Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
4 AGREEMENT AND IMPLEMENTATION The two preceeding chapters argue that incentives for a greater level of international cooperation outweigh the constraints and that there are many technical needs suitable for cooperation. It remains to examine those factors that will shape actual agreements for cooperation. Timing, compatibility of goals among prospective partners, stability in the partnership, and handling of technology transfer certainly rank high in importance. The list must also include net flow of funds from each partner into the cooperative projects, equitable sharing of benefits generated, suitability of the institutional framework, and workability of the actual management arrangements. Successful implementation of cooperative agreements will depend on the skill with which these factors are treated. Prior experience in many international cooperative enterprises shows that success can often be attained. TIMING If the time is not appropriate for some aspect of international cooperation, then it is unlikely to occur. There are stages, as national programs of research and development go on, at which particular collaborative efforts would be useful and appropriate. If the opportunities are missed and the programs get out of phase for such collaboration, at least one of the potential collaborators will find the prospect much less attractive. A favorable opportunity for cooperation exists now because the three major world programs are at a stage of approximate technical parity, they face similar technical and budgetary problems for the next stage of development, competitive commercial rivalries are far in the future, and there is receptivity to cooperation at the political level. More specifically, the time at which international cooperation on a specific project should be initiated depends upon the extent of the international cooperation. On the one hand, for a national project in 44
45 which foreign participation is sought at about the l0 percent level, it is probably best for the initiating nation to determine the objectives, cost, schedule, and design parameters of the project, with limited participation of potential partners. The initiating nation would then make a firm commitment to proceed and invite foreign participants to join in planning and executing the experimental program. On the other hand, for an international project in which the participants intend to collaborate as more or less equal partners, it is necessary for all to work together during the early determination of the objectives, cost, schedule, and design parameters of the project. COMPATIBILITY OF GOALS Differing levels of definition and detail in national fusion research and development programs can complicate negotiations on specific international cooperative projects. The party with the better defined program starts with the advantage of knowing more precisely where it wants to go and what it needs to obtain from the cooperative effort. The partners with the less well-defined programs are put at disadvantage. Their choice is between accepting an agreement that may not be fully advantageous or delaying the negotiation until they can evolve a suitable level of detail in their own national program plans to match that of the other negotiators. The stated goals and milestones differ somewhat among the programs of Japan, the European Community (EC), and the United States, being more definite in the first two. Nevertheless, all these programs, to some degree, lack detail as to performance, schedules, and costs. This fact suggests the possibility, at least, of attaining a reasonable compatibiity of goals through program adjustments. Accordingly, two matters ought to be taken in hand soon by the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). The first is the assessment of funding realities for the U.S. fusion program for some years to come, bringing the U.S. fusion community to recognize those realities, and the development in the U.S. fusion community of a consensus on the next important development steps to take. Without a generally accepted priority for the next development steps, all the different project proponents are in competition for the same funds. Until some agreement and order is imposed, these various groups of advocates could confuse any efforts at international cooperation rather badly. A key step in this process is an assessment, and the subsequent acceptance of that assessment, as to whether major machines of the future can be financed by the United States alone without crippling its base research and development program. Substantial increases over current budget levels would be necessary to support the major
46 machines. It if is concluded that those funding levels can and will be provided, then the U.S. fusion program will be strong on its own merits; and international cooperation becomes a voluntary matter of accepting foreign staff members and trading information. If the increased funding levels are assessed not to be available, then the fusion community will have to face that reality and come to agreement on other means, presumably international cooperation if that means is available, to progress toward the goal of workable fusion power systems. The second matter that should go forward soon at the DOE is a more detailed plan for future research and development, particularly emphasizing the major machines and large development facilities that are anticipated to be needed and assigning relative priorities to each major component. Concrete near-term, intermediate, and long-term objectives and schedules for their attainment should be established. Such a plan would be valuable for several reasons. First of all, it would serve as a guide in defining the particular areas where the United States should seek international collaboration. Secondly, the inclusion of such major steps, as acknowledged components of the future U.S. program, would give all parties (including ourselves) a degree of confidence that an international agreement would actually be carried out. Thirdly, the plan would show more clearly whether the current array of basic program work and development projects is correct by placing them in their proper perspective in a hierarchy of