REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL Mid-term progress report in accordance with Article 5b of the Council Decision establishing the European Joint Undertaking for ITER and the Development of Fusion Energy and conferring advantages upon it
Date: 2019-03-21
Institutions: Directorate-General for Energy, European Commission
Subjects: EAEC, EU energy policy, EU financing, European Joint Undertaking, international cooperation, multiannual financial framework, nuclear fusion, nuclear research

EN 

  EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Brussels, 21.3.2019 COM(2019) 147 final  REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL Mid-term progress report in accordance with Article 5b of the Council Decision establishing the European Joint Undertaking for ITER and the Development of Fusion Energy and conferring advantages upon it  
 
 
Table of Contents 
1. Subject, purpose and scope of the evaluation ...................................................................................... 2 

2. Context and objectives of the European contribution to ITER ........................................................... 4 

3. Implementation, progress and state of play ......................................................................................... 9 

Developments in the construction and management of the ITER project in 2014-2017 ..................... 9 

New Project Baseline based on Staged Approach ............................................................................... 9 

Euratom expenditure related to ITER................................................................................................ 10 

Progress of Euratom contributions to ITER under the 2016 Baseline............................................... 13 

BA projects' progress and schedule ................................................................................................... 16 

4. Evaluation of results achieved to date - methodology and tools in accordance with Better Regulation 
principles ............................................................................................................................................... 17 

Limitations of the evaluation ............................................................................................................. 18 

5. Analysis and answers to the evaluation questions ............................................................................. 18 

Relevance .......................................................................................................................................... 19 

Effectiveness ..................................................................................................................................... 20 

EU Added Value ............................................................................................................................... 22 

Efficiency .......................................................................................................................................... 22 

Coherence .......................................................................................................................................... 24 

6. Conclusions ....................................................................................................................................... 25 

Annex 1: Procedural information concerning the process of preparing the evaluation ........................ 26 

Annex 2: Methods used in preparing the evaluation ............................................................................. 27 

Evaluation questions of the supporting study .................................................................................... 27 

Methodological approach .................................................................................................................. 28 

Data collection ................................................................................................................................... 28 

Evaluation matrix .............................................................................................................................. 30 

Aggregation of analysis ..................................................................................................................... 40 

List of abbreviations 
BA 

DA 

F4E 

GB 

GVA 

IO 

ILO 

PA 

Broader Approach 

Domestic Agency 

Fusion for Energy 

Governing Board of F4E 

Gross Value Added 

ITER Organization 

Industrial Liaison Officers 

Procurement Arrangement 

1 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
1. Subject, purpose and scope of the evaluation 
The  ITER  project  is  a  unique  case  of  international  scientific  collaboration  between  seven 
Parties representing 80% of the world’s GDP. It has the purpose of exploring the feasibility of 
using fusion as an energy source for peaceful purposes. Following the signature of the ITER 
Agreement in 2006 between seven international  partners, of which Euratom (represented by 
the  European  Commission)  is  one1,  in  March  2007  the  Council  of  the  European  Union 
adopted  Decision  2007/198/Euratom  establishing  the  European  Joint  Undertaking  for  ITER 
and  the  Development  of  Fusion  Energy  (F4E)2.  F4E's  primary  function  is  to  discharge 
Euratom's  obligations  regarding  the  ITER  project  and  to  carry  out  other  ITER-related 
activities. F4E's members are Euratom, Euratom's Member States3, and Switzerland.  

The Council Decision establishing F4E requires the preparation of a mid-term progress report 
on the implementation of the aforementioned Decision, setting out the results of the use of the 
Euratom contribution in the multiannual financial period 2014-20204. Section 3 of the present 
document addresses this requirement.  

Notwithstanding the specific provisions for the preparation of the mid-term progress report in 
the  aforementioned  Decision,  it  was  deemed  important,  especially  in  the  context  of  the 
preparations  for  the  Multiannual  Financial  Framework  2021-2027,  to  carry  out  also  a  mid-
term  evaluation  of  European  participation  in  the  ITER  project  through  F4E,  following  the 
usual standards for mid-term evaluations under the Better Regulation principles5. The present 
document presents also the results of such a mid-term evaluation.  

The temporal and material scope of the analysis in this report covers the period 2014 (since 
the start of the current financing period) up to 2017 and focuses on the European contribution 
to ITER while it also touches on other, related activities of F4E. 

The preliminary findings of this evaluation informed the Commission’s proposal for the 2021-
2027  Multiannual  Financial  Framework  (MFF),  and  the  outcomes  will  feed  into  the  related 
negotiations  with  the  European  Parliament  and  the  Council  of  the  European  Union.  More 
generally, the findings of this evaluation provide valuable input for possible improvements in 
the current financing period or things to consider for the next financing period. 

This report draws on a supporting study prepared in late 2017 and early 2018 by an external 
consultant6.  Its  scope  covered  the  period  2014-2017,  and  focused  on  the  European 
contribution  to  ITER  through  F4E.  Moreover,  the  report  draws  on  two  other  studies  by 
external  consultants: one for the preparation of the impact  assessment/ex-ante evaluation  on 

1 Euratom (the European Atomic Energy Community) participates as an entity legally distinct from the EU but 
with the same membership. Switzerland participates in Euratom’s programmes as an “Associated State”. The 
other Parties to the ITER Agreement are Russia, United States, China, Korea, Japan, and India. 

2 Eurlex link: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32007D0198 
3  Euratom's  Member  States  are  the  28  Member  States  of  the  European  Union.  Switzerland  participates  in 

Euratom’s programmes as an "Associated State" 

4 Article 5b of the Statutes of F4E states: “The Commission shall submit to the European Parliament and to the 
Council, by 31 December 2017, at the latest, a progress report on the implementation of this Decision on the 
basis of information provided by the Joint Undertaking. That report shall set out the results of the use of the 
Euratom contribution referred to in Article 4(3) as regards commitments and expenditure”. 

5 Commission Staff Working Document on Better Regulation Guidelines (SWD(2017)350) 
6  Entitled  "The  European  Contribution  to  ITER:  Achievements  and  Challenges",  the  report  analyses  literature 
provided  by  F4E,  the  results  of  a  survey  distributed  among  the  members  of  the  Governing  Board  (GB)  and 
Industrial Liaison Officers (ILOs), and interviews  with three different  groups of stakeholders.  The  study was 
conducted by an external consultancy, Ramboll. 

2 

 
 
                                                           
EU  funding  and  participation  in  ITER  and  the  Broader  Approach  (BA)  activities  under  the 
next  MFF7,  which  considered  the  different  options  for  the  future  EU  contribution  to  the 
project in terms of finance and management; and a "Value for Money" study8, which analysed 
the  impact  on  the  EU  industry  due  to  EU  investment  in  the  ITER  project  over  the  period 
2008-2017, and modelled the future impact of further investment. These three studies in turn 
drew  on  other  reviews  of  F4E  and  of  the  ITER  Organisation  (IO)  conducted  over  the  past 
several years. Annex 1 presents a complete list of supporting documents that are referred to in 
this evaluation. 

7 Trinomics, "Supporting Analysis for an Impact Assessment on the Future Funding of EU Participation in ITER 

Project and Broader Approach (BA) Activities under the next MFF", May 2018. 

8 Trinomics, “Study on the impact of the ITER activities in the EU”, May 2018. 

3 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
2. Context and objectives of the European contribution to ITER 
In accordance with the ITER Agreement and the implementing provisions agreed between the 
ITER Parties, the ITER project aims to construct and operate an experimental fusion reactor 
which will be used to explore and demonstrate the scientific and technological feasibility of 
sustained fusion power generation. The project is implemented by the ITER Organization (IO) 
set  up  under  the  ITER  Agreement  as  an  international  organization.  The  ITER  project  is 
expected  to  culminate  with  a  set  of  experiments  (so-called  Deuterium-Tritium  Plasma)  that 
will  achieve  a  positive  net  fusion  energy  balance9.  These  results  can  pave  the  way  to  the 
construction of a demonstration power plant (DEMO), whose goal would be to demonstrate 
fusion in the context of a working power plant. 

Several  designs  for  fusion  reactors  have  been  considered  in  fusion  science,  but  the  design 
generally accepted as the most feasible and realistic is the tokamak10. Figure 1 shows a cross-
section of ITER’s tokamak design with labels describing its main components and systems.  

Under the terms of the ITER Agreement, each Party is committed to providing two types of 
contribution to the project: in-kind and in-cash. In-cash contributions are paid directly to IO 
and  used  for  its  operations  and  activities,  which  include  the  design  and  specification  of  the 
project components as well as the overall assembly, installation and operation of the device. 
The  in-kind  contributions  take  the  form  of  the  components  of  the  tokamak  and  its  ancillary 
and support systems; they are procured and built by the Parties and delivered to the ITER site 
in  Cadarache,  France. Figure 2 shows a simplified schema of the  ITER tokamak, indicating 
which Parties are responsible for the key in-kind contributions.  

The Parties exercise the governance of the ITER project and supervise IO primarily through 
the  ITER  Council,  in  which  all  Parties  are  represented  and  which  meets  twice  a  year.  The 
ITER Council has overall authority over and responsibility for the project; it is supported by 
its subordinated/advisory bodies.  

In accordance with the ITER Agreement, each Party is required to set up a Domestic Agency 
(DA) that is responsible for the delivery to IO of both types of contribution on behalf of the 
Party.  F4E  is  the  EU's  Domestic  Agency.  The  governance  of  F4E  is  exercised  by  F4E's 
members through F4E Governing Board and its bodies. 

Figure 3 illustrates ITER’s governance structure with a focus on the European perspective. It 
covers the governance structure of both the ITER Organization and F4E, indicating also their 
interdependence. 

9 Previous tokamaks such as the Joint European Torus (JET) have achieved fusion, but none so far have created 
a plasma that produces more fusion energy than the thermal energy put into it. ITER is expected to achieve a 
net energy gain through its size and more sophisticated first-of-a-kind technology. 

10 A tokamak is a device that uses magnetic fields to confine plasma in a chamber in the shape of a torus. It was 

invented in the 1950's in the Soviet Union. 

4 

 
 
 
 
                                                           
Figure 1: Cross-section of the ITER tokamak, with labels briefly explaining the functions of the main systems. Source: F4E 2016 Highlight report. Copyright: IO 

5 

 
 
Figure 2: Diagram of the tokamak showing broadly which Parties are responsible for which components of the machine.  

Figure 3: Diagram of the governance structure of the ITER project. Source: F4E 

In  the  context  of  the  negotiations  of  the  ITER  Agreement,  a  separate  but  related  bilateral 
agreement  between  the  EU  and  Japan  was  signed  in  2005.  This  agreement,  called  "Broader 
Approach"  (BA),  facilitates  cooperation  between  the  two  Parties  on  three  fusion-related 
projects located in Japan11, intended to support the development and realisation of ITER and 
the preparations for DEMO. The majority (approx. 90%) of resources that the EU contributes 

11 The three Broader Approach projects are: 

1.  The Satellite Tokamak Programme (STP) JT-60SA, a project to upgrade an existing tokamak located in 

Naka, Japan. 

2.  The International Fusion Materials Irradiation Facility – Engineering Validation and Engineering Design 

Activities (IFMIF/EVEDA), a facility for fusion materials testing. 

3.  The International Fusion Energy Research Centre (IFERC): it carries out several projects including joint 
work  on  pre-conceptual  DEMO  design,  testing  and  development  of  materials  for  tritium  breeder 
blankets  (tritium  is  one  of  the  fuels  of  the  fusion  reaction),  and  the  preparation  of  hardware  and 
software for the Remote Experimentation Centre in Rokkasho, Japan. 

