REPORT on the draft Council regulation establishing an Instrument for Nuclear Safety and Security Assistance

22.11.2006 - (9037/2006 – C6‑0153/2006 – 2006/0802(CNS)) - *

Committee on Industry, Research and Energy
Rapporteur: Esko Seppänen
Draftswoman (*): Angelika Beer, Committee on Foreign Affairs
(*) Enhanced cooperation between committees - Rule 47 of the Rules of Procedure

EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT LEGISLATIVE RESOLUTION

on the draft Council regulation establishing an Instrument for Nuclear Safety and Security Assistance

(9037/2006 – C6‑0153/2006 – 2006/0802(CNS))

(Consultation procedure)

The European Parliament,

–   having regard to the text of the Council (9037/2006),

–   having regard to the Commission proposal to the Council (COM(2004)0630)[1],

–   having regard to Article 203 of the Treaty establishing the European Atomic Energy Community, pursuant to which the Council consulted Parliament (C6‑0153/2006),

–   having regard to Rule 51 of its Rules of Procedure,

–   having regard to the report of the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy and the opinions of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety and the Committee on Budgets (A6‑0397/2006),

1.  Approves the Council text as amended;

2.  Considers that the indicative reference amount indicated in the legislative proposal must be compatible with the ceiling of heading 4 of the new multiannual financial framework (MFF) and points out that the annual amount will be decided within the annual budgetary procedure in accordance with the provisions of point 38 of the IIA of 17 May 2006;

3.  Calls on the Commission to alter its proposal accordingly, pursuant to Article 119, second paragraph, of the Euratom Treaty;

4.  Calls on the Council to notify Parliament if it intends to depart from the text approved by Parliament;

5.  Asks the Council to consult Parliament again if it intends to amend the text submitted for consultation substantially;

6.  Instructs its President to forward its position to the Council and the Commission.

Text proposed by the Council	Amendments by Parliament
Amendment 1 Recital 1
(1) The European Community is a major provider of economic, financial, technical, humanitarian and macro-economic assistance to third countries. In order to make the European Community’s external aid more effective, a new framework has been devised for the planning and provision of assistance. Regulation (EC) No … of the Council of … will set up a Pre-Accession Instrument to cover Community assistance for candidate countries and potential candidate countries. Regulation (EC) No … of the European Parliament and of the Council of … will introduce a European Neighbourhood and Partnership Instrument. Regulation (EC) No … of the European Parliament and of the Council of … is aimed at development cooperation and economic cooperation with the other third countries. Regulation (EC) No .... of the European Parliament and of the Council of ... will set up an Instrument for Stability. The present Regulation is a complementary instrument aimed at supporting efforts to enhance nuclear safety and the application of efficient and effective safeguards of nuclear materials in third countries.	(1) The European Community is a major provider of economic, financial, technical, humanitarian and macro-economic assistance to third countries. In order to make the European Community’s external aid more effective, a new framework has been devised for the planning and provision of assistance. Regulation (EC) No … of the Council of … will set up a Pre-Accession Instrument to cover Community assistance for candidate countries and potential candidate countries. Regulation (EC) No … of the European Parliament and of the Council of … will introduce a European Neighbourhood and Partnership Instrument. Regulation (EC) No … of the European Parliament and of the Council of … is aimed at development cooperation with third countries1. Council Regulation (EC) No … of ... promotes economic cooperation with the other third countries. Regulation (EC) No .... of the European Parliament and of the Council of ... will set up an Instrument for Stability. Regulation (EC) No .... of the European Parliament and of the Council of ... establishes a financing instrument for the promotion of democracy and human rights worldwide (EIDHR)2. The present Regulation is a complementary instrument aimed at supporting efforts to enhance nuclear safety and the application of efficient and effective safeguards of nuclear materials in third countries. _______________· 1 OJ L […], […], p. […]. 2 OJ L […], […], p. […].
Justification
The references to the other external assistance instruments need to be updated in the light of the new structure negotiated by Parliament, Council and Commission.
Amendment 2 Recital 2
(2) The Chernobyl accident in 1986 highlighted the global importance of nuclear safety. In order to fulfil the objective of the Treaty to create the conditions of safety necessary to eliminate hazards to the life and health of the public, the European Atomic Energy Community (hereinafter the Community) should be able to support nuclear safety in third countries.	(2) The Chernobyl accident in 1986 highlighted the dramatic global economic, environmental, social and health consequences of such a disaster. In order to reduce the risks to the life and health of the public, Member States and the European Atomic Energy Community (hereinafter the Community) should be able to support nuclear safety even in third countries.
Or. en
Justification
It is important to stress the tragic nature of the Chernobyl disaster of 1986
Amendment 3 Recital 2 a (new)
	(2a) The growing availability of nuclear material increases the risk of nuclear weaponry proliferation and therefore has clear nuclear safety implications which should be addressed by the present instrument.
Justification
Nuclear safety is not merely a question of power plants and other nuclear installations. Proliferations issues must be taken into consideration and should be covered by the regulation.
Amendment 4 Recital 3 a (new)
	(3a) It is of fundamental importance that the confidentiality of information on nuclear and radiological safety, which must be precise and corroborated, be guaranteed, particularly as regards information which could be of major interest to terrorists.
Justification
There is a need to prevent terrorists from gaining access to any information; acts of nuclear terrorism could have major consequences and jeopardise international security and peace.

Amendment 5

Recital 4

(4) The Community already pursues a close cooperation, in accordance with Chapter X of the Treaty, with the International Atomic Energy Agency, both in relation to nuclear safeguards (in furtherance of the objectives of Chapter VII of Part Two of the Treaty), and in relation to nuclear safety.	(4) The Community already pursues close cooperation, in accordance with Chapter 10 of the Treaty, with the International Atomic Energy Agency, both in relation to nuclear safeguards (in furtherance of the objectives of Chapter 7 of Title Two of the Treaty), and in relation to nuclear safety. In this context, the Community is actively supporting the drafting of a code of conduct for an international nuclear incident warning system under the aegis of the International Atomic Energy Agency.