needs. Finally, although the point is outside the province of this report, such planning enables a more efficient, better focused research and development effort. The plan, of course, should be displayed to the Administration and the Congress for review and concurrence. STABILITY IN THE PARTNERSHIP In order to enter into arrangments for international fusion cooperation, a certain degree of trust will be required among the participants. While trust is an initial prerequisite, the need for it continues from year to year. If it is ever lost, it is a quality extremely difficult to recover. It is important to avoid unilateral actions, perceived lack of support, and personal conflicts. Accordingly, a clear policy statement of the goals of the U.S. fusion program and a firm commitment to meet them would help establish such trust. It would be a mistake for the United States to try to compensate for a less than full commitment to fusion simply by increased emphasis on international cooperation. In particular, once a medium- to large-sized project has been agreed upon, it is essential that the commitment to it continue during its life. This lifetime, of course, can cover a decade or two, a
47 circumstance that presents a problem in light of the annual budget review process that governments traditionally use. From time to time it is suggested that a project be taken "off budget" and, therefore, be not subject to annual budget changes. This move is never popular with legislators, who by such a process relinquish a certain degree of their jurisdiction. The arrangement is possible, however, where some independent fee, collected from users, provides money for such a fundâsuch as the automobile and truck taxes for highway funds. It is possible that such a fund could be established by utility users. It is also possible that through rather formal legal instruments, such as treaties, a strong obligation is created to support a project financially. The fact that international obligations exist will in themselves help to produce funding from year to year. However, the risk continues that at a certain time in the project life the budget resources needed will be terminated by one or more countries, leaving the remaining participants to complete the project on their own, a prospect that may not be acceptable or possible. Thus, the international instruments should address this question and, to the extent possible, produce a reliable supply of funds for the program. Finally, there is the factor implicit in fairly widespread criticism abroad of the United States as a "reliable" partner in long-term research and development efforts. The annual appropriation process in the United States makes it difficult to guarantee continued support of a long-term commitment at the initially agreed-upon levels. Almost all U.S. commitments to projects in the past have been fulfilled, but a few have not, and those are remembered abroad. None of the people in fusion programs abroad visited by the committee suggested that this matter might preclude cooperation with the United States, but they cited reliability in the partnership as of high importance. Accordingly, in new cooperative ventures, all participants should take great care not to give new cause for complaint. The practice of identifying particular international projects explicitly in annual budget requests, clearly identifying the obligations implied for subsequent budget years, is one way to improve stability of funding. TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER Fusion technologies have both national security and long-term commercial implications. Therefore, cooperation in fusion impinges on not one, but two, critical technology transfer concerns. For purposes of this discussion technology transfer is considered to be the act of conveying know-how from one country to another. The means of doing so may embrace the export of technical data, equipment, and processes. Successful fusion cooperation could involve all three. U.S. interests are affected by technology transfers in several ways. These include:
48 (l) the strength of the domestic economy, (2) the competitive position in international markets, and (3) the complexion of political relationships. Changing Attitudes Historically, the United States has taken a relatively neutral position until recently on technology transfer, with the exception of transfers to the USSR and transfers of military technology in general. Most U.S. technology has been transferred across international boundaries through private trade and investment. In open international economic systems, it has been assumed that all nations are better off as a result of the transfers that occur. There is a changing perception, however, that one nation's technological gain is another's loss. Over the past several years the balance has shifted toward a more restrictive technology transfer policy and associated export controls, not only with the USSR but with our traditional trading partners as well. This perception complicates the argument based on mutuality of benefits for international cooperation in technical fields. Technology Transfer with the European Community and Japan The position of technological leadership held by the United States after World War II has faltered in many areas, and some have alleged an imprudent transfer of technology to our allies as the cause. However, the decline is the result of many factors that include the following: o Europe and Japan increased their national investment in research and development relative to gross national product; and the United States decreased its relative expenditures from l965 through l978, after which they began to rise again. Of course, in absolute terms, such U.S. expenditures considerably exceed those of other countries. o A greater proportion of all research and development has gone for military purposes in the United States than in Europe and Japan. o The two-way flow of much technological information, quite beyond the applicability of even the severest export control rationale, is normal and inevitable. o There has been an increasing demand in the United States for near-term results for research and development expenditures that has inhibited the accumulation of a base for long-term technological applications.
