Public stakeholder consultation on the Euratom Research and Training Programme Fields marked with * are mandatory. The Euratom Research and Training Programme 2014-2018 is the European programme for funding research and training in nuclear safety, radiation protection, waste management and fusion. The Euratom Programme aims at the continuous improvement of nuclear safety and the management of radioactive waste, and advances our understanding of the effects of ionising radiation on humans and the environment. The Euratom Progamme contributes also to the optimisation of the use of radiation in medical applications. Fusion research supported by the Euratom Programme aims at implementing the roadmap to the realisation of fusion electricity by 2050. We invite everyone, and in particular research stakeholders, to take part in this consultation in the context of the interim evaluation of Euratom Programme, and to have a say on the Euratom research and training activities. The results of this consultation will help us to improve the implementation of the Euratom Programme and will feed into the preparations of the proposal for the extension of this Programme for 2019-2020. This questionnaire will take around 20 minutes to respond. At the end of the questionnaire there is an opportunity to upload a position paper. Part A - About you Part A consists questions about the respondent. We would like to who our respondents are in order to better understand their perspective, expectations and needs in terms of research and innovation. t will also help us to tailor this survey to respondents' experiences with the Euratom Research and Training Programme. 1. am responding As an individual On behalf of a single institution/ company On behalf of an ''umbrella'' organisation of EU interest 1
f individual: ndependent expert in nuclear field ndependent expert in non-nuclear field ndividual citizen Other f organisation: Regulatory body Technical Support Organisation (TSO) Waste management authority Waste management operator Emergency preparedness Higher education institution Nuclear power plants operator Public research organisation Private research organisation Decommissioning Business Medical association National administration Regional/ local administration NGO Other s your company an SME? No Yes Not applicable 2. s your organisation registered in the Transparency Register? f your organisation is not registered, we invite you to register here, although it is not compulsory to be registered to reply to the consultation. Why Transparency Register? No Yes f so, please indicate your Register D number: 2
3. You are from: Austria Belgium Bulgaria Croatia Cyprus Czech Republic Denmark Estonia Finland France Germany Greece Hungary reland taly Latvia Lithuania Luxembourg Malta Netherlands Poland Portugal Romania Slovak Republic Slovenia Spain Sweden United Kingdom Albania Bosnia and Herzegovina Faroe slands Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia Georgia celand srael Moldova Montenegro Norway Serbia Switzerland Tunisia 3
Turkey Ukraine Other Please specify: 4. nformation about the respondent: * First name * *Last name * *Email address * *Organisation (please reply N/A if responding as an individual citizen) 5. Your contribution Note that, whenever option chosen, your answers may be subject to a request for public access to documents under Regulation (EC) N 1049/2001 can be published with your personal information ( consent to the publication of all the information in my contribution in whole or in part including my name or my organisation's name, and declare that nothing within my response in unlawful or would infringe the rights of any third party in a manner that would prevent publication) can be published provided that you remain anonymous ( consent to the publication of any information in my contribution in whole or in part (which may include quotes or opinions express) provided that it is done anonymously. declare that nothing within my response is unlawful or would infringe the rights of any third party in a manner that would prevent the publication) 4
6. Have you or your organisation applied for funding under the current and/or any previous Framework Programmes for Research (e.g. H2020, FP7, FP6)? No Yes Please specify which programme: 7. Have you or your organisation received funding under the current and/or any previous Framework Programmes for Research (e.g H2020, FP7, FP6)? No Yes Please specify which programme: 8. What aspect of nuclear research are you involved in? Research in nuclear system and safety, including fuel cycle/ partitioning & transmutation Research on geological disposal/ back end management of radioactive waste Research in radiation protection Research in fusion Take up/ use of nuclear research's results Regulatory/ public policy work Education & training Other No involvement Please specify: 5
9. Are you or is your organisation an end-user* of the results of Euratom Programme research? *End user is defined as 'a person or an organisation that currently uses or will eventually use a particular product/output of fission or fusion research' Yes, to a great extent Yes, to some extent Rarely Not at all * Please specify in what way (optional): PART B - Your opinion on the current Euratom Research and Training Programme n part B, we would like to whether the Euratom Programme's priorities and forms of funding respond to current research challenges as well as to the needs and expectations of stakeholders. Some questions in this part are addressed to participants in Euratom projects and focus on different aspects of the Programme's implementation. This part also takes a closer look at the costs and benefits of participation in the Euratom Programme as well as at the EU added value of the Programme. 10. Please indicate the extent to which you or dis that Euratom Programme's objectiv es are still relevant: strongly dis dis am neutral strongly do not Supports safety of existing nuclear systems 6
