WRITTEN QUESTION E-2490/98

by Undine-Uta Bloch von Blottnitz (V) and Edith Müller (V) to the Commission

(30 July 1998)

Subject: EU aid and improved nuclear safety in Central and Eastern Europe

The European Union is spending substantial sums under the PHARE and TACIS programmes on improving nuclear safety in the countries of Central and Eastern Europe. The use of these funds has been evaluated in a European Parliament study (STOA, PE 166.083/fin.). The Commission has also commissioned a similar study, but has not made its results accessible to the European Parliament. Experiences with current PHARE and TACIS projects suggest that little or nothing has changed with regard to the weaknesses in the EU-funded aid programmes previously identified in the STOA study.

1. Is it correct that studies drawn up under the PHARE and TACIS programmes and/or their results are not communicated to the relevant authorities in the recipient countries, and in this context, what does the Commission consider to be the point of the heavy financial outlay in this connection?

2. Is the Commission aware that West European contractors pass on assignments to subcontractors in the recipient countries who are able to work substantially more cheaply, and that the considerable difference is retained by the West European consultants, and what is its view of this way of treating EU funds?

3. What is the breakdown in percentage (and real) terms between West European consultants and their Central and Eastern European subcontractors in respect of services provided under the PHARE and TACIS programmes?

4. When will the Commission finally make available to the European Parliament the studies that it has received concerning the use of EU funds to improve nuclear safety in Central and Eastern Europe and in the States of the former Soviet Union?

Joint answer

to Written Questions E-2488/98, E-2489/98 and E-2490/98 given by Mr van den Broek on behalf of the Commission

(6 October 1998)

The Commission has committed some ECU 720 million toward the nuclear safety sector under the Phare and Tacis programmes (1990-1997). An interim evaluation has confirmed the positive impact of the programmes. It is clear that the programmes have established close cooperation with all the national safety authorities and power plant operators of the partner countries.

Measures to improve the efficiency of activities in the nuclear safety sector have been implemented without amending the regulation. In this respect, the Commission refers the Honourable Member to comments on the Hoff report(1).

The Commission actively participates in all relevant international fora and maintains regular contacts with bilateral and multilateral donors.

The Commission concluded contracts under the 1991 Tacis programme in order not to delay the programme's implementation. Because of the uncertainty about the rules applying to civil liability, these contracts contained restrictive clauses on the transmission of the findings of studies to beneficiaires. The Commission's attempts to find an interim solution to the problem pending ratification by Russia of the Vienna Convention culminated in the signing in 1995 of a memorandum of understanding with the Russian Federation which included a provision on nuclear civil liability. All the restrictive clauses proposed by contractors have been systematically rejected since the memorandum was signed. A solution was found in 1997 for contracts concluded before the memorandum was signed providing for an exchange of letters between the contractors concerned and the Ministry for Atomic Energy of the Russian Federation (Minatom) allowing the findings of studies to be made available to beneficiaries.

Supply agencies are used solely for work which is not the responsibility of the public authorities.

The fee structure of Phare and Tacis contracts prevents experts from partner countries being invoiced at Community fee rates. The proportion of work sub-contracted to experts in partner countries varies according to the nature of the project under consideration. Studies of reactor design safety generally necessitate a substantial contribution from the original designer (in some cases 50 %). On-site assistance contracts require much less involvement on the part of local sub-contractors.

(1) PE 223.140.