49 A fundamental tenet of our nation is freedom of communication. While there are recognized risks from the unrestricted flow of ideas and information, historically the benefits of such free flow, in areas where research and development continue to expand, have been much greater than the costs. Moreover, it is desirable to expand U.S. access to foreign technical information, including that available in Europe and Japan. The foregoing points support our view that restrictions on transfer of fusion technology to EC and Japan are not likely to serve the purpose of maintaining the economic and political strength of the United States either in isolation or in its alliances. As to actual articles, services, and technical data for magnetic fusion that are subject to export control through licensing, few items will be primarily related to defense. Even the number of products of strategic significance, including so-called dual-use items, is rather small. Examples of the latter are tritium technology, high-power millimeter-wave generators, advanced materials, and advanced robotics for remote maintenance. In potential instances of dual use a detailed examination and determination is made for each specific case. No denials of export licenses in magnetic fusion have yet occurred, but one cannot thereby conclude that no future limitations will arise. Nor is there enough information about the more restrictive trends to conclude that there will be a problem for certain. The matter will have to be faced as it arises, with the expectation of operating within whatever constraints are designed to safeguard the national security. A second aspect of information and technology transfer works in the other direction. The U.S. Freedom of Information Act provides that, subject to a few specific exemptions, documents in the hands of U.S. government agencies are available upon specific request to members of the public. This circumstance may give pause to foreign partners who may be concerned that information developed in a cooperative venture and considered by them to be held for the sole benefit and use of the partners could be released by the U.S. side into the public domain. This matter is one to which some attention should be paid in the detailed provisions of the governing agreements, inasmuch as it has already surfaced, for example, in cooperation on breeder reactor research. Recapitulation To sum up the points made about technology transfer, fusion cooperation with the EC and Japan would be an instance of its advantageous aspects rather than its disadvantageous ones. To introduce constraints either for national security or commercial
50 reasons would be a severe and damaging step backward. The benefits of cooperation, far outweigh the associated technology transfer risks. The United States has much to gain from magnetic fusion cooperation and little technological leadership to lose. Since the current substantial level of international cooperation and its associated flow of fusion research and development information do not seem to be unduly impeded by these limitations, future ventures in international cooperation presumably can also be arranged without unduly burdening them. FLOW OF FUNDS BETWEEN PROGRAMS Another aspect of implementation is the degree to which the funds of one country will be allowed to flow into cooperative projects. For the United States, if the financial contribution is to buy U.S. equipment and services that are contributed to the project overseas, then there ought not to be much difficulty aside from general budgetary constraints. Or, if the overseas project had an arrangement similar to that of the Joint European Torus (JET), with U.S. personnel part of the project staff and with good access to the information developed in the project, then again the only difficulty would be that associated with general budgetary constraints. On the other hand, if the proposition is to send cash abroad to be spent by others in other countries for the overseas project, then one might expect the U.S. Congress to be reluctant to provide more than modest funds. Officials of the EC and Japan seem likely to take the same position. However as cooperation grows, more liberal attitudes should be encouraged so that funds might flow more easily in both directions with some latitude in the exact balance. Nevertheless, investments in fusion projects of other countries can sometimes yield needed information and experience for far less money than would be required to produce that information and experience in the national program. The Japanese investment in Doublet III in the United States is a good example. EQUITABLE SHARING OF BENEFITS Benefits are of two kinds. The first kind consists of available staff positions in a joint project and amounts of design and equipment fabrication work to be done by contractors. The ancient rule of international collaboration is that one gets back in the form of these benefits a proportion approximately equal to one's share of the total investment. Benefits of the second kind comprise the information and technological know-how and experience that flow from the project.