Amendment 6 Recital 7
(7) Besides international Conventions and Treaties some Member States have concluded bilateral agreements on the provision of technical assistance.	(7) Besides international Conventions and Treaties some Member States have concluded bilateral agreements on the provision of technical assistance. The coordination of actions under such agreements with Community actions is desirable.
Justification
The member states should continue the coordination process in this field on Community level.
Amendment 7 Recital 9
(9) It is understood that, when giving assistance to the nuclear installation concerned, it is with the aim that maximum impact could be obtained by the assistance, without, however, deviating from the principle that the responsibility for the safety of the installation should rest with the operator and the State having the jurisdiction over the installation.	(9) It is understood that, when giving assistance to the nuclear installation concerned, it is with the aim that maximum impact might be obtained by the assistance, without, however, deviating from the 'polluter pays' principle, and that liability for the safety of the installation, its decommissioning and the waste it has generated should rest with the operator and the State having jurisdiction over the installation. Furthermore, priority should be given to assisting nuclear installations and activities which are likely to have significant effects on the Member States.
Justification
Community assistance to third countries does not relieve them and operators of their safety and environmental responsibility during the whole period the facility operates and afterwards, i.e. closure, decommissioning and remediation of the site.
Amendment 8 Recital 13
(13) This Regulation, providing for financial assistance in support of the objectives of the Treaty, is without prejudice to the respective competences of the Community and Member States in the fields concerned, in particular in nuclear safeguards.	(13) This Regulation, providing for financial assistance in support of the objectives of the Treaty, is without prejudice to the exclusive powers of the Member States to make their own energy choices and the respective competences of the Community and Member States in the fields concerned, in particular in nuclear safeguards.
Justification
We must draw attention to the sovereignty of the Member States in making energy choices, even though nuclear safety is a shared responsibility and we can congratulate ourselves on the development of a common approach on the part of the national nuclear safety authorities.
Amendment 9 Recital 13 a (new)
	(13a) A financial reference amount, within the meaning of point 38 of the Interinstitutional Agreement on budgetary discipline and sound financial management adopted on 17 June 2006 by the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission, should be included in this Regulation with respect to the entire duration of the instrument, without thereby affecting the powers of the two budgetary authorities as they are defined by the Treaty.
Justification
The reference to the new IIA needs to written in the text.
Amendment 10 Article 1
The Community shall finance measures to support the promotion of a high level of nuclear safety, radiation protection and the application of efficient and effective safeguards of nuclear material in third countries in line with the provisions of this Regulation.	The Community might finance measures to support efficient implementation in cases which result in a nuclear safety level corresponding to the technological, regulatory and operational state of the art in the Union, taking into consideration the latest scientific and technological developments, radiation protection and the application of efficient and effective safeguards of nuclear material in third countries in line with the provisions of this Regulation, without prejudice to the 'polluter pays' principle.
Justification
Community assistance should lead to the highest safety level. Furthermore, this assistance does not relieve third countries and operators of their environmental responsibility.
Amendment 11 Article 2, point (a)
a) the promotion of an effective nuclear safety culture at all levels, in particular through:	a) the promotion of effective nuclear safety measures at all levels, in particular through:
Justification
Community resources should be spent on implementing real safety measures.
Amendment 12 Article 2, point a), indent 2
- on-site and external assistance programmes,	- on-site and external assistance programmes to improve the safety of operation and maintenance of existing nuclear installations,
Justification
Financial assistance should not be given to installations for planning or construction.
Amendment 13 Article 2, point (a) indent 3
- improving the safety aspects of the design, operation and maintenance of existing nuclear power plants or other existing nuclear installations so that high safety levels can be achieved	- improving the safety aspects of the operation, modernisation and maintenance of existing nuclear power plants or other existing nuclear installations, taking into account experience of their operation, so that the highest possible safety levels can be achieved,
) Amendment 14 Article 2, point (a), indent 4
- support to the safe transport, treatment and disposal of nuclear fuel and radioactive waste,	- support for the development of proper methods and technologies for the safe transport, treatment and disposal of spent nuclear fuel and radioactive waste, and
Justification
The Community should not finance the actual transport, treatment and disposal of nuclear material – this is the responsibility of third countries. It should merely promote the use of safe technologies and methodologies. The word 'spent' should be stated for the sake of clarity.
Amendment 15 Article 2, point (a), indent 5
- and the development and implementation of strategies for decommissioning existing installations and the remediation of former nuclear sites;	- the development and implementation of strategies for decommissioning existing installations for the remediation of former nuclear sites which can attain a high level of safety at a reasonable cost and within a reasonable time frame;
Justification
It is important to mention the various options available to the European Union in assisting third countries under the PHARE and TACIS programmes: this aid can be used either to modernise existing nuclear reactors or to implement commitments to close installations for which a high level of safety cannot be guaranteed.
Amendment 16 Article 2, point (b)
(b) the promotion of effective regulatory frameworks, procedures and systems to ensure adequate protection against ionising radiations from radioactive materials, in particular from high activity radioactive sources, and their safe disposal;	(b) the promotion of effective regulatory frameworks, procedures and systems to ensure adequate protection against ionising radiations from radioactive materials, in particular from high activity radioactive sources, andthe safe disposal of such materials, the financial liability for which must continue to be borne solely by the operator;
Justification
This amendment reinforces the concept that "the polluter pays" from which the regulation should not derogate.
Amendment 17 Article 2, point (d)
d) the establishment of effective arrangements for, emergency-planning, preparedness and response, civil protection and rehabilitation measures;	d) the establishment of effective arrangements for accident prevention, emergency planning, preparedness and response, civil protection, the mitigation of consequences and rehabilitation measures;
Justification
The EU nuclear safety policy must be fully in line with the 1994 International Convention on Nuclear Safety, to which the European Atomic Energy Community has acceded. One of the main objectives of this instrument is to prevent accidents with radiological consequences and to mitigate such consequences should they occur. According to the Fundamental Principles of Nuclear Safety of the IAEA, accident prevention is the first safety priority, the second being the mitigation of accident consequences. These two measures should be clearly and unequivocally inscribed in the Regulation.
Amendment 18 Article 2, point (e)
e) measures to promote international cooperation (including in the framework of relevant international organisations, notably IAEA) in the above fields, including the implementation and monitoring of international Conventions and Treaties, exchange of information and training and research;	e) measures to promote international cooperation (including in the framework of relevant international organisations, notably IAEA) in the above fields, including the implementation and monitoring of international Conventions and Treaties, exchange of information, training, education and research.
Amendment 19 Article 5, paragraph 2
2. These action programmes shall specify the objectives pursued, the fields of intervention, the measures envisaged, the expected results, the management procedures and total amount of financing planned. They shall contain a summary description of the operations to be financed, an indication of the amounts allocated for each operation and an indicative implementation timetable. Where relevant, they may include the results of any lessons learned from previous assistance.	2. These action programmes shall specify the objectives pursued, the fields of intervention, the measures envisaged, the expected results, the management procedures and total amount of financing planned. They shall contain a summary description of the operations to be financed, an indication of the amounts allocated for each operation and an indicative implementation timetable. Where applicable, they shall include the results of any lessons learned from previous assistance.
Amendment 20 Article 5, paragraph 3
3. Action programmes, and any revisions or extensions thereof, shall be adopted in accordance with the procedure referred to in Article 20 (2), following, where appropriate, consultation with the partner country, or partner countries in the region, concerned.	3. Action programmes, and any revisions or extensions thereof, shall be adopted in accordance with the procedure referred to in Article 20 (2) and with account being taken of Article 18, following, where appropriate, consultation with the partner country, or partner countries in the region, concerned.
Justification
Amendment 21 Article 7, paragraph 1, indent 5
- European Union agencies;	- the Community's Joint Research Centre and European Union agencies;
Justification
The JRC has long been implementing security assistance under the TACIS programme and should be eligible for funding under this regulation, as well.
Amendment 22 Article 8, paragraph 1, indent 6
- debt-relief programmes;	- debt-relief programmes, in exceptional cases and pursuant to an internationally agreed debt relief programme;
Justification
Debt relief should be strictly exceptional.
Amendment 23 Article 8, paragraph 2 a (new)
	2a. Community financing shall in principle not be used for paying taxes, customs duties or other fiscal charges in beneficiary countries.
Justification
Financing of fees for the benefit of the assistance receiving countries´ administrative authorities should be excluded and allowed only in strictly exceptional cases.
Amendment 24 Article 18
The Commission shall regularly evaluate the results of policies and programmes and the effectiveness of programming in order to ascertain whether the objectives have been met and enable it to formulate recommendations with a view to improving future operations. The Commission shall send significant evaluation reports to the Committee established in accordance with Article 20.	The Commission, with the help of independent experts, shall regularly evaluate, on an individual project basis, the results of policies and programmes and the effectiveness of programming in order to ascertain whether the objectives have been met and enable it to formulate recommendations with a view to improving future operations. The Commission shall send significant evaluation reports to the European Parliament, the Council and the Committee established in accordance with Article 20.
Justification
Considering the obvious lack of evaluation of past nuclear assistance programmes, the evaluation should be done with the help of independent experts. Monitoring and evaluation has to be an ongoing process and should be carried out on an individual project basis (and not only sector or country wide as mainly carried out by the Commission). The European Parliament and the Council should receive the evaluation reports.
Amendment 25 Article 20 a (new)
	Article 20a
	Financial reference amount
	The financial reference amount for implementation of this Regulation for the period 2007-2013 shall be EUR 464 million.
	Annual appropriations shall be authorised by the two budget authorities within the limits of the financial perspectives.
Justification
The reference to the overall budget appropriation of the new IIA needs to be written in the text.
Amendment 26 Article 21
Not later than 31 December 2010, the Commission shall submit to the European Parliament and the Council a report evaluating the implementation of the regulation in the first three years together, if appropriate, with a legislative proposal introducing the necessary modifications to the instrument.	Not later than 31 December 2010 , the Commission shall submit to the European Parliament and the Council a report evaluating the implementation of the Regulation in the first three years, and thereafter shall report every two years, together, if appropriate, with a legislative proposal introducing the necessary modifications to the instrument.
Or. en
Justification
Considering the large amounts of money involved and the mediocre past record of nuclearassistance programmes in the East, more frequent reporting is indispensable.

