Proposal for a COUNCIL REGULATION establishing an Instrument for Nuclear Safety Cooperation
Date: 2011-12-07
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: EU aid, accident prevention, nuclear power station, nuclear safety, technical cooperation, third country

EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

Brussels, 7.12.2011 
COM(2011) 841 final 

2011/0414 (CNS) 

Proposal for a 

COUNCIL REGULATION 

establishing an Instrument for Nuclear Safety Cooperation 

{SEC(2011) 1472 final} 
{SEC(2011) 1473 final} 

EN 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
  
 
EXPLANATORY MEMORANDUM 

1. 

CONTEXT OF THE PROPOSAL 

Since the early 1990s, support for the promotion of nuclear safety and nuclear safeguards in 
third countries has been an essential part of the Community’s work, both in Central Europe 
and  in  the  countries  of  the  former  Soviet  Union,  under  the  nuclear  safety  programme 
components of the TACIS and PHARE programmes. From 2007, nuclear safety cooperation 
was  extended  to  include  ‘third  countries’  under  the  Instrument  for  Nuclear  Safety 
Cooperation,  while  the  Instrument  for  Pre-Accession  Assistance  (IPA)  provided  for  nuclear 
safety cooperation with the countries engaged in the process of accession to the EU. 

The  Chernobyl  accident  in  1986  highlighted  the  global  importance  of  nuclear  safety.  The 
Fukushima  Daiichi  accident  in  2011  confirmed  the  need  to  continue  the  efforts  to  improve 
nuclear  safety  to  meet  the  highest  standards.  Both  accidents  clearly  demonstrated  that  the 
health,  social,  environmental  and  economic  consequences  of  a  nuclear  accident  may  extend 
well beyond national borders and, potentially, worldwide. 

The importance of nuclear safety was recognized by the Council of the European Union in its 
Resolution  of  18  June  1992  on  the  technological  problems  of  nuclear  safety,  which 
emphasized  “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,  …  bringing  their  nuclear  installations  up  to  safety  levels  equivalent  to  those  in 
practice in the Community …”.  

The Community decided to accede to the Convention on Nuclear Safety in  1999  and to the 
Joint Convention on the Safety of Spent Fuel Management and on the Safety of Radioactive 
Waste  Management  in  2005,  both  Conventions  aiming  to  enhance  national  measures  and 
international cooperation in these fields.  

The  Council  of  the  European  Union  adopted  Directive  2009/71/Euratom  of  25  June  2009, 
establishing  a  Community  framework  for  nuclear  safety  of  nuclear  installations  in  order  to 
maintain  and  promote  the  continuous  improvement  of  nuclear  safety  and  its  regulation.  In 
2011,  the  Council  of  the  European  Union  also  adopted  the  Directive  establishing  a 
Community framework for the responsible and safe management of spent fuel and radioactive 
waste.  These  directives  and  the  high  standards  of  nuclear  safety  and  radioactive  waste  and 
spent fuel management implemented in the European Union are examples that can be used to 
encourage third countries to adopt similar high standards. 

The  Community  already  pursues  close  cooperation,  in  accordance  with  Chapter  10  of  the 
Euratom  Treaty,  with  the  International  Atomic  Energy  Agency  (IAEA),  in  relation  both  to 
nuclear safeguards (in furtherance of the objectives of Chapter 7 of Title Two of the Euratom 
Treaty), and to nuclear safety.  

The  promotion  of  regulatory  and  other  forms of  cooperation  with  emerging  economies,  and 
the promotion of EU approaches, rules, standards and practices are external policy objectives 
of the Europe 2020 strategy 

EN 

2 

   EN 

 
In order for the European Union to fulfil its role as a global player in the promotion of human 
and strategic security, it is essential that the Community should have the capability and means 
to respond to challenges arising in the field of nuclear safety, radiation protection and nuclear 
safeguards  in  any  third  countries,  building  on  the  experience  of  the  Community  and  of  its 
Member  States  in  these  fields  within  the  European  Union.  With  this  in  mind,  the  proposed 
Instrument  for  Nuclear  Safety  Cooperation  (INSC)  will  continue  the  actions  initiated  in  the 
1990s  in  Central  Europe  and  in  the  countries  of  the  former  Soviet  Union,  which  have  been 
extended since 2007 to ‘third countries’.  

It  is  expected  that  the  basic  motivations  which  led  to  engaging  in  cooperation  with  third 
countries will remain valid over the period 2014 to 2020. However, as major projects carried 
out under the INSC (in particular those related to the remediation of the Chernobyl site and 
nuclear plant improvement projects) will have been mostly completed by 2014, this will free 
up  resources  to  address  other  areas  of  concern.  Remediation  of  mining  sites  (the  legacy  of 
uranium  mining  which  did  not  respect  basic  environmental  requirements),  disposal  of  spent 
fuel, waste management and decommissioning of installations will need to be dealt with as a 
programme priority. 

A shift in the intervention of the European Union, from technical assistance to cooperation, is 
also  taking  place.  It  focuses  on  core  activities  designed  to  improve  nuclear  safety  culture, 
radiation protection and safeguards. 

Under  the  Euratom  Framework  Programmes  research  and  innovation  actions  encourage  the 
prevention and mitigation of severe accidents and in improving radiation protection with the 
aim  to  enhance  safety  culture.  The  bilateral  international  cooperation  agreements  under 
Euratom on nuclear safety are also to be seen as an additional way to contribute to improve 
nuclear  safety,  radiation  protection  and  safe  management  of  radioactive  waste,  through 
increased research and innovation efforts with third country partners. 

