Communication from the Commission to the Council - State of progress of the negotiations concerning the ITER international nuclear fusion energy research project
Date: 2003-04-28
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: EU research policy, nuclear fusion, nuclear research, research budget, research project

EN

COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES

Brussels, 28.04.2003
COM(2003) 215 final

COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE COUNCIL

State of progress of the negotiations concerning the ITER international nuclear fusion
energy research project

 
 
 
COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE COUNCIL

State of progress of the negotiations concerning the ITER international nuclear fusion
energy research project

Preamble

This communication summarises the state of  the  negotiations  conducted  by  the  Commission
on  behalf  of  the  European  Union  concerning  the  ITER  nuclear  fusion  energy  research
project. 

These  negotiations  reached  a  significant  point  in  February 2003  with  the  accession  of  the
People's  Republic  of  China  and  the  United  States  of  America.  In  detailing  the  state  of
negotiations,  this  communication  presents  among  other  things  the  fundamental  questions  of
choice  of  site  and  cost  sharing  between  the  parties.  A  modified  reference  for  EU  financial
participation is proposed.

Whereas, in order to help provide the means for sustainable growth, it is in the interest of the
EU  to  consolidate  the  position  of  excellence  that  it  has  acquired  in  fusion  research,  the
Commission underlines,

the importance of siting ITER in Europe;

the  importance,  in  consequence,  of  the  Union  taking  actions  to  maximise  its  chances  to
achieve this.

Finally, the Commission hereby announces to the Council its intention to present by the end
of  2003  proposals  for  decisions  concerning  the  international  and  European  organisations
which  would  be  responsible  for  ITER  implementation  and  EU  participation  in  the  project
respectively. 

1.

INTRODUCTION SUMMARY ON FUSION ENERGY AND ITER

There  are  three  energy  sources  which,  as  an  alternative  to  fossil  fuels,  contribute  to  or  are
capable  of  contributing  to  society's  energy  supplies  without  significant  greenhouse  gas
emissions: renewable energy sources, nuclear fission energy and nuclear fusion energy. 

Fusion,  which  is  the  source  of  the  energy  radiated  by  the  sun  and  other  stars,  is  by  far  the
most  widespread  in  the  universe  but  the  least  developed  on  earth  of  these  three  non  fossil
energy sources. However, because of its potential in terms of environmental benefits, safety
of  operation  and  availability  of  fuel,  fusion  energy  is  the  subject  of  research  in  most
industrialised and the major developing countries. 

Nuclear fusion is an important area of Community energy research and was in some ways a
precursor  of  the  European  Research  Area.  The  integration  of  all  European  fusion  activities,
which has been a feature of Community programmes for 30 years, has contributed a great deal
to the international position of excellence that European research has acquired in this area. 

An  key  element  of  this  excellence  has  been  the  success  of  the  JET  (Joint  European  Torus)
project,  constructed  and  used  for  some  twenty  years  at  Community  level.  Although  JET

2

remains a powerful research tool, it has achieved all the objectives for which it was designed.
Taking research beyond JET requires an even more powerful experimental facility, ITER, the
size of which will approach that planned for a future industrial reactor.

With the aim of sharing skills and reducing each party's financial input, the European Union,
with  which  Canada  was  associated,  Japan,  the  Russian  Federation  and  the  USA  carried  out
detailed  studies  on  ITER  during  the  1990s  under  an  international  agreement.  The  USA  cut
back  its  fusion  research  after  1996  and  ceased  its  ITER  collaboration  in  1998.  The  other
partners  re-scaled  the  project  between  1998  and  2001  in  order  to  reduce  its  cost  and  take
advantage of the scientific and technical advances achieved in the interim.

The objectives of ITER are both scientific and technological. It will have to demonstrate the
scientific and  technical feasibility of  fusion  energy  for  peaceful  purposes.  To  do  this,  ITER
will have to create, study and control a particular state of matter, plasma, which will produce
a  fusion  power  of  some  500  million  watts  during  extended  duration  and  then  continuous
discharges. For the first time in the world, this power will greatly exceed, by a factor of ten,
the  power  applied  to  the  plasma.  ITER  will  also  have  to  test  components  and  technologies
which are vital to a future industrial reactor and demonstrate their integration in one unit.

The  timetable  for  and  costs  of  ITER  implementation  were  set  out  in  detail  in  Commission
staff working paper SEC(2002)276 of 7 March 2002:

– 

– 

ITER  implementation  will  include  a  construction  phase  lasting  about  ten  years,  an
operation phase lasting about 20 years and a decommissioning phase,

the total cost of the construction phase is estimated at €4 570 million, at 2000 values.
The  total  cost  of  the  project,  covering  the  three  phases  mentioned  above  and
including funds for decommissioning, is estimated at €10 300 million.

2.

CURRENT NEGOTIATIONS (SEE ALSO ANNEX)

International  negotiations  on  ITER  between  the  EU,  represented  by  the  European
Commission, Canada, Japan and Russia began in 2001. The directives adopted by the Council
of  the  European  Union  on  6  November  2000  limited  the  scope  of  these  negotiations  to  the
development of a legal framework for possible implementation of the ITER project.

