Localisation was widely described as a strategic choice that could have a significant impact on socioeconomic development and public acceptance of nuclear power. Participants cautioned that localisation cannot be retrofitted after programme decisions are made; instead, it must be embedded early through clear long-term strategies for industrial policy, workforce planning, and supplier engagement. An important aspect of localisation is the benefit it provides to the community where the nuclear installation is being built. Localisation contributes significantly to skills building and the development of business and industry, thereby promoting acceptance by the local community of the nuclear power build. In this regard, countries could consider requiring foreign suppliers to invest in their national supply chains as part of their procurement rules. A proposal was made for the establishment of regional technical support organisations (TSOs) to provide regulatory and technical support to embarking countries. Participants questioned who should lead regional technical support and capacity-building initiatives, how such institutions could be sustained beyond initial funding or political cycles, and noted that many existing centres have focused on education rather than providing hands-on, implementation-oriented support linked to active nuclear programmes.
Participants highlighted that localisation opportunities extend well beyond nuclear-specific activities. Many roles in the supply chain do not require advanced degrees and draw on existing skills in mining, construction, transportation, logistics, and services. Mining was identified as especially significant, both as an upstream activity and as a foundation for broader industrial participation.
There was debate regarding the appropriate pace and depth of localisation. While so-called “100 percent localisation” was widely seen as neither feasible nor desirable, participants agreed that localisation levels should be meaningful and increase over time. Competitive procurement practices and public trust in locally produced components were identified as challenges that require careful communication and evidence-based approaches, both tailored to national leadership and nuclear and non-nuclear industrial stakeholders.
Ancillary and support supply chains, such as catering, housing, transportation, and other worker services, were highlighted as important sources of early socioeconomic benefit, even where specialised nuclear components remain imported. Similarly, back-end activities, including waste management, were identified as offering opportunities for job creation, skill transfer, and long-term capacity building if addressed early.
Regulation was recognised as underpinning all localisation efforts. The importance of quality control along the supply chain and support to the providers of components to the supply chain to meet the regulatory requirements of supply for a nuclear power plant was emphasised. Participants also emphasised the importance of building regulatory capacity for safety, security and safeguards (3S) early, adopting policies and regulations that consider 3S holistically, and pursuing regional harmonisation in regulation to reduce long-term costs and supply chain risk.
Regionalisation of the supply chain was also discussed. A compelling case was made for leveraging the industrial capabilities of partner countries to build a regional supply chain in advance of and independent from any specific nuclear technology choice.