51 TO an extent, technological know-how goes with having carried out design and fabrication for the project. These benefits, then, are distributed approximately in proportion to the investment of the partners. Information about how devices work and why they work, including information about technological details, is all carried away in the heads of the scientists and engineers who worked on the project as well as in the formal reports from the project. It is hard to measure and proportion what is in people's heads; and the partners will have to recognize in the beginning that, in terms of information benefit from the project, all partners who have competent staff on hand will share pretty much equally regardless of the individual financial investments. As to the sharing of benefits, there exists a feeling in the EC that the Liquid Metal Fast Breeder Reactor cooperative program with the United States was unsatisfactory. The U.S. emphasis on trying to quantify an equitable exchange of information was frequently cited as a cause for the limited results of this cooperative effort. There are some indications that a similar emphasis may be inhibiting the creation of the necessary spirit of mutual trust and cooperation in current negotiations of cooperation in magnetic fusion. Some of the benefits of the second kind will need to be captured through formal rights to intellectual property. However, patent policy and treatment of industrial proprietary information are areas of substantial difference in national style and practice. Before fusion moves to the position of commercial and industrial viability, it would be useful to reconcile the differences and establish those particular rights at an early stage. It may be possible at this moment to provide for cross-licensing and ownership of jointly developed information that would carry into the future. The effect on the motivation of industry as it may be affected by this treatment would need to be carefully analyzed. INSTITUTIONAL FRAMEWORK This section deals with some of the institutional options available for implementing international fusion arrangements that may be developed by the United States, the EC, and Japan or any two of the three. In time, international arrangements between nongovernmental organizations should be anticipated. However, currently and for the foreseeable future international fusion arrangements will probably be on a government-to-government basis because the high-risk, high-cost, and long-term nature of the endeavor puts the programs in the public sector.
52 Participants Several possibilities exist as to participants in a fusion program, with each possibility having advantages as well as disadvantages. International Atomic Energy Agency The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has established a cooperative fusion program, which generally is considered to have been useful. The difficulty concerns the issue of cooperation between East and West because of current overriding political difficulties. Although this vehicle for near-term international cooperation is not currently viable, it should be kept in mind for the future, given that the attainment of economical fusion power is thought to lie several decades hence. If the political will should change so as to permit cooperation between the East and West on fusion, the IAEA could be an important organization bringing the parties together. International Energy Agency The International Energy Agency (IEA) is undertaking research and development projects in the fusion area as evidenced by the following agreements: "Implementing Agreement for a Programme of Research and Development on Plasma Wall Interaction in Textor," August l0, l977; "Implementing Agreement for a Programme of Research and Development on Superconducting Magnets for Fusion Power," October 6, l977; and "Implementing Agreement for a Programme of Research and Development on Radiation Damage in Fusion Materials," October 2l, l980. Certain countries interested in fusion such as France do not belong to the IEA, however, so that cooperation using the IEA framework could become more complex. On the other hand, the existence of IEA with its fusion program provides a ready international mechanism. Bilateral and Multilateral Arrangements The United States could have a bilateral arrangement with the EC and one with Japan. In addition, Japan and the EC could have a bilateral arrangement. This form has the advantage of direct relations between two parties so that the cooperation and management may be somewhat less complex. On the other hand, a major participant would not be included; and, if additional bilateral arrangments were established, in the end it might be more, rather than less, complex than a multilateral arrangment. The United States and Japan have a bilateral "Agreement on Cooperation in Research and Development in Energy and Related Fields," dated May 2, l979. In accordance with this agreement, the two countries exchanged notes dated August 24, l979,