The  directives  were  amended  by  Council  Decision  of  27  May  2002,  which  allows  the
Commission  to  transmit  to  the  other  parties  offers  of  potential  candidate  sites  proposed  by
Member States and to negotiate financing and cost sharing arrangements in conjunction with
site offers.

The negotiations have made satisfactory progress. The annex to the communication details the
course of the negotiations and the results obtained so far. Agreement has been reached on the
legal  status  of  the  entitywhich  would  be  responsible  for  ITER  implementation.  However,
fundamental  points  have  still  to  be  discussed,  such  as  choice  of  site,  sharing  between  the
parties of the costs of and responsibilities for supplying components for the project and their
management. This contribution "in kind" will form the main part of the overall contribution of
each party during the construction phase.

The eighth negotiation meeting (N8) which was held on 18 and 19 February in St Petersburg
saw the return of the USA, announced on 30 January 2003 by President Bush, and the arrival
of China at the negotiating table. The American Delegation highlighted the extremely detailed

3

analysis that the  United  States  had carried out before  deciding  to  rejoin  ITER. The Chinese
Delegation gave the reasons for China joining the project: as the largest developing country,
China  has  a  great  need  of  alternative  energy  sources  to  fossil  fuels.  It  considers  that  ITER
could lead to a new form of energy contributing in the long term to peaceful and sustainable
development.

It is anticipated that the bases and principles established in the course of previous negotiations
will not be called into question by the American  and Chinese new arrivals, that the level of
participation of each will be limited but significant and that they will not propose new sites
for ITER. 

The international organisation envisaged for ITER

The negotiators soon reached a consensus that an organisation under international law should
be  the  legal  instrument  used  for  ITER  implementation.  This  Organisation  would  have  a
duration of thirty-five years with the possibility of an extension of a maximum of ten years. It
would have legal existence and would be granted privileges and immunities by the parties and
the  host  country  which  are  similar  to  those  normally  granted  to  international  organisations.
The ITER agreement will also cover the decommissioning of the machine and the termination
of the Organisation.

The activities of the Organisation will be supervised by a Council in which each of the parties
will be represented. Except for a limited number of areas where unanimity will be required,
decisions will be taken by consensus. In the absence of a consensus, they will be taken by a
vote  in  which  the  weighting  of  each  of  the  parties  will  depend  on  its  contribution  to  the
project. A Director-General and a project team will be responsible for the proper day-to-day
running of the Organisation.

Given the scale and complexity of the project, it has also been accepted that each party should
have  only  one  clearly  identified  interface  with  the  Organisation,  managing  its  contribution
both in cash and in kind.

The  specific  requirements  of  the  host  country  concerning  legal  and  administrative
authorisations, in particular the health and safety of staff and the public, will be specified in
the agreement itself and in a "host" agreement which will have to be concluded between the
Organisation and the host country.

Current  discussions  concern  the  resources  of  the  Organisation  and  its  management,  in
particular  the  principles  to  be  followed  concerning  staff,  financial  regulations  and  the
technical supervision of contributions "in kind" and interfaces between the Organisation and
the parties.

Structure envisaged for the management of the European contribution

Taking advantage of the experience gained from the integration of fusion activities in Europe,
in particular with JET, a debate has been initiated in the programme committee, the CCE-FU,
between the "Associations", i.e. all the European laboratories working on fusion research, and
the Commission regarding the structure to be set up to manage the European contribution to
ITER  and  to  serve  as  an  interface  with  the  international  organisation  responsible  for  the
project.  A  joint  undertaking  structure  has  been  adopted,  the  members  of  which  would  be
Euratom and the usual partners in the Community fusion programme. 

4

The tasks of this undertaking would be, as a contract agent, to collect, manage and supply to
the international organisation contributions in cash and in kind from the members of the joint
undertaking. The setting up of the undertaking should be prepared at the same time as that of
the international organisation so that the EU is ready  to manage its  contribution to  ITER as
soon as the decision to implement the project is taken.

It has also been agreed to propose, as a second stage, a reorganisation of all European R&D
activities  on  fusion,  including  participation  in  ITER  and  the  accompanying  physics  and
technology  programme  which  is  necessary  to  take  full  advantage  of  international
collaboration.

3.

THE QUESTION OF THE SITE

At international level

At the present time, four sites have been proposed, one by Canada, one by Japan and two in
Europe, Cadarache in France and Vandellos in Spain. The technical studies for these various
sites  have  now  been  completed  and  the  evaluation  report  was  approved  by  the  negotiating
parties in February 20031. Despite objective differences concerning the local geography and
the  infrastructure  to  be  installed,  none  of  the  four  sites  has  an  overwhelming  technical
advantage over the others, and the report confirms that each of them could meet the essential
technical  criteria  to  host  ITER.  The  choice  of  the  site  will  therefore  be  a  political  decision,
which should rest on a set of technical and economic considerations (notably the construction
and operation cost estimates). The Commission envisages consulting on these questions with
high  level  scientists  who  are  involved  by  their  functions  in  the  political  decision  making
process. A  consensus  will  probably  only  be  reached  on  the  basis  of  an  agreement  at  a  high
political level which will cover the choice of the site and the arrangements for sharing costs
and responsibilities among the international parties. 