• [1]  Not yet published in OJ.

EXPLANATORY STATEMENT

The Commission proposal on a new Financial Framework for the years 2007-2013 included a new regulation to set up an instrument for Stability. It aimed to cover also assistance and cooperation in the area of nuclear safety between the Community and the third countries.

The legal base of the Regulation for the Stability instrument was originally Article 308 of the Treaty establishing the European Community (TEC). Articles 179 and 181a of the Treaty were, however, seen as a more appropriate legal base. However, these articles were not compatible with Article 203 of the Euratom Treaty which was needed for the legal base of the nuclear safety cooperation.

For this reason, the proposal on the Stability instrument was supplemented with the complementary regulation establishing an Instrument for Nuclear Safety Cooperation. Its legal base is solely Article 203 of the Euratom Treaty.

The Commission must ensure that all the measures adopted are consistent with the European Community's overall strategic policy framework for partner countries, in particular with regard to the objectives of its development and economic cooperation policies and programmes adopted pursuant to the above mentioned Articles179 and 181a of the TEC.

The Regulation for Nuclear Safety Cooperation is complementary to any assistance provided by the European Union under the Humanitarian Aid instrument, The Pre-accession instrument, the European Neighbourhood and Partnership Instrument, the Development Cooperation and Economic Cooperation Instrument, and the Instrument for Stability.

Community assistance needs to be implemented on the basis of multi-annual strategy papers and indicative programmes.

The Regulation replaces the existing Council Regulation concerning the provision of assistance to partner States in Eastern Europe and Central Asia and the Council decisions on financing the Chernobyl Shelter Fund. It continues the old programmes and does not aim at substantial changes in the established practices of nuclear safety cooperation.

Since its inception in 1991, some € 1200 million of the overall Tacis funding has been directed towards nuclear safety projects in parallel with the Nuclear Safety Programme, including the major part of the € 470 million assistance for Chernobyl and related projects. Furthermore, Tacis has contributed some € 250 million to the Science and Technology Centres in Russia and Ukraine, allowing former scientists and engineers of mass destruction weapons industries to redirect their skills to peaceful activities.

The EU has assisted its partners in accordance with the International Atomic Energy Agency's global benchmarks. The agency is a major player of international nuclear safety and safeguards questions especially with its Safety Standards Series, and its evaluation of the first generation Soviet-designed reactors, which has resulted in two Safety Issue Books. The findings of these books have become the basis for the development and implementation of the nuclear safety improvements provided by the Tacis Nuclear Safety Programme. The adoption of the Convention on Nuclear Safety in Vienna in 1994 represents another major milestone in maintaining a high level of global safety, as well as the IAEA Joint Convention on the Safety of Spent Fuel and Radioactive Waste Management.

The improvement of nuclear safety is difficult to measure, and the EU still needs to tackle many possible safety issues in third countries. In the CIS countries, major design and operational weaknesses identified in the IAEA Safety Issue Books as well as emergency preparedness concerns have been addressed, largely independent safety authorities have been established and increasingly safety culture is becoming apparent in operators and regulators.

The text of Recital (5) of the Regulation of an Instrument for Nuclear Safety Cooperation drafted by the Commission says: “There is a particular need for the Community to continue its efforts in support of the application of effective safeguard of nuclear materials in third countries, drawing on the experience of mutual consultation between the Commission and its contractors and building on the experience already gained under the Tacis and Phare programmes including through the work of the relevant expert groups, notably in the area of civil nuclear liability, and its own safeguards activities within the European Union.”

The Rapporteur supports the idea of continuing old EU programmes in the new instrumental framework in the spirit of the 18.6.1992 Council Resolution on the technological problems of nuclear safety. Close cooperation with the IAEA is needed.

The most important amendment by the rapporteur is proposed to Article 2. Financial assistance should be given to improve nuclear safety only at existing nuclear installations and should not be granted to new installations under planning or construction.

The Commission should still supplement its legal proposal by a Financial Statement on spending of EU funds in nuclear safety cooperation.

OPINION of the Committee on Foreign Affairs (11.10.2006)

for the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy

on the proposal for a Council regulation establishing an Instrument for Nuclear Safety and Security Assistance
(9037/2006 – C6‑0153/2006 – 2006/0802(CNS))

Draftsperson (*): Angelika Beer

(*)                         Enhanced cooperation between committees – Rule 47 of the Rules of Procedure

SHort JUSTIFICATION

The current proposal for a Regulation establishing an Instrument for Nuclear Safety stems from the decision taken by Council, in agreement with the European Parliament, to delete from the Commission proposal establishing an Instrument for Stability all references to nuclear safety. This decision was taken in response to Parliament request that the procedure for the adoption of the Stability Instrument be changed from consultation to co-decision. This meant that all measures which were based on Article 203 of the EURATOM Treaty would be financed under a separate instrument - the current one.

The main objectives of the draftsperson are:

to ensure that the present instrument is complementary with the other external assistance instruments,

to ensure that it builds on the achievements already reached in previous negotiations;

to define in very clear terms the scope of the present proposals and ensure that Community funds are really used in order to promote nuclear safety in third countries.

AMENDMENTS

The Committee on Foreign Affairs calls on the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy, as the committee responsible, to incorporate the following amendments in its report:

Text proposed by the Council[1]	Amendments by Parliament
Amendment 1 Title
Proposal for a COUNCIL REGULATION establishing an Instrument for Nuclear Safety and Security Assistance	Proposal for a COUNCIL REGULATION establishing an Instrument for Nuclear Safety Cooperation
Justification
The reference to security seems inappropriate – the scope of this instrument is restricted. Security issues, inasmuch as they are Community competence, are for the Stability Instrument.
Amendment 2 Recital 1
(1) The European Community is a major provider of economic, financial, technical, humanitarian and macro-economic assistance to third countries. In order to make the European Community’s external aid more effective, a new framework has been devised for the planning and provision of assistance. Regulation (EC) No … of the Council of … will set up a Pre-Accession Instrument to cover Community assistance for candidate countries and potential candidate countries. Regulation (EC) No … of the European Parliament and of the Council of … will introduce a European Neighbourhood and Partnership Instrument. Regulation (EC) No … of the European Parliament and of the Council of … is aimed at development cooperation and economic cooperation with the other third countries. Regulation (EC) No .... of the European Parliament and of the Council of ... will set up an Instrument for Stability. The present Regulation is a complementary instrument aimed at supporting efforts to enhance nuclear safety and the application of efficient and effective safeguards of nuclear materials in third countries.	(1) The European Community is a major provider of economic, financial, technical, humanitarian and macro-economic assistance to third countries. In order to make the European Community’s external aid more effective, a new framework has been devised for the planning and provision of assistance. Regulation (EC) No … of the Council of … will set up a Pre-Accession Instrument to cover Community assistance for candidate countries and potential candidate countries. Regulation (EC) No … of the European Parliament and of the Council of … will introduce a European Neighbourhood and Partnership Instrument. Regulation (EC) No … of the European Parliament and of the Council of … is aimed at development cooperation with third countries1. Council Regulation (EC) No … of ... promotes economic cooperation with the other third countries. Regulation (EC) No .... of the European Parliament and of the Council of ... will set up an Instrument for Stability. Regulation (EC) No .... of the European Parliament and of the Council of ... establishes a financing instrument for the promotion of democracy and human rights worldwide (EIDHR)2. The present Regulation is a complementary instrument aimed at supporting efforts to enhance nuclear safety and the application of efficient and effective safeguards of nuclear materials in third countries. _______________· 1 OJ L […], […], p. […]. 2 OJ L […], […], p. […].
Justification
The references to the other external assistance instruments need to be updated in the light of the new structure negotiated by Parliament, Council and Commission.
Amendment 3 Recital 2 a (new)
	(2a) The growing availability of nuclear material increases the risk of nuclear weaponry proliferation and therefore has clear nuclear safety implications which should be addressed by the present instrument.
Justification
Nuclear safety is not merely a question of power plants and other nuclear installations. Proliferations issues must be taken into consideration and should be covered by the regulation.
Amendment 4 Recital 3 a (new)
	(3a) It is of fundamental importance that the confidentiality of information on nuclear and radiological safety, which must be precise and corroborated, be guaranteed, particularly as regards information which could be of major interest to terrorists.
Justification
There is a need to prevent terrorists from gaining access to any information; acts of nuclear terrorism could have major consequences and jeopardise international security and peace.
Amendment 5 Recital 9
(9) It is understood that, when giving assistance to the nuclear installation concerned, it is with the aim that maximum impact could be obtained by the assistance, without, however, deviating from the principle that the responsibility for the safety of the installation should rest with the operator and the State having the jurisdiction over the installation.	(9) It is understood that, when giving assistance to the nuclear installation concerned, it is with the aim that maximum impact could be obtained by the assistance, without, however, deviating from the "polluter pays" principle and the principle that liability for the safety of the installation, its decommissioning and the waste it has generated should rest with the operator and the State having the jurisdiction over the installation.
Justification
Community assistance to third countries does not relieve those countries and the operators of their safety and environmental responsibility during the whole period the facility operates and afterwards, i.e. closure, decommissioning and remediation of the site.
Amendment 6 Article 1
The Community shall finance measures to support the promotion of a high level of nuclear safety, radiation protection and the application of efficient and effective safeguards of nuclear material in third countries in line with the provisions of this Regulation.	The Community shall finance measures to support the promotion and implementation of a high level of nuclear safety, radiation protection and the application of efficient and effective safeguards of nuclear material in third countries in line with the provisions of this Regulation, without prejudice to the “polluter-pays” principle. Such measures shall exclude actions aimed at increasing the life-span of plants or building new ones.
Justification
Community assistance to third countries does not relieve them of their environmental responsibility. Furthermore the use of Community resources to increase the life span of obsolete plants or to build new ones should be banned.
Amendment 7 Article 2, point (a), indent 4
- support to the safe transport, treatment and disposal of nuclear fuel and radioactive waste,	- support to the development of proper methods and technologies for the safe transport, treatment and disposal of nuclear fuel and radioactive waste,
Justification
The Community should not finance the actual transport, treatment and disposal of nuclear material – this is the responsibility of third countries. It should merely promote the use of safe technologies and methodologies.
Amendment 8 Article 2, point (b)
(b) the promotion of effective regulatory frameworks, procedures and systems to ensure adequate protection against ionising radiations from radioactive materials, in particular from high activity radioactive sources, and their safe disposal;	(b) the promotion of effective regulatory frameworks, procedures and systems to ensure adequate protection against ionising radiations from radioactive materials, in particular from high activity radioactive sources, and their safe disposal, the financial liability for which must continue to be borne solely by the operator;
Justification
This amendment reinforces the concept that "the polluter pays" from which the regulation should not derogate.
Amendment 9 Article 4, paragraph 2
2. Strategy papers shall be reviewed at mid-term or whenever necessary, and may be revised in accordance with the procedure referred to in Article 20(2)	2. Strategy papers shall be reviewed at mid-term or earlier, whenever necessary, and may be revised in accordance with the procedure referred to in Article 20(2)
Justification
The addition aims to exclude any ambiguity about the revision procedure.
Amendment 10 Article 5, paragraph 2
2. These action programmes shall specify the objectives pursued, the fields of intervention, the measures envisaged, the expected results, the management procedures and total amount of financing planned. They shall contain a summary description of the operations to be financed, an indication of the amounts allocated for each operation and an indicative implementation timetable. Where relevant, they may include the results of any lessons learned from previous assistance.	2. These action programmes shall specify the objectives pursued, the fields of intervention, the measures envisaged, the expected results, the management procedures and total amount of financing planned. They shall contain a summary description of the operations to be financed, an indication of the amounts allocated for each operation and an indicative implementation timetable. They shall - where the same exist - include the results of any lessons learned, including on the basis of independent assessment, from previous assistance.
Justification
Your rapporteur would like to emphasise the need for an independent evaluation of the results achieved by Community assistance in this area, particularly in the light of the criticism which was levelled at TACIS programmes in the area of nuclear safety in the Court of Auditors reports of 1998 and 2006.
Amendment 11 Article 5, paragraph 3
3. Action programmes, and any revisions or extensions thereof, shall be adopted in accordance with the procedure referred to in Article 20 (2), following, where appropriate, consultation with the partner country, or partner countries in the region, concerned.	3.Action programmes, and any revisions or extensions thereof, shall be adopted in accordance with Article 18 and on the basis of the procedure referred to in Article 20 (2), following, where appropriate, consultation with the partner country, or partner countries in the region, concerned.
Justification
See justification to amendment 10 on Article 5(2).
Amendment 12 Article 6, paragraph 3
3. Where the cost of such measures exceeds EUR 10 million, the Commission shall adopt them in accordance with the procedure referred to in Article 20(3), following, where appropriate, consultation with the partner country, or partner countries in the region, concerned.	3. Where the cost of such measures exceeds EUR 5 000 000, the Commission shall adopt them in accordance with the procedure referred to in Article 20(3), following, where appropriate, consultation with the partner country, or partner countries in the region, concerned.
Justification
The Commission should enjoy a certain degree of autonomy in its decision. However the threshold in the original proposal seems too high.
Amendment 13 Article 6, paragraph 4
4. Where the cost of such measures is EUR 10 million or less, the Commission shall inform in writing the Council and the Committee set up in accordance with Article 20 within one month of adopting such measures.	4. Where the cost of such measures is EUR 5 000 000 or less, the Commission shall inform in writing the European Parliament, the Council and the Committee set up in accordance with Article 20 within one month of adopting such measures.
Justification
The original text foresees a double information to Member States (via the Council of Ministers and via the committee where representatives of the Member States sit) and none for the Parliament. This is totally unacceptable. The right of information is a minimum requirement in a parliamentary democracy.
Amendment 14 Article 18
The Commission shall regularly evaluate the results of policies and programmes and the effectiveness of programming in order to ascertain whether the objectives have been met and enable it to formulate recommendations with a view to improving future operations. The Commission shall send significant evaluation reports to the Committee established in accordance with Article 20.	The Commission shall regularly evaluate the results of policies and programmes and the effectiveness of programming and implementation, drawing on the results of independent assessments, in order to ascertain whether the objectives have been met and enable it to formulate recommendations with a view to improving future operations. The Commission shall send its evaluation reports together with the independent assessments to the European Parliament and the Committee established in accordance with Article 20.
Justification
See justification for amendment 10 on Article 5(2). The amendment further takes into account the new enhanced information and cooperation culture between Commission and Parliament as stipulated in the letter by Commissioner Ferrero-Waldner as well as in the Joint Letter on Dialogue with the Parliament accompanying the Development Cooperation Instrument.
Amendment 15 Article 21
Not later than 31 December 2010, the Commission shall submit to the European Parliament and the Council a report evaluating the implementation of the regulation in the first three years together, if appropriate, with a legislative proposal introducing the necessary modifications to the instrument.	Not later than 30 April 2009, the Commission shall submit to the European Parliament and the Council a report evaluating the implementation of the regulation in the first three years together, if appropriate, with a legislative proposal introducing the necessary modifications to the instrument.
Justification
The review clause in the original text is the one adopted for the IPA, ENPI and the Stability Instrument. However, in the last days of the trilateral negotiations, the Commission committed itself publicly to launch the review process already in 2009, when the present College of Commissioners will be still in place. The texts of the relevant regulations were not modified because this would have entailed a renegotiation of the whole package. However, there is no reason why the Nuclear Safety Regulation should not reflect the real terms of the political deal.