6 

 
 
 
                                                           
to  BA  projects  are  in  the  form  of  voluntarily  provided  in-kind  components  by  several 
Members of F4E12; therefore, the in-cash contribution that is sent to BA through F4E is very 
small compared to its in-cash and in-kind contributions to ITER. 

In accordance with all the above, F4E has three statutory tasks:  

(a) to provide the contribution of the European Atomic Energy Community (Euratom) to the 
ITER International Fusion Energy Organisation;  
(b) to provide the contribution of Euratom to Broader Approach Activities with Japan for the 
rapid realisation of fusion energy;  
(c) to prepare and coordinate a programme of activities in preparation for the construction of a 
demonstration fusion reactor and related facilities including the International Fusion Materials 
Irradiation Facility (IFMIF). 

At present, the main focus of F4E's activities is on (a) and (b). Its work on DEMO is currently 
mostly  carried  out  through  its  collaboration  with  the  European  Consortium  for  the 
Development  of  Fusion  Energy  (EUROfusion)13,  which  conducts  significant  research 
activities, partly funded by F4E grants, on topics of relevance for the DEMO preparation  14. 
All  F4E  actions  are  underpinned  by  scientific  support  from  EUROfusion  funded  by  the 
Euratom Research and Training Programme.  

Figure  4  below  presents  the  intervention  logic  of  F4E's  implementation  of  the  EU's 
contribution  to  ITER  and  of  the  associated  activities  related  to  BA  and  DEMO.  A  positive 
outcome of ITER will represent an important signal towards the confirmation of fusion as a 
new  and  sustainable  source  of  energy  that  will  help  mitigate  climate  change,  contribute  to 
energy security, improve the environmental performance of the energy sector and boost EU’s 
innovation  and  competitiveness.  ITER's  success  will  depend  on  the  Parties  to  the  ITER 
Agreement remaining committed and providing their support (in kind and cash contributions).  

The next section of the report documents a number of positive developments in the execution 
of  the  ITER  project  that  were  achieved  in  recent  years.  Despite  this  progress  and  the 
significant  improvements  in  the  project's  execution  and  governance,  there  remain  important 
risks  related  to  design  and  assembly  that  still  require  full  attention  by  the  management  and 
stakeholders to be addressed adequately, including by proper provisioning for contingencies 
in cost and schedule  

Brexit does not affect the EU commitment to ITER. 

12 Belgium, France, Germany, Italy, Spain and, up to 2010, Switzerland. 
13  EUROfusion  is  the  umbrella  organisation  of  Europe's  fusion  research  laboratories,  founded  in  2014.  It 
supports and funds research activities on behalf of Euratom, and is funded in part by the Euratom Research 
and Training Programme. 

14 One important exception to this is the IFMIF facility in Japan, the EU contribution to which is discharged by 

F4E. 

7 

 
 
 
                                                           
Figure 4: The intervention logic of F4E. Source: Evaluation supporting study

8 

 
 
 
3. Implementation, progress and state of play 
Developments in the construction and management of the ITER project in 2014-2017 
ITER’s construction by F4E began in Cadarache in 2009 and was expected to last ten years. 
Following  the  revelation  of  multiple  weaknesses  and  shortcomings  in  2013  (by  an  internal 
assessment of the ITER project15 and a review of F4E16), the project baseline adopted in 2010 
was no longer considered realistic. One of the key drivers of the delays and extra costs was 
the immaturity and resulting frequent changes of the design of project components due to the 
complexity and first-of-a-kind nature of the project. The expected delivery dates of some in-
kind contributions had been delayed by up to 45 months relative to their planned dates in the 
ITER schedule of 2010. The need for turning the project around became evident. 

Accordingly, the IO and F4E initiated large-scale changes at all levels, including changes in 
the top managements of both organizations. The new managements adopted Action Plans in 
2015 to address the situation. Furthermore, the new Director-General of the IO appointed by 
the  ITER  Council  in  March  2015  took  actions  to  implement  rigorous  project  management 
techniques (including schedule and cost  control, risk management, and design freezing) and 
established  a  Reserve  Fund17  to  cover  cost  increases  due  to  late  changes  of  technical 
specifications. In F4E, actions included a closer focus on risk management, more flexibility in 
the  implementing  regulations  for  contract  management,  and  deeper  integration  and 
communication  between  F4E,  IO,  and  the  other  DA's.  Its  Governing  Board  (GB)  also 
appointed a new Director for F4E. 

New Project Baseline based on Staged Approach 
In April 2016, the new baseline18 was reviewed by an independent committee19, and the 2025 
First  Plasma  milestone  was  confirmed  as  the  earliest  technically  feasible  date.  It  was  noted 
that  setting  this  as  the  target  date  to  achieve  First  Plasma  omits  any  kind  of  contingency, 
assuming that all risks can be mitigated. The lack of a contingency in the baseline is unusual 
in  a  project  as  large  and  complicated  as  ITER,  and  this  adds  a  level  of  uncertainty  to  the 
overall  management20.  The  reviewers  also  recommended  a  "Staged  Approach".  Taking  into 
account  the  positive  recommendations  of  this  review,  the  ITER  Council  endorsed  ad 
referendum the new ITER baseline in November 201621. 

The Staged Approach is one of the most crucial parts of the management turnaround. It splits 
the construction and assembly of the machine into four stages, each of which builds towards a 
key goal. This culminates in the final goal of the fourth stage: full Deuterium-Tritium (D-T) 
operation22. During each stage of the project, only activities that are critical to achieving that 

15William Madia and Associates, "Final report of the 2013 ITER Management Assessment", 18 October 2013 
16Ernst and Young, Published by the European Parliament, "Potential for Reorganisation within the ITER Project 

to Improve Cost-effectiveness", 15 May 2013 

17The Reserve Fund is designed to discourage changes of specification by IO, as any costs incurred by changing 

the design of a procurement after it has been frozen must be paid from this fund. 

18A baseline comprises the scope, cost, and schedule of a project. 
19ITER Council Review Group (ICRG), “ITER Council Working Group on the Independent Review of the Updated 
Long-Term  Schedule  and  Human  Resources  -  Report”,  15  April  2016.  The  report  can  be  found  at 
http://www.firefusionpower.org/ITER_ICRG_Report_2016.pdf 

20 This issue is further elaborated in section 5 of this report. 
21 Source: ITER Organisation https://www.iter.org/newsline/-/2588 
22Several  types  of  fusion  have  been  achieved  on  Earth,  but  the  most  suitable  for  ITER  uses  two  isotopes  of 
hydrogen as its reactants: deuterium and tritium. In the reaction, one deuterium molecule and one tritium 
molecule fuse and create a helium molecule and a neutron with high kinetic energy. 

9 

 
 
                                                           
stage's goal are carried out. This plan takes into account the financial constraints of the ITER 
Parties by limiting the in-cash contributions and postponing in-kind contributions that are not 
necessary for the project's current stage. It also reduces risks by testing the machine and the 
existing  components  after  each  stage  is  complete,  allowing  any  issues  to  be  identified  and 
addressed before moving on. The project is currently in its first stage, with its key goal being 
First  Plasma.  In  order  to  achieve  First  Plasma  in  2025  as  scheduled,  F4E  has  adopted  a 
strategy  called  “Straight  Road  to  First  Plasma”  which  prioritises  components  that  are 
essential to this milestone. The staged approach is illustrated in Figure 5 below. 

Figure 5: Diagram of the Staged Approach and its primary milestones. 

Following the approval of the 2016 baseline, F4E set the new timetable and recalculated the 
estimated  cost  of  F4E’s  contribution  until  the  achievement  of  the  First  Plasma  milestone  in 
2025. The expected funding required from F4E for the construction phase between 2021 and 
2025  is  of  EUR  5.5  billion  in  current  values23.  Europe’s  total  estimated  contribution  to  the 
revised baseline of the project based on the staged approach is presented in Table 1 below. 

Table 1: Summary table of Euratom’s commitment appropriations to ITER up to First Plasma (FP), from FP to Deuterium-
Tritium (D-T), and total after 2020. Units are current values in EUR billion.  
Source: Communication COM(2017) 319 - EU contribution to a reformed ITER project 

F4E total cash to IO 
F4E in-kind contribution 
F4E administration 
F4E other activities 
EC project administration 
Total 

To FP 
2021-2025 
1.5 
3.1 
0.3 
0.5 
0.05 
5.5 

From FP to DT 

Total after 2020 

2026-2027 
0.7 
0.8 
0.1 
0.2 
0.02 
1.8 

2028-2035 
1.6 
0.7 
0.6 
0.1 
0.08 
3.1 

3.8 
4.6 
1.0 
0.8 
0.15 
10.4 

Euratom expenditure related to ITER 
The  funding  for  European  participation  in  ITER  and  for  related  activities  (BA,  DEMO)  is 
channelled through F4E as the Euratom Domestic Agency for ITER. The operating revenues 
of F4E include mainly the Euratom contribution; the ITER Host State (France) contribution; 
and  the  Membership  contributions.  The  contribution  from  Euratom  constitutes  the  main 
source of revenue for F4E. Since the establishment of F4E, as of 31 December 2017, F4E has 

23 This contribution comes from the EU budget, France, and F4E’s Members. 

10 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
received a total of EUR 5 055 million in commitment appropriations and EUR 3 328 million 
in payment appropriations (both in current values) from Euratom contributions. A chart with a 
running  total  of  commitment  and  payment  appropriations  is  presented  in  Figure  6.  These 
appropriations  include  those  that  assign  funds  to  BA  activities;  however,  since  the  vast 
majority  of  value  that  the  EU  diverts  to  BA  comes  in  the  form  of  voluntary  in-kind 
contributions, these appropriations are very small compared to those for ITER. Overall, this 
diagram demonstrates the recently improved and  good budgetary performance both in terms 
of commitments and payments, notwithstanding the observations made in regular audits and 
independent reviews of the project24.  

Figure 6: Cumulative sums of commitment appropriations and payment appropriations (current values in EUR million). 
Source: F4E draft Annual and Multiannual Programme years 2019-2023, produced in the evaluation supporting study 

n
o

i
l
l
i

M

 € 9.000  

 € 8.000  

 € 7.000  

 € 6.000  

 € 5.000  

 € 4.000  

 € 3.000  

 € 2.000  

 € 1.000  

 € -    

 € 6.143  

 € 5.055  

 € 4.097  

 € 3.328  

F4E Total Revenue (commitment appr.)

F4E Total Revenue (payment appr.)

Only EU Budget (commitment appr.)

Only EU Budget (payment appr.)

The  vast  majority  of  F4E's  expenditure  is  accrued  in  relation  to  Procurement  Arrangements 
(PAs). These are contracts, created and defined by IO, each of which represents specific work 
to  be  performed  and  delivered  to  IO  by  a  DA.  PAs  can  represent  the  construction  of 
components,  services,  administration,  or  any  other  work  that  needs  to  be  performed  to 
contribute  to  the  ITER  project,  but  the  bulk  of  them  concern  the  development  and 
construction of components for the tokamak as in-kind contributions. Following the signature 
of a PA with IO, F4E tenders and signs contracts with suppliers of the requisite deliverables. 

As  of  November  2017,  F4E  had  signed  contracts  corresponding  to  87%  of  all  the  in-kind 
contributions due to IO from the EU side. The amount of money that this represents is shown 
by Figure 7 below.  