At European level

The negotiating directives adopted by the Council in May 2002 have allowed the Commission
to  transmit  to  ITER  partners  the  technical  dossiers  presented  by  the  Member  States.  These
twin  European  candidatures,  and  the  resulting  fair  competition,  have  so  far  served  the
interests  of  the  Community  well  by  demonstrating  the  lively  interest  of  the  Member  States
and  the  quality  of  their  proposals.  In  order  to  strengthen  still  further  the  Community's
position, it is appropriate now to converge towards the identification of the EU site candidate
through  a  consensual  and  well  regulated  process.  This  is  again  a  political  question  which
should aim at maximising the benefits that the Community will draw from ITER construction,
including adding the most value to the research effort that the Community is developing in the
nuclear  field.  Recognising  the  political  sensitivity  of  the  subject  ,  the  Commission  urges
France and Spain to pursue actively and constructively their bilateral discussions.

To facilitate these contacts and a convergence of the points of view, the Commission intends
to set in place a process that will contribute to identifying the elements of a consensus taking
into  account  elements  other  than  the  purely  technical  aspects.  This  process  will  pursued  in
dialogue  and  in  close  co-operation  with  the  authorities  of  the  countries  concerned.  To  this
end,  the  Commission  envisages  establishing  objective  criteria  amongst  which  will  figure

1 The evaluation report which includes the Findings Reports specific to the four proposed sites as well as the

final report that summarises them is available at Internet site www.iter.org.

5

                                                
questions  of  "site  preparation"  and  the  scientific,  technical  and  social  environment,  in
particular  the  political,  financial  and  administrative  guarantees  that  the  site  and  its
surroundings  can  be  prepared  within  the  deadlines  laid  down  and  that  the  regulatory
authorities will be in a position to issue the necessary permits in good time. These criteria will
be established in concert with the French and Spanish authorities between now and the end of
May  2003.  The  process  that  will  follow  will  call  on  the  expertise  needed  to  maximise  the
chances  of  ITER  finally  being  realised  in  Europe,  and  should  allow  the  Council  to  reach  a
consensus in September 2003.

Meanwhile,  it  is  essential  that  our  international  partners  should  be  convinced  that  the
European Union supports the ITER  project and  is committed to its  implementation in
Europe.

4.

ITER COST SHARING

Reference used by the European negotiators

The European negotiators  have  used the scenarios for  the  sharing  of  ITER  costs  among  the
various  parties  which  were  set  out  in  the  staff  working  paper  [SEC(2002)276  of  7.3.2002]
which the Council, in the negotiating directives adopted in May 2002, took as a reference for
discussions on funding. This reference may be summarised as follows:

The cost of ITER construction, estimated at €4 570 million at 2000 values, is divided into two
main areas, the "Non-Common Area" covering activities borne exclusively by the host party,
such as buildings and work connected with the site proper,  and the "Common  Area" shared
between all parties and covering components, particularly high-technology ones, the supply of
which could be shared.

In the abovementioned working paper, the non-common area is assumed to represent 20% of
construction costs, to be borne by Europe alone if ITER is constructed there. In this case the
non-common area would be financed in equal proportions by Euratom and the host Member
State.

The common area, which therefore represents 80% of construction costs, was expected to be
financed independently of the site chosen at a rate of 14% by Russia and 33% by each of the
two other partners, Japan and the EU. Within the EU, the expected breakdown was 90% for
Euratom and 10% for all the other parties associated with the European fusion programme.

To  sum  up,  European  participation  in  construction  (Euratom  +  associates)  was  expected  to
amount to 53% if ITER is constructed in Europe and 33% if it is sited in Japan. The scenario
of a Canadian site is highly specific, since the Canadian  offer was limited  to  an advance of
funds for the non-common area repayable by the other parties during the operation phase.

Development of the positions of the EU’s partners since May 2002

During  the  negotiations  held  since  May  2002,  the  various  parties  have  revealed  what  their
respective attitudes might be to ITER cost-sharing.

Canada has stated that its offer was being reassessed to make it more  attractive to the other
parties. A financial participation would now be considered even if ITER is outside Canada.

6

The Japanese position has also changed. Although its proposal to determine the contribution
of a party in direct proportion to the amount of its GDP has been sidelined, it is very unlikely
that  Japan  will  agree  to  contribute  to  the  common  area  at  the  same  level  as  the  EU,
particularly if ITER is sited in Europe.

During  the  discussions  it  has  also  become  apparent  that  the  Russian  contribution  would  be
lower than the 14% expected in the working paper of March 2002.

As stated above,  it  is anticipated that  the  level  of  participation  of  each  of  the  new  partners,
China and the USA,  will be minority but  significant and that neither will  propose  a site  for
ITER.  Finally  other international partners  could  declare  their  readiness  to  collaborate  in  the
project, but in the absence of figures this possibility cannot be considered below.