Supports safety of more advanced nuclear systems Contributes to the development of safe solutions for the final disposal of nuclear waste Contributes to the development of safe solutions for the storage of nuclear waste Contributes to the development of safe solutions for the partitioning and transmutation of nuclear waste Supports training activities to maintain high level of nuclear competence in Europe Supports low dose radiation research Supports the development of radiation protection aspects of medical applications Supports supply of radioisotopes 7
Lays the foundations for future fusion power plants (e. g. by developing materials, technologies and conceptual design) Moves towards demonstration of feasibility of fusion as a power source Promotes innovation Promotes industrial competitiveness Ensures availability of research infrastructures of pan-european relevance 8
11. s the current Euratom Programme making progress towards delivering its objectives in the following areas? strongly dis dis am neutral strongly don't Nuclear safety Waste management Radiation protection Fusion research Education and Training 12. Please indicate the extent to which you or dis that the Euratom Programme has played an adequate role in: strongly dis dis am neutral strongly don't Positionning Europe as a leader in radiation protection Positionning Europe as a leader in nuclear waste management Positionning Europe as a leader in nuclear systems Positioning Europe as a leader in nuclear fusion 9
13. Are the forms of funding provided through Euratom Programme relevant to your needs? strongly dis dis Neutral strongly don't Grants for research and innovation actions Grants for coordination and support actions Recognition Prizes (for example SOFT prize in fusion) Financial instruments (nnovfin) Co-fund instrument for European Joint Programmes 14. How would you rate the overall added value of the Euratom Programme compared to what could be achieved by Member States at national and/or regional levels for nuclear research and innovation? Very low Low Average High Very high don't * 10
15. Please indicate the extent to which you or dis that the Euratom Programme brings added value by: strongly dis dis am neutral strongly don't Mobilising wider pool of high level multi-disciplinary competencies than is available at national level mproving ledge sharing and information dissemination Achieving objectives at lower overall costs Having a leverage effect on public investment Having a leverage effect on private investment Undertaking programmes beyond the reach of individual Member States enabling reaching objectives that could no otherwise be achieved Please specify in what way (optional): 11
16. Do you that the Euratom Program is coherent with other EU policies? strongly dis dis am neutral strongly don't *** Please specify in what way (optional): 17. Do you see consequences of discontinuing the Euratom Programme? No Yes don't What would be the consequences of discontinuing the Euratom Programme? Please reflect first on the possible negative impacts and thereafter on possible positive impacts of Euratom Programme ceasing. strongly dis dis am neutral strongly don't t would have negative impacts on research activities carried out by my organisation t would have negative impact on the nuclear safety of existing nuclear systems in Europe t would have negative impact on the nuclear safety of more advanced nuclear systems in Europe 12
t would have negative impact on the radiation protection in Europe t would have negative impact on further development of radiation protection aspects of medical applications of radiation in EU t would have negative impact on further development of the supply and use of radioisotopes t would have negative impact on further development of safe solutions for the final disposal of nuclear waste t would have negative impact on further development of safe solutions for the storage of nuclear waste t would have negative impact on further development of safe solutions for the partitioning and transmutation of nuclear waste t would have negative impact on the nuclear education & training t would have negative impact on EU position in fusion RTD 13
Other negative impact(s)? (Please specify) t would have positive impact(s): (Please specify) Comments: (optional) 18. Please rate the following implementation aspects of the Euratom Programme: Very poor Poor Acceptable Good Very good don't Balance between new research stakeholders and established organisations Contents of the calls for proposals Clarity in the text presenting the calls for proposals The frequency of calls for proposals The balance in calls between small and large projects 14