Although  the  contracts  signed  represent  a  value  of  almost  EUR  4  billion,  this  is  not  the 
amount of money that has been paid by F4E. Money committed at the beginning of a PA will 

24 See point xix in Section 5 of the present report. 

11 

 
 
 
                                                           
often be paid  through instalments,  with  the bulk  of the money being paid at  the end.  Up to 
May 2017, about EUR 2.25 billion has been paid for the in-kind contributions to ITER25. This 
money  has  gone  to  hundreds  of  different  contractors  and  many  more  sub-contractors  inside 
and  outside  the  EU,  and  has  produced  growth  and  employment  in  the  EU  economy.  These 
benefits will be quantified in Section 5. 
Figure 7: The cumulative number of contracts awarded by F4E from 2008 to May 2017 and their cumulative value in EUR. 
Source: Data from F4E, produced in the evaluation supporting study 

s
n
o

i
l
l
i

M

 € 4.000  

 € 3.500  

 € 3.000  

 € 2.500  

 € 2.000  

 € 1.500  

 € 1.000  

 € 500  

 € -    

120

100

80

60

40

20

0

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

Cumulative sum contracts

Contracts awarded

Figure 8: The cumulative number of grants awarded by F4E from 2008 to January 2017 and their cumulative value in EUR. 
Source: Data from F4E, produced in the evaluation supporting study 

 € 120  

 € 100  

s
n
o

i
l
l
i

M

 € 80  

 € 60  

 € 40  

 € 20  

 € -    

35

30

25

20

15

10

5

0

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

Cumulative sum grants

Grants awarded

Besides contracts, part of F4E's operating expenditure is constituted by grants. These take the 
form of contributions to Research and Development related to F4E activities. Figure 8 shows 
the cumulative amount of grants awarded by F4E and their value in euros. 

25 Trinomics, "Study on the impact of the ITER project activities in the EU", May 2018 

12 

 
 
  
                                                           
 
 
To date, entities in at least 20 Member States have benefitted from contracts with F4E for the 
delivery  of  in-kind  contributions  to  ITER  and  from  grants  for  supporting  research  and 
development actions. As France is the host country of the project, French contractors and sub-
contractors  receive  the  highest  proportion  of  contracts  and  sub-contracts.  However,  this 
benefit  is  balanced  by  the  fact  that  during  the  construction  phase,  20%  of  the  European 
contribution to the project is funded by France and 80% by Euratom – a significantly higher 
amount than the other Member States. F4E is making efforts, in line with the request from the 
Council  of  the  EU  and  the  European  Parliament,  to  address  the  differences  in  the  level  of 
participation  of  industry  in  Member  States,  including  by  increased  information  on 
procurements and grant opportunities.  

Progress of Euratom contributions to ITER under the 2016 Baseline 
When  complete,  the  ITER  complex  will  entail  thirty-nine  buildings,  structures  and  areas, 
including  the  Tokamak  Complex  with  the  ITER  machine  itself.  In  November  2017,  the 
milestone of 50% completion of the total physical construction activities needed to reach First 
Plasma was achieved26. 

The physical progress of the project can be monitored by milestones. Each year, at one of its 
biannual  meetings,  the  ITER  Council  approves  a  set  of  milestones  for  the  purposes  of 
performance  tracking  and  reporting  to  the  ITER  Council.  The  milestones  pertaining  to 
European  contributions  are  also  monitored  by  the  F4E  Governing  Board  (GB).  The 
milestones cover all areas of the project, from procurement to construction. Table 2 shows the 
status at the end of 2017 of all milestones that were due up to that point. All milestones due 
by the end of 2017 have been achieved27. 

26 Source: ITER Organisation https://www.iter.org/newsline/-/2877 
27  Milestones  GB08/IC24  and  GB09/IC25  were  originally  due  by  the  end  of  2017.  However,  in  line  with  the 
revised construction strategy (RCS) approved at the ITER Council in June 2018, the completion date for some 
milestones  has  been  revised  since  the  RCS  organises  the  work  in  a  different  way,  while  keeping  the  First 
Plasma  date  in  2025.  This  effectively  removes  the  delay  on  the  two  milestones  which  are  now  subject  to 
another schedule under which they are not yet due. 

13 

 
 
 
 
                                                           
Table 2: A summary of milestones due by the end of December 2017.  
Source: F4E Summary Report on Progress for EU ITER Council and Governing Board Milestones – end of December 2017 

Another  way  to  measure  the  completion  of  the  project  is  using  ITER  credits.  The  “credits” 
system was introduced to facilitate tracking of contributions28. When a PA is created by IO, 
internal  milestones  are  defined  to  mark  the  progress  of  its  execution.  Some  of  these 
milestones  have  ITER  credits  (also  called  ITER  Units  of  Account,  or  IUA)  associated  with 
them which are released by IO to the DA on achievement.  

Obtaining all the credits for a PA means that the DA has achieved all milestones and therefore 
fully discharged its obligations  for that PA.  It  is important  to  note that  ITER  credits do not 
correspond to the actual cost of the work done or component produced, but rather the nominal 
value of the PA as  agreed between  IO and its members (the  ITER Parties)29. Therefore, the 
ITER credits that a DA has received from IO correspond to the work that has been carried out 

28 In many construction projects, measuring progress is relatively straightforward  – one measures the money 
spent  and  the  work  done  so  far  as  a  percentage  of  the  whole.  However,  ITER  is  a  complex,  international 
project, where many contributions come in-kind and several currencies are involved in the procurement  of 
components.  The  credits  system  simplifies  the  situation  somewhat,  and  as  such  the  amount  of  credits 
awarded is a useful metric. 

29  For  an  indicative  idea  of  an  IUA's  value,  in  2008,  the  ITER  Council  approved  an  exchange  rate  of  1  IUA 

equalling EUR 1 498.16. 

14 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
and the milestones that have been achieved. Credits are not earned for in-cash contributions 
and the administrative expenditure of the DA. 

Figure 9 and Figure 10 show the progress of ITER credits compared to the baseline over the 
periods 2014-2017 and 2010-2017 respectively. It can be seen that the credits achieved follow 
the baseline quite closely, notwithstanding a small delay in 2017 

Figure 9: Cumulative achieved and released credits compared to the current baseline over the period 2014-2017. Source: 
Data from F4E, produced in the evaluation supporting study 

As  of  late  2017,  35%  of  the  total  European  credits  for  in-kind  contributions  have  been 
achieved. The progress that has been made between 2014 and 2017 is shown in Table 3, and 
these data are presented in Figure 11 as a percentage of the total credits for each action. 
Figure 10: Cumulative achieved and released credits compared to the current baseline over the period 2010-2017. 
Source: Data from F4E, produced in the evaluation supporting study 

15 

 
 
 
 
Table 3: Progress of actions (categories of work) in terms of achieved credits in 2013 and 2017.  
Source: Data from F4E draft Annual and Multiannual Programme years 2019-2023.  

Action 

Achieved as of 
1/1/2014 
(kIUA) 

Achieved as of 
30/11/2017 
(kIUA) 

Forecast for 
total credits 
(kIUA)30 

Site and Buildings and Power Supplies 

Magnets 

Vacuum Vessel 

Cryoplant and Fuel Cycle 

Neutral Beam and EC Power Supplies  
and Sources 

In Vessel - Divertor 

Remote Handling 

Antenna and Plasma Engineering 

Diagnostics 

In Vessel - Blanket 

53.50 

13.19 

0 

0 

1.86 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

181.94 

85.74 

30.08 

22.86 

19.63 

1.92 

1.80 

0.50 

0.02 

0 

516.10 

185.84 

89.56 

57.39 

103.95 

22.24 

39.73 

27.41 

29.67 

44.85 

Figure 11:  Graph illustrating the progress of actions as a percentage in credits 
Source: Data from F4E draft Annual and Multiannual Programme years 2019-2023 

BA projects' progress and schedule 
The  resources  provided  by  the  EU  for  the  implementation  of  BA  activities  are  largely 
(approx. 90%) provided voluntarily by several Members of F4E (Belgium, France, Germany, 
Italy, Spain and, in the past, Switzerland). Therefore, the in-cash contribution from the EU for 
these projects is very small compared to F4E’s expenditures on ITER.  

30  Forecast  credit  value  includes  credits  for  not  yet  signed  PAs.  In  this  case  values  are  only  indicative  as 
negotiations will be carried out prior to PA signature to finalise them 

16 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
Like in ITER construction, in-kind contributions to BA projects are formalised using PAs and 
their  values  are  measured  in  credits.  The  BA  credits  are  called  Broader  Approach  Units  of 
Account (BAUA). The complete scope of work covered by the BA Agreement has a value of 
1 000 000 BAUA31, 500 000 of which are provided by Euratom and 500 000 by Japan. 

The three projects all aim to be completed within the current MFF (before the end of 2020). 
As of the end of June 2016, the EU had been awarded 73% of its total commitment for JT-
60SA, 82% for IFMIF/EVEDA, and 97% for IFERC32. 

Figure  12  below  shows  the  awarded  credits  for  each  project  as  a  percentage  of  the  amount 
planned to be awarded. The average percentage is above 88%. 

Figure 12: Ratio of credit awarded under the BA Agreement to credit planned.  
Source: F4E 2016 Final Accounts, produced in the evaluation’s supporting study 

4. Evaluation of results achieved to date - methodology and tools in 
accordance with Better Regulation principles 
The implementation  of  European participation in  ITER  and  Broader Approach through  F4E 
activities,  the  results  of  which  are  presented  in  the  previous  Section  in  accordance  with  the 
requirements of Article 5b of Decision of the Council of the EU establishing F4E, has been 
analysed in accordance with the principles of Better Regulation.  

The results of the analysis are presented in the ensuing section and are structured around five 
evaluation  criteria:  Relevance,  Effectiveness,  EU  Added  Value,  Efficiency,  and  Coherence. 
Annex  2  details  the  methodology  of  the  evaluation  supporting  study  including  the  related 
evaluation matrix.  

In  a  mid-term  evaluation,  it  is  customary  to  assess  the  effects  produced  by  the  intervention 
against a baseline. This baseline is often a description of how the current situation would have 
evolved in the absence of the intervention. The ITER project is a special case because of its 
long  duration  and  its  status  as  a  scientific  experiment  linked  to  an  international  agreement. 
Furthermore,  the  total  impact  of  ITER  is  hard  to  quantify  –  its  existence  produces  not  only 
economic  benefits  but  also  new  Intellectual  Property  and  spin-offs.  The  Value  for  Money 

31 As of 5 May 2005, 1 BAUA is equivalent to EUR 678 
32  As  with  the  percentages  under  the  previous  sub-heading,  these  represent  the  credits  awarded  as  a 

percentage of the total credit value of the contracts 

17 

 
 
 
                                                           
study  includes  ten  case  studies  of  companies  that  have  worked  with  ITER  and  developed 
“spin off” products for exploitation outside fusion (such as the broader energy sector, aviation 
and hi-tech instruments). A baseline scenario would exclude these new innovations, but it is 
difficult to tell what their impacts will be. 

However,  it  is  possible  to  define  baselines  within  certain  constraints.  For  quantitative 
analysis,  the  Value  for  Money  study  focuses  only  on  the  EU  economy  and  takes  two 
baselines.  The  first  is  a “no  ITER  spending”  scenario  where  the  money  that  has  been  spent 
through F4E’s budget is not spent at all; ITER’s impact relative to this scenario is called the 
gross  impact.  The  second  is  a  scenario  where  instead  of  being  spent  on  ITER,  the  same 
amount  of  money  was  spent  in  other  sectors  of  the  EU  economy  in  proportion  to  their 
respective  size.  Impact  relative  to  this  scenario  is  called  the  net  impact.  This  is  further 
elaborated on in the “Efficiency” part of Section 5 (Analysis). 