New reference case possible in 2003

The working hypothesis to establish a new reference is that three partners (China, Russia and
USA) will together account for more than 30% and two partners, Japan and EU, will make a
larger  individual  contribution  and  present  a  site  candidate.  Pending  a  revised  offer  from
Canada, the scenario "ITER in Canada" has not been considered as a reference situation. The
Canadian  delegation  evaluates  the  non-common  area  at  18%  of  total  construction  cost
whereas the Japanese delegation puts it at 25%. The original European estimate, of a median
value of 20%, is maintained below. 

In these circumstances, the shares would be as follows:

Non-Common Area

Common Area

China + Russia + USA

EU + Japan

20%

80%

more than 30%

less than 50%

Maintaining EU - Japan parity in the common area would mean a share for each party of less
than  25%  (instead  of  33%  in  the  March 2002  working  paper).  The  Japanese  request  to  tie
rigidly  the  amount  of  such  participation  to  the  GDP  of  the  partner  would  mean  an  EU
contribution to the common area of up to 33%. 

With the aim of illustrating what ITER construction in Europe would cost the Community and
comparing  this  with  the  current  fusion  budget,  a  new  reference  case  for  the  negotiating
position  in  the  case  of  ITER  construction  in  Europe,  whether  at  Cadarache  or  Vandellos,
could therefore be defined in the following way. Assuming around 20% for the non-common
area and 25% for the EU share of the common area, the participation would amount to 45%,
or around  €205 million  per  annum  on  average  over  ten  years.  As  a  consequence,  and  if  the
cost sharing arrangements between Euratom and the European associates remain the same as
those  presented  in  working  paper  SEC(2002)276,  the  contribution  from  the  Community
budget to  ITER  construction costs would be  around  €150 million  per  annum  on  average  (at
year 2000 values), or €600 million over four years. This figure should be compared with the
€750 million that the 6th framework programme sets aside for all fusion research, including
up to €200 million for ITER implementation. 

On  the  basis  of  the  assumption  that  the  EU  contribution  to  the  common  area  is  the  same
whether or not ITER is sited in Europe, the 2002 working paper concludes that the total cost
of the project for Euratom (construction + operation) would be more or less identical whether

7

ITER is constructed in Europe or Japan. This is due to the contribution from the host Member
State  which  continues  during  the  operation  phase.  Making  the  same  assumptions,  this
conclusion would remain valid.

5.

COLLABORATION ON ITER AS PART OF A FAST TRACK APPROACH

A study carried out in 2001 at the request of the Council Presidency to examine the feasibility
of a fast track towards fusion energy concluded that the design of ITER is sufficiently flexible
for it to be used to carry out, in anticipation of the following stage, more detailed studies on
aspects  related  to  energy  production.  These  studies  would  have  to  be  accompanied  by  a
speeding-up of research into the materials needed for future reactors. 

Taking such a “fast track” approach would naturally require additional funds for the research
programmes  that  will  follow  FP6  even  if  savings  could  be  achieved  through  wider
international  cooperation  on  materials  research,  particularly  the  joint  creation  of  a  neutron
source which is optimised for such use. The IFMIF (International Fusion Materials Irradiation
Facility) project, the study of which is currently the subject of cooperation similar to that for
ITER, would meet these requirements. 

Coordinated planning of the two main international fusion projects, ITER and  IFMIF, could
be considered with our partners. The detailed studies for IFMIF could be launched at the same
time as ITER construction begins, and the  construction  of  IFMIF could  begin  around 2009-
2010. The decision to construct IFMIF and the choice of its location will certainly be linked
to  the  prior  decisions  on  ITER.  Thus  it  is  very  probable  that  IFMIF  will  be  implemented
outside Europe if ITER is constructed in Europe. In that case, a very provisional estimate of
the Community  financial  contribution  would  be  around  €15  to  20  million  per  year  over  ten
years.

6.

STAGES OF THE DECISION-MAKING PROCESS

The  decision-making  process  must  obviously  take  account  of  the  constraints  to  which  all
parties  to  the  project  are  subject.  Emphasising  that  the  detailed  studies  on  ITER  were
completed  successfully,  the  decision  on  the  specific  programme  of  research  and  training
(2002-2006)  states  that  the  construction  of  ITER  could  actually  begin  in  2005-2006.  In  the
light  of  this  planning  schedule  and  the  constraints  of  the  political  timetable  of  our
international partners, the negotiating parties set the end of 2003 as the target for establishing
and  transmitting  to  their  respective  political  authorities  a  draft  agreement  on  ITER
implementation, including the site and the financial contributions of the parties involved. 

The  countdown  for  the  Community  decision-making  process  from  the  end  of  May  should
therefore be as follows:

– 

– 

End 2003, submission of a proposal for a Council Decision on the agreement of the
construction,  operation  and  decommissioning  of  ITER.  At  the  same  time  the
Commission  submits  to  the  Council  a  proposal  for  a  Decision  concerning  the
establishment  of  the  joint  undertaking  responsible  for  the  European  contribution  to
ITER.