The lessons learnt in the wake of the Fukushima-Daiichi accident will play an important role 
in  the  improvement  of  nuclear  safety  in  the  coming  years.  The  results  of  the  EU  Member 
States’ comprehensive and transparent risk and safety assessments (“stress tests”), which are 
due to be extended to the EU neighbouring countries and possibly other third countries, are 
expected to have a considerable impact on the design, operation, maintenance and regulation 
of nuclear power plants. The experience gained within the EU will be important to other third 
countries. 

The  cooperation  under  the  INSC  must  be  complementary  to  that  provided  by  the  European 
Union under other development cooperation instruments, and the measures adopted must be 
consistent with the European Community's overall strategic policy framework for the partner 
countries  concerned.  Given  the  international  commitments  related  to  nuclear  safety 
improvements, cooperation under the INSC should further exploit synergies with the Euratom 
Framework Programmes on nuclear research and training activities. 

2. 

RESULTS  OF  CONSULTATIONS  WITH  INTERESTED  PARTIES,  AND 
IMPACT ASSESSMENTS 

Public Consultation 

EN 

3 

   EN 

 
The Commission held a public consultation from 26 November 2010 to 31 January 2011 on 
future  funding  for  EU  external  action.  This  process  was  based  on  an  online  questionnaire, 
accompanied  by  a  background  paper  'What  funding  for  EU  external  action  after  2013?' 
prepared  by  Commission  and  EEAS  services  involved.  The  220  contributions  received  in 
response  to  the  public  consultation  reflect  a  broad  and  diverse  spectrum  representing  the 
variety of structures, views and traditions characterising the external action community.  

In  general,  the  responses  did  not  suggest  the  need  for  a  substantial  change  in  the  current 
structure  of  the  existing  instruments.  Nevertheless,  several  issues  were  identified  which  are 
relevant to the INSC and, as appropriate, are taken into account in the preparation of the new 
Regulation. 

A  majority  of  the  respondents  (around  70%)  confirmed  that  EU  financial  intervention 
provides  substantial  added  value  in  the  main  policy  areas  supported  through  EU  financial 
instruments  for  external  action.  The  criterion  of  EU  added  value  is  mentioned  by  many 
respondents as the main driver for the future: the EU should exploit its comparative advantage 
linked to its global field presence, its wide-ranging expertise, its supranational nature, its role 
as a facilitator of coordination, and economies of scale.  

Nearly all respondents (92%) support a more differentiated approach, tailored to the situation 
of the beneficiary country, based on sound criteria and efficient data collection, to be used as 
a way to increase the impact of EU financial instruments.  

Over two thirds of respondents believe that EU interests are sufficiently taken into account in 
its  external  action,  and  that  the  latter  should  be  based  to  a  larger  extent  on  EU  values  and 
principles, and on the development objectives of the partner countries. Conversely, a minority 
considers  that  EU  external  action  should  concentrate  more  on  the  EU's  own  interests  in  the 
global economy, particularly in relation to emerging economies.  

The  overwhelming  majority  of  respondents  support  a  stronger  focus  on  monitoring  and 
implementation  of 
systems 
evaluations 
projects/programmes.  

instruments  and 

future 

the 

the 

in 

in 

With  regard  to  ways  of  enhancing  the  visibility  of  EU  external  funding,  a  majority  of 
stakeholders support greater efforts in the area of information and communication activities, 
particularly  in  beneficiary  countries;  however,  EU  visibility  appears  to  be  better  served  by 
effective  policies,  strategies  and  presence  in  third  countries  than  by  additional  spending  on 
communication. 

The  ideas  of  reinforcing  EU's  coordinating  role  among  other  donors  and  of  ensuring  that 
implementing  partners  give  more  visibility  to  EU  funding  also  receive  strong  support  from 
stakeholders. 

Impact Assessment 

The Commission carried out an Impact Assessment, which reviewed four options as follows: 

(a) 

No further EU action (no Nuclear Safety Cooperation Instrument). Some cooperation 
activities  on  nuclear  safety  could  be  included  in  the  geographical  cooperation 
instruments and be implemented as such. However, this might create complications 
with  the  legal  basis  and  unsatisfactory  implementation  due  to  the  highly  technical 
nature of the issues. 

EN 

4 

   EN 

 
(b) 

(c) 

(d) 

’No  change’  (cooperation  with  third  countries  would  continue  under  the  existing 
INSC Regulation). This option would not allow the incorporation of lessons learnt, 
the  revision  of  the  geographic  scope  and  the  setting  of  criteria  for  cooperation  and 
priorities  in  the  regulation.  It  would  miss  an  opportunity  to  improve  the 
implementation and effectiveness of the Regulation. 

Amend the INSC Regulation. The amended Regulation could provide for a revision 
of  the  geographical  scope  to  include  all  third  countries  (including  those  currently 
covered  by  the  Instrument  for  Pre-Accession  (IPA))  and  specify  the  priorities  and 
criteria  for  cooperation.  This  would  lead  to  a  simplification  and  a  more  efficient 
implementation than is the case with the current regulation. 

A new instrument, which could include the current INSC scope plus part of the scope 
of the existing Instrument for Stability (IFS). This could provide a unified approach 
towards nuclear safety, security and safeguards (the ‘3S’); however, it would require 
a  dual  legal  basis  (the  Euratom  Treaty  and  the  Treaty  of  the  Functioning  of  the 
European  Union).  The  dual  legal  basis  would  be  likely  to  lead  to  increased 
complexity  in  implementation  and  perpetuate  the  need  for  close  coordination  with 
other risk mitigation actions (chemical and biological). 

