WRITTEN QUESTION No. 2490/98 by Undine-Uta BLOCH von BLOTTNITZ , Edith MÜLLER to the Commission. EU aid and improved nuclear safety in Central and Eastern Europe
Date: 1998-07-30
Institutions: BLOCH VON BLOTTNITZ, European Parliament
Subjects: Central and Eastern Europe, Central and Eastern European countries, EU programme, financial aid, nuclear safety, subcontracting

C 135/64

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

14.5.1999

How successful does the Commission consider the use of supply agencies, as the interface between
4.
donor and recipient countries, to have been, particularly in the area of on-site assistance and taking cost
aspects and implementation times into account, and should the Commission not retain more decisions as a
matter for itself?

(1999/C 135/075)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2490/98

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

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

(30 July 1998)

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