53 establishing an agreement in fusion energy, and have exchanged further notes establishing committees and providing for cooperation in the Doublet III project. In addition, the EC and the United States are currently discussing a bilateral agreement. The United States, the EC, and Japan could establish a multilateral arrangement that would involve all three groups. This form has the advantage of involving the principal participants in the West concerned with fusion, but it has the disadvantage of being more complex than a bilateral arrangment because of the number of participants. Degree of Formality Treaties In almost all countries a treaty between nations is the most formal and binding agreement that can be established. Under U.S. law a treaty has the equivalent status of the laws enacted by the federal government. A treaty must be signed by the President and ratified by a two-thirds majority of the Senate. Nations consider treaties as important national commitments. Although a nation can abrogate its obligations under a treaty either by terms of the treaty itself or by unilateral action, the step is not taken lightly or often, affecting, as it does, the basic credibility of a nation. Because of the binding commitment contained in it, a treaty involves a greater degree of review than other forms of agreement and, therefore, normally takes substantially longer for its development and approval. On the other hand, once established, a treaty constitutes a mechanism for maintaining a high degree of certainty about the agreed position of the countries. Heads-of-State Agreements The Heads of State of seven major western countries and the EC, starting with the Versailles meeting of the Summit of Industrialized Nations and continuing through successive conferences, have endorsed in principle the idea of international arrangements on fusion. These commitments could be further implemented through heads-of-state agreements. However, the seven countries in the Summit include Canada, which has only a minor fusion program. The Summit tends to emphasize separate countries in Europe as opposed to the EC. Although it is not out of the question that the Heads of State in the Summit could enter into an agreement, an alternative heads-of-state arrangement could be among Japan, the United States, and the EC or between any two of the three. Such an agreement carries the full weight of the government in power, although in the EC it would be necessary to ascertain its exact status. In the United States the agreement would normally be sent to the Congress for its information.
54 Abrogation of the agreement by a signing head of state would be an unusual, but not an impossible, act. On the other hand, succeeding heads of state could either confirm the previous agreement or disavow it. Even if the political parties change, there tends to be a certain degree of continuity from one government to another on matters that are more technical than political, as fusion would be for the foreseeable future. Thus, an abrogation of such agreement would not normally be expected, but the possibility would be greater than if a treaty were in force. Ministerial-Level Agreements A great many of the agreements between governments are negotiated and signed by appropriate ministries. while these agreements carry the full weight of the government's commitment, they are subject to changing governments as well as to the problems associated with funding through an annual budget processâan issue that is a problem with any arrangement. Informal Government-to-Government Arrangements Much information and many people can be exchanged without formal agreements. This opportunity results as a matter of policy decisions by governments to allow exchanges for which it is determined, for particular cases, that the best interests of all concerned can be served. These arrangements tend to be ad hoc, depending on case-by-case decisions, and, thus, work with a certain degree of flexibility. These informal arrangments also contain a degree of uncertainty as to whether they will be established or continued. Scope of Arrangements Umbrella Arrangement An umbrella arrangement is usually a desirable instrument in that it establishes general principles and provides for certain activities immediately and authorizes others to be consummated at a later time. Thus, an umbrella agreement, after establishing the essential principles, could contain provisions for an immediate exchange of technology and personnel, authorize the formation of joint planning exercises, and provide for later entry into medium- and long-term projects. The advantage is that not all of the issues for the long term need to be decided; rather, a framework is established under which subsequent arrangments can be handled.