The option to amend the Regulation was found to be the preferred one. In comparison with 
the  options  of  'no  change'  and  'a  new  Instrument',  it  would  allow  continuity  and  using  the 
experience  of  a  well  tried  system,  while  resolving  a  number  of  issues  which  have  been 
identified, including a clearer understanding of the limits of intervention. This, as well as the 
utilization  of  a  single  legal  basis  (as  compared  with  the  'new  instrument'  option),  would 
simplify implementation. 

3. 

LEGAL ELEMENTS OF THE PROPOSAL 

The  legal  basis  of  the  current  INSC  Regulation  is  the  Treaty  establishing  the  European 
Atomic  Energy  Community  (the  ‘Euratom  Treaty’),  and  in  particular  Article  203  thereof. 
Considering  the  legislative  framework  for  nuclear  safety  at  EU  level,  and  the  fact  that  the 
revised scope does not entail a change in the legal basis, this should continue to be the case 
for the future Regulation. 

Subsidiarity and Proportionality 

With 27 Member States acting within common policies and strategies, the EU alone has the 
critical  mass  to  respond  to  global  challenges,  whereas  the  action  of  Member  States  may  be 
limited  and  fragmented,  with  projects  which  are  often  too  small  to  make  a  sustainable 
difference  in  the  field.  This  critical  mass  also  puts  the  EU  in  a  better  position  to  conduct 
policy dialogue with partner governments. 

The EU is in a uniquely neutral and impartial position to deliver on external action on behalf 
of and with Member States, lending enhanced credibility in the countries in which it works. It 
is best placed to take on the role of global leader on behalf of its citizens. 

EN 

5 

   EN 

 
4. 

BUDGETARY IMPLICATIONS  

The  Commission  proposes  to  allocate  €70  bill ion  for  the  period  2014-2020  for  the  external 
instruments1.  The  allocation  earmarked  for  the  INSC  over  the  period  2014  to  2020  is  EUR 
631.1 million (EUR 560 million at 2011 prices). The indicative yearly budget commitments 
for the INSC are identified in the table below.  

Year 

2014 

2015 

2016 

2017 

2018 

2019 

2020 

TOTAL 

INSC 
allocation 
(Million EUR) 

84.9 

86.6 

88.3 

90.1 

91.9 

93.7 

95.6 

631.1 

The  indicative  financial  allocations  per  specific  objective  are  set  out  in  the  Legislative 
Financial Statement. 

5. 

OPTIONAL ELEMENTS  

Simplification 

Articles of horizontal nature were deleted as they are covered by the Regulation No …. /… 
establishing common implementation rules for external relations financing instruments.  

In  order  to  simplify  the  programming  and  implementation  of  the  INSC,  a  definition  of  the 
criteria  for  cooperation  and  the  thematic  and  geographic  priorities  for  the  selection  of 
cooperation projects is provided in an annex to the Regulation.  

Explanation of the major articles of the Regulation and changes relative to the current 
INSC 

TITLE I – Objectives 

Article 1 -Subject matter and scope 

Article 1 sets out the objectives and scope of the Regulation. The Regulation will apply to all 
third countries (as further explained in the Annex).  

Three specific objectives are established: 

(a) promotion of an effective nuclear safety culture and implementation of the highest nuclear 
safety standards and radiation protection; 

(b)  responsible  and  safe  management  of  spent fuel  and  radioactive  waste,  decommissioning 
and remediation of former nuclear sites and installations; 

(c)  establishment  of  frameworks  and  methodologies  for  the  application  of  efficient  and 
effective safeguards for nuclear material in third countries. 

1 

EDF,  Global  Climate  and  Biodiversity  Fund  and  Emergency  Aid  Reserve  are  additional  to  this  and 
remain outside the EU budget. 

EN 

6 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Relative to the current INSC Regulation the presentation is simplified. Articles 1 and 2 of the 
current INSC have been merged. The article defines the major areas of cooperation, while the 
Annex defines the specific measures. 

TITLE II – Programming and indicative allocation of funds 

Article 2 – Strategy papers 

This article stipulates that the multi-annual strategy paper(s) shall constitute the general basis 
for the cooperation setting out the Union's strategy for cooperation under the Regulation. 

Article 3 – Multiannual indicative programmes 

This article stipulates that multiannual indicative programmes shall set out the priority areas 
selected for financing, the specific objectives, the expected results, the performance indicators 
and the indicative financial allocations. 

TITLE III – Implementation 

This Title was greatly simplified as Article 4 stipulates that the decision shall be implemented 
in  accordance  with  Regulation  No  ….  /…  establishing  common  implementation  rules  for 
external relations financing instruments. 

TITLE IV – Final provisions 

This title provides the definition of the financial reference amount (Article 7) and entry into 
force (Article 8). 

ANNEX 

The  Annex  on  specific  supported  measures  and  criteria  applying  to  nuclear  safety 
cooperation was introduced in order to further simplify the body of the text of the Regulation 
and  its  implementation,  by  defining  the  areas  of  cooperation,  technical  and  geographical 
scope, criteria for cooperation and priorities . 

Under  the  terms  of  the  proposal,  the  annex  may  be  amended  using  a  lighter  procedure  than 
would be required for the Regulation as a whole (Article 5 of the Regulation). 

The Annex defines the specific measures supported by the Regulation (a revised version the 
current INSC, redefining the areas of cooperation), the criteria for nuclear safety cooperation 
with  third  countries,  the  priorities  and  coordination.  The  criteria  for  cooperation  take  into 
account and follow essentially those proposed by the Council in 2008. 