Limitations of the evaluation 
This  evaluation  concerns  the  European  contribution  to  ITER.  However,  even  when  one 
considers only its ITER-related activities, F4E is only one cog in the large, complex machine 
that is the ITER project. It is therefore difficult to evaluate F4E's performance using ITER's 
progress as a metric, because the project's progress depends on many organisations of which 
F4E  is  only  one.  F4E's  BA-related  activities  are  simpler  to  analyse  as  there  are  only  two 
Parties  (Euratom  and  Japan),  but  it  must  be  kept  in  mind  that  the  results  seen  in  the 
construction and operation of the facilities are not solely under the control of F4E or the EU. 

Furthermore, it is stipulated in the ITER Agreement that as the Host Party, Euratom may not 
withdraw  from  the  project.  This  renders  some  areas  of  evaluation,  such  as  the  value  of 
continued  EU  involvement,  hypothetical.  However,  the  answers  to  these  questions  are  still 
valuable as they justify and support other areas of evaluation. 

Some  of  the  studies  from  which  this  evaluation  draws  use  historical  data  to  predict  ITER's 
economic impact in various future scenarios. The act of forecasting and projecting necessarily 
implies  making  certain  assumptions  on  the  evolution  of  the  geopolitical  landscape  over  the 
period of projection.  

In  the  supporting  study  to  this  evaluation,  some  findings  are  based  on  the  responses  to  an 
online  survey  that  was  distributed  to  members  of  the  GB  and  Industrial  Liaison  Officers 
(ILOs). Their populations are 60 and 22 respectively, and their response rates were not very 
high  –  45%  and  36%  respectively.  Due  to  this  small  sample  size,  the  results  cannot  be 
interpreted as accurately representing the views of the ILOs and GB members;  furthermore, 
there may be a self-selection bias in  the sample. Nevertheless, the results can provide some 
useful indications. 

5. Analysis and answers to the evaluation questions 

This section presents the findings of the mid-term evaluation of the European contribution to 
ITER addressing whether this is still relevant given the current needs. It goes on judging how 
effective  and  efficient  has  been  the  European  participation  in  ITER  examining  also  its  EU 
added value. Last but not least this section examines how coherent is Euratom’s participation 
in ITER with other EU interventions/policies. 

18 

 
 
 
 
 
Relevance 

i.  On  28  November  2018,  the  European  Commission  adopted  a  strategic  long-term 
vision for a prosperous, modern, competitive and climate neutral economy by 2050 – 
A Clean Planet for all33. The strategy shows how Europe can lead the way to climate 
neutrality by investing into realistic technological solutions, empowering citizens, and 
aligning  action  in  key  areas  such  as  industrial  policy,  finance,  or  research  –  while 
ensuring social fairness for a just transition. The analysis accompanying this document 
acknowledges that fusion is a potential new power generation technology that would 
not  produce  greenhouse  gases  and  uses  fuels  available  in  abundance  and  recognizes 
ITER  as  one  of  the  major  global  initiatives  that  is  the  European  Union’s  main 
contribution to fusion research.  Fusion energy could bring important benefits. Fusion 
fuels (deuterium and tritium) are widely available and nearly inexhaustible. The fusion 
power plant does not inherently present particular safety risks: less than a gram of fuel 
makes up the plasma, which rapidly extinguishes itself in case of any unplanned event. 
Deuterium-tritium  reactions  release  neutrons  which  will  activate  wall  materials.  The 
resulting  radioactive  by-products  are  short-lived.  The  benefits  of  fusion power  as  a 
carbon-free,  sustainable  energy  source  to  complement  renewables  are  persuasive 
arguments in favour of fusion. 

ii.  Unlike renewable energy sources, which are generally at a stage in their development 
where  they  can  produce  energy  for  commercial  use,  fusion  is  still  a  nascent 
technology  that  requires  further  research  before  it  can  do  the  same.  ITER  holds  a 
unique  place  in  the  fusion  energy  research  landscape.  It  is  the  key  facility  for  the 
implementation of the European research roadmap to the realisation of fusion energy. 
The  roadmap  forms  the  basis  for  the  programmes  of  EUROfusion  and  Fusion  for 
Energy  and  provides  a  clear  and  structured  way  forward  to  commercial  electricity 
from fusion. 

iii.  As a collaboration between seven Parties collectively representing 80% of the world’s 
GDP,  ITER  stands  out  as  by  far  the  largest  and  most  ambitious  fusion  experiment 
currently  being  constructed.  The  project  is  crucial  to  prove  feasibility  of  fusion; 
therefore, the outcomes of ITER experiments should be considered as highly relevant 
to  the  EU's  future  energy  needs.  F4E's  second  and  third  objectives,  concerning  the 
European  contribution  to  BA  and  DEMO,  are  also  related  to  this  goal.  Although 
fusion  as  a  technology  is  not  yet  developed  enough  to  serve  the  EU's  energy  needs 
now,  because  of  its  potential,  its  development  is  crucial  to  the  post-2050  energy 
landscape. 

iv. 

In  a  project  such  as  ITER,  where  components  produced  in  separate  countries  by 
different  contractors  have  to  work  together  in  perfect  harmony,  design  changes  are 
inevitably very difficult and costly. Following the 2013 assessment design changes by 
the  IO  were  discouraged  and  early  freezing  of  designs  encouraged.  These  measures, 
although highly beneficial from  a project management perspective, create a situation 
where 
technological  advances  or 
improvements on its specification. However, within these restrictions, there is limited 
space to change the design, for example in the design of smaller components. Among 
staff and stakeholders at  IO and  F4E, GB members and  ILOs, most agreed that F4E 
adapts  adequately  to  technological  and  scientific  advances,  and  none  pointed  out  a 

the  design  cannot  easily 

incorporate  new 

33 COM(2018)773 

19 

 
 
                                                           
v. 

major  technological  or  scientific  achievement  that  should  have  been  considered  by 
F4E but was not. 

From  the  perspective  of  EU's  energy-related  international  commitments,  ITER  is 
relevant  to  EU's  commitments  under  the  Paris  Agreement  and  the  Sustainable 
Development  Goals  (usually  referred  to  as  Agenda  2030),  both  adopted  in  2015 
within the framework of the United Nations. To be achieved by the end of the century, 
the objectives of the Paris Agreement concern limiting global warming, increasing the 
ability to adapt to climate change, and moving towards low greenhouse gas emissions. 
To achieve these objectives, it is indisputably necessary to phase out fossil fuel usage 
in  favour  of  more  climate-friendly  alternatives.  Although  fusion  energy  as  a  viable 
commercial  energy  source  is  a  long-term  goal  not  expected  to  produce  electricity 
before  2050,  the  timeframe  for  these  targets  is  also  long-term.  Therefore,  as  a  low-
carbon alternative to fossil fuels and complement to renewable energy, fusion energy 
research,  and  by  extension  the  ITER  project,  is  very  much  in  line  with  the  EU's 
obligations and commitments under the Paris Agreement. 

vi.  Unlike  the  Paris  Agreement,  the  Sustainable  Development  Goals  concern  not  only 
energy  and  climate  but  a  broad  range  of  social  and  economic  development  issues. 
There are 17 global goals to be achieved by 2030, concerning areas such as poverty, 
education,  hunger,  sanitation,  gender  equality,  and  climate  change.  Despite  its  long 
term nature, ITER is in line with these goals. 

Effectiveness 
vii.  As  explained  in  the  intervention  logic  (Figure  4),  the  three  tasks  of  F4E  can  be 
considered F4E's specific objectives. The extent to which these objectives have been 
achieved so far was evaluated in some detail in sections 2 and 3; the BA projects are 
progressing largely as planned, the DEMO preparation projects are (with the exception 
of the IFMIF part under the BA Agreement) not being discharged by F4E until First 
Plasma  has  been  achieved,  and  although  ITER  has  suffered  serious  delays  and  cost 
overruns in the past, it is now steadily progressing in accordance with the schedule 
and budget under the new 2016 baseline. Figures 9 and Figure 10 illustrate the extent 
to which the ITER project is on schedule in terms of credits achieved and released. 

viii.  The  date  for  First  Plasma  includes  no  contingency  provision  for  unscheduled 
developments  and  risk-events  which  however  cannot  be  reasonably  excluded, 
particularly  in  projects  of  comparable  complexity.  To  ensure  schedule  reliability,  a 
reasonable  contingency  should  be  considered.  As  stated  in  the  recent  Commission 
Communication  on  ITER34.,  in  line  with  existing  experience  with  large  international 
projects  of  similar  complexity  and  maturity,  the  Commission  estimates  that  a 
contingency of up to 24 months in terms of schedule and 10-20% in terms of budget 
appears appropriate. 

ix. 

In  terms  of  the  improvement  in  project  culture  and  management  since  the 
management turnaround in 2015, although three years is a very short time to see large-
scale  improvement  in  a  project  of  this  magnitude,  there  are  some  indications  of 
progress. In the latest annual assessment of F4E35, it was stated that F4E “appears to 

34 COM(2017)319 and the accompanying Staff Working Document SWD(2017)232  
35  Every  year,  the  F4E  Governing  Board  appoints  a  panel  of  independent  experts  to  produce  an  Annual 
Assessment  of  F4E.  Each  Assessment  has  general  terms  of  reference,  which  are  constant  year-to-year,  and 

20 

 
 
                                                           
 
x. 

be  on  track  and  is  positioned  to  make  the  transition  to  a  non-emergency  steady 
state”36.  However,  both  that  assessment  and  interviews  conducted  in  support  of  the 
evaluation  highlight  that  significant  progress  remains  to  be  made,  notably  regarding 
contract management and procurement practices. The procurement regulations of F4E 
were not  designed for an international  experimental science project.  To  remedy this, 
F4E  engages  actively  with  the  industry  and  research  communities  to  promote 
participation  in  calls  for  tenders  and  calls  for  proposals.  This  includes  cooperation 
with  the  network  of  Industrial  Liaison  Officers  (ILOs)  and  the  European  Fusion 
Laboratory Liaison Officers (EFLO) Network. This also includes communication and 
information initiatives to raise awareness and capability.  

its  operational  performance.  In  parallel, 

Furthermore,  a  supervision  strategy  was  recently  adopted  by  the  responsible 
Commission  services37  with  two  facets:  first,  ensuring,  through  EC  participation  in 
F4E’s governance structure, that F4E’s scope, budget and schedule are fit for purpose 
and adhered to; and second, exercising direct supervision over the use of F4E’s budget 
through  Euratom’s 
and  monitoring 
chairmanship of ITER’s Management Advisory Committee (MAC) in 2016 and 2017, 
measures  were  taken  to  improve  MAC’s  efficiency  through  timely  delivery  of  the 
appropriate  information  before  the  meetings  and  reorganisation  of  MAC’s  agendas. 
Other  governing  bodies  of  ITER  underwent  similar  changes,  and  contacts  were  also 
reinforced  between  the  Commission,  the  IO,  and  F4E  at  all  hierarchical  levels.  In 
October  2017,  MAC  members  carried  out  a  self-assessment,  where  all  Members 
acknowledged  visible  improvements  in  the  effectiveness  of  the  Committee’s 
governance. 

xi.  One  of  the  most  critical  issues  for  the  construction  of  ITER  now  is  the  proper 
execution of assembly and installation, taking into account that ITER, as a first of a 
kind project, involves multiple organizations and, as a result, a complex configuration 
definition and change management process. To meet this end, it was deemed pertinent 
to  review  the  ITER’s  strategy  for  assembly  and  installation,  focusing  on  the  several 
changes  and  improvements  that  have  been  made  in  the  past  few  years,  such  as  the 
adoption  of  the  staged  approach  for  finalising  the  assembly  of  key  components,  the 
placement  of  a  CMA 
the 
implementation  of  a  new  configuration  management  plan  (CMP).  In  view  of  the 
above, the ITER Council, at its twenty-first meeting (IC-21) held in November 2017, 
decided to carry out in 2018 an in-depth independent review on ITER’s configuration, 
assembly and installation strategy for the critical path to First Plasma. 