55 Base Program It may or may not be possible to separate medium- and large-sized projects from a base program that is more research oriented. However, if such a division is possible, then cooperation on the base program could be established either in an umbrella agreement or in a separate arrangement. A base program should allow for a certain degree of flexibility, after consultation among all participants, since needs and priorities will change. Medium- to Large-Sized Projects While it is possible to put medium- and large-sized projects into an umbrella agreement, the latter ones, and possibly all of them, should be in a subsequent arrangement since they will be established over time. The principles under which medium- and large-sized projects are to be handled may be contained in the umbrella arrangement, but the actual details should be contained in a later arrangement. Once a medium- or large-sized project is agreed upon, then a high degree of reliability is required of all particpants; and it is important to develop funding concepts that are viable for the term of the project. Since it is important to maintain these long-term commitments, the funding principles could be established in the umbrella agreement, subject to implementation in the project arrangement. Joint Planning Joint planning can proceed informally, reaching whatever consensus is possible and then relying for the residual matters upon decisions by individual nations or groups of nations. The approach would be to exchange information as to the plans all parties are undertaking but to leave all the participants to proceed according to their own particular goals. On the other hand, joint planning can be more formalized, either in an umbrella agreement or as a subsequent arrangement, with whatever greater degree of binding effect may be agreed. To be effective, a formal joint planning activity would have to have policy guidance from government program leaders and technical direction from leaders in the laboratories. The undertaking should continue over many years. At the program management level, the program leaders in the United States, the EC, and Japan should meet periodically to discuss and reconcile their respective programs for the development of fusion and to review the recommendations developed by joint planning groups in specific areas. The joint planning groups should consist of a small number of the technical leaders from the laboratories in the respective areas. These groups should meet periodically to discuss material prepared at
56 home by a broader community of experts and should maintain continuity of participation. Laying the groundwork with the people in the field is crucial because it produces the worker-to-worker trust and confidence central to long-term success. The various programs already enjoy these advantages to a large degree because of the high quality of prior cooperative experience. It is also important that candidate projects for cooperation be proposed and justified by persons at the program level, since they are the best judges of the technical needs. At present, it would be appropriate to establish two or three groups: fusion technology development; alternative confinement concept development; and, possibly, the next-step tokamak experiment. The first two groups would plan for collaboratively developing fusion technology and alternative confinement concepts, respectively. These tasks would include identification of the required information and facilities and recommendations for equitable sharing of costs, responsibility for construction and operation, and results. Cooperative projects successfully initiated at the smaller scale of plasma physics, alternative confinement concepts, and technology development will lay the basis for the larger-scale collaboration. If the United States does not plan to initiate a major next-step tokamak project within the next year or so, then it would be appropriate to establish a joint planning group for such experiments. This group would recommend objectives, conceptual design, schedule, and cost and would define the required supporting research and development. The International Tokamak Reactor (commonly known by its acronym INTOR) Workshop has shown that such tasks can be performed successfully by an international group. Technical and Personnel Exchanges There exist today extensive information and personnel exchanges, although sometimes there are some difficulties and restraints. These exchanges can continue to be handled as they are currently on a rather informal case-by-case basis, or they could be the subject of agreements contained either in umbrella or subsequent arrangements whereby procedures could be clearly established. The experience of the JET Joint Undertaking has shown that, for exchanges or assignments of personnel for periods of months or years, it is quite important to provide international schools where the children of the staff may maintain the scholastic progress expected of them in their own countries. An equally important matter is to assure that workers may return home to equivalent employment at the end of their tours, without prejudice for having been away. Some Japanese officials expressed the wish that guest workers in Japan would try to enter more into its life and culture than they do now. By contrast, Japanese scientists temporarily working abroad usually make efforts to learn the language and to enroll their children in the schools of the new country even as they try to maintain their native culture.