EN 

7 

   EN 

 
2011/0414 (CNS) 

Proposal for a 

COUNCIL REGULATION 

establishing an Instrument for Nuclear Safety Cooperation 

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION, 

Having  regard  to  the  Treaty  establishing  the  European  Atomic  Energy  Community,  and  in 
particular Article 203 thereof, 

Having regard to the proposal from the European Commission, 

Having regard to the opinion of the European Parliament2, 

Acting in accordance with a special legislative procedure, 

Whereas: 

(1) 

(2) 

(3) 

This  Regulation  constitutes  one  of  the  instruments  providing  direct  support  for  the 
European  Union’s  external  policies,  it  will  replace  Regulation  No  300/2007  of  the 
European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  19  February  2007  establishing  an 
Instrument for Nuclear Safety Cooperation3 which expires on 31 December 2013. 

The  European  Union  is  a  major  provider  of  economic,  financial,  technical, 
humanitarian and macroeconomic assistance to third countries. The present Regulation 
is  part  of  the  framework  devised  for  the  planning  of  cooperation  and  provision  of 
assistance  aimed  at  supporting  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. 

The Chernobyl accident in 1986 highlighted the global importance of nuclear safety. 
The Fukushima Daiichi accident in 2011 confirmed the need to continue the efforts to 
improve  nuclear  safety  to  the  highest  standards.  To  create  the  conditions  of  safety 
necessary  to  eliminate  hazards  to  the  life  and  health  of  the  public,  the  European 
Atomic  Energy  Community  (the  ‘Community’)  should  be  able  to  support  nuclear 
safety in third countries. 

(4) 

By acting within common policies and strategies with its Member States, the European 
Union  alone  has  the  critical  mass  to  respond  to  global  challenges  and  is  also  best 
placed to coordinate the cooperation with third countries. 

2 
3 

OJ C , , p. . 
OJ L 81, 22.3.2007, p. 1–10 

EN 

8 

   EN 

 
                                                 
(5) 

(6) 

(7) 

(8) 

(9) 

By  Commission  Decision  1999/819/Euratom4  the  Community  acceded  to  the  1994 
Convention  on  Nuclear  Safety.  By  Commission  Decision  2005/510/Euratom5  the 
Community  also  acceded  to  the  Joint  Convention  on  the  Safety  of  Spent  Fuel 
Management and on the Safety of Radioactive Waste Management. 

In order to maintain and promote the continuous improvement of nuclear safety and its 
regulation,  the  Council  adopted  Directive  2009/71/Euratom  of  25  June  2009 
establishing a Community framework for nuclear safety of nuclear installations6. The 
Council  also  adopted  Directive  2011/70/Euratom  of  19  July  2011  establishing  a 
Community  framework  for  the  responsible  and  safe  management  of  spent  fuel  and 
radioactive  waste7.  These  Directives  and  the  high  standards  of  nuclear  safety  and 
radioactive waste and spent fuel management implemented in the Union are examples 
that can be used to encourage third countries to adopt similar high standards. 

The promotion of regulatory and other forms of cooperation with emerging economies 
and  the  promotion  of  Union  approaches,  rules,  standards  and  practices  are  external 
policy objectives of the Europe 2020 strategy. 

The Union Member States are signatory parties of the Non Proliferation Treaty and the 
Additional Protocol. 

The Community already pursues a close cooperation, in accordance with Chapter 10 of 
the  Euratom  Treaty,  with  the  International  Atomic  Energy  Agency  (IAEA),  both  in 
relation  to  nuclear  safeguards  (in  furtherance  of  the  objectives  of  Chapter  7  of  Title 
Two of the Euratom Treaty) and in relation to nuclear safety.  

(10)  There is a particular need for the Community to continue its efforts in support of the 
application of effective safeguards of nuclear material in third countries, building on 
its own safeguard activities within the Union. 

(11) 

It is understood that the responsibility for the safety of the installation shall rest with 
the operator and the State having the jurisdiction over the installation. 

(12)  While  Union  external  assistance  has  increasing  financing  needs,  the  economic  and 
budgetary situation of the Union limits the resources available for such assistance. The 
Commission must therefore seek the most efficient use of available resources through, 
in particular, the use of financial instruments with leverage effect. Such leverage effect 
is  increased  by  allowing  the  possibility  to  use  and  re-use  the  funds  invested  and 
generated by the financial instruments.  

(13) 

In  order  to  ensure  uniform  conditions  for  the  implementation  of  this  Regulation, 
implementing powers should be conferred on the Commission.  

(14)  The  implementing  powers  relating  to  the  programming  and  financing  of  the  actions 
supported  under  this  Regulation  should  be  exercised  in  accordance  with  Regulation 
(EU) No 182/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 February 2011 

4 
5 
6 
7 

OJ L 318, 11.12.1999, p. 20.  
OJ L 185, 16.7.2005, p. 33. 
OJ L 172, 2.7.2009, p. 18. 
OJ L 199, 2.8.2011, p. 48. 

EN 

9 

   EN 

 
                                                 
laying  down  the  rules  and  general  principles  concerning  mechanisms  for  control  by 
Member  States  of  the  Commission's  exercise  of  implementing  powers8.  Taking  into 
account  the  nature  of  those  implementing  acts,  in  particular  their  policy  orientation 
nature or their financial implications, the examination procedure should in principle be 
used  for  their  adoption,  except  for  technical  implementing  measures  of  a  small 
financial  scale.  The  Commission  should  adopt  immediately  applicable  implementing 
acts  where  in  duly  justified  cases  relating  to  the  need  for  a  swift  response  from  the 
Union, imperative grounds of urgency so require. 