(Construction  Manager-as-Agent)  contract  and 

xii.  The planning, design and construction of ITER facilitates new cutting-edge research 
and innovation both within and outside the field of fusion. In fact, an F4E contract is 
regarded as a stepping stone towards realising longer term benefits. Firms judge that 
working on ITER bolsters their reputation as a leading high-tech company. More than 
a third of firms have developed new cutting-edge technologies as a result of their work 
on ITER. The potential for spin-offs partially already realised, is very significant and 
could produce myriad benefits for the EU and the other ITER Parties.  Spin-offs may 

specific terms of reference, which change every year and provide the assessors with specific areas to focus 
on. 

36 6th Annual Assessment of F4E, Report to the Governing Board 
37 “Commission Supervision Strategy of F4E”, 22 September 2017 

21 

 
 
                                                                                                                                                                                     
generate an extra 10,900 jobs between 2018 and 2030 and an increase in gross value 
added of € 2,248 million over this period38.  

xiii.  The  Value  for  Money  study  found  that  over  the  period  2008-2017,  compared  to  no 
spending, F4E spending on ITER has produced 34 000 job years and almost EUR 4.8 
billion  in  Gross  Value  Added  (GVA).  There  is  also  high  potential  for  spin-off 
technology,  as  ITER  is  at  the  cutting  edge  of  fusion  research  and  many  of  its 
components  are  the  first  of  their  kind.  In  the  same  study,  several  case  studies  were 
identified  where  companies’  participation  in  ITER  had  enabled  the  development  of 
spin-offs and innovation, often transferable to other sectors. 

xiv.  As  described  under  “Coherence”  below,  the  ITER  project  contributes  to  the 
achievement of many of the EU's internal and international goals and objectives; 
some, like the Paris Agreement, are very high-profile and well-known to  the general 
public.. 

EU Added Value 
xv.  When  the  contributions  of  the  other  Parties  are  taken  into  account,  as  well  as  the 
resources that will be required after 2020, the cost of ITER is substantial. The project 
also  requires  significant 
large  number  of  skilled 
technical  expertise  and  a 
manufacturers to design and build the components and bid for contracts in a fair and 
competitive  way.  In  short,  constructing  a  fusion  device  like  ITER  requires  sustained 
scientific, managerial  and financial commitment on  a scale that would be unrealistic 
for  any  one  country  to  undertake.  Therefore,  it  can  only  be  achieved  through 
collaboration  both  between  Member  States  and  globally.  In  a  global  collaborative 
project,  the  EU  is  indispensable  in  order  to  promote  the  interests  of  European 
countries on the same footing as other global powers. 

xvi.  Exercising  governance  at  EU  level  avoids  the  even  more  complex  governance 
structure  that  would  arise  if  participation  in  the  project  was  done  at  Member  State 
level.  In a similar way,  procuring the European  contribution  through F4E avoids the 
potential  complexity  of  each  Member  State  having  its  own  procurement  rules  and 
processes. 

Efficiency 
xvii.  The EU's contribution to the construction of ITER will total in the region of EUR 6.6 
billion by 2020 (2008 values), in line with the cap established by the Council of the 
EU in  2010. Most of F4E’s budget  is  spent through procurements; its administrative 
expenditure  represented  6%  (in  terms  of  commitment  appropriations)  and  9%  (in 
terms  of  payment  appropriations)  of  the  total  expenditure  of  F4E  over  the  period 
2014-2017.  This  proportion  of  administrative  expenditure  is  similar  to  other  large 
projects39.  Therefore,  the  main  influence  on  F4E’s  cost-efficiency  is  that  of  its 
procurement  practices.  Over  time  F4E’s  procurement  strategy  has  evolved  from 
placing  large  contracts  on  a  fixed-price  basis  to  placing  smaller  contracts  with  more 
variable  characteristics.  For  each  contract,  a  call  for  tender  is  published  on  F4E's 

38 Trinomics, “Study on the impact of the ITER activities in the EU”, May 2018 
39 In the Value for Money study, the proportional administrative expenditure of the ITER project was compared 

to that of Norra Länken, a Swedish motorway project of similar size, and was found to be similar. 

22 

 
 
                                                           
Industry  Portal40.  As  an  EU  Joint  Undertaking,  F4E  is  bound  to  follow  EU  public 
tender procedures as set out in F4E’s Financial Regulation41. According to the latter, 
participation  in  public  tendering  procedures  should  be  open  on  equal  terms  to  all 
tenders from EU Member States and third countries that have a special agreement with 
the  EU  regarding  public  procurement.  In  the  case  of  F4E’s  Financial  Regulation; 
participation  is  restricted  to  the  Members  of  F4E  (the  EU  Member  States  and 
Switzerland) with some exceptions. This system is intended to avoid monopolies and 
encourage  competitive tendering, which lowers the cost  of contracts  in  a transparent 
and  open  manner,  taking  into  account  the  requirements  of  sound  management  of 
public funds.  

xviii.  Over  time,  F4E  has  made  concerted  efforts  to  improve  its  control  and  monitoring 
practices.  For  example,  the  Integrated  Reporting  System  (IRS)  was  implemented  in 
2017.  It  allows  all  F4E  staff  to  access  computer-generated  reports  using  live  data 
direct from F4E's intranet. The automation of the report generation is a more efficient 
system than human-generated reports, and although the IRS requires some setup and 
maintenance,  interviewees  from  F4E  reported  that  the  administrative  burden  is 
reasonable. One of the key elements of F4E’s control and monitoring strategy, is  the 
Integrated Management System (IMS). The IMS consists of a set of Key Performance 
Indicators  (KPIs).  Their  functions  are  to  quantify  progress  and  provide  easily-
monitored variables that indicate the status of the project. At the end of each year F4E 
produces a comparison of the planned indicators and the achieved ones. In the annual 
assessment of F4E for 2014, it was stated that “the assessors recognise the value of the 
IMS  and  consider  it  a  complex,  robust  system  for  an  efficient  and  effective 
management and recommend its systematic implementation”. 

xix.  A  recent  report  by  the  Commission's  Internal  Audit  Service  flagged  three  very 
important actions of a previous audit that were significantly delayed at the beginning 
of 2018. On the meantime, F4E has progressed and intends to complete these actions 
by  end  2018.  The  improvement  of  the  financial  performance  of  F4E  has  been 
confirmed in  annual  discharge procedures by  the European Parliament,  based on the 
annual review of its accounts by the European Court of Auditors that has consistently 
confirmed  their  regularity  and  conformity.  Discharge  has  been  granted  to  the  2016 
accounts  of  F4E.  The  discharge  procedure  for  the  2017  annual  accounts  is  ongoing. 
The  European  Court  of  Auditors  (ECA)  had  preliminary  observations  related  to  the 
provision  for  the  decommissioning  costs  and  to  issues  regarding  internal  control 
including recruitment processes. 

xx.  The  Value  for  Money  study  found  that  compared  to  an  appropriate  “alternative 
investment”  scenario,  the  net  impact  of  ITER  spending  on  GVA  in  Europe  totals 
EUR 132 million, and on employment 5 800 job years. 

40 The Industry Portal is a website designed to facilitate the participation of European companies in ITER. F4E 
publishes its calls for tender  on the Portal, as well as detailed information about  its procurement  practices 
and how to get involved. 

41  “Financial  Regulation  of  the  Joint  Undertaking”,  which  entered  into  force  on  1/1/2016,  except  titles  on 

Procurements, Grants and Prizes, which entered into force on 1/6/2016 

23 

 
 
                                                           
Coherence 
xxi. 

First  published  in  2012  by  the  EFDA42,  the  EUROfusion  roadmap  outlines  the 
pragmatic approach and the practical steps involved in achieving fusion electricity on 
the commercial power grid. ITER is the key facility of the roadmap and  is highlighted 
as an integral part of the EU’s overall fusion strategy. Accordingly, most of financial 
resources  for  fusion  research  coming  from  the  Euratom  Research  and  Training 
Programme are dedicated to preparations for ITER exploitation.  

xxii.  The  Euratom  Research  and  Training  Programme43,  complementing  Horizon 
2020,  supports  nuclear  research  and  training  activities  with  an  emphasis  on  nuclear 
safety, radiation protection and the development of fusion energy. In order to achieve 
the latter, the Programme calls for a “shift from pure, academic research to scientific 
questions of designing, building and operating future facilities such as ITER”. In this 
way,  alongside  existing  fusion  projects  such  as  JET  and  future  reactors  such  as 
DEMO,  the  ITER  project  is  a  cornerstone  of  the  Euratom  Research  and  Training 
Programme and hence relevant to the flagship Horizon 2020 programme. 

xxiii.  The  European  Commission's  political  priorities  for  the  period  2014-2019  include 
two  relevant  to  ITER:  “Jobs,  growth  and  investment”,  and  “Energy  Union  and 
Climate”.  The  former  includes  an  objective  of  steering  EU  funds  towards  “jobs, 
growth  and  competitiveness”.  Even  at  its  present  stage,  several  years  before  the 
beginning of its operational phase, the Value for Money study estimates that the ITER 
project  has  produced  growth  in  GVA  and  employment  across  Europe.  The  “Energy 
Union  and  Climate”  political  priority  is  highly  relevant  to  ITER  across  many  of  its 
dimensions, such as diversifying Europe's sources of energy, decarbonising the energy 
economy,  and  prioritising  research  and  innovation  in  low-carbon  and  clean  energy 
technologies. 

xxiv.  The  ongoing  European  Strategic  Energy  Technology  Plan  (SET-Plan)  aims  to 
accelerate  the  development  and  deployment  of  low-carbon  technologies.  While  it 
focuses on developing renewable energy technology in order to meet the EU's short- 
and  medium-term  energy  targets,  it  does  highlight  fusion  technology  as  a  “high-
potential  attractive  long-term  low-carbon  energy  solution”  and  cites  ITER  as  one  of 
the most important industrial research projects in the world, that aims to demonstrate 
the feasibility of fusion power and show that it can work without negative impacts44. 

42 The European Fusion Development Agreement (EFDA), was a consortium of fusion research institutes across 
the EU and Switzerland, and the predecessor to EUROfusion. 
43 https://ec.europa.eu/programmes/horizon2020/en/h2020-section/euratom  
44 "The Strategic Energy Technology (SET) Plan", published 12 December 2017 

24 

 
 
 
 
                                                           
6. Conclusions 
The  present  document  fulfils  the  legal  requirement  for  a  mid-term  progress  report,  but  also 
includes  the  findings  of  a  mid-term  evaluation  in  accordance  with  Better  Regulation 
principles. The evaluation is focused on the European contribution to ITER in 2014-2017 and 
shows that although the ITER project has suffered significant delays and cost overruns since 
its inception, the management turnaround implemented from 2015 onwards has had a positive 
effect.  Within  its  current  baseline  (scope,  cost,  and  schedule)  adopted  in  2016,  ITER  is  on 
track in terms of schedule and budget. The BA projects are also progressing well within their 
own baselines. The obligations to DEMO preparation are for the most part being discharged 
by EUROfusion until ITER's first phase is complete in 2025. 