PROCEDURE

Title	Draft Council regulation establishing an Instrument for Nuclear Safety and Security Assistance
References	9037/2006 – C6–0153/2006 – 2006/0802(CNS)
Committee responsible	ITRE
Opinion by         Date announced in plenary	AFET 18.5.2006
Enhanced cooperation – date announced in plenary	6.7.2006
Draftsperson         Date appointed	Angelika Beer 30.5.2006
Discussed in committee	13.9.2006		10.10.2006
Date adopted	10.10.2006
Result of final vote	+: –: 0:	52 1 2
Members present for the final vote	Angelika Beer, Panagiotis Beglitis, Monika Beňová, Marco Cappato, Simon Coveney, Ryszard Czarnecki, Giorgos Dimitrakopoulos, Jas Gawronski, Maciej Marian Giertych, Ana Maria Gomes, Alfred Gomolka, Richard Howitt, Jana Hybášková, Ioannis Kasoulides, Bogdan Klich, Helmut Kuhne, Vytautas Landsbergis, Edward McMillan-Scott, Willy Meyer Pleite, Francisco José Millán Mon, Pasqualina Napoletano, Annemie Neyts-Uyttebroeck, Raimon Obiols i Germà, Cem Özdemir, Tobias Pflüger, Mirosław Mariusz Piotrowski, Lydie Polfer, Michel Rocard, Raül Romeva i Rueda, José Ignacio Salafranca Sánchez-Neyra, Jacek Emil Saryusz-Wolski, György Schöpflin, Gitte Seeberg, Hannes Swoboda, Konrad Szymański, Paavo Väyrynen, Ari Vatanen, Jan Marinus Wiersma, Luis Yañez-Barnuevo García, Josef Zieleniec
Substitute(s) present for the final vote	Alexandra Dobolyi, Árpád Duka-Zólyomi, Hélène Flautre, Michael Gahler, Tunne Kelam, Miguel Angel Martínez Martínez, Yiannakis Matsis, Achille Occhetto, Rihards Pīks, Aloyzas Sakalas, Inger Segelström
Substitute(s) under Rule 178(2) present for the final vote	Elspeth Attwooll, Christopher Beazley, Hanna Foltyn-Kubicka, Toomas Savi

• [1]  OJ C ... /Not yet published in OJ.

OPINION of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety (11.10.2006)

for the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy

on the draft Council Regulation establishing an Instrument for Nuclear Safety and Security Assistance
(9037/2006 – C6‑0153/2006 – 2006/0802(CNS))

Draftswoman: Frédérique Ries

AMENDMENTS

The Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety calls on the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy, as the committee responsible, to incorporate the following amendments in its report:

Text proposed by the Council[1]	Amendments by Parliament
Amendment 1 Title
Proposal for a COUNCIL REGULATION establishing an Instrument for Nuclear Safety and Security Assistance	Proposal for a COUNCIL REGULATION establishing an Instrument for Nuclear Safety Cooperation
Justification
The reference to security seems inappropriate since this instrument has little operative articles related to the security aspect of the cooperation with third countries.
Amendment 2 Citation -1 (new)
	Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community, and in particular Article 308 thereof,
Justification
The proposed Council regulation shall replace important Council Decisions that make reference to the EC Treaty such as Council Decision 1998/381 (EC, Euratom) of 5 June 1998 concerning a contribution of the European Community to the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development for the Chernobyl Shelter Fund, and Council Decision 2001/824 (EC, Euratom) of 16 November 2001 on a further contribution of the European Community to the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development for the Chernobyl Shelter Fund. Similarly, the currently discussed Council decision proposal to allocate funds to the Chernobyl Shelter Fund in 2007 (2006/0102 CNS) is also based on both the ECT and Euratom.
There is therefore no reason to limit the legal basis of this new instrument to only the Euratom Treaty since it covers the safety aspect of nuclear installations in third country, including funding for Chernobyl. Limiting the European Parliament's power by imposing a sole reference to Euratom is therefore unacceptable. Article 308 of the ECT is compatible with Article 203 of the Euratom Treaty and must be applied to this Regulation.
Amendment 3 Recital 2
(2) The Chernobyl accident in 1986 highlighted the global importance of nuclear safety. In order to fulfil the objective of the Treaty to create the conditions of safety necessary to eliminate hazards to the life and health of the public, the European Atomic Energy Community (hereinafter the Community) should be able to support nuclear safety in third countries.	(2) The Chernobyl nuclear disaster in 1986, which was the worst ever in terms of the number of its victims and the tragic health consequences for both those exposed at the time of the accident and the generations to come, highlighted the dramatic global economic, environmental, social and health consequences of such a disaster. In order to reduce the risks to the life and health of the public, Member States and the European Atomic Energy Community (hereinafter the Community) should be able to support the safe closure of existing dangerous and particularly polluting nuclear facilities in third countries.
Justification
It is important to stress the tragic and unique nature of the Chernobyl disaster of 1986, which can in no way be described as a normal accident. and which should lead towards financing measures to accelerate the remediation of former sites and closure of high risk and particularly polluting nuclear facilities.
Amendment 4 Recital 4
(4) The Community already pursues a close cooperation, in accordance with Chapter X of the Treaty, with the International Atomic Energy Agency, both in relation to nuclear safeguards (in furtherance of the objectives of Chapter VII of Part Two of the Treaty), and in relation to nuclear safety.	(4) The Community already pursues a close cooperation, in accordance with Chapter X of the Treaty, with the International Atomic Energy Agency, both in relation to nuclear safeguards (in furtherance of the objectives of Chapter VII of Part Two of the Treaty), and in relation to nuclear safety. In this context, the Community is actively supporting the drafting of a code of conduct for an international nuclear incident warning system under the aegis of the International Atomic Energy Agency.
Amendment 5 Recital 5
(5) There is a particular need for the Community to continue its efforts in support of the promotion of nuclear safety and the application of effective safeguards of nuclear materials in third countries, drawing on the experience of mutual consultation between the Commission and its contractors and building on the experience already gained under the Tacis and Phare programmes including through the work of the relevant expert groups, notably in the area of civil nuclear liability, and its own safeguards activities within the European Union.	(5) There is a particular need for the Community to continue its efforts in support of the implementation of the highest level of nuclear safety and the application of effective safeguards of nuclear materials in third countries, drawing on the experience of mutual consultation between the Commission and its contractors, taking into account independent audits, in particular by the European Court of Auditors, of past experience under the Tacis and Phare programmes, and its own safeguards activities within the European Union.
Justification
Community public money must be spent in an effecient and effective way. The measures that are applied under this new instrument must have a real impact on nuclear safety and security. They must therefore be built on past experiences and independent assessments. In this sense the 1998 and more recent 2006 European Court of Auditors, which both came to severe conclusions as regards nuclear safety assistance respectively in the East and Russia must be taken into account.
Amendment 6 Recital 8
(8) The Council of the European Union in its Resolution of 18 June 1992 on the technological problems of nuclear safety “emphasizes the particular importance it attaches to nuclear safety in Europe, and therefore requests the Member States and the Commission to adopt as the fundamental and priority objective of Community cooperation in the nuclear field, in particular with the other European countries, especially those of Central and Eastern Europe and the Republics of the former Soviet Union that of bringing their nuclear installations up to safety levels equivalent to those in practice in the Community and to facilitate the implementation of the safety criteria and requirements already recognized throughout the Community”, financial assistance will be provided taking these objectives into account, including when supporting existing plants not yet in operation.	(8) The Council of the European Union in its Resolution of 18 June 1992 on the technological problems of nuclear safety “emphasizes the particular importance it attaches to nuclear safety in Europe, and therefore requests the Member States and the Commission to adopt as the fundamental and priority objective of Community cooperation in the nuclear field, in particular with the other European countries, especially those of Central and Eastern Europe and the Republics of the former Soviet Union that of bringing their nuclear installations up to safety levels equivalent to those in practice in the Community and to facilitate the implementation of the safety criteria and requirements already recognized throughout the Community”; financial assistance will be provided taking these objectives into account.
Justification
Financial assistance should not be given to nuclear facilities not yet in operation.
Amendment 7 Recital 8 a (new)
	(8a) The Council further recalls on 24 September 1998 that "its evaluation of the Commission opinions on the accession applications of the Central and Eastern European States reveals that considerable efforts will be required by these States to enable them to meet the environmental "Acquis" and implement it effectively, including through the establishment of the necessary administrative capacity. It also recalls the need to enhance nuclear safety in the candidate States so that it reaches a level corresponding to the technological, regulatory and operational state-of-the-art in the Union. The Council also recalls the need for the candidate States to respect all existing commitments in this area”.
Justification
Third countries should achieved the same level of nuclear safety as requested to past and current candidate countries to the European Union.
Amendment 8 Recital 8 b (new)
	(8b) Taking into account that the risk 'zero' does not exist in the nuclear field, Community assistance will be limited to facilities that are -or were- in operation at the date of entry into force of this Regulation.
Justification
Financial assistance should not be given to nuclear facilities not yet in operation.
Amendment 9 Recital 9
(9) It is understood that, when giving assistance to the nuclear installation concerned, it is with the aim that maximum impact could be obtained by the assistance, without, however, deviating from the principle that the responsibility for the safety of the installation should rest with the operator and the State having the jurisdiction over the installation.	(9) It is understood that, when giving assistance to the nuclear installation concerned, it is with the aim that maximum impact could be obtained by the assistance, without, however, deviating from the "polluter pays" principle, and that the liability for the safety of the installation, its decommissioning and the waste it has generated should rest with the operator and the State having the jurisdiction over the installation.
Justification
Community assistance to third countries does not relieve them and operators of their safety and environmental responsibility during the whole period the facility operates and afterwards, i.e. closure, decommissioning and remediation of the site.
Amendment 10 Recital 13
(13) This Regulation, providing for financial assistance in support of the objectives of the Treaty, is without prejudice to the respective competences of the Community and Member States in the fields concerned, in particular in nuclear safeguards.	(13) This Regulation, providing for financial assistance in support of the objectives of the Treaty, is without prejudice to the exclusive powers of the Member States to make their own energy choices and the respective competences of the Community and Member States in the fields concerned, in particular in nuclear safeguards.
Justification
We must draw attention to the sovereignty of the Member States in making energy choices, even though nuclear safety is a shared responsibility and we can congratulate ourselves on the development of a common approach on the part of the national nuclear safety authorities.
Amendment 11 Recital 14
(14) The Treaty does not provide, for the adoption of this Regulation, powers other than those of Article 203,	(14) This Regulation is based on Article 308 of the EC Treaty and Article 203 of the Euratom Treaty,
Justification
See justification on the amendment on the legal basis.
Amendment 12 Article 1
The Community shall finance measures to support the promotion of a high level of nuclear safety, radiation protection and the application of efficient and effective safeguards of nuclear material in third countries in line with the provisions of this Regulation.	The Community may finance the efficient implementation of measures where these would result in a safety level corresponding to the technological, regulatory and operational state-of-the-art in the Union, taking into consideration the latest scientific and technological development, radiation protection and the application of efficient and effective safeguards of nuclear material in third countries in line with the provisions of this Regulation, without prejudice to the "polluter-pays" principle." These measures shall not include any action intended to promote the construction of new nuclear power stations.
Justification
Community assistance should lead to the highest safety level. Furthermore, this assistance does not relieve third countries and operators of their environmental responsibility. Finally, it should be prohibited to use Community funds for the construction of new nuclear power stations.
Amendment 13 Article 1, paragraph 1 a (new)
	This Regulation covers only nuclear facilities that are or were in operation in third countries at the date of entry into force of this Regulation.
Justification
The use of Community resources should only be spent on in operation or closed nuclear facilities. They shall not be used to increase the lifespan or the buidling of nuclear facilities.
Amendment 14 Article 2, point (a), introductory sentence
a) the promotion of an effective nuclear safety culture at all levels, in particular through:	a) the establishment of effective nuclear safety measures at all levels, in particular through:
Justification
Community resources should be spent on implementing real safety measures.
Amendment 15 Article 2, point (a), indent 2
- on-site and external assistance programmes,	- on-site and external assistance programmes to improve the operating safety and maintenance of existing nuclear facilities,
Justification
Community assistance should lead to the highest safety level. Furthermore, this assistance does not relieve third countries and operators of their environmental responsibility.
Amendment 16 Article 2, point (a), indent 3
- improving the safety aspects of the design, operation and maintenance of existing nuclear power plants or other existing nuclear installations so that high safety levels can be achieved,	- improving the safety aspects of the design, operation and maintenance of existing nuclear power plants which are in operation,
Justification
It should be prohibited to use Community funds for the construction of new nuclear power stations.
Amendment 17 Article 2, paragraph 1, point (a), indent 4
- support to the safe transport, treatment and disposal of nuclear fuel and radioactive waste,	- support to the safe transport, treatment and disposal of nuclear fuel and radioactive waste; certain methods of disposal of radioactive waste, such as dumping at sea, disposal in under-sea repositories and disposal in space, shall be excluded for environmental reasons,
Justification
Based on Amendment 22 adopted by the European Parliament on 13 January 2004 to the proposal for a Council Directive (Euratom) on the management of spent nuclear fuel and radioactive waste (P5_TA(2004)0011).
Amendment 18 Article 2, paragraph 1, point (a), indent 5
- and the development and implementation of strategies for decommissioning existing installations and the remediation of former nuclear sites;	- and the development and implementation of strategies for decommissioning existing installations and the remediation of former nuclear sites which can attain a high level of safety at a reasonable cost and within a reasonable time frame;
Justification
It is important to mention the various options available to the European Union in assisting third countries under the PHARE and TACIS programmes: this aid can be used either to modernise existing nuclear reactors or to implement commitments to close installations for which a high level of safety cannot be guaranteed.
Amendment 19 Article 2, point (b)
(b) the promotion of effective regulatory frameworks, procedures and systems to ensure adequate protection against ionising radiations from radioactive materials, in particular from high activity radioactive sources, and their safe disposal;	(b) the establishment of effective measures to ensure the highest protection against ionising radiations from radioactive materials, in particular from high activity radioactive sources;
Justification
Community resources should be spent on implementing real safety measures.
Amendment 20 Article 5, paragraph 2
2. These action programmes shall specify the objectives pursued, the fields of intervention, the measures envisaged, the expected results, the management procedures and total amount of financing planned. They shall contain a summary description of the operations to be financed, an indication of the amounts allocated for each operation and an indicative implementation timetable. Where relevant, they may include the results of any lessons learned from previous assistance.	2. These action programmes shall specify the objectives pursued, the fields of intervention, the measures envisaged, the expected results, the management procedures and total amount of financing planned. They shall contain a summary description of the operations to be financed, an indication of the amounts allocated for each operation and an indicative implementation timetable. Where applicable, they shall include the results of any lessons learned from previous assistance experience in the same facility and/or in the same area.
Justification
In order to increase overall program efficiency, each action program, where applicable, should explicitly make reference to previous assistance experience in the same facility and/or in the same area.
Amendment 21 Article 6, paragraph 3
3. Where the cost of such measures exceeds EUR 10 million, the Commission shall adopt them in accordance with the procedure referred to in Article 20(3), following, where appropriate, consultation with the partner country, or partner countries in the region, concerned.	3. Where the cost of such measures exceeds EUR one million, the Commission shall adopt them in accordance with the procedure referred to in Article 20(3), following, where appropriate, consultation with the partner country, or partner countries in the region, concerned.
Justification
The limit for the adoption of the consultative procedure in the case of Special Measures should be set at € 1 million. In addition, there should be a limitation of the number of potential Special Measures per given time period. The Parliament should be allowed to make its own suggestions for Special Measures and the refusal of such proposals have to be justified by the Commission and/or the Committee.
Amendment 22 Article 6, paragraph 4
4. Where the cost of such measures is EUR 10 million or less, the Commission shall inform in writing the Council and the Committee set up in accordance with Article 20 within one month of adopting such measures.	4. Where the cost of such measures is EUR one million or less, the Commission shall inform in writing the European Parliament, the Council and the Committee set up in accordance with Article 20 within one month of adopting such measures.
Justification
Same justification as the amendment to article 6, paragraph 3 by the same authors.
Amendment 23 Article 8, paragraph 1, indent 6
- debt-relief programmes;	deleted
Justification
Under this Regulation, Community resources should not be allocated to debt-relief programmes. Generally speaking, the selection and definition of measures should be based on least cost assessments (e.g. as practiced by the EBRD).
Amendment 24 Article 8, paragraph 1, indent 8
- grants to cover operating costs;	deleted
Justification
Under this Regulation, Community resources should not be allocated to grants. Generally speaking, the selection and definition of measures should be based on least cost assessments (e.g. as practiced by the EBRD).
Amendment 25 Article 9, paragraph 2
2. None of the support measures are necessarily covered by multi-annual programming and may therefore be financed outside the scope of strategy papers and multi-annual indicative programmes. However, they may also be financed under multi-annual indicative programmes. The Commission shall adopt support measures not covered by multi-annual indicative programmes in accordance with Article 6.	2. Each of the support measures shall necessarily be covered by multi-annual programming or the multi-annual indicative programmes, in accordance with Article 6.
Justification
The Community resources must be only allocated to safety measures covered by the multi-annual programming and indicative programmes, taking into account some exceptions as laid down in Article 6.
Amendment 26 Article 18
The Commission shall regularly evaluate the results of policies and programmes and the effectiveness of programming in order to ascertain whether the objectives have been met and enable it to formulate recommendations with a view to improving future operations. The Commission shall send significant evaluation reports to the Committee established in accordance with Article 20.	The Commission, with the help of independent experts, shall regularly evaluate, on an individual project basis, the results of policies and programmes and the effectiveness of programming in order to ascertain whether the objectives have been met and enable it to formulate recommendations with a view to improving future operations. The Commission shall send significant evaluation reports to the European Parliament, the Council and the Committee established in accordance with Article 20.
Justification
Considering the obvious lack of evaluation of past nuclear assistance programs, the evaluation should be done with the help of independent experts. Monitoring and evaluation has to be an ongoing process and should be carried out on an individual project basis (and not only sector or country wide as mainly carried out by the Commission). The European Parliament and the Council should receive the evaluation reports.
Amendment 27 Article 19
The Commission shall examine progress achieved in implementing the measures undertaken pursuant to this Regulation and shall submit to the European Parliament and the Council an annual report on the implementation of the assistance. The report shall also be addressed to the Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of Regions. The report shall contain information relating to the previous year on the measures financed, information on the results of monitoring and evaluation exercises and the implementation of budget commitments and payments, broken down by country, region and cooperation sector.	The Commission shall examine progress achieved in implementing the measures undertaken pursuant to this Regulation and shall submit to the European Parliament and the Council an annual report on the implementation of the assistance. The report shall also be addressed to the Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of Regions. The report shall contain the evaluation reports as referred in Article 18 and information relating to the previous year on the measures financed, information on the results of monitoring and evaluation exercises and the implementation of budget commitments and payments, broken down by country, region, cooperation sector and project specific.
Justification
Evaluation reports should also be sent to the European Parliament and the Council. Furthermore, the reports should give information on each individual project, which is supported by the Community under this Regulation.
Amendment 28 Article 20, paragraph 1
1. The Commission shall be assisted by a Committee composed of the representatives of the Member States and chaired by the representative of the Commission.	1. The Commission shall be assisted by a Committee composed of the representatives of the Member States and the European Parliament and chaired by the representative of the Commission.
Justification
The European Parliament should be represented in the committee.
Amendment 29 Article 21
Not later than 31 December 2010, the Commission shall submit to the European Parliament and the Council a report evaluating the implementation of the regulation in the first three years together, if appropriate, with a legislative proposal introducing the necessary modifications to the instrument.	Not later than 1 July 2009, the Commission shall submit to the European Parliament and the Council a report evaluating the implementation of the regulation in the first two years, and thereafter every two years, together, if appropriate, with a legislative proposal introducing the necessary modifications to the instrument.
Justification
Considering the large amounts of money involved and the mediocre past record of nuclear assistance programs in the East, more frequent reporting is indispensable. Comprehensive review reports that cover the cumulative periods from 1 January 2007 onwards should be submitted bi-annually starting 1 July 2009.