(15)  Common rules and procedures for the implementation of the Union’s instruments for 
external action are laid down in Regulation (EU) No ../… of the European Parliament 
and of the Council of …. 

(16)  The  organisation  and  functioning  of  the  European  External  Action  Service  are 

described in Council Decision 2010/427/EU, 

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION: 

TITLE I 

OBJECTIVES 

Article 1 

Subject matter and scope 

The  European  Union  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.  

1. 

The following specific objectives shall be pursued: 

(a)  promotion  of  an  effective  nuclear  safety  culture  and  implementation  of  the 

highest nuclear safety standards and radiation protection; 

(b) 

(c) 

responsible  and  safe  management  of  spent  fuel  and  radioactive  waste, 
decommissioning and remediation of former nuclear sites and installations; 

establishment of frameworks and methodologies for the application of efficient 
and effective safeguards for nuclear material in third countries. 

2. 

The  overall  progress  in  achieving  the  above  specific  objectives  shall  be  assessed, 
respectively, through the following performance indicators: 

(a)  number and importance of issues identified during relevant IAEA peer review 

missions; 

8 

OJ L 55, 28.2.2011, p. 13. 

EN 

10 

   EN 

 
 
                                                 
(b) 

status  of  development  of  the  spent  fuel,  nuclear  waste  and  decommissioning 
framework  and 
legislative  and 
respective 
the 
strategies, 
implementation of projects; 

regulatory 

(c)  number  and  importance  of  issues  identified  in  relevant  IAEA  nuclear 

safeguards reports. 

The  Commission  shall  ensure  that  the  measures  adopted  are  consistent  with  the 
Union's overall strategic policy framework for the partner country and in particular 
with  the  objectives  of  its  development  and  economic  cooperation  policies  and 
programmes. 

Specific  measures  supported  by  this  Regulation  and  criteria  applying  to  nuclear 
safety cooperation are detailed in the Annex. 

The  financial,  economic  and  technical  cooperation  provided  under  this  Regulation 
shall  be  complementary  to  that  provided  by  the  Union  under  other  development 
cooperation instruments. 

TITLE II 

PROGRAMMING AND INDICATIVE ALLOCATION OF FUNDS 

Article 2 

Strategy papers  

Union cooperation under this Regulation shall be implemented on the basis of multi-
annual strategy papers. 

The multi-annual strategy paper shall constitute the general basis for the cooperation 
and  shall  be  established  for  a  period  up  to  seven  years.  It  shall  set  out  the  Union's 
strategy  for  cooperation  under  this  Regulation,  having  regard  to  the  needs  of  the 
countries  concerned,  the  Union's  priorities,  the  international  situation  and  the 
activities of the main partners. 

Strategy papers will aim at providing a coherent framework for cooperation between 
the Union and the partner countries or regions concerned, consistent with the overall 
purpose and scope, objectives, principles and policy of the Union.  

The  preparation  of  strategy  papers  shall  apply  principles  of  aid  effectiveness: 
national ownership, partnership, coordination, harmonisation, alignment to recipient 
country or regional systems, mutual accountability and results orientation. 

The  strategy  paper  shall  be  approved  by  the  Commission  in  accordance  with  the 
examination  procedure  referred  to  in  Article  15(3)  of  the  Common  Implementing 
Regulation.  Strategy  papers  may  be  reviewed  at  mid-term  or  whenever  necessary  in 
accordance with the same procedure. However, that procedure shall not be required 
for updates of the strategy which do not affect the initial priority areas and objectives 
set out in the paper. 

3. 

4. 

5. 

1. 

2. 

3. 

4. 

5. 

EN 

11 

   EN 

 
 
Article 3 

Multiannual Indicative programmes 

1. 

2. 

3. 

4. 

5. 

Multiannual  indicative  programmes  shall  be  drawn  up  on  the  basis  of  the  strategy 
papers  mentioned  in  Article  2.  Multiannual  indicative  programmes  shall  normally 
cover a period of 2 to 4 years. 

Multiannual  indicative  programmes  shall  set  out  the  priority  areas  selected  for 
financing,  the  specific  objectives,  the  expected  results,  the  performance  indicators 
and  the  indicative  financial  allocations,  both  overall  and  per  priority  area,  and 
including a reasonable reserve of unallocated funds; this may be given in the form of 
a range or a minimum, where appropriate.  

Multiannual indicative programmes shall, in principle, be based  on a dialogue  with 
the  partner  countries  or  region(s)  which  involves  the  stakeholders,  so  as  to  ensure 
that the country or region concerned takes sufficient ownership of the process and to 
encourage support for national development strategies. 

Multiannual  indicative  programmes  shall  be  adopted  in  accordance  with  the 
examination  procedure  referred  to  in  Article  15(3)  of  the  Common  Implementing 
Regulation. 

to  multiannual 

The  multi  annual  indicative  programmes  shall  be  revised  as  necessary,  taking  into 
account  any  review  of  the  relevant  strategy  papers,  in  accordance  with  the  same 
the  examination  procedure  shall  not  be  required  for 
procedure.  However, 
modifications 
technical 
indicative  programmes,  which  make 
adjustments,  reassign  funds  within  the  allocations  per  priority  area,  or  increase  or 
decrease the size of the initial indicative allocation by less than 20%, provided that 
these modifications do not affect the initial priority areas and objectives set out in the 
document. Any such technical adjustments shall be communicated within one month 
to the European Parliament and to the Council.  