However, the construction and management of ITER are still in the improvement process; in 
such  a  long-term  project,  it  will  be important  to monitor  whether  the  positive  effects  of  the 
management turnaround continue and whether the supervision and monitoring of F4E by the 
European  Commission  improves  in  accordance  with  the  new  Commission’s  supervision 
strategy. 

ITER remains an important part of EU energy and innovation policies and, its potential role in 
the  decarbonisation  of  the  energy  landscape  post-2050  is  very  significant.  This  investment 
aligns with other EU goals regarding growth, and there has already been significant growth in 
GVA and employment due to investment in ITER. 

Being the Host Party of such an important project, both as a major scientific project  and an 
international collaboration on an unprecedented scale, the ITER project places the EU at the 
forefront of fusion research, and various European initiatives cite ITER as an example of the 
EU investing in future energy solutions. 

25 

 
 
 
 
 
Annex 1: Procedural information concerning the process of preparing 
the evaluation 
1.  Lead DG 

DG Energy (ENER) 

2.  Organisation and timing 

This  evaluation  has  been  steered  by  DG  Energy  since  April  2018  under  the  scrutiny  of  an 
inter-service group (ISG) consisting of representatives of SG, BUDG, RTD45. 

During  2018,  ISG  meetings  took  place  on  10  January,  22  February,  19  March,  2  May,  18 
June, and 6 November. 

The ISG was consulted on the draft report on 25 October. 

Exceptions to the Better Regulation guidelines 

None 

3.  Sources of evidence 

The following is a list of all documents that this study drew on in its analysis: 

  The  Council  Decision  that  set  up  F4E  and  defined  its  objectives:  “Establishing  the 
European  Joint  Undertaking  for  ITER  and  the  Development  of  Fusion  Energy  and 
conferring advantages upon it”, 27 March 2007 

  F4E Annual Reports  

  For  background  information  regarding  private  procurement  regulation:  David 
Metzger,  “The  Rules  of  Engagement:  Private  Sector  Procurement  and  the  Common 
Law”, April 2012 

  The “Energy Roadmap 2050”, published in 2012 

  Ernst  and  Young,  Published  by 

for 
Reorganisation within the ITER Project to Improve Cost-effectiveness”, 15 May 2013 

the  European  Parliament,  “Potential 

  William  Madia  and  Associates,  “Final  report  of  the  2013  ITER  Management 

Assessment”, 18 October 2013 

  The “Strategic Energy Technology (SET) Plan”, published 12 December 2017 

  6th Annual Assessment of F4E, Report to the Governing Board 

  Trinomics,  “Study  on  the  impact  of  the  ITER  activities  in  the  EU”,  May  2018 

(commonly referred to as the “Value for Money” study) 

  Ramboll, “The European Contribution to ITER: Achievements and Challenges”, May 

2018 

  Trinomics, “Supporting Analysis for an Impact Assessment on the Future Funding of 
EU  Participation  in  ITER  Project  and  Broader  Approach  (BA)  Activities  under  the 
next MFF”, May 2018  

45 Invitation to participate in the ISG: (Ares(2017)5482573) 

26 

 
 
 
 
                                                           
Annex 2: Methods used in preparing the evaluation 
To  collect  evidence  and  produce  analysis  to  support  this  evaluation,  an  external  consultant 
(Ramboll) was commissioned in 2017. The consultant carried out all tasks as required under 
the scrutiny of an inter-service group (ISG) and the steer of DG Energy. Primary data were 
mainly collected from 21 December 2017 to 29 January 2018. 

Evaluation questions of the supporting study 
In  the  Terms  of  Reference  of  this  study,  21  evaluation  questions  were  identified  to  be 
answered in the report. These evaluation questions are as follows: 

1.  To  what  extent  have  the  objectives  of  European  participation  to  ITER  as  stated  in 

Article 1(2) of F4E's Statutes been achieved so far? 

2.  What  have  been  the  quantitative  and  qualitative  effects  on  growth,  jobs,  innovation, 

enterprises and SMEs linked to the European contribution to ITER? 

3.  Do the observed effects address the objectives of the European contribution to ITER? 

4.  To  what  extent  did  the  recent  management  reorganisations  at  ITER  and  F4E  impact 

the performance of the European contribution to ITER? 

5.  Analysis of the Performance Framework 

6.  To what extent has the European contribution to ITER (in kind and in cash) been cost 

effective? 

7.  To what extent are the costs of the European contribution to ITER (administrative and 

operational) justified? 

8.  What  factors  influenced  the  efficiency  with  which  the  achievements  observed  were 

attained? 

9.  To what extent are the costs associated with the European contribution to ITER under 
the new baseline proportionate to the benefits (direct and indirect ones) generated? 

10. How timely and efficient is the process for reporting and monitoring? 

11. How well do the (original) objectives mentioned in F4E's Statutes (still) correspond to 

the needs and policies of the EU? 

12. How  has  the  development  of  the  new  project  baseline  contributed  to  sustaining  the 

project's relevance? 

13. What  improvements  to  the  relevance  of  the  project  have  been  brought  through  the 

turnaround in IO and F4E since 2015? 

14. To what extent are the objectives of ITER relevant to the needs of EU and its policies? 

15. Does  the  European  contribution  to  ITER  adapt  adequately  to  technological  or 

scientific advances? 

16. To what extent is the European contribution to ITER coherent with other Commission 

initiatives? 

17. To what extent is European participation in ITER coherent with the wider EU policy 

(Energy, Research, Climate, Environment)? 

18. To  what  extent  is  the  European  contribution  to  ITER  coherent  with  international 

obligations? 

27 

 
 
19. What  is  the  additional  value  of  EU  intervention  (Euratom  participation  in  ITER) 
compared to what could have been achieved by Members States at national level? 

20. To  what  extent  do  the  issues  addressed  by  Euratom's  participation  in  ITER  project 

continue to require action at EU level? 

21. To what extent can we observe changes in the perception of Euratom's participation in 
ITER (positive or negative) by the targeted stakeholders and by the general public? 

Methodological approach 
Figure  13  below  visually  represents  the  methodology  that  was  followed  by  the  evaluation 
consultant.  The  work  was  structured  through  five  tasks  that  fed  into  each  other  in  order  to 
deliver the data collection and analysis in the evaluation. 

Figure 13: Overview of the methodological approach to the preparation of the supporting study.  
Source: Evaluation supporting study 

Data collection 
In order to answer these questions, the consultant used three methods of data collection: desk 
research, in-depth interviews, and a survey. 

Desk research 
Desk research is a central method to collect information for the purposes of evaluation. The 
desk research involved the systematic assessment and organisation of information pre-existing 
to the study. Documentation was categorised according to the evaluation matrix below. 

A  wide  range  of  documents  of  different  types  were  consulted;  policy  and  legal  documents, 
documents  internal  to  F4E  and  ITER  operations,  reports,  academic  literature,  and  data  and 
documents not available to the public supplied by IO and F4E.  

Stakeholder consultation 

Two main methods were used to consult stakeholders: semi-structured interviews with three 
different  groups of stakeholders (F4E staff,  IO staff, and other external  stakeholders), and a 

28 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
survey  among  all  members  of  the  F4E  Governing  Board  (GB)  and  the  Industrial  Liaison 
Officers  (ILOs)46.  In  the  analysis,  the  data  sources  have  been  triangulated  to  generate 
findings. 

A  total  of  34  in-depth  interviews  were  conducted  with  different  types  of  stakeholders,  as 
summarised  in  table  4  below.  Each  interview  lasted  for  about  one  hour  and  was  of  a  semi-
structured  nature.  The  interviews  followed  an  interview  guide,  adapted  for  the  type  of 
stakeholder47, yet allowed for exploration of topics outside the guide if considered relevant. 

Table 4: Number of interviewees per stakeholder group. Source: Evaluation supporting study 

Stakeholder group 

Conducted interviews 

IO 

F4E 

Other 

Total 

9 

12 

13 

34 

The  semi-structured  nature  of  the  interviews  and  the  time-limit  of  one  hour  meant  that  the 
interviewer  prioritised  questions  most  relevant  to  the  knowledge  of  the  interviewee.  As  a 
result, the extent of the responses to the questions in the interview-guide varies between the 
interviewees.  Relying  on  different  groups  of  stakeholders  helps  uncover  institutional  biases 
and the triangulation of the interview notes has been done in the analysis by comparing results 
from the different groups.  

The evaluation team interviewed staff at Fusion for Energy (F4E) in Barcelona, Spain on 15 
and  16  February  2018,  and  IO  in  Saint  Paul-lez-Durance,  France  on  06  March  2018,  to 
increase  understanding  of  the  Euratom  contribution  to  ITER,  fill  data  gaps  and  gather 
feedback  on  latest  developments  and  progress.  Due  to  the  small  number  of  stakeholders 
having knowledge on the European contribution  to  ITER, but also in order to avoid overlap 
with other studies conducted in parallel, the stakeholder consultation focussed on a restricted 
number of semi-structured phone interviews. 

A survey was conducted among member of the F4E Industrial Liaison Officer (ILO) network 
and the members of the F4E Governing Board. The response rate for the online survey was 
45% for the General Board (GB) members and 36% for the Industrial Liaison Officers (ILO), 
which is not very high considering their small populations (60 and 22, respectively) and the 
high  commitment  that  could  be  expected  from  then.  This  implies  that  there  may  be  self-
selection biases in the sample. For example, it may be that more committed GB members and 
ILOs responded to the survey, and that these members are more likely to respond in a certain 
way.  

The  results  of  the  survey  can  therefore  not  be  statistically  generalised  to  the  GB  and  ILO 
populations. That is, the results do not lend themselves to the identification of their associated 
margin  of  error.  Thus,  as  calculating  the  margin  of  error  could  be  misleading,  it  was  not 
calculated for the responses to the survey. 

Notably,  the  biases  outlined  above  do  not  impact  on  the  value  of  the  results  of  the  survey. 
Although they should be kept in mind upon interpretation of the survey results, the results still 

46  Industrial  Liaison  Officers  (ILOs)  are  a  network  of  representatives  from  different  European  countries  that 
together with F4E to raise awareness regarding funding schemes and ways to get involved in the ITER project 
47  In  other  words,  an  adapted  interview  guide  was  created  for  representatives  from:  IO,  F4E,  ILO,  GB,  BA, 

scientific community, and the European Parliament 

29 

 
 
                                                           
give an indication of the opinion of GB members and ILOs on the European contribution  to 
ITER. 

Evaluation matrix 
The  following  table  presents  the  evaluation  matrix  applied  to  the  study,  as  set  out  in  its 
inception  report48.  The  matrix  sets  out  the  consultant’s  interpretation  of  the  evaluation 
questions and ensures that there is a clear link between the evaluation questions addressed, the 
indicators  and  the  methodology  proposed.  It  also  makes  clear  references  to  the  sources  of 
information and the analytical methods used. 