PROCEDURE

Title	Draft Council regulation establishing an Instrument for Nuclear Safety and Security Assistance
References	9037/2006 – C6-0153/2006 – 2006/0802(CNS)
Committee responsible	ITRE
Opinion by   Date announced in plenary	ENVI 18.5.2006
Enhanced cooperation – date announced in plenary
Drafts(wo)man   Date appointed	Frédérique Ries 14.6.2006
Previous drafts(wo)man
Discussed in committee
Date adopted	10.10.2006
Result of final vote	+: –: 0:	33 4 10
Members present for the final vote	Georgs Andrejevs, Irena Belohorská, Johannes Blokland, John Bowis, Frieda Brepoels, Dorette Corbey, Avril Doyle, Mojca Drčar Murko, Jill Evans, Anne Ferreira, Karl-Heinz Florenz, Matthias Groote, Satu Hassi, Gyula Hegyi, Jens Holm, Mary Honeyball, Caroline Jackson, Dan Jørgensen, Christa Klaß, Eija-Riitta Korhola, Urszula Krupa, Marie-Noëlle Lienemann, Peter Liese, Jules Maaten, Linda McAvan, Riitta Myller, Péter Olajos, Miroslav Ouzký, Frédérique Ries, Guido Sacconi, Karin Scheele, Horst Schnellhardt, Richard Seeber, Bogusław Sonik, Antonios Trakatellis, Evangelia Tzampazi, Thomas Ulmer, Marcello Vernola, Anja Weisgerber, Åsa Westlund, Anders Wijkman
Substitute(s) present for the final vote	María del Pilar Ayuso González, Bairbre de Brún, Hélène Goudin, Kartika Tamara Liotard, Caroline Lucas, Bart Staes
Substitute(s) under Rule 178(2) present for the final vote	Fausto Correia
Comments (available in one language only)	...