The convergence process described at point 3 should be concluded during the course
of summer 2003, such that the Council could achieve a consensus on this subject in
September 2003. 

8

– 

7.

At  the  end  of  May  2003,  the  Commission  notifies  the  additional  objective  criteria
guaranteeing that the sites proposed actually conform to the requirements laid down.

CONCLUSION

The outcome of fusion research, the use of a "sustainable" energy source, concerns the whole
of humanity. The best illustration of this is given by the statements of those countries which
declare  their  interests  in  participating  in  ITER.  However,  Europe  has  a  special  interest  in
carrying out this  project  since,  thanks  notably  to  the  integration  of  all  its  research  activities
under a Euratom programme, the European Union is a world leader in this field.

The  scale  of  the  cooperation  which  is  being  established  for  ITER  implementation  makes  it
one of the largest international projects in existence. If ITER is constructed in Europe, the EU
will  be  able  to  consolidate  its  position  of  excellence  and  take  full  advantage  of  the
investments  made,  whether  in  terms  of  transfer  of  know-how  to  European  industry  or  the
participation of associate laboratories in the construction and operation of the project. 

For this reason, given the importance of what is at stake and the progress of negotiations, the
Commission is bringing the Council's attention to the fact that it is important for the European
Union that the ITER project should be constructed in Europe and that the European site which
will compete with candidate sites presented by our international partners should be identified
as soon as possible.

The Commission will of  course keep the  Council and  the European  Parliament  informed  of
developments in the negotiations on the ITER project. The Commission hereby notifies them
of its intention to submit by the end of 2003 two proposals for decisions, one concerning the
international  agreement  on  ITER  implementation  and  the  other  the  structure  of  the  joint
undertaking which will be responsible for the European contribution to this project.

9

Background

ANNEX 

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

At  the  end  of  the  ITER  Engineering  Design  Activities  (EDA)  in  July  2001,  and
following  extensive  domestic  scientific,  technological  and  economical  assessments
by each of the Parties2, the ITER Council concluded3 that the objectives of the ITER
EDA Agreement have been fully met and consequently recommended to the Parties "
to take the necessary steps to realise a Joint Implementation of ITER as the next step
in the development of fusion as a source of energy for peaceful purposes".

In light of this successful completion of the EDA  and following the submission by
the government of Canada of an offer to host ITER at Clarington near Toronto, inter-
governmental  negotiations  on  the  possible  Joint  Implementation  of  ITER  started  in
November 2001 among four Participants - Canada, Euratom, Japan and the Russian
Federation. Seven such meetings took place in the period to end 2002, including two
held in the European Union - at Cadarache, France in June 2002 and in Barcelona in
December  2002.  At  the  Eighth  Negotiators  Meeting  on  18-19  February  2003  in  St
Petersburg (RF), China and the USA acceded to the Negotiations.

The European Commission participated in the Negotiations under the Directives of a
Council  Decision  of  16th  November  2000.  This  mandate  was  at  first  limited  to  the
development of a legal frame for possible joint implementation of ITER, if and when
so decided, and was without prejudice to questions of siting and of cost sharing. 

By  a  Decision  of  27th  May  2002,  arising  from  a  joint  proposal  of  Commissioners
BUSQUIN and LOYOLA DE PALACIO, the Council amended its Directives4, in particular
to authorise the Commission "to transmit to the Parties offers of potential candidates
for  European  Sites  proposed  by  Member  States  and  to  negotiate  with  the  Parties
financing  and  cost-sharing  arrangements 
in  conjunction  with  site  offers."
Accordingly,  in  June  2002  the  Commission  transmitted  to  the  other  Participants
proposed European site candidatures at Cadarache, France and Vandellos, Spain. (At
the  same  time  Japan  also  tabled  an  official  site  candidature  at  Rokkasho-mura,
Aomori Prefecture.)

The  amended  mandate  also  provided  for  the  Parties  to  establish  appropriate
transitional  arrangements 
the  Joint
Implementation of ITER.

to  ensure  a  smooth 

transition 

towards 

Council  Decision  of  3  June  2002  concerning  the  6th  framework  programme
(Euratom) stressed that the progress made on the research and the result obtained, in
particular  with  the  European  JET  tokamak,  now  makes  it  possible  to  consider
moving on to the Next Step which would produce a machine capable of generating
fusion reactions in conditions comparable to that of an energy producing reactor. The
completion  of  the  preparatory  work  on  the  detailed  design  of  the  Next  Step  in  the
context  of  the  ITER  international  co-operation  project  makes  it  possible  to  take  a
decision about the launching of this project and the construction of the machine.

2 EU Domestic Assessment of the ITER-FEAT Final Design Report, May 2001
3 Final Report of the ITER EDA, ITER EDA Documentation Series No. 21, IAEA, VIENNA, 2001
4 SEC (2002) 205 Final

10

                                                
Status of ITER Design and Cost Estimates

Status of the Design

7.

8.