TITLE III 

IMPLEMENTATION 

Article 4 

Implementation 

This  Regulation  shall  be  implemented  in  accordance  with  Regulation  No  ….  /….of  the 
European Parliament and of the Council of … establishing common implementation rules for 
external  relations  financing  instruments,  hereinafter  referred  as  'the  Common  Implementing 
Regulation'. 

TITLE IV 

FINAL PROVISIONS 

EN 

12 

   EN 

 
 
 
Article 5 

Modification of the Annex 

The Annex to this Regulation may be modified in accordance with the examination procedure 
provided for in Article 15(3) of the Common Implementing Regulation. 

Article 6 

Committee 

The  Commission  shall  be  assisted  by  the  Nuclear  Safety  Cooperation  Committee.  That 
committee shall be a committee within the meaning of Regulation (EU) No 182/2011. 

Article 7 

European External Action Service 

The  application  of  this  Regulation  shall  be  in  accordance  with  Council  Decision  2010/427/ 
EU, establishing the organisation and functioning of the European External Action Service. 

Article 8 

Financial reference amount 

1. 

2. 

The  financial  reference  amount  for  the  implementation  of  this  Regulation  over  the 
period 2014 to 2020 is EUR 631 100 000. 

Annual  appropriations  shall  be  authorised  by  the  budgetary  authority  within  the 
limits of the multi-annual financial framework. 

Article 9 

Entry into force 

This Regulation shall enter into force on the third day following that of its publication in the 
Official Journal of the European Union.  

It shall apply from 1 January 2014. 

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in the Member States in 
accordance with the Treaties. 

Done at Brussels, 

EN 

For the Council 
The President 

13 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
ANNEX  

Specific supported measures and criteria applying to nuclear safety cooperation  

This Regulation supports the promotion of a high level of nuclear safety, radiation protection 
and the application of efficient and effective safeguards in third countries worldwide that are 
seeking cooperation in these fields. This Annex defines the specific supported measures and 
the criteria for cooperation, including the priorities. 

Specific supported measures  

The following measures may be supported to fulfil the objectives set out in article 1 of this 
Regulation. 

(a) 

The  promotion  of  an  effective  nuclear  safety  culture  and  implementation  of  the 
highest  nuclear  safety  standards  and  radiation  protection  at  all  levels,  in  particular 
through: 

– 

– 

– 

– 

continuous support for regulatory bodies, technical support organisations, and 
the  reinforcement  of  the  regulatory  framework,  notably  concerning  licensing 
activities, including the review and follow up of effective and comprehensive 
risk and safety assessments (‘stress tests’); 

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  establishment  of  effective  arrangements  for  the  prevention  of  accidents 
with radiological consequences as well as the mitigation of such consequences 
should  they  occur  (for  example,  monitoring  the  environment  in  case  of 
radioactive releases, design and implementation of mitigation and remediation 
activities),  and  for  emergency-planning,  preparedness  and  response,  civil 
protection and rehabilitation measures. 

support  to  nuclear  operators,  in  exceptional  cases,  under  specific  and  well 
justified  circumstances  in  the  framework  of  follow-up  measures  of  the 
comprehensive safety and risk assessments (‘stress tests’); 

(b) 

Responsible and safe management of spent fuel and radioactive waste, decommission 
and remediation of former nuclear sites and installations, in particular through: 

– 

– 

cooperation  with  third  countries  in  the  domain  of  spent  nuclear  fuel  and 
radioactive  waste  management  (i.e. 
treatment, 
processing,  storage  and  disposal),  including  the  development  of  specific 
strategies  and  frameworks  for  the  responsible  management  of  spent  nuclear 
fuel and radioactive waste;  

transport,  pre-treatment, 

 the  development  and  implementation  of  strategies  and  frameworks  for 
decommissioning  existing  installations,  for  the  remediation  of  former  nuclear 

EN 

14 

   EN 

 
sites  and  legacy  sites  related  to  uranium  mining,  and  for  the  recovery  and 
management of sunken radioactive objects and material at sea; 

– 

The  establishment  of  the  necessary  regulatory  framework  and  methodologies 
(including  nuclear  forensics  methods)  for  the  implementation  of  nuclear 
safeguards, including for the proper accounting and control of fissile materials 
at State and operators' level; 

–  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, capacity building and training in the area of 
nuclear safety and research. 

These measures shall include a substantial element of know-how transfer in order to reinforce 
sustainability  of  the  results  achieved.  They  must  be  implemented  through  cooperation  with 
third countries’ authorities, nuclear regulators and their technical support organisations and, in 
specific cases, with nuclear operators. The measures should also be supported by exploiting 
further synergies with the direct and indirect actions of the Euratom Framework Programmes 
in nuclear research and training. 

Criteria9 

Cooperation  should  be  based  on  the  following  criteria  and  fulfilment  of  conditions  by  third 
countries. 

1. General criteria 

– 

– 

– 

– 

– 

Cooperation  may  cover  all  ‘third  countries’  (non-EU  Member  States) 
worldwide. 

Priority  will  be  given  to  Accession  Countries  and  countries  in  the  European 
Neighbourhood region. Regional approaches will be favoured. 

High  income  countries  should  be  included  only  in  order  to  allow  exceptional 
measures to be undertaken, for example following a major nuclear accident, if 
necessary and appropriate 

A  common  understanding  and  a  reciprocal  agreement  between  the  third 
country and the European Union should be confirmed through a formal request 
to the Commission, committing the respective Government. 

