287 



Tne future prospect for major international cooperation in fusion could be 

 very promising. Political commitment to support significant initiatives is 

 necessary to overcome institutional rivalries and to provide stability 

 necessary to engage seriously in long term planning. Even with such a 

 commitment, implementation requires considerable effort. The U.S., Japan, 

 and the E.G. have fusion programs of comparable size which have worked 

 together well in the past. All realize that the cost of large facilities is 

 great and that cooperation in principle would minimize costs. To make cost- 

 sharing feasible, good communication in the joint development of plans is 

 needed from the start to develop common priorities for tasks, to define the 

 mission of major joint fusion facilities and to divide up responsibilities. 

 As an example, the Fusion Working Group in the Summit process is presently 

 attempting to identify possiDla future large facilities. 



As discussed in the NAS Report on international cooperation in fusion, the 

 advantage of cost-sharing is that it is possible to build in common those 

 large projects which individual members would have difficulty pursuing 

 separately in a similar time frame. This leads in principle to avoiding 

 unnecessary duplication and to assuring that the best ideas are included. 

 The main disadvantage is that each side must relinquish some control over 

 its program planning and approach. Two other factors should be noted. 

 First, since the contribution of each partner is based on technical strength 

 and interest, equitable sharing is sometimes difficult to define. Second, 

 in a recent international cost evaluation of a large fusion facility design, 

 it was found that collaboration provided significant cost savings to each 

 participant. However, each member's cost was not a pro rata share of the 