With the completion of the EDA, a complete, detailed and mature design for  ITER
was put at the disposal of the Parties, with a supporting body of validating analysis
and  R&D  and  other  technical  information,  which  meets  the  detailed  technical
objectives  and  cost  objectives  set  for  it,  including  those  relating  to  safety  and
environmental  considerations.  Since  then,  further  collaborative  scientific  and
technical work on ITER was undertaken within the frame of so-called "Co-ordinated
Technical Activities" (CTA) in support of the Negotiations. This work was based on
the design established in the EDA phase and was aimed at maintaining the integrity
of  the  design  and  at  enabling  a  smooth  start  of  ITER  construction  if  and  when  so
decided. The CTA phase expired at the end of 2002 and was superseded by the ITER
Transitional  Arrangements  (ITA)  under  which  the  activities  ensuring  the  design
integrity  and  preparation  for  the  possible  implementation  have  continued.  Both  the
CTA  and  ITA  have  been  established  under  IAEA  auspices  through  exchanges  of
letters between the participants in the negotiations and the IAEA Director-General.

Since  the  completion  of  the  ITER-EDA,  the  European  fusion  activities  have  been
further  focussed  on  ITER  through  the  scientific  and  technological  programmes
undertaken  within the  framework  of  the  European  Fusion  Development  Agreement
(EFDA)  and  through  the  Euratom  Contracts  of  Association.  The  European  staff
complement within the ITER International Team has been broadly maintained.

Cost Estimates

9.

10.

Information on the estimated costs of  ITER was presented to the Council in March
11,  2003  2002  in  the  Commission  Staff  Working  Paper,  "The  Cost  to  Europe  of
ITER Joint Implementation According to Various Hosting Scenarios"5 The Working
Paper  summarised  cost  estimates  for  the  various  phases  of  ITER  Implementation
based  on  the  figures  reported  in  the  "Summary  of  the  ITER  Final  Design  Report",
and  indicated  the  costs  that  Europe  might  bear  on  the  basis  of  first  approximate
assumptions on the possible cost sharing schemes that might be negotiated, and how
those costs might be distributed within Europe.

At  the  end  of  the  EDA  the  negotiating  Parties  had  each  undertaken  detailed
evaluation  and  confirmed  their  acceptance  of  the  overall  Cost  Estimates  for  ITER
presented by the Project as forming a complete and sound basis. As there has been no
material  change  to  the  design  since  the  end  of  the  EDA  the  current  participants  in
Negotiations have undertaken no further overall review of the costing. Nevertheless,
in the context of its discussions of a US strategy for a burning plasma, the US DoE
established a special Committee which visited the ITER Joint Work Site in Garching
on  November  21-25,  2002  to  undertake  an  assessment  of  the  ITER  cost  estimates.
The Committee's findings were uniformly positive, concluding for instance that "..the
ITER  Team  has  prepared  a  complete  cost  estimate  that  is  based  on  sound
management  and  engineering  principles...”  and  “The  credibility  of  such  a  value
estimate is supported by the design and R&D results that are unusually mature for a
science project facing the decision to fund construction." 

5 SEC (2002) 276 

11

                                                
11.

The possible cost sharing schemes are now starting to figure explicitly in the course
of  the  Negotiations.  The  other  participants  are  aware  of  the  working  assumptions
used in the Commission Staff Working Paper, which provided the initial basis of the
European position in the discussions.

Accession of third parties to the ITER Negotiations

12.

13.

14.

15.

16.

17.

18.

19.

A major development in the ITER Negotiations has been the accessions of China and
the United States at the N8 Meeting in February 2003. 

The Council Directives to the Commission directs the Commission to negotiate with
"ITER  EDA  Parties  and  other  qualified  countries".  Thus  the  mandate  provided  for
the EU to accept participation in Negotiations of the USA, as one of the signatories
to the ITER EDA Agreement, once it had declared its wish to do so. 

With  respect  to  third  countries  such  as  China  the  negotiators  reached  consensus  in
November 2002 on the factors that could qualify a third country. In particular, a third
country  requesting  access  to  the  Negotiations  would  be  expected  to  declare  that  it
intends to make a substantial contribution to the Project and that it would share the
common understanding and results achieved in the negotiations up to the date of its
accession. There should also be a verification of the technical capabilities of the third
party, and assurances of adherence to peaceful uses and non-proliferation principles
and  respect  for  the  intellectual  property  rights  that  the  existing  ITER  Parties  have
established  through  their  co-operation  to  date.  Accession  to  the  Negotiations  by  a
third country would require unanimous agreement among the current Participants.

On  30th  January  2003,  President  Bush  and  Energy  Secretary,  Spencer  Abraham,
announced that the United States would join the international negotiations on ITER.
The  US  was  accordingly  invited  to  and  participated  in  the  N8  meeting  18th-19th
February 2003 in St Petersburg.

The accession by China followed a formal request to join the Negotiations from the
Chinese  Ministry  of  Science  and  Technology,  dated  10th  January  10,  2003,  which
incorporated the statements of intent and other required undertakings. After an inter-
service  consultation,  and  given  the  positive  report  of  a  mission  to  evaluate  China's
technical  capabilities,  the  EU  delegation  supported  the  request  for  access  to  the
negotiations under the conditions expressed in the request. Subsequently, agreement
was  reached  with  all  other  Participants  to  accept  China's  accession  to  the
Negotiations, starting at the N8 Meeting.