Third  countries  wishing  to  cooperate  with  the  European  Union  should  fully 
subscribe to the principles of non-proliferation. They should also be parties to 
the relevant conventions, within the framework of the IAEA, on nuclear safety 
and security or have taken steps demonstrating a firm undertaking to accede to 
such  conventions.  Cooperation  with  the  European  Union  could  be  made 
conditional  on  accession  or  the  completion  of  steps  towards  accession  to  the 

9 

The  criteria  take  into  account  the  Council  Conclusions  on  assistance  to  third  countries  in  the  field  of 
nuclear  safety  and  security  (2913th  Transport,  Telecommunications  and  Energy  Council  meeting, 
Brussels, 9 December 2008). 

EN 

15 

   EN 

 
                                                 
relevant conventions. In cases of emergency, flexibility should, exceptionally, 
be shown in the application of this principle. 

In order to ensure and monitor compliance with the cooperation objectives, the 
third country beneficiary must accept the principle of evaluation of the actions 
undertaken.  Evaluation  would  make  it  possible  to  monitor  and  verify 
compliance with the agreed objectives and could be a condition for continued 
payment of the Community contribution. 

Cooperation  in  the  fields  of  nuclear  safety  and  safeguards  under  this 
Regulation is not aimed at promoting nuclear energy.  

– 

– 

2. Countries with installed nuclear generating capacity 

In the case of countries which have already benefited from Community financing, additional 
cooperation should depend on the evaluation of actions funded by the Community budget and 
on  proper  justification  of  new  needs.  The  evaluation  should  make  it  possible  to  determine 
more precisely the nature of the cooperation and the amounts to be granted to those countries 
in the future.  

In the case of countries requiring rapid cooperation, consideration should be given to:  

(a) 

(b) 

the degree of urgency of intervention in a given country, in the light of the situation 
as regards nuclear safety and security; and  

the significance, in certain countries where an ambitious programme for developing 
nuclear generating capacity is planned, of stepping in at the appropriate moment so 
as to ensure that a nuclear safety and security culture is fostered in parallel with that 
process,  in  particular  as  regards  the  deployment  or  strengthening  of  the  regulatory 
authorities  and 
the  development  and 
implementation  of  strategies  and  frameworks  for  the  responsible  and  safe 
management of spent fuel and radioactive waste. 

technical  support  organisations  and 

The  use  of  the  Integrated  Regulatory  Review  Service  (IRRS)  and  the  IAEA  Operational 
Safety  Review  Team  (OSART)  missions  would  be  viewed  favourably,  although  this  would 
not constitute a formal criterion for EU cooperation. 

3. Countries without installed nuclear generating capacity:  

In  the  case  of  countries  which  have  research  reactors  but  do  not  wish  to  develop  nuclear 
generating  capacity,  cooperation  will  depend  on  the  degree  of  urgency  in  the  light  of  the 
situation as regards nuclear safety and security. 

In the case of countries that wish to develop nuclear generating capacity, whether or not they 
have  research  reactors  and  for  which  the  issue  arises  of  intervention  at  the  appropriate 
moment  to  ensure  that  a  nuclear  safety  and  security  culture  is  fostered  in  parallel  with  the 
development  of  the  nuclear  generating  programme,  especially  as  regards  strengthening  the 
regulatory authorities and technical support organisations, cooperation will take into account 
the credibility of the nuclear power development programme, the existence of a government 
decision on the use of nuclear energy and the drawing up of a preliminary road map10. 

10 

This  should  take  into  account  the  Milestones  in  the  Development  of  a  National  Infrastructure  for 
Nuclear Power (IAEA Nuclear Energy Series Document NG-G-3.1) 

EN 

16 

   EN 

 
                                                 
For  countries  in  this  category,  cooperation  should  be  primarily  aimed  at  developing  the 
required regulatory infrastructure, the technical competence of the nuclear regulator and the 
respective  technical  support  organization(s).  The  development  of  strategies  and  frameworks 
for the responsible and safe management of spent fuel and radioactive waste should also be 
considered  and,  if  appropriate,  supported,  including  in  countries  which  do  not  envisage 
developing or have decided not to develop nuclear generating capacity. 

In  the  case  of  countries  which  do  not  fall  into  the  above  categories,  cooperation  may  be 
provided  in  the  case  of  emergency  situations  as  regards  nuclear  safety  and  security.  These 
countries should be able to benefit from a certain degree of flexibility in the application of the 
general criteria. 

Priorities 

In order to create the safety conditions necessary to eliminate hazards to the life and health of 
the public, and to ensure that nuclear materials are not diverted to purposes other than those 
for which they  are  intended,  cooperation is directed primarily at  the nuclear regulators (and 
their  technical  support  organisations).  The  objective  is  to  ensure  their  technical  competence 
and  independence  and  the  reinforcement  of  the  regulatory  framework,  notably  concerning 
licensing  activities,  including  the  review  and  follow  up  of  effective  and  comprehensive  risk 
and safety assessments (‘stress tests’). 

Other  priorities  of  the  cooperation  programmes  to  be  developed  in  the  context  of  this 
Regulation include: 

– 

– 

the development and implementation of responsible strategies and frameworks 
for the responsible and safe management of spent fuel and radioactive waste;  

decommissioning  of  existing  installations,  the  remediation  of  former  nuclear 
sites  and  legacy  sites  related  to  uranium  mining,  as  well  as  the  recovery  and 
management  of  sunken  radioactive  objects  and  material  at  sea,  when  these 
constitute a danger to the public. 

Cooperation  with  operators  of  nuclear  installations  in  third  countries  will  be  considered  in 
specific  situations  in  the  framework  of  follow-up  measures  of  the  'stress  tests'.  Such 
cooperation with nuclear installations operators will exclude supply of equipment. 

