and to eliminate overlaps. In 2017 the ITER
Council will further analyse simplification opportunities with the objective to focus
governance on delivery and strategic issues.
Enhanced oversight of Fusion for Energy

The Commission's oversight of Fusion for Energy relies on three different categories ofsupervision tools: Governance Bodies (Governing Board and Committees), regular structured
monitoring (using reporting as well as regular audit actions), and ad-hoc supervisory tools(mainly for tackling emergency situations).
The Governing Board (of which Euratom is a member together with the EU Member Statesand Switzerland) and its subsidiary bodies (in some of which Euratom is also represented) areresponsible for the overall supervision of Fusion for Energy. Compared to the other membersof the Governing Board, Euratom has a different role as the largest contributor of the budget,the responsibilities to report to the European Council and to the European Parliament and thesupervision of Fusion for Energy as a European Joint Undertaking, which means F4E has tofollow the financial and staff regulations of the European Commission or regulations
specifically set up.
This specific budgetary and institutional role of the European Commission on behalf ofEuratom implies a particular responsibility of the Commission with respect to the supervisionof Fusion for Energy, in spite of the formal limitation in terms of Euratom voting rights at the19

Governing Board. The current Administrative Agreement between the Commission and
Fusion for Energy of specifies20 that:- An annual activity report reporting the implementation of the work programme of theprevious year shall be send to the Commission by the 15 of June of the following year.
- The specialised financial irregularities panel set up by the Commission according to the
Financial Regulation shall exercise the same powers in respect of Fusion for Energy as it doesin respect of Commission departments.
- OLAF shall enjoy the same powers in respect of Fusion for Energy as it enjoys in respect of
the Commission departments (Fusion for Energy statutes and Governing Board decisions).
For this reason, this agreement has been reviewed and updated to take into account these
specific needs which will allow the European Commission to fulfill completely its budgetary
and inter-institutional role as well as any additional enhancements. This should thus ensurethat the Commission receives early specific and detailed information concerning theadministrative and financial planning of the Joint Undertaking, as well as e.g. regular
reporting on the difficulties Fusion for Energy faces and potential mitigating actions,information on the budget implementation with information on deviations from the planning.
Emphasis on cost containment

The Commission has repeatedly urged the ITER Organization and Fusion for Energy toimplement cost-containment measures and seek further savings. While progress has been
made, further work remains to be done, in particular to improve the internal control
framework, integrated project management and reporting system in both organisations. Fusion
for Energy has prepared a comprehensive strategy to deal with cost claims, which willcontribute to the mitigation of the risk of further cost increases, mainly from buildings, andwill as such form one of the instruments of cost containment. A complete cost containment
effort will also have to include a further improved and effective assessment of current andfuture contracts, reflecting the experience gained so far with key contracts, such as forbuildings or the vacuum vessel, as well as the optimization of requirements andmanufacturing processes.

20

Administrative Agreement between the Commission and Fusion for Energy (2008), Art. 19-21

20

ANNEX: FINANCIAL TABLES COMPARING THE JUNE 2016 ITER COUNCIL PROPOSAL WITH THE 2010 BASELINE
Table 1: annual profiles for the 2010 baseline in 2008 value, reconstructed using the ITER Overall Project Cost21 and the Fusion for Energy 2012 Resource Estimate Plan22.
2008 value
Cash to IO
contruction
operation
Decommissioning/deactivation
F4E in-kind
F4E administration
F4E other activities
Total 2010 Baseline

2008 value
Cash to IO
contruction
operation
Decommissioning/deactivation
F4E in-kind
F4E administration
F4E other activities
Total 2010 Baseline