48  “The  European  Contribution  to  ITER:  Achievements  and  Challenges  –  Inception  Report”,  Ramboll,  January 

2018 

30 

 
 
 
 
                                                           
Questions 
EQ1: To what extent have 
the 
of 
objectives 
European  participation  to 
ITER  as  stated  in  Article 
1(2)  of  F4E's  Statutes 
been achieved so far? 

effects 

EQ2: What have been the 
and 
quantitative 
qualitative 
on 
growth,  jobs,  innovation, 
and  SMEs 
enterprises 
linked  to  the  European 
contribution to ITER? 

Indicators/Descriptors 
  Objectives  of  European  participation  to 
ITER  as  stated  in  Article  1(2)  of  F4E's 
Statutes 

  Activities  achieved  in  relation  to  the 

 

objectives stated in Article 1(2) 
Independent  bodies/experts’  assessment 
of  progress  made  in  relation  to  the 
objectives stated in Article 1(2) 

  Stakeholder’s  assessment/opinion  about 
progress  on  the  objectives  stated  in 
Article 1(2) 

Output indicators: 
  Number of contracts and grants awarded 
  Value of contracts and grants awarded 
  Geographical spread of value/number of 

contracts and grants awarded 

  Etc. 
Effect of the European contribution to ITER 
on: 
 
 
 
 

growth,  
jobs,  
innovation,  
enterprises and SMEs 

Data sources 
Desk research 
Survey 
/ 
stakeholders  

interviews 

with 

Analytical approach 
Quantitative 
qualitative assessment 
Triangulation of sources 

and 

Judgement criteria 
  Activities  are  achieved 
according 
(yearly) 
to 
targets  set  in  the  work 
programmes 
Independent 
bodies/experts 
progress positively 

assess 

 

grant 

Review  of  procurement 
and 
award 
procedures 
Quantitative 
qualitative assessment 
Triangulation of sources 

and 

Desk research 
Study  on  the  impact  of  the  ITER 
project activities in the EU 

  A 

majority 

stakeholders  agree 
the objectives are met 

of 
that 

The  implemented  procedures 
are  in  line  with  competition 
rules and encourage European 
industries  and  guarantee  that 
the  best  use  of  the  industrial 
and  research  potential  and 
capabilities are met 
The  European  contribution  to 
ITER  is  found  to  have  a 
positive effect: 
 
growth,  
 
jobs,  
 
innovation,  
 
enterprises and SMEs  

31 

 
 
Questions 
the  observed 
EQ3:  Do 
the 
address 
effects 
objectives 
the 
of 
European  contribution  to 
ITER? 

Indicators/Descriptors 
  Objectives  of  the  European  contribution 

to ITER  

  Outcomes 

indicators: 

agreements, 

(no. 
no. 

of 
of 
collaboration 
scientific  papers  in  collaboration,  no.  of 
research papers, no. of SMEs involved in 
contracts  as  well  as  values  of  these 
contracts) 

Judgement criteria 
The  observed  effects  are 
address 
found 
the 
objectives  of 
the  European 
contribution to ITER. 

to 

Analytical approach 
Quantitative 
qualitative assessment 
Triangulation of sources 

and 

Data sources 
Desk research 
Study  on  the  impact  of  the  ITER 
project activities in the EU 
Field  visits  and  interviews  with 
ITER/F4E  management  and  staff 
(including 
the 
procurement and grant officers). 
with 
Interviews 
procurement beneficiaries   

interviews  with 

grant 

and 

  Extent  to  which  the  outcomes  of  the 
F4E’s  activities  lead  to  collaboration, 
the 
innovation  and  competition  and 
the 
of 
participation 
procurement procedures 

SMEs 

in 

EQ4:  To  what  extent  did 
the  recent  management 
reorganisations  at  ITER 
the 
and  F4E 
performance 
the 
European  contribution  to 
ITER? 

impact 
of 

  F4E  and 

ITER  organisations  and 

management  
a)  decision 

processes 

and 

tools, 

including procurement 
b)  organisation structure,  
c) 
internal and external communication 
d)  changes  within  above  mentioned 

areas (previous vs now) 

  Use  of  procedures  and  control  systems 
implemented by ITER & F4E in order to 
transfer contribution “in-cash” to IO in a 
correct  way  (no.  of  procedures,  no.  of 
of 
control 
staff/management  using  procedures  and 
control  mechanisms,  time  consumption  
for 
control 
mechanism, ) 

mechanisms, 

procedure 

each 

and 

no. 

  Use  of  Procurement  Procedures  (time 
consumption,  no.  of  people  involved, 

32 

the 

change 

The 
recent 
reorganisations 
management 
at ITER and F4E are found to 
have  had  an  impact  on  the 
implementation  and  results  of 
the European contribution 
The  implemented  procedures 
lead  to  the  timely  and  on 
budget  provision  of  in-kind 
and in-cash contributions 

interviews  with 

Desk research 
Field  visits  and  interviews  with 
ITER/F4E  management  and  staff 
(including 
the 
procurement and grant officers). 
and 
with 
Interviews 
procurement beneficiaries (will give 
answers 
and 
enterprises) 

innovation 

grant 

on 

grant 

Review  of  procurement 
award 
and 
processes 
and 
procedures 
Quantitative 
qualitative assessment 
Triangulation of sources 

and 

 
 
 
 
Questions 

Indicators/Descriptors 

Judgement criteria 

Data sources 

Analytical approach 

of 

existence 
evaluation  model, 
geographical spread, existence of control 
mechanism, 
control 
usage 
mechanism) 

of 

  Use 

of 

grant 

procedures 

(time 
consumption,  no.  of  people  involved, 
existence 
evaluation  model, 
geographical spread, existence of control 
mechanism, 
control 
usage 
mechanism)  

of 

of 

  Monitoring 

and 

implementation  of 
contracts  (monitoring  systems,  usage  of 
system,  planning  of 
implementation, 
execution of implementation) 

EQ5:  Analysis  of 
the 
Performance Framework  

other 

procedures 

  Coordination 

for 
the 
activities 
of 
implementation 
(existence  of  procedures,  usage  of  these 
procedures 
Indicators/KPIs 

 
Project schedule 
Estimate to project completion 
Current development backlog 
Labour costs spent per month 
Current resource allocation 
  Milestones 
Percentage 
- 
Identifying  when  and  why  milestones  are 
missed 
  Estimated Cost at Completion/EAC 
Cost  Variance  -  Keeping  accurate  records 
related  to  cost  variance  will  provide  a 
detailed profile of which teams and processes 
are most efficient 

of  Milestones  Missed 

n/a 

Desk research 
Field  visits  and  interviews  with 
ITER/F4E management and staff. 

Quantitative 
qualitative assessment 
Triangulation of sources 

and 

33 

 
 
 
Questions 

EQ6:  To  what  extent  has 
the European contribution 
to  ITER  (in  kind  and  in 
cash) been cost effective? 

Judgement criteria 

Data sources 

Analytical approach 

to 

the 

date; 

referred 
of 

task’s budget 
total 
the 

Indicators/Descriptors 
  Earned Value Management/EVM) 
Planned  value  (PV): The  approved  budget 
for the work scheduled to be completed by a 
as 
also 
specified 
the budgeted 
work 
cost 
scheduled (BCWS). The total PV of a task is 
equal 
at 
to 
amount 
completion (BAC) — 
budgeted for the task. 
Earned  value  (EV): The  approved  budget 
for  the  work  actually  completed  by  the 
as 
also 
specified 
the budgeted 
work 
cost 
performed (BCWP). 
Actual  cost 
(AC): The  costs  actually 
incurred  for  the  work  completed  by  the 
specified  date;  also  referred  to  as  the actual 
cost of work performed (ACWP). 

referred 
of 

date; 

to 

index 

(SPI)  = 

Schedule  variance  (SV)  =  Earned  value 
(EV) – Planned value (PV) 
Cost  variance  (CV)  =  Earned  value  (EV)  – 
Actual cost (AC) 
Schedule  performance 
Earned value (EV) / Planned value (PV) 
Cost  performance  index  (CPI)  =  Earned 
value (EV) / Actual cost (AC) 
Extent to  which the outputs of the  European 
contribution to ITER: 
  were  produced  with  agreed  costs.  Cost 
comparison  in  accordance  with  Signed 
Contracts and budgeted costs today.  
could  have  been  produced  at  a  lower 

 

Desk research 
Field  visits  and  interviews  with 
ITER/F4E management and staff. 
Targeted stakeholder consultation 

Quantitative 
qualitative assessment 
Triangulation of sources 

and 

  The 

costs 

actual 

are 
consistent  with  the  initial 
estimates  and  deviations 
are justified 

  The  benefits  are  found  to 

exceed the costs 

34 

 
 
 
Questions 

Indicators/Descriptors 

EQ7:  To  what  extent  are 
the  costs  of  the  European 
ITER 
contribution 
(administrative 
and 
operational) justified? 

to 

factors 
EQ8:  What 
influenced  the  efficiency 
with 
the 
which 
observed 
achievements 
were attained? 

EQ9:  To  what  extent  are 
the  costs  associated  with 
the European contribution 
to  ITER  under  the  new 
baseline  proportionate  to 
the  benefits  (direct  and 
indirect ones) generated? 
EQ10:  How  timely  and 
efficient is the process for 
reporting and monitoring? 

cost.  Competitive  tenders  in  terms  of 
costs/unit.  Pre-requisites  are  equal  with 
or better than final conditions. 
could  have  been  produced  alternatively 
at  a  lower  cost.  Other  tenderers.  Other 
grant beneficiaries.  

 

  Amount  and  share  of  administrative  and 

operational costs 

  Planned  costs  versus  current  costs  and 

reasons for deviation 

  Comparison  of  share  of  administrative 
and  operational  costs  of  similar  large 
complex projects. 

Judgement criteria 
  The  costs  are  lower  than 
of 
alternative  means 
attaining 
same 
benefits. 

the 

costs 

  The  administrative  and 
are 
operational 
found  to  be  proportionate 
to the scope of the project 
and  deviations  are  found 
to be justified. 

Data sources 

Analytical approach 

Desk research 
Field  visits  and  interviews  with 
ITER/F4E management and staff. 
Targeted stakeholder consultation 

Quantitative 
qualitative assessment 
Triangulation of sources 

and 

  Costs  are  lower  than  for 
complex 

large 

similar 
projects 

  Factors  identified  on  the  basis  of  desk 

  n/a 

research and interviews 

  Factors  will  be  investigated  such  as: 
change  in  legislation,  safety  regulations, 
technical  requirements,  standards  and 
specifications etc.   

Desk research 
Field  visits  and  interviews  with 
ITER/F4E management and  staff 
Targeted stakeholder consultation 

Quantitative 
qualitative assessment 
Triangulation of sources 

and 

  These  costs  will  be  judged  against  the 
questions 

from 

results 
previous 
(especially EQ5).  

  Factors  identified  on  the  basis  of  desk 
research and explorative interviews. 

  The  benefits  are  found  to 
be  proportionate  to  the 
benefits 
and 
indirect).  

(direct 

Desk research 
Field  visits  and  interviews  with 
ITER/F4E management and staff. 
Targeted stakeholder consultation 

Quantitative 
qualitative assessment 
Triangulation of sources 

and 

  Extend 

to  which 

reporting 

and 

  Deadlines 

are 

monitoring deadlines are met 

systematically met 

  Extend 

to  which 

and 
monitoring  results  are  available  when 
needed 

reporting 

  Results 
when 
meetings, planning etc.) 

are 
needed 

available 
(for 

35 

Desk research 
Field  visits  and  interviews  with 
ITER/F4E management and staff. 
Targeted stakeholder consultation 

Quantitative 
qualitative assessment 
Triangulation of sources 

and 

 
 
Questions 

Indicators/Descriptors 
  Administrative burden: Number of staff / 
Amount  of  time  /  costs  allocated  to 
reporting obligations 

EQ11:  How  well  do  the 
objectives 
(original) 
mentioned 
F4E's 
Statutes  (still)  correspond 
to  the  needs  and  policies 
of the EU? 

in 

  Objectives  of  ITER  mentioned  in  F4E’s 

statutes 

  Main  current  needs  and  policies  (in  the 
area of energy in the EU, as well as other 
relevant areas) 

  Stakeholders’  views  on  the  continued 

relevance of the F4E objectives 

EQ12:  How  has 
the 
development  of  the  new 
baseline 
project 
contributed  to  sustaining 
the project's relevance? 