The acceptance of the organisations usual accounting practices The balance between control and trust of beneficiaries Communication activities to attract applicants The time taken to evaluate and select proposals Quality of the feedback received by participants in the evaluation process The time taken to establish contracts and launch projects The support of the EC services during grant preparation and implementation The time taken to issue payments to grant holders The procedures for project monitoring and reporting Actions helping to close the research and innovation gap in Europe, in particular concerning Member States which acceeded the EU in 2004 or later 15
19. Do the benefits of participating in the Euratom project exceed the costs of participation? Benefits strongly outweigh costs Benefits slightly outweigh costs Benefits equal costs Costs slightly outweigh benefits Costs strongly outweigh benefits don't 20. Regarding the international cooperation in Euratom Programme, please indicate the extent to which you or dis with the following statement: strongly dis dis am neutral strongly don't Participation of research entities from non-eu countries brings added value to the Euratom Programme Participation of research entities from non-eu countries poses threat to the Euratom Programme What added values non-eu countries' participation bring to Euratom Programme? Please specify (optional): 16
What threat non-eu countries' participation pose to Euratom Programme? Please specify (optional): 21. Do you that a new fusion organisation (joint programming) is an improvement compared to the past? No Yes don't Regarding changes in fusion joint programming, please indicate the extent to which you or dis with the following statements: strongly dis dis am neutral strongly don't Transition to the EUROfusion Joint Programming has been positive EUROfusion Joint Programming is an appropriate instrument to implement Fusion Roadmap Comments (optional): 22. Should education and training activities be supported by Euratom Programme? No Yes don't 17
Regarding education and training activities supported by the Euratom Programme, please indicate the extent to which you or dis with the following statement: strongly dis dis No opinion strongly don't Education and training activities are sufficiently supported by the Euratom Programme 2014-18 Comments (optional): PART C - Your views on the future Euratom Research and Training Programmes Part C gives the respondents an opportunity to express their views on the future Euratom Research and Training Programmes. 23. Do you that the current Euratom Programme's objectives should be continued in the next Euratom Programme? No Yes don't Please indicate the extent to which you or dis that the Euratom Programme 2019-2020 objectives still should: strongly dis dis Neutral strongly don't Support safety of existing nuclear systems Support safety of more advanced nuclear systems 18
Contribute to the development of safe solutions for final disposal of nuclear waste Contribute to the development of safe solutions for the storage of nuclear waste Contribute to the development of safe solutions for the partitioning and transmutation of nuclear waste Supports training activities to maintain high level of nuclear competence in Europe Support low dose radiation research Support development of radiation protection aspects of the medical applications Support supply of radioisotopes Move towards demonstration of feasibility of fusion as a power source Lay the foundations for future fusion power plants (e.g. by developing materials, technologies and conceptual design) Promote innovation 19
Promote industrial competitiveness Ensure availability of research infrastructures of pan-european relevance Comments (optional): 24. Are you aware of the joint programming initiatives developed within the fission part of the Euratom Programme? No Yes don't Please indicate the extent to which you or dis that joint programming* initiatives should be implemented in the following research fields: *Through joint programmes, the Euratom Programme already supports joint programmes in Radiation Protection and fusion research (EUROfusion) strongly dis dis Neutral strongly do not Nuclear safety of existing nuclear systems Nuclear safety of more advanced nuclear systems Nuclear Waste management Materials of nuclear relevance 20
Others, please specify (optional): 25. n your view, Euratom's support for education and training actions in the nuclear field: s important but it s important but it s crucial should be better addressed at should be better addressed by No opinion member states level industry Nuclear safety of existing nuclear systems Nuclear safety of more advanced nuclear systems Nuclear security Radiation protection Waste management Nuclear fusion 26. Regarding education and training in nuclear field, please indicate the extent to which you or dis with the following statements: strongly dis dis Neutral strongly do not Euratom supports mobility of researchers enough Euratom should offer grants for access to nuclear infrastructure of the JRC sites 21
Comments, notably comments on obstacles for mobility (optional): PART D - Additional comments 27. Please add any comments you may wish, which has not been covered by previous parts of this questionnaire (limit 1000 words) 28. Please upload a document (e.g. position paper) if you wish to share any further comments /recommendations regarding present and future Euratom Programmes (optional) The maximum file size is 1MB. Please note that the uploaded document will be published alongside your response to the questionnaire which is the essential input to this open public consultation. 22