Webinar recording now available: First Fusion Public-Private Partnership call under EURATOM 2026-2027

The EU funding allocated to the Fusion PPP under the WP2026-27 of the Euratom Research & Training Programme should be considered in combination with the EU funding allocated to other actions (e.g., EUROfusion, or the EIC challenge on fusion). In 2026-27, EUR 222 million are allocated to fusion research (indirect actions) under Euratom.

Please note also that the European Commission has proposed a significant increase of the EU funding allocated to fusion research under Euratom, for the 2028-2032 period. See the Commission proposal.

'Up to' means that in certain cases, costs cannot be fully covered. For instance, under the Euratom programme, overheads are calculated on the basis of a 25% flat rate. So if the overheads of a non-profit organisation are above that percentage, they would not be entirely covered.

No, these rates are defined in the call, depending on the nature of the organisation, and cannot be adapted through an Amendment.

This information is given in the call text and the annexes of the work programme. The expected EU contribution is around EUR 10 million per project (call text). The minimum number in a consortium is three eligible entities from three different countries, and at least one of these entities should be established in a Member State (Annex B of the work programme).

Some adaptations can be made without amendments, but larger adaptations normally require an amendment, as for projects with actual costs. Once the project has started there is a grant agreement, signed by both parties, which defines the action. It contains a description of action with work packages, tasks, activities, allocation of efforts and so on, and that description can be amended at the request of the consortium. It is quite common for projects to require adaptations during their life.

Follow-up: The participant clarified that he meant a slightly different sharing of the budget, not a change of scope.

Answer: The same applies, and this kind of modification can be made. Whether it needs an amendment depends on the extent of the change. Very small changes, or changes of a limited amount within a given work package, can possibly be done without one. Bigger changes would probably need an amendment. This would be discussed between the project officer and the consortium if the situation arises, and the Commission can't say in advance.

The intention is to select one project in each of the three technology areas. This depends, however, on at least one proposal in each area scoring above the evaluation thresholds, and on the available budget.

The calls will not be repeated as such. Depending on the projects selected under the two first Fusion PPP calls in 2026 and 2027, it is possible that some key technology areas will be addressed again in future calls (and, if so, possibly targeting higher TRL). But this cannot be foreseen at this stage. In any case, in the light of developments observed, future calls:

• will be aligned with the priorities of the Fusion PPP's Strategic Research and Innovation Agenda (SRIA);
• will be discussed with the PPP's partners (through the FUSION NOW association) and the Euratom Programme Committee.

For the first PPP call, the timeline (i.e. the call opening and closing dates) is set in the Euratom Work Programme 2026-27 and cannot be modified. However, on its side, the Commission is willing to shorten as much as possible the period of time between the call deadline and the signature of grant agreements ("time to grant"), in particular making sure evaluation of proposals is swiftly completed.

The opening period for this first call (mid-September 2026 to early March) is longer than it will be for subsequent calls, but this is intentional. Indeed many organisations in the fusion community may not be fully familiar with open calls for projects, and the Commission wants a level playing field, with sufficient time for all potential applicants to get acquainted with relevant information and get ready to prepare a proposal effectively. For the next calls, the submission period will probably be shorter.

The Commission thanked the participant for raising the issue of the use of AI. Applicants may use AI tools, but with caution. What takes time is not writing the document, it is thinking the concept through, thinking about how to describe the project's activities, and convincing the experts who will evaluate the proposal that what the project intends to do is feasible and impactful. Gathering a relevant consortium also takes time, so the process for preparing a proposal overall can be time-consuming.

Follow-up: If you start from nothing, I agree. But a company already working in these fields has done projects and has descriptions, so a lot can be reused.

Answer: Not all companies and organisations have the same starting point. With this first call the aim is to ensure a level playing field, including for newcomers. A tightly constrained timeline could be detrimental to those companies and organisations that are not familiar with the framework.

Yes, a given entity can participate in multiple consortia. This applies even in the case where the proposals address the same technology area. However, proposals should not target the exact same scope or duplicate very similar projects: across the different proposals, the tasks, objectives and budget allocations must be clearly unrelated, distinct and non-overlapping. See e.g. this FAQ on the Funding & Tenders Portal.

There is no requirement on who should lead the consortium. But since this is an Innovation Action and a PPP call, there must be potential for (commercially) exploiting the developments. A consortium without any partner able to eventually commercially exploit what has been developed might have difficulties delivering on the impacts.

As for coordination, it is mainly about project management, so it can be done by a research organisation as well as by an industry partner or another kind of partner, provided it has the capacity to coordinate the project. The consortium then needs partners who can exploit the results and secure a credible path towards commercialization.