  Expected/observed  effect  of  the  new 
the  project’s 

project  baseline  on 
relevance 

  Expected  effect  of 

the  new  project 
baseline  (schedule)  on  relevance  with 
respect  to  global  trends  (e.g.  climate 
change, uptake of renewable energy) 

  Expected/observed 

effect 

the 
turnaround  in  ITER  Organisation  and 
the  project’s 
F4E  since  2015  on 
relevance 

of 

to 

What 
EQ13: 
improvements 
the 
relevance  of  the  project 
have 
brought 
through  the  turnaround  in 
ITER  Organisation  and 
F4E since 2015? 

been 

Judgement criteria 
  The administrative burden 
is 
be 
proportionate to the scope 
of the project  

found 

to 

  The  objectives  of  F4E 
match 
identified 
the 
current needs and policies 
of the EU 

  A 

of 
majority 
stakeholders  agrees  that 
the objectives are relevant 
to  the  needs  and  policies 
of the EU 

  The  new  project  baseline 
is found to have a positive 
the  project’s 
effect  on 
relevance 

  The  turnaround  in  ITER 
Organisation  and  F4E  is 
found  to  have  a  positive 
effect  on 
the  project’s 
relevance 

EQ14: To what extent are 
the  objectives  of  ITER 
relevant  to  the  needs  of 
EU and its policies? 

  Objectives  of  ITER  (other  than  those 

mentioned in F4E’s statutes) 

  Main  current  needs  and  policies  (in  the 
area of energy in the EU, as well as other 

  The  objectives  of  ITER 
identified 
the 
match 
current needs and policies 
of the EU 

36 

Data sources 

Analytical approach 

Policy and legislative documents 
Targeted stakeholder consultation 
Open public consultation  

Qualitative assessment 
Triangulation of sources 

Policy documents (e.g. Commission 
communication  and  SWD  on  the 
new baseline) 
Operational documents 
Field visits and interviews with F4E 
and ITER management and staff 
Targeted stakeholder consultation 
Policy documents (e.g. Commission 
communication  and  SWD  on  the 
new baseline) 
Operational documents 
Field visits and interviews with F4E 
and ITER management and staff 
Stakeholder  consultation  (including 
procurement 
grant 
beneficiaries) 
Policy and legislative documents 
Targeted stakeholder consultation 
Open public consultation 

and 

Qualitative assessment 
Triangulation of sources 

Qualitative assessment 
Triangulation of sources 

Qualitative assessment 
Triangulation of sources 

 
 
Judgement criteria 
  A 

of 
majority 
stakeholders  agrees  that 
the objectives are relevant 
to  the  needs  and  policies 
of the EU 

  The 

technological 
research and development 
activities  coordinated  by 
F4E  are  found  to  address 
technological 
and 
scientific advances 

  The  outputs/results  of  the 
European  contribution  to 
ITER  are  found  to  match 
current  technological  and 
scientific advances 

  Absence  of  evidence  of 
gaps, 
overlaps, 
or 
contradictions 
discrepancies  with  other 
Commission initiatives 

Data sources 

Analytical approach 

Qualitative assessment 
Triangulation of sources 

Policy documents (e.g. Commission 
communication  and  SWD  on  the 
new baseline) 
Operational documents 
Field visits and interviews with F4E 
and ITER management and staff 
Targeted stakeholder consultation 

basis 

Policy and legal documents that are 
the 
studied 
for 
Commission initiatives 
Targeted  stakeholder  consultation 
(with relevant Commission’s DGs) 

the 

Qualitative assessment 
Triangulation of sources 

Questions 

Indicators/Descriptors 
relevant areas) 

to 

EQ15: Does the European 
ITER 
contribution 
to 
adapt 
technological or scientific 
advances? 

adequately 

EQ16:  To  what  extent  is 
the European contribution 
to  ITER  coherent  with 
other 
Commission 
initiatives? 

  Stakeholders’  views  on  the  continued 
relevance of  the ITER project objectives 
for the EU 

  Current 

technological  and  scientific 

advances 

research 

technological 

  Evidence of the adaption of the scientific 
and 
and 
development  activities  coordinated  by 
F4E 
technological  and  scientific 
to 
advances 
(Lack of) evidence of a gap between the 
of 
outputs/results 
European 
contribution 
ITER  and  current 
technological and scientific advances 
  Other related Commission initiatives: 

the 

to 

 

to 

Fusion 

a)  contributing  initiatives  such  as  the 
Electricity, 
Roadmap 
EUROfusion,  Euratom  Research  and 
Training  Programme,  Strategic  Energy 
Technology  (SET)  Plan  and  Strategic 
Innovation 
Transport  Research  and 
Agenda (STRIA) 
b) 
potentially 
contradictable  focus  such  us  support  of 
energy 
renewable 
efficiency,  decentralisation  of  power 
sources 

initiatives  with 

energies 

and 

a 

  The  extent  to  which  overlaps,  gaps, 
contradictions  or  discrepancies  exist 
with other Commission initiatives  

EQ17:  To  what  extent  is    Other related wider EU policies 

  Absence  of  evidence  of  Policy and legal documents that are  Qualitative assessment 

37 

 
 
 
Indicators/Descriptors 
  The  extent  to  which  overlaps,  gaps, 
contradictions  or  discrepancies  exist 
with wider EU policy  

Judgement criteria 
gaps, 
overlaps, 
contradictions 
or 
discrepancies  with  wider 
EU policy 

Data sources 
the  basis  for  the  studied  wider  EU 
policy 
Targeted  stakeholder  consultation 
(with relevant Commission’s DGs) 

Analytical approach 
Triangulation of sources 

Questions 
European  participation  in 
ITER  coherent  with  the 
wider EU policy (Energy, 
Climate, 
Research, 
Environment)? 
EQ18:  To  what  extent  is 
the European contribution 
to  ITER  coherent  with 
international obligations? 

is 

EQ19:  What 
the 
additional  value  of  EU 
(Euratom 
intervention 
participation 
ITER) 
compared  to  what  could 
have  been  achieved  by 
Members 
at 
national level? 

States 

in 

  The  extent  to  which  overlaps,  gaps, 
contradictions  or  discrepancies  exist 
with international obligations  

  Extent  to  which  additional  value  has 
intervention 
resulted 
compared to what could reasonably have 
been achieved at national level 

the  EU 

from 

  Extent  to  which  the  governance  and 
management structure (and related costs) 
of  the  ITER  organisation  is  simpler  or 
more 
the  EU 
due 
intervention  compared  to  a  structure  in 
which each MS is a single party 

complex 

to 

  Oher sources of additional value that has 

resulted from the EU intervention 

EQ20:  To  what  extent  do 
the  issues  addressed  by 
Euratom's  participation  in 
ITER  project  continue  to 
require  action  at  EU 
level? 

  Extent  to  which  stakeholders  agree  that 
issues  addressed  by  Euratom's 
the 
participation in ITER project continue to 
require resources and action at EU level 
  Extent  to  which  Member  States  are 
(un)likely  to  continue  contributing  to 
ITER in the absence of EU coordination 
via F4E 

basis 

Policy and legal documents that are 
the 
studied 
the 
for 
international obligations 
Targeted stakeholder consultation 

Qualitative assessment 
Triangulation of sources 

Targeted stakeholder consultation 

Qualitative assessment 
Triangulation of sources 

Targeted stakeholder consultation 

Qualitative assessment 
Triangulation of sources  

  Absence  of  evidence  of 
gaps, 
or 
with 

overlaps, 
contradictions 
discrepancies 
international obligations 
of 
majority 
stakeholders recognise the 
EU  added  value  of  the 
Euratom  participation  in 
ITER  in  terms  of  higher 
achievements 

  A 

  A 

majority 
in 

of 
stakeholders 
the  IO 
recognise  the  EU  added 
value  of 
the  Euratom 
participation  in  ITER  in 
terms 
lower 
of 
complexity 

  Other  sources  of  added 

value are identified 

  A 

majority 

of 
that 
stakeholders  agree 
continued  action  at  EU 
level is needed 

  A  majority  of  Member 
representative 
State 
confirm  they  would  not 
in 
to 
continue 

invest 

38 

 
 
Questions 

Indicators/Descriptors 

Judgement criteria 

Data sources 

Analytical approach 

EQ21: To what extent can 
we observe changes in the 
perception  of  Euratom's 
participation 
ITER 
(positive  or  negative)  by 
the  targeted  stakeholders 
and by the general public? 

in 

  Extent  to  which  there  is  change  in  the 
perception  of  ITER  among  the  targeted 
stakeholders  

  There  is  evidence  of  how 
the  perception  of  ITER 
has changed 

Quick scan of international press 
Targeted stakeholder consultation 
Open public consultation 

Qualitative assessment 
Triangulation of sources 

ITER  in  the  absence  of 
F4E 

  Extent to which we can observe changes 
in  the  perception  of  the  intervention  by 
civil  society  organisations  that  were 
opposed to the Euratom's participation in 
ITER 

  There is evidence that the 
perception of civil society 
organisations has changed 

39 

 
 
 
 
Aggregation of analysis 
Although  the  evaluation  supporting  study  was  the  main  source  of  analysis  for  the  present 
evaluation, much was drawn from many other sources, notably two recent studies.  

The  study  on  “the  impact  of  the  ITER  activities  in  the  EU”,  also  known  as  the  “Value  for 
Money”  study,  compiles  a  database  of  all  commitments  and  payments  made  by  F4E  to 
facilitate  Europe’s  in-kind  contributions  to  ITER  and  BA.  The  E3ME  economic  model49  is 
used to analyse the growth in GVA and employment in the EU due to  these payments. The 
model  is  then  used  to  predict  the  growth  that  will  be  produced  over  the  period  2018-2030, 
both  compared  to  a  scenario  where  the  money  is  not  spent  elsewhere  and  an  “alternative 
investment” scenario.  

A second study, "Supporting Analysis for an Impact Assessment on the Future Funding of EU 
Participation  in  ITER  Project  and  Broader  Approach  (BA)  Activities  under  the  next  MFF", 
analyses various funding options for the ITER project post-2020 and their projected effects on 
growth in the EU.  

In addition to these sources, input was also drawn from primary sources such as F4E's annual 
and monthly reports, and other independent  assessments  such of that of William Madia and 
Associates  and  Ernst  and  Young,  both  in  2013.  The  full  list  of  sources  that  were  used  to 
support the analysis in the evaluation can be found in Annex 1. 

49  E3ME  is  a  computer-based  model  of  the  world’s  energy  systems,  economies  and  environment.  It  was 
developed  by  Cambridge  Econometrics  as  part  of  the  European  Commission’s  research  framework 
programmes  and  is  widely  used  by  large  organisations  for  the  purposes  of  ex-ante  and  ex-post  analysis 
https://www.camecon.com/how/e3me-model/ 

40