The  Republic  of  Korea  also  expressed  its  interest  in  joining  the  negotiations  and
informal  interactions  are  expected  to  explore  the  legal  and  technical  aspects  of  a
possible formal request.

None of the three above countries has given any suggestion of interest in proposing
to host ITER.

Following  the  accession  of  the  additional  participants  to  the  Negotiations  a
reconsideration  of  the  steps  made  to  date  among  the  current  participants  on  the
allocation of responsibilities for procurement is necessary.

12

Cost Sharing among the International Partners

Procurement Allocations

20.

At  informal  technical  level  the  Participants  have  started  to  discuss  the  so-called
"procurement  allocation"  i.e.  the  proposed  allocation  among  the  Parties  of
obligations  to  contribute  in  kind  the  various  component  elements  of  ITER.
Discussions  have  focussed  on  large  and  technically  demanding  procurements  that
need  to  be  started  most  early  in  the  construction  phase,  without  prejudice  to  the
overall scheme of cost sharing. The process can be completed only in the context of a
consensus on the site and associated overall cost sharing. 

Summary of Cost Sharing assumptions presented in Doc. SEC (2002) 276

21.

22.

23.

24.

The international cost sharing aspects of the Commission Staff Working Paper were
based  on  a  number  of  key  assumptions  made  in  the  light  of  circumstances  as  they
stood at that time. They were based on the principle of equality  stated in  the  ITER
EDA Agreement, but modified in recognition that the Russian Federation could not
be  expected  to  contribute  the  same  level  of  resources  as  EU  and  Japan.  These
assumptions have to be revisited in the light of the evolution of the Negotiations.

At  the  beginning  of  the  Negotiations,  the  number  of  partners  in  the  joint
implementation of ITER was presumed to be limited to three (or four if ITER would
be  hosted  in  Canada).  As  to  cost-sharing,  the  hypothesis  was  made  that  the  Host
Party would contribute to the capital cost - the so-called "non-common area" of those
parts of ITER construction such as the buildings that are inherently best suited or can
only  be  provided  from  a  local  source.  Whilst  its  value  falls  in  a  bracket  centred
around  20%  of  the  estimated  total  capital  cost  of  ITER,  it  is  recognised  that  the
precise figure will be a matter for negotiation. The basis for sharing the costs of the
remaining so-called "common area" - approximately 80% of the total - remained to
be  resolved.  The  Russian  Federation  was  assumed  to  contribute  the  equivalent  of
about 14% of the total cost while Europe and Japan would contribute equally to the
remaining 66%.

According  to  this  preliminary  simplified  breakdown  of  cost  sharing  of  the  capital
cost  for  construction,  Europe  would  have  contributed  33%  in  the  common  area
wherever  ITER  would  be  hosted.  The  European  share  as  a  whole  for  ITER
construction  in  Europe  (for  the  Community  share  see  Para.  32)  would  have  been
53%. This share would have been 33% if ITER was constructed outside Europe.

The  option  of  siting  in  Canada  represented  a  special  case  in  which  the  Host  Party
proposed the non-common area to be financed largely through private sector loans in
anticipation  of  a  flow  of  revenues  during  ITER  operations,  guaranteed  by  the  non-
Host Parties.

13

Evolution on cost sharing assumptions during Negotiations

25.

26.

27.

Canada

28.

In  discussing  the  allocation  of  responsibilities  among  the  Parties  for  procuring  the
elements  of  ITER  construction,  it  has  now  become  apparent  that  the  value  of  the
contributions  that  the  Russian  Federation  envisages  to  provide  would  be  closer  to
10% than the previously assumed 14%. 

Japan, in presenting its site offer in June 2002, proposed a new cost sharing criterion,
based on a link between the relative contributions to the common area from EU and
Japan  and  their  relative  GDP's;  on  this  basis  the  EU  would  contribute  twice  the
Japanese contribution. 

At the December 2002 Negotiations meeting in Barcelona, the EU announced that it
could  not  accept  any  link  between  cost  sharing  and  GDP's  of  the  Parties  and
recommended  to  consider  a  pragmatic  approach,  without  rigid  pre-conditions  that
may block a solution. Japan reacted that "some basis for discussion is needed since it
is  not  feasible  for  each  Party  to  contribute  equally.  Consideration  including
reflection  of  economic  scale  on  cost  sharing  and  requiring  a  certain  level  of
contribution by all Parties could realise each Party's contribution in a way which is
as balanced as possible". 

The  Canadian  Government  position  is  at  this  moment  under  review.  The  Canadian
Delegation announced at the December 2002 Negotiation Meeting that it had advised
its  government  that  "the  Canadian  offer  to  host  had  diminished  chance  of  success
given  current  developments  in  the  Negotiations  unless  the  Government  of  Canada
agreed  to participate financially in the  project. The Government of Canada  is  now
reviewing its offer in concert with the Government of Ontario and with Iter Canada
and its member organizations. The Canadian Negotiators anticipate a revised offer
by the end of March 2003".  It is  expected that Canada's hosting offer  may  become
more comparable to those from Europe and Japan as concerns the non-Common area
and  that  it  might  revise  its  former  position  that  it  would  not  participate  in  ITER
implementation outside of Canada. 

