Opinion of the Committee of the Regions on the "Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament on Commission support to nuclear safety in the Newly Independent States and Central and Eastern Europe"
Date: 2001-04-04
Institutions: European Committee of the Regions
Subjects: Central and Eastern European countries, Commonwealth of Independent States, nuclear safety

12.9.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 253/15

Opinion of the Committee of the Regions on the ‘Communication from the Commission to the
Council and the European Parliament on “Commission support to nuclear safety in the Newly
Independent States and Central and Eastern Europe”’

(2001/C 253/05)

THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS,

having regard to the Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament
on Commission support to nuclear safety in the Newly Independent States and Central and Eastern
Europe (COM(2000) 493 final);

having regard to the European Court of Auditors’ special report No 25/98 concerning operations by the
European Union in the field of nuclear safety in the CEEC and the NIS (1990-1997) (1), together with the
Commission’s replies;

having regard to the final declaration of the European Conference on Nuclear Safety and Local/Regional
Democracy held in Gothenburg on 24-26 June 1997;

having regard to the decision taken by its Bureau on 13 June 2000 to draw up, in accordance with the
fifth paragraph of Article 265 of the Treaty establishing the European Community, an opinion on the
Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament on Commission
support to nuclear safety in the Newly Independent States and Central and Eastern Europe, and to assign
the preparation of this opinion to Commission 4 (Spatial Planning, Urban Issues, Energy, Environment);

having regard to the Committee of the Regions’ resolution on nuclear safety and local/regional democracy
(CdR 423/97 fin) (2);

having regard to the Committee of
Environmental Action Programme) (CdR 12/2000 fin) (3);

the Regions’ opinion entitled ‘Towards sustainability’

(Fifth

having regard to the Committee of the Regions’ opinion on the promotion of electricity from renewable
energy sources in the internal electricity market (CdR 191/2000 fin) (4);

having regard to the draft opinion adopted by Commission 4 on 9 February 2001 (CdR 7/2001 rev. —
rapporteur: Mr Pumberger, A/PPE),

has adopted unanimously the following opinion at its 38th plenary session on 4-5 April 2001 (meeting
of 4 April).

The Committee of the Regions’ point of view and
recommendations on the Commission communication

The Committee of the Regions

— that the legitimate concerns about public health in the EU
Member States, the candidate countries and the NIS on account
of the possible release of radiation into the environment must
be taken very seriously and call for an immediate response;

gives its fundamental support

1.
to the Commission’s
activities and to the granting of financial assistance to the
CEEC and NIS in order to improve the safety of nuclear plants
the existing programmes; and
within the framework of
recognises the serious efforts made to date by the Commission
in this area;

3.
would stress that environmental and energy matters are
often the responsibility of local and regional authorities —
with the exception of nuclear safety, for which national bodies
are responsible — and that large sections of the general
public in Europe are directly affected (e.g. impact on health,
employment, and the economy) and may suffer the effects;

reiterates its firm belief — as voiced in its resolution of
2.
14 May 1998 on nuclear safety and local/regional democracy

(1) OJ C 35, 9.2.1999, p. 1.
(2) OJ C 251, 10.8.1998, p. 34.
(3) OJ C 317, 6.11.2000, p. 1.
(4) OJ C 22, 24.1.2001, p. 27

recommends that

4.
the Commission, drawing on its
experience to date with financial assistance in the CEEC and
NIS, should focus especially in the latter group of countries on
funding projects identified as presenting the greatest human
and environmental risk (shelter implementation plan for
Chernobyl), thereby giving these projects top priority;

C 253/16

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

12.9.2001

5.
thinks that, because of the difficult framework conditions
in the beneficiary countries and the fact that the sale of
electricity there still does not cover costs, the Community
should concentrate its efforts under Phare and Tacis on projects
that threaten the environment and should make greater use of
its other funding instruments to finance decommissioning
programmes, the improvement of safety, the management of
nuclear waste and alternative energy concepts in the countries
in question;

concepts for renewable energy sources and (b) that the funds
used for this purpose be increased considerably;

12.
is obliged to note with regret that despite efforts
extending over several decades, too little importance is still
attached to nuclear safety, which is borne out not least in the
funds and human resources made available;

is still firmly convinced of the urgent need to strengthen
6.
democratic procedures for planning, building and operating
nuclear plants so that all sectors of society that are affected
(local, regional, national, international) can be involved, in
accordance with the need for transparency, grass-roots partici-
pation and the assessment of such plants’ environmental and
economic repercussions;

welcomes the efforts to engage in a permanent political
7.
dialogue with representatives of the countries in question; and
calls for the involvement of regional and local authorities in
this process;

8.
proposes that greater account be taken of further training
and the transfer of knowledge to the countries in question, for
only if the persons involved in projects for improving safety
standards in nuclear power stations are themselves convinced
of the projects’ pertinence will it be possible to make swifter
progress than hitherto;

9.
stresses that in the CEEC and NIS, too, more must be
done to promote the use of alternative energy sources,
especially in the light of the review of the Fifth Environmental
Action Programme, the draft Directive on the promotion of
electricity from renewable energy sources in the internal
electricity market and the Green Paper entitled ‘Towards a
European strategy for the security of energy supply’;