The Commission sees no barrier to their participation, because Innovation Action consortia typically include a mix of companies of different sizes. Combinations of larger industrial companies and smaller ones are very typical, logical and generally welcome. What matters is the complementarity of the partners.

Applicants shouldn't try to build an artificial picture. They should think about the concept and what they want to deliver, and then pick the partners with the best potential to deliver it and to exploit it afterwards. Don't pick a company just because it's an SME. If you pick an SME, pick one with the right competencies, background and activities to deliver on your concept. There are no other specific expectations.

It works as under H2020 and Horizon Europe. There is a consortium agreement signed between the partners, which typically differentiates between background and foreground. There are fairly standard templates for such consortium agreements. The Commission is not involved in this and only asks for the agreement to be signed.

This particular call includes the following specific condition:

‘participation is limited to legal entities established in Member States and in countries associated to the Euratom Research and Training Programme (Ukraine and Switzerland). Proposals including entities established in countries outside the scope specified in the call/topic/action will be ineligible’.

This restriction covers in principle all entities established in third countries (except Switzerland and Ukraine) participating in the grant in any capacity (as beneficiaries, affiliated entities, associated partners, subcontractors, or third parties giving in-kind contributions). However, this restriction does not apply to suppliers of equipment, consumables, or services declared under purchase costs, i.e. in case of contracts which are not action tasks.

Regarding the ‘40% industrial contribution’ in the question, our understanding is that it refers to the share of costs not covered by the 60% co-funding rate (applicable to for-profit entities) under the call. If this understanding is correct, then the approach you are suggesting is not possible, as the EU co-funding (60%) and the beneficiary’s own co-financing (40%) are not meant to cover distinct costs, but it is their combination that is meant to cover the eligible costs.

The call doesn't require a specific duration for the project, but it is expected to be around three years. It depends on the project, because the duration has to be aligned with the objectives and the type of activities envisioned. If a project is longer or shorter than the expected duration, you can provide a justification and explain it in the proposal.

If the question is how long a project can be, there is no maximum duration. But the recommendation in the call is for projects of around three years – excessive duration could be penalised when the proposal is evaluated.

The three years count from the beginning of the project. Once a proposal is selected, the grant agreement (the contract) is prepared, and it defines the starting date. Typically, the starting date is the month that follows the signature of the grant agreement, but this can be adapted on the basis of exchanges between the Commission and the project's consortium.

The call text says clearly "components or systems", so you have that flexibility and it is up to you to define the best focus for your project. You have to propose something realistic with the available budget. If you ask for €10 million of funding, you need to show you can achieve your developments with it.

Between components and systems, the choice is yours. The Commission cannot advise on what's best, because it doesn't know what applicants have in mind and is not in a position to advise specific applicants on their concepts, as this would make the competition unfair. Applicants should look at what they can do with the budget available, what is realistic, and what gives the best impact in terms of technology breakthrough, commercialization potential, IP and so on, and then define their approach.

It is not mentioned in the call, so the answer is no. But the experts will have to assess whether the project can realistically achieve the progress in technology readiness within its duration. If a project starts from a very low TRL and aims for TRL 6 to 8 in a duration typically around three years, there might be a question over whether that is realistic. Applicants need to convince the experts that they can do what they intend within the project's duration.

This is the kind of specific advice the Commission cannot provide. Specific advice would come close to consultancy, and the Commission is responsible for the supervision and fairness of the process. In particular, it cannot prescribe what proposals should offer as a testing environment or as the means to achieve and measure the increase in technology readiness.

The organisations preparing these proposals are expert organisations in the fusion field. They are very aware of the experimental means available and of what is possible in terms of testing and validation. What the Commission expects is that applicants will define clearly how they will test, validate and demonstrate their technologies. Then independent experts involved in the evaluations will assess to what extent the proposed approaches are workable and effective.

It is TRL 6 to 8, so it includes TRL 6. All applicants are in the same situation: they can only use the facilities that exist. When it comes to testing in conditions close to real life, the most convincing approaches will lead to the most positive assessment by the evaluation's experts. It is up to the applicants to define their testing approaches and to explain how they will demonstrate that they reach the intended TRL. The Commission cannot provide any specific advice on this.

The work programme annexes contain a section on technology readiness level, but the framework there is quite generic. Applicants are free to refer to more specific frameworks, provided they comply with the generic framework in the annexes and are relevant and recognised by the community.

The best starting point is the call text and the annexes of the work programme, which define the award criteria and all the information on how proposals are assessed. There are three award criteria: excellence, impact, and quality and efficiency of implementation. The aspects mentioned would probably be assessed under different criteria, so the Commission can't say in advance which would be more important than another.

Please note though, that as this is an innovation action call, the ‘impact’ criterion has a higher weight (1.5). Applicants are advised to read the available documentation, and if there are still questions after that, to send them to the Commission.