21
22

2007
17.5
17.5
0.0
0.0
103.7
1.9
0.0

2008
42.2
42.2
0.0
0.0
116.9
13.9
4.5

2009
59.4
59.4
0.0
0.0
214.8
23.8
18.7

2010
74.1
74.1
0.0
0.0
293.5
28.3
9.5

2011
83.3
83.3
0.0
0.0
319.7
35.7
17.5

2012
97.8
97.8
0.0
0.0
1036.9
38.3
2.8

2013
97.3
97.3
0.0
0.0
742.6
38.9
17.0

2014
96.0
96.0
0.0
0.0
899.0
39.1
23.0

2015
103.9
103.9
0.0
0.0
596.0
40.0
16.9

<2016
671.4
671.4
0.0
0.0
4323.2
260.0
109.9

2016
100.8
100.8
0.0
0.0
180.8
40.0
21.4

2017
92.6
92.6
0.0
0.0
158.1
38.4
33.9

2018
73.5
73.5
0.0
0.0
137.6
35.5
43.4

2019
37.5
37.5
0.0
0.0
77.1
31.3
50.1

2020
12.8
12.8
0.0
0.0
39.4
5.8
25.4

sub-total
317
317
0
0
593
151
174

123.1

177.5

316.7

405.4

456.2

1175.8895.81057.1756.8

5364.4

343.1

323.0

290.1

196.0

83.4

1236

2021
110.7
8.4
95.8
6.5
0
15
0

2022
109.5
7.2
95.8
6.5
0
15
0

2023
107.4
5.1
95.8
6.5
0
15
0

2024
105.5
3.2
95.8
6.5
0
15
0

2025 sub-total
103.2
536
0.9
25
95.8
479
6.5
33
0
0
15
75
0
0

2026
102.3
0.0
95.8
6.5
0
15
0

2027
102.3
0.0
95.8
6.5
0
15
0

2028
102.3
0.0
95.8
6.5
0
15
0

2029
102.3
0.0
95.8
6.5
0
15
0

2030
102.3
0.0
95.8
6.5
0
15
0

2031
102.3

2032
102.3

0
15
0

0
15
0

2033
143.7
0.0
95.8
47.9
0
15
0

2034
143.7
0.0
95.8
47.9
0
15
0

TOTALS
2035 sub-total 2007-2035 2021-2035
143.7
1147
2672.21683.50.0
01013.5
24.8
95.8
958
1437.01437.0
47.9
189
221.7
221.7
0
0
4916.3
0.0
15
150
636.0
225.0
0
0
284.0
0.0

125.7

124.5

122.4

120.5

118.2

117.3

117.3

117.3

117.3

117.3

117.3

117.3

158.7

158.7

158.7

611

0.0
95.8
6.5

ITER Council-Ex/3.2 ITER Baseline document Overall Project Cost (OPC) (IDM UID 35PAPB 07 June 2011 v1.10).
F4E(12)-GB26-09.7 Resource Estimate Plan 2012 (IDM UID 25YVDQ v1.0).

21

0.0
95.8
6.5

1297

8508.5

1908.5

Table 2: Total estimated Euratom contribution (through Fusion for Energy's budget) based on the updated Project Plan and Resources Estimates approved ad referendum at
ITER Council November 2016 and on Fusion for Energy's estimates for the completion of the construction work presented at the December 2016 Governing Board meeting(in EUR million 2008 values). Here and in Table 3 to note: A standard inflation rate of 2% has been assumed throughout, with the exception of the estimate of Euratom's in-kind contribution, where 2.6% has been used tobetter take into account the higher costs of contracts by Fusion for Energy.
 The cash to the ITER Organization (IO) includes the contribution to the Reserve Fund, while operations, upgrades, spares, decommissioning and deactivation costs
are charged to the operations budget.
 A best estimate of Fusion for Energy's revenue from the ITER Organization Reserve Fund is also included.
 Fusion for Energy's administration costs after 2020 are indicated as an upper limit.
 "F4E other activities" include TBM, DEMO, DONES, JT60-SA operation and other minor horizontal activities.
2008 values

2007-2013

3201

2014
71
71
0
0
0
445
0
39
8
0
563

2015
65
65
0
0
0
237
0
39
20
0
361

2016
89
89
0
0
0
298
-37
41
11
0
402

2017
160
160
0
0
0
345
-23
41
8
3
534

2018
165
165
0
0
0
314
-9
42
9
31
552

2019
185
185
0
0
0
244
-18
44
10
0
465

2020
2014-2020
227
961
227
961
0
0
0
0
0
0
182
2065
-24
-110
46
292
0
66
0
34
431
3307

construction
operation
Upgrades&operational spares
Decommissioning/deactivation
F4E in-kind
Estimated revenue from RF
F4E administration
F4E other activities
F4E Cash to Japan
Total

2027 2026-2027
230
471
130
258
60
133
25
51
15
30
296
520
-15
-32
50
100
64
120
0
0
625
1179

2028
226
115
71
25
15
172
-15
50
3
0
436

2029
148
41
67
25
15
136

2030
165
66
59
25
15
95

2031
132
28
64
25
15
7

2032
118

2033
118

2035
116

0

0

2034
128
27
61
25
15
0

50
4
0
338

50
9
0
319

50
18
0
207

50
3
0
171

50
2
0
170

50
1
0
179

50
0
0
166

F4E

ITER

Cash to IO

2008 values

F4E

ITER

Cash to IO
construction
operations
Upgrades&operational spares
Decommissioning/deactivation
F4E in-kind
Estimated revenue from RF
F4E administration
F4E other activities
F4E Cash to Japan
Total

2026
241
128
73
25
15
224
-17
50
56
0
554

22

8
70
25
15

8
70
25
15

6
70
25
15
0

2021
235
235
0
0
0
488
-19
50
57
0
811

2022
231
231
0
0
0
459
-19
50
31
85
837

2028-2035 2021-2035
1151
2738
299
1627
531
710
202
253
118
148
410
3136
-15
-137
400
750
40
427
0
85
1986
6999

2023
230
230
0
0
0
459
-19
50
79
0
799

2024
236
236
0
0
0
440
-19
50
50
0
757

2025
2021-2025
185
1116
139
1070
46
46
0
0
0
0
360
2206
-14
-90
50
250
50
267
0
85
631
3834