10.
notes with regret that despite numerous efforts in the
nuclear power sector, far too little importance continues to be
attached to the development of alternative energy concepts for
the CEEC and NIS, which is borne out not least in the blatant
mismatch between the funds allocated to the nuclear industry
and to other energy sources by Phare, Tacis, Euratom loans,
Synergy, SURE and the multiannual energy programme 1998-
2002;

recommends that because of

13.
inadequate budgetary
funds for nuclear safety projects and the shortage of budgetary
funds in the beneficiary countries, too, the Commission should
firstly prioritise its use of funds and secondly increase the
budgetary funds sharply with the support of the EP and the
Council;

14.
regrets that, especially in connection with preparing the
CEEC for accession, the implementation and effect of financial
support for improving the safety of nuclear plants is still
lagging behind the Council’s and Commission’s political
priorities, despite endless Council conclusions in recent years
stressing the priority to be accorded to nuclear safety;

15.
notes with regret that despite the Commission Com-
munication’s perception of the problem, far too little import-
ance has been attached to improving nuclear safety in the
candidate countries;

16.
therefore urges the Commission to press more strongly,
in the course of the ongoing accession negotiations with the
candidate countries,
for nuclear power stations in those
countries to comply (prior to accession) with the most
advanced safety standards possible,
for as long as non-
upgradable reactors are in operation, operators must remain
committed to a high level of operational safety;

17.
would reiterate that the safe disposal of radioactive
material and the siting of interim and final storage facilities
and reprocessing plants will continue to be a serious problem
not only in the EU Member States but also (especially as
regards the safety aspects) in the CEEC and NIS and that the
Committee of
the Regions will keep a close watch on
developments here. In this context an urgent appeal should be
made for the rapid ratification by the signatory states of the
Joint Convention of 5 September 1997 on the safety of spent
fuel management and on the safety of radioactive waste
management;

11.
therefore proposes (a) that especially in the CEEC top
priority be given to the Community strategy for securing
energy supplies on the one hand, and energy efficiency and
saving on the other, in order to achieve the Community’s
objective of doubling renewable energy sources’ share of gross
energy consumption in Europe from the current 6 % to 12 %
by 2010, increasing these sources’ share of total electricity
production to 22 % and developing and applying alternative

18.
urges the Commission, with due regard to the rules for
contracts, to ensure the requisite transparency when issuing
invitations to tender, awarding contracts and assessing offers
etc. within the framework of
its cooperation with third
countries too;

19.
recognises that, because of specific circumstances and
particular constraints in the nuclear sector, procedures for

12.9.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 253/17

awarding contracts and tendering, etc., must be tailored to the
situation in the sector. At the same time it would emphasise
that for that very reason (financial) checks are necessary on a
large scale (ex-ante, in itinere and ex-post) in order to ensure
that proper use is made of resources;

20.
calls on the Commission to demand evidence of
compliance with the commitments which have been entered
in order to
into, particularly in the beneficiary countries,
ensure that the agreements are implemented.

Brussels, 4 April 2001.

The President

of the Committee of the Regions

Jos CHABERT

Opinion of the Committee of the Regions on the ‘Proposal for a Council Decision on a Civil
Protection Mechanism in the event of emergencies’

(2001/C 253/06)

THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS,

having regard to the Proposal for a Council Decision for Civil Protection Mechanism in event of
emergencies [COM(2000) 593 final — 2000/0248 (CNS)];

having regard to the decision taken by the Council on 24 October 2000, under the first paragraph of
Article 265 of the Treaty establishing the European Community, to consult the Committee of the Regions
on the matter;

having regard to the decision of the President of the Committee of the Regions of 27 November 2000 to
instruct Commission 4 — Spatial Planning, Urban Issues, Energy, Environment — to draw up the relevant
opinion;

having regard to the opinion of the Committee of the Regions on a Proposal for a Council Decision
establishing a Community action programme in the field of civil protection (COM(1998) 768 final) (CdR
104/99 fin) (1);

having regard to the draft opinion (CdR 8/2001 rev.) adopted by Commission 4 on 9 February 2001 for
which the rapporteur was Mr Koukoulo´ poulos (EL, PES),

adopted the following opinion unanimously at its 38th plenary session on 4 and 5 April 2001 (meeting
of 4 April).

VIEWS AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE COMMITTEE OF THE
REGIONS

Introduction

1.
The COR takes note of the Proposal for a Council
Decision establishing a Community mechanism for the coordi-
nation of Civil Protection intervention in the event of emerg-

(1) OJ C 293, 13.10.1999, p. 53.

is to ensure greater
encies. The purpose of this proposal
protection of citizens, the environment and property in the
event of natural, technological and environmental emerg-
encies, including accidental marine pollution, occurring within
or outside the European Union, by creating a new Community
mechanism for Civil Protection intervention.

The general aim of the proposed mechanism is to
2.
provide assistance in emergency situations and to facilitate
coordination of aid interventions within the Community when