57 WORKABILITY OF MANAGEMENT ARRANGEMENTS Permitting Flexibility and Innovation When a technology is in its early stages of research and development, it will become clear as results are obtained that new directions should be pursued and changes should be made in the current program. Thus, a process flexible enough to change with new technological information will in the long run make for a viable program rather than one burdened with outmoded concepts or unwise decisions. This feature, however, requires a careful structuring, since flexibility can also be the mechanism that produces unreliable partners. While there should be flexibility to change the priorities and program, it should be within the context of the agreement by the participants as opposed to unilateral action. Site Selection A frequent sticking point in large international projects is agreement on the site for substantial facilities. The JET project underwent great difficulty before its site, adjacent to Culham Laboratory, was settled. Keen rivalry for the site of the Next European Torus is already occuring. While site selection would normally occur on a case-by-case basis, it may be possible to spell out in the umbrella agreements the procedures and processes to be used in deciding on the location of facilities. Partnership Shares The extent of the participation of each of the partners is another factor subject to balance in establishing a cooperative project. Depending on circumstances, any degree of participation, from a junior role to full equality, may offer acceptable benefits. Obviously, the greater the degree of participation, the greater the voice that partner should have in decisions about the project's objectives, scope, approach, schedules, and cost, and the earlier that voice should be heard. Practical Matters A joint international project is complicated, but it can work if it is carefully planned and skillfully executed. Mechanisms must be established for creating an organizational entity and management structure. Procedures must be adopted for procurement, quality assurance, audits, and inspections. The authority of the project director, technical and political oversight mechanisms, national
58 funding contributions, and priorities for operaton of the facility must be established. Policies with respect to national industrial involvement need to be debated and adopted. Legal instruments must define the relationship of the project to national and local governments, provisions for withdrawal, ownership of the facility, provisions for liabilities and insurance against risk, and provision for taxes and duties. PRIOR EXPERIENCE There are a number of successful international ventures. There is no model that one can follow except to recognize the complexity of such arrangements and to be willing to undertake the establishment of a system that matches the technology and the program's objectives. If there is any rule in this area, it should be that the institutional arrangements must match the problem. Joint European Torus For fusion the most relevant example of a major international project is JET (JET Joint Undertaking, l982). The project was set up as a Joint Undertaking by the Member States of the European Community in l978 (Wilson, l98l) under provisions of the l957 Treaty of Rome, which established the European Community. Establishment of the Joint Undertaking was preceded by the JET Working Group, in l97l and the JET Design Team, in l973. The following aspects of JET management (Commission of the European Communities, undated) are noteworthy: o The JET Council, assisted by the JET Executive Committee and the JET Scientific Committee, is responsible for the management of the project. o Each member of the Joint Undertaking is represented on the Council, usually by a individual from the policy level and another from the technical level. o The Commission of the European Communities is responsible for financial decisions to the extent of its 80-percent contribution to the project. o National research organizations provide guidance to the JET Council on technical issues. o The EC Council of Ministers, with the assistance of the Committee of Permanent Representatives, is responsible for political decisions.
59 European Organization for Nuclear Research The European Organization for Nuclear Research (CERN) is another successful enterprise. Factors contributing to its success undoubtedly were its freedom from commercial stakes, freedom from military applications of its work, and absence of problems with the transfer of commercially useful technology. Evidently such an organization was the only way that European countries could mount a world-class program in high-energy physics of a stature comparable to that in the United States and to the program that promised to develop in the USSR and Iron Curtain countries. The governance of CERN has been highly successful and serves as a useful example of program and budget stability. One unforeseen consequence of this large-scale international effort was that corresponding national programs of the member countries gradually diminished in size and impact. This effect may also occur in the EC fusion program as effort becomes concentrated on large devices. However, by that time, there may be less need for auxilliary national activities. Fission Energy Successful international cooperation has also occurred in the development of fission energy. Cooperation in this technology has proceeded at three different levelsâthat of information and personnel exchange, that of medium technology projects, and that of very large projects. The information exchange agreements have been fruitful, but they might have been more fruitful had they not been hindered by the recognized commercial applicability of the best technical information that was developed and by an excessive insistence on a quid pro quo in the exchange of such information. Cooperation on medium-sized technology projects would have been enhanced if there had been better recognition of the relationship of the research and development that was being performed vis-a-vis its future commercial use and better provision for the capture of those benefits. The Super-Phenix project, a 1200-megawatt (electric) fast breeder reactor, is an example of a large-scale project that probably could not have been conducted without international cooperation. Super-Phenix is the result of agreements between the French and Italian governments for breeder development signed in l974 and agreements between the French and Germans in l976 on three levels: an agreement on breeder development policy between the governments; an agreement on research and development and the "harmonization" of national efforts between the nuclear research agencies; and agreements on commercial development between French, German, and Italian companies.