New participants in Negotiations

29.

As  noted  above,  the  current  Negotiating  Participants  have  made  clear  that  any
country  newly  acceding  to  the  Negotiations  would  be  expected  to  provide  a
substantial  contribution  to  the  project  at  least  comparable  to  what  is  envisaged  by
current  participants  in  the  Negotiations.  The  formal  request  from  the  Chinese
government included such a statement of intent. 

30.

For  the  US,  the  National  Research  Council's  "Burning  Plasma  Assessment
Committee" of the US National Academies recommended in December 2002 that: 

"The United States should negotiate a level of involvement consistent with the size of
the U.S. contribution to the program, which at a minimum should guarantee access
to  all  data  from  ITER,  the  right  to  propose  and  carry  out  experiments,  and  an
appropriate role in producing the high-technology components of the facility."

14

At the N8 meeting the US delegation noted that "the US wishes to make a significant
contribution that is comparable to other non-host parties."

31.

Thus  the  accession  of  new  participants  to  the  Negotiations  intending  to  make
substantial contributions (and of a possible revised Canadian position) suggests that
feasible cost sharing schemes could result from the Negotiations, notwithstanding the
reduction  in  the  expected  Russian  contribution  and  the  Japanese  unwillingness  to
match the European input. 

Cost sharing within the European Union

32.

With  respect  to  the  cost  sharing  within  Europe,  the  assumptions  made  in  the
Commission Services Working Paper were that the costs of the non-common area of
construction would be shared equally between the Community Budget and the Host
Member  State  and  the  costs  of  the  Common  area  would  be  borne  90%  by  the
Community Budget, the remaining 10% to be shared by the Associates. The possible
cost  sharing  of  the  European  contribution  to  total  costs  during  operations  phase
would be borne 75% by the Community Budget if ITER is hosted in Europe and 95%
if it is hosted outside Europe.

Joint Assessment of Specific Sites

33.

The  four  candidate  sites  have  been  assessed  within  the  framework  of  the
Negotiations. A technical assessment process called the Joint Assessment of Specific
Sites (JASS) was undertaken in the period September to December 2002 by an Ad-
Hoc group composed of experts from the four Participants in the Negotiations at that
time. It was developed on the basis of detailed input documents based in turn on in-
depth studies performed by the proponents. The report on the JASS was approved at
the  N8  by  the  four  Participants  that  commissioned  and  undertook  the  assessment,
with the main conclusion that:

“ …despite the differences between the candidate Sites, the JASS ascertained that all
four Sites are sound and fully capable to respond to all ITER Site Requirements and
Design Assumptions, as approved by the ITER Council in its January 2000 meeting.

result  of 

the  assessment  process, 

the  JASS  Ad-Hoc  group  has
As  a 
concluded that ITER may be successfully implemented at any of the candidate Sites.
Some differences amongst Sites do however exist. The assessment of some issues led
to  the  identification  of  appropriate  mitigation  measures  to  be  put  in  place  by  the
respective Hosts.”

Exploration of a Fast Track

34.

On the initiative of the Belgian Presidency, Experts examined in November 2001 the
possibility of a fast track towards fusion energy production. Following this approach,
the  next  two  generations  envisaged  today  beyond  ITER  could  be  combined  into  a
single  step  that  should  be  designed  as  a  credible  prototype  for  a  power-producing
fusion  reactor.  The  Meeting  of  Experts  concluded  that  ITER  is  the  essential  step
towards energy production on a fast track and that construction should start as soon
as  reasonably  achievable.  In  addition,  there  would  need  to  be  an  appropriate  high
energy,  high  intensity  neutron  source  such  as  the  International  Fusion  Materials
Irradiation Facility (IFMIF) to test and verify material performance in fusion reactor
conditions. It also stressed that the two major international ventures on fusion energy

15

development,  i.e.  ITER and  IFMIF should proceed  in  a  co-ordinated  way,  with  the
realisation of ITER starting in parallel with the detailed engineering design of IFMIF.

35.

This work has had an influence on the international partners.  In the US, the Fusion
Energy Sciences Advisory Committee submitted a preliminary report to the USDOE
on  the  prospect  and  practicability  of  electricity  into  the  US  grid  from  fusion  in  35
years. A more detailed plan, including cost estimates is due for March  2003. Japan
has established a committee under the Atomic Energy Commission, to discuss future
Japanese  R&D  plan,  including  the  acceleration  of  the  realisation  of  fusion  energy
within about 30 years. The Russian Federation also declared support for a fast track
approach.

36.

Technical work is  continuing in  the  framework of  the  IEA and the  definition  of an
appropriate  international  framework  to  conduct  the  Engineering  Validation  and
Engineering Design Phase of IFMIF is in progress.

16