• [1]  Not yet published in OJ.

OPINION of the Committee on Budgets (10.10.2006)

for the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy

on the draft Council regulation establishing an Instrument for Nuclear Safety and Security Assistance
(9037/2006 – C6‑0153/2006 – 2006/0802(CNS))

Draftsman: Janusz Lewandowski

SHORT JUSTIFICATION

elements of the proposal

The Regulation provides for financial assistance in the fields of nuclear safety, radiation protection and the application of efficient and effective safeguards of nuclear material in third countries. It is based on Article 203 of the Treaty establishing the European Atomic Energy Community.

This Regulation replaces Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 99/2000 of 29 December 1999 (TACIS) concerning the provision of assistance to the partner States in Eastern Europe and Central Asia[1], Council Decision 1998/381/EC, Euratom of 5 June 1998 concerning the Community contribution to the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development for the Chernobyl Shelter Fund[2] and Council Decision 2001/824/EC, Euratom of 16 November 2001 on a further contribution of the European Community to the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development for the Chernobyl Shelter Fund[3]. These instruments will therefore be repealed.

Financial aspects

1.          Budget lines

This proposal draws on a number of existing activities, covering in full or in part the type of activities currently addressed under the following policy areas and budget lines:

Tacis	19 06 01
Nuclear safety in NIS, including Financing of nuclear security from Euratom borrowings	19 06 05
Contribution to EBRD Chernobyl Shelter Fund	19 06 06
Assistance to partner countries in eastern Europe and central Asia — Expenditure on administrative management	19 01 04 07
Assistance to partner countries in eastern Europe and central Asia — Expenditure on administrative management	19 49 04 06

2.          Overall figures

2.1.       Total allocation for action:

€ 524 million

2.2.       Period of application

2007-2013

2.3.       Overall multiannual estimate of expenditure (current prices)

(a)  Financial intervention

€ million (to three decimal places)

	2007	2008	2009	2010	2011	2012	2013 *and following	Total
Commitments	68.772	71.223	72.673	74.153	74.413	75.930	77.468	514.632
Payments	7.654	23.767	37.240	50.085	62.394	68.884	264.612	514.632

* ‘following years’ only applying to payments

The following breakdown shall apply to the commitments:

Commitments (in € million to three decimal places)

Breakdown	2007	2008	2009	2010	2011	2012	2013	Total
Assistance in the nuclear safety sector	58.772	71.223	72.673	74.153	74.413	75.930	77.476	504.632
Community contribution to the EBRD for the Chernobyl Shelter Fund[4]	10.000							10.000
TOTAL	68.772	71.223	72.673	74.153	74.413	75.930	77.476	514.632

(b)  Technical and administrative assistance, of which support expenditure

€ million (to three decimal places)

Commitments	1.268	1.300	1.300	1.300	1.400	1.400	1.400	9.368
Payments	1.268	1.300	1.300	1.300	1.400	1.400	1.400	9.368
Subtotal a+b	€ million (to three decimal places)
Commitments	70.040	72.523	73.973	75.453	75.813	77.330	78.876	524.000
Payments	8.922	25.067	38.539	51.385	63.793	70.823	266.012	524.000

AMENDMENTS

The Committee on Budgets calls on the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy, as the committee responsible, to incorporate the following amendments in its report:

Draft legislative resolution

Amendment 1 Paragraph 1 a (new)

1a.      Considers that the indicative reference amount indicated in the legislative proposal must be compatible with the ceiling of heading 4 of the new multiannual financial framework (MFF) and points out that the annual amount will be decided within the annual budgetary procedure in accordance with the provisions of point 38 of the IIA of 17 May 2006;

Justification

Standard Amendment

PROCEDURE

Title	Draft Council Regulation establishing an Instrument for Nuclear Safety and Security Assistance
References	9037/2006 – C6-0153/2006 – 2006/0802(CNS)
Committee responsible	ITRE
Opinion by   Date announced in plenary	BUDG 18.5.2006
Enhanced cooperation – date announced in plenary
Drafts(wo)man   Date appointed	Janusz Lewandowski 5.7.2006
Previous drafts(wo)man
Discussed in committee	10.10.2006
Date adopted	10.10.2006
Result of final vote	+: –: 0:	25 0 0
Members present for the final vote	Reimer Böge, Simon Busuttil, Hynek Fajmon, Salvador Garriga Polledo, Dariusz Maciej Grabowski, Ingeborg Gräßle, Alain Lamassoure, Janusz Lewandowski, Mario Mauro, Paulo Casaca, Brigitte Douay, Bárbara Dührkop Dührkop, Louis Grech, Catherine Guy-Quint, Jutta Haug, Wiesław Stefan Kuc, Vladimír Maňka, Giovanni Pittella, Yannick Vaugrenard, Ralf Walter, Jan Mulder, Gérard Onesta, Esko Seppänen,
Substitute(s) present for the final vote	Albert Jan Maat, Paul Rübig
Substitute(s) under Rule 178(2) present for the final vote
Comments (available in one language only)	...

• [1]  OJ L 12, 18.1.2000, p. 1.
• [2]  OJ L 171, 17.6.1998, p. 31.
• [3]  OJ L 308, 27.11.2001, p. 25.
• [4]  Possible additional contributions to the Chernobyl Shelter Fund, after 2007, shall be decided in the context of the annual budgetary process, in accordance with relevant Council Decisions.

PROCEDURE

Title	Draft Council regulation establishing an Instrument for Nuclear Safety and Security Assistance
References	9037/2006 – C6-0153/2006 – 2006/0802(CNS)
Date of consulting Parliament	12.5.2006
Committee responsible   Date announced in plenary	ITRE 18.5.2006
Committee(s) asked for opinion(s)   Date announced in plenary	BUDG 18.5.2006		ENVI 18.5.2006	AFET 18.5.2006
Not delivering opinion(s)   Date of decision	DEVE 30.5.2006
Enhanced cooperation   Date announced in plenary	AFET 6.7.2006
Rapporteur(s)   Date appointed	Esko Seppänen 30.5.2006
Previous rapporteur(s)
Simplified procedure – date of decision  Date of decision
Legal basis disputed   Date of JURI opinion	24.10.2006
Financial endowment amended   Date of BUDG opinion	10.10.2006
Parliament to consult European Economic and Social Committee – date decided in plenary
Parliament to consult Committee of the Regions – date decided in plenary
Discussed in committee	12.09.2006		13.11.2006
Date adopted	13.11.2006
Result of final vote	+: –: 0:	39 4 1
Members present for the final vote	Šarūnas Birutis, Jan Březina, Philippe Busquin, Jerzy Buzek, Pilar del Castillo Vera, Joan Calabuig Rull, Giles Chichester, Den Dover, Nicole Fontaine, Norbert Glante, Umberto Guidoni, András Gyürk, Erna Hennicot-Schoepges, Fiona Hall, David Hammerstein Mintz, Ján Hudacký, Romana Jordan Cizelj, Werner Langen, Anne Laperrouze, Vincenzo Lavarra, Pia Elda Locatelli, Nils Eugenijus Maldeikis, Angelika Niebler, Reino Paasilinna, Aldo Patriciello, Vincent Peillon,Vladimír Remek, Herbert Reul, Mechtild Rothe, Paul Rübig, Britta Thomsen, Patrizia Toia, Catherine Trautmann, Claude Turmes, Nikolaos Vakalis, Dominique Vlasto.
Substitute(s) present for the final vote	Inés Ayala Sender, Alexander Alvaro, Cristina Gutiérrez-Cortines, Gunnar Hökmark, Jan Francisca Pleguezuelos Aguilar, Vittorio Prodi, Esko Seppänen, Alyn Smith.
Substitute(s) under Rule 178(2) present for the final vote
Date tabled	22.11.2006
Comments (available in one language only)