60 Several factors seem to underlie the success of the Super-Phenix project (Beckjord, l984) : o The French provided strong project management and systems engineering on an extensive base of technology. o The French have majority control, and the other participants are junior partners. Management decision making was clearly drawn from the beginning, with lines of authority established from the utility customer to the reactor developer and designer and to the component manufacturers. o The commitment of the parties stems from their lack of indigenous fossil fuels and natural uranium, providing an imperative, as they perceive it, to develop breeder technology, which can make far more efficient use of natural uranium than can light water reactors. o There was a need to pool resources in such a large undertaking. o The Super-Phenix project developed against a background of other major cooperative efforts in Western Europeâin science, in aerospace and other multi-national business ventures, and in economic unionâthat served as trail markers. Space Technology In space technology the agreement between the United States and Japan as to the availability of space launch facilities is an example of limited international cooperation. The Apollo-Soyuz spacecraft rendezvous in orbit is an example of cooperation instituted by high-level political agreement. The actual conduct of that project illustrated the need for extremely detailed agreement on project management procedures when two countries of vastly different language and culture decide to cooperate. Current efforts of the U.S. National Aeronautics and Space Administration to obtain joint participation in the manned space-station project is another example of large-scale collaboration. This cooperative proposal has not developed far enough to provide any lessons for fusion; however, the space-station effort should be watched carefully for useful ideas. International Telecommunications Satellite Organization The International Telecommunications Satellite Organization (INTELSAT) is perhaps the most successful large-scale international venture in an institutional, operational, and commercial sense. Early on, a fundamental decision was made to reject bilateral agreements in favor of the multilateral introduction of satellite communications technology for global use in order to achieve its full benefits. Such a decision had to overcome vested interests in alternative modes of telecommunications, for example, undersea cables. Nevertheless, these
6l obstacles were overcome and a treaty-level agreement was concluded. Leive (l98l) has identified a number of factors contributing to the institutional soundness of INTELSAT: o Phasing of successive agreements to proceed from the less well defined to the more well defined in order to defer hard policy choices until issues had matured and clarified. o Combining both political and technical interests in the governance of the organization. o Initial management by a strong national entity as agent for the organization followed by a deliberate shift to more truly international management as the organization matured. o Allocating financial interests and voting control to member countries in proportion to their use of the INTELSAT system. o Assuring that the benefits of new technology developed by the organization are available to its member countries for uses outside INTELSAT. Jet Aircraft Engines An example of international cooperation relatively far downstream in the life cycle of a technology was provided by the experience of a commercial firm in jet engines. In the experience of this firm, cooperation on a valuable commercial product was increased successively to greater and greater levels. Cooperation proceeded from the level of mere licensing to the levels of coproduction, shared production, and, finally, a joint venture, in which development engineering, manufacture, and marketing were shared. Such an experience may indicate that similar arrangments can be devised to capture the commercial benefits of fusion to the satisfaction of several cooperating entities. RECAPITULATION This chapter has examined some of the practical factors affecting the agreement and implementation of increased international cooperation, assuming that a policy favoring cooperation in principle has been adopted and that ample technical substance for such work exists. An opportune window in time for large-scale international collaboration is now open; if the timing were not favorable, even well justified technical initiatives would face resistance. The goals of the three prospective partners in collaboration either overlap enough or retain enough flexibility to initiate serious discussions of prospective joint activities. However, the first priority for the United States should be the establishment of a clear set of policies and objectives and a considered program plan for future fusion activities. Effective negotiations for increased cooperation need to rest on such a firm
62 basis. International collaboration will require stable international commitments to assure the long-term benefits contemplated by the collaboration and to avoid burdening the remaining partners by any reduction in support by one of them. Prior perceptions of unreliability, justified or not, may inhibit collaborative agreement unless overcome. Limitations on technology transfer constitute an external condition, imposed principally to safeguard national security. International collaboration in magnetic fusion would certainly be hindered by restrictive export control, but the outlook is that the regular case-by-case determinations will result in an acceptable situation. Beyond these points, decisions specific to each case will have to be made about the net flow of funds among the partners; the use of existing institutional frameworks or the establishment of new ones; details of project management; and the capture of intellectual, industrial, and commercial benefits. In short, there is a host of considerations that must be resolved in the implementation, but all of these appear either workable or bearable, as the experience of many prior collaborative undertakings in diverse fields has shown. Consequently, given the intent to collaborate and the technical substance of it, satisfactory agreement and implementation should be achievable.