Table 3: As in table 2, but all in EUR million in current values.
current values

2007-2013

3556

2014
80
80
0
0
0
519
0
44
9
0
652

2015
75
75
0
0
0
284
0
45
23
0
426

2016
104
104
0
0
0
366
-43
48
14
0
488

2017
191
191
0
0
0
435
-26
49
10
4
662

2018
201
201
0
0
0
406
-11
51
12
40
699

2019
230
230
0
0
0
324
-21
55
13
0
600

2020
2014-2020
288
1168
288
1168
0
0
0
0
0
0
248
2581
-28
-129
93
384
0
80
0
44
600
4127

construction
operation
Upgrades&operational spares
Decommissioning/deactivation
F4E in-kind
Estimated revenue from RF
F4E administration
F4E other activities
F4E Cash to Japan
Total

2027 2026-2027
328
673
186
368
86
190
36
72
21
42
482
838
-21
-46
73
144
104
193
0
0
966
1802

2028
323
164
101
36
21
287
-21
74
5
0
668

2029
211
59
96
36
21
233

2030
236
94
84
36
21
167

2031
189
40
91
36
21
13

2032
169
11
100
36
21
0

2033
169
11
100
36
21
0

2034
183
39
87
36
21
0

2035
166

76
7
0
527

77
16
0
496

79
32
0
312

80
6
0
255

82
4
0
254

84
2
0
268

85
0
0
251

F4E

ITER

Cash to IO

current values

F4E

ITER

Cash to IO
construction
operation
Upgrades&operational spares
Decommissioning/deactivation
F4E in-kind
Estimated revenue from RF
F4E administration
F4E other activities
Cash to Japan
Total

2026
344
183
104
36
21
356
-24
71
89
0
836

23

9
100
36
21
0

2021
304
304
0
0
0
681
-25
65
80
0
1105

2022
305
305
0
0
0
657
-25
66
44
122
1170

2028-2035 2021-2035
1644
3817
427
2232
759
1013
289
361
169
211
700
4772
-21
-184
638
1119
71
657
0
122
3032
10303

2023
309
309
0
0
0
675
-25
67
116
0
1142

2024
324
324
0
0
0
663
-25
69
75
0
1107

2025
2021-2025
259
1501
195
1436
64
64
0
0
0
0
557
3234
-18
-116
70
337
77
393
0
122
945
5469

Table 4: Overview of the estimated Euratom contribution (from the EU budget, France as Host State and Fusion for Energy Members) both in 2008 and current values (EUR
billion). F4E Members include the EU Member States and Switzerland. The differences in the amounts for the period 2007-2013 and 2014-2020 in Tables 3 and 4 can beclarified as follows. The F4E total revenues in commitments appropriations during the period 2007-2013 could not be used in full because of the delays of the project. In viewof the specificity of the ITER project, the F4E Financial Regulation foresees in Article 14.1 that ‘Appropriations which have not been used at the end of the financial year forwhich they were entered shall be cancelled. Given the needs of the Joint Undertaking, the cancelled appropriations may be entered in the estimate of revenue and expenditureof the following financial years’. While Table 4 refers to the revenue as occurred for the periods 2007-2013, Table 3 (and table 2 in the Communication) refers to the occurred
expenditures in commitment appropriations for the period 2007-2013, which resulted to be lower than the received revenue. This difference has remained available tocompensate the higher expenditures in the subsequent period 2014-2023 through the possibility to re-introduce unused appropriation of the previous year.
Euratom budget
2008 value

Up to the end of the current
MFF period

To First
PlasmaFrom First Plasma to DT

2007-20132014-20202021-2025

2026-2027

2028-2035

Total after 2020

EU budget

2.73

23

2.58

3.16

1.00

1.72

5.88

France

0.45

0.73

0.7

0.19

0.3

1.19

F4E Members

0.02

0.03

0.02

0.01

0.04

0.07

Totals

3.2

3.34

3.88

1.2

2.06

7.14

Euratom budget
current value

Up to the end of the current
MFF period

To First
PlasmaFrom First Plasma to DT

2007-20132014-20202021-2025

2026-2027

2028-2035

Total23Error! Bookmark
not defined.
after
2020

EU budget

3.3624

2.96

4.56

1.51

2.58

8.6

France

0.52

0.84

0.95

0.3

0.5

1.7

F4E Members

0.02

0.03

0.03

0.01

0.06

0.1

23

3.9

3.8

5.5

1.8

3.1

10.4

Totals23

Amounts rounded off to one decimal
The EU budget for 2007-2013 is higher than that derived from currently known executed figures because the actual commitment per year profile is slightly different for years until 2020 due tothe “anticipated” commitment of the cash contribution. For completeness, it also contains EUR 44 million (2008 value) of preparation costs spent before 200724

24