Coordination  

The  Commission  should  coordinate  its  cooperation  with  third  countries  with  organisations 
pursuing  similar  objectives,  in  particular  international  organisations,  including  in  particular 
the  International  Atomic  Energy  Agency  (IAEA).  This  coordination  should  enable  the 
European  Union  and  the  organisations  concerned  to  avoid  any  duplication  of  actions  and 
funding  in  relation  to  third  countries.  The  Commission  should  also  involve  the  competent 
authorities  of  Member  States  and  European  operators  in  the  fulfilment  of  its  task,  thereby 
harnessing  the  quality  of  European  expertise  in  the  field  of  nuclear  safety  and  safeguards.

EN 

17 

   EN 

 
LEGISLATIVE FINANCIAL STATEMENT FOR PROPOSALS 

1. 

FRAMEWORK OF THE PROPOSAL/INITIATIVE  

1.1.  Title of the proposal/initiative  

1.2.  Policy area(s) concerned in the ABM/ABB structure 

1.3.  Nature of the proposal/initiative  

1.4.  Objective(s)  

1.5.  Grounds for the proposal/initiative  

1.6.  Duration and financial impact  

1.7.  Management method(s) envisaged  

2. 

MANAGEMENT MEASURES  

2.1.  Monitoring and reporting rules  

2.2.  Management and control system  

2.3.  Measures to prevent fraud and irregularities  

3. 

ESTIMATED FINANCIAL IMPACT OF THE PROPOSAL/INITIATIVE  

3.1.  Heading(s)  of  the  multiannual  financial  framework  and  expenditure  budget 
line(s) affected  

3.2.  Estimated impact on expenditure  

3.2.1. Summary of estimated impact on expenditure  

3.2.2. Estimated impact on operational appropriations  

3.2.3. Estimated impact on appropriations of an administrative nature 

3.2.4. Compatibility with the current multiannual financial framework 

3.2.5. Third-party participation in financing  

3.3.  Estimated impact on revenue

EN 

18 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
LEGISLATIVE FINANCIAL STATEMENT FOR PROPOSALS 

1. 

FRAMEWORK OF THE PROPOSAL/INITIATIVE  

1.1. 

Title of the proposal/initiative  

Instrument for Nuclear Safety Cooperation (INSC) 

1.2. 

Policy area(s) concerned in the ABM/ABB structure11  

External Relations, Nuclear Safety Cooperation 

1.3. 

Nature of the proposal/initiative  

(cid:133) The proposal/initiative relates to a new action  

(cid:133)  The  proposal/initiative  relates  to  a  new  action  following  a  pilot  project/preparatory 
action12  

⌧ The proposal/initiative relates to the extension of an existing action  

(cid:133) The proposal/initiative relates to an action redirected towards a new action  

1.4. 

Objectives 

The European Union has a long-standing nuclear safety culture and know-how which 
was developed in Europe and other parts of the world where nuclear power is being 
used.  This  was  already  the  case  in  1992  when  the  Community  programme  to  assist 
CIS and CEEC countries in improving their Nuclear Power Plants was launched.  

The promotion of the highest standards of nuclear safety and security was reaffirmed 
as  a  fundamental  and  priority  objective  for  Community  cooperation  in  the  nuclear 
field, in the communication COM2008 (312) dated 22 May 2008 of the Commission 
to the Council and the European Parliament addressing the international challenge of 
nuclear safety and security.  

Any  country  aiming  to  use  nuclear  power  for  civil  purposes  must  respect 
internationally recognised nuclear safety and security standards. For this it will face 
the challenge of developing capabilities (both in human resources and infrastructure) 
and  of  establishing  the  legislative  framework  and  institutions  necessary  to  fulfil  the 
international  obligations.  Building  on  extensive  experience,  the  EU  can  provide  a 
considerable  contribution  to  improve  nuclear  safety,  radiation  protection  and 
safeguards  through  the  Instrument  for  Nuclear  Safety  Cooperation,  which  had  its 
geographical scope extended to all ‘third countries’.  

The  Commission's  intervention  is  being  shifted  from  technical  assistance  to 
cooperation.  It  focuses  on  activities  designed  to  improve  nuclear  safety  radiation 
protection  and  safeguards,  including  studies,  development  of  legislation,  institution 
building,  improvement  of  procedures  and  methodologies,  including  for  the  safe 

11 
12 

ABM: Activity-Based Management – ABB: Activity-Based Budgeting. 
As referred to in Article 49(6)(a) or (b) of the Financial Regulation. 

EN 

19 

   EN 

 
                                                 
management of radioactive waste and spent nuclear fuel. Particular attention is given 
to  training  in  the  countries  concerned.  In  this  context,  the  added  value  of  the  EU 
action  lies  in  making  available  to  third  countries,  the  benefit  of  the  EU  experience 
built  on  the  highest  standards  for  nuclear  safety,  in  close  cooperation  with  the 
International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).  

The  Chernobyl  accident  (1986)  highlighted  the  importance  of  nuclear  safety  and 
clearly  established  the  need  for  a  global  approach  to  cope  with  the  global,  trans-
boundary, consequences of a nuclear accident. The need to adopt the highest nuclear 
safety standards worldwide has recently become even more evident in the wake of the 
Fukushima-Daiichi  accident,  which  has  raised  serious  concerns  regarding  the 
capability of operating nuclear installations to withstand the conditions which may be 
imposed by major natural events, including earthquakes and flooding.  

As  a  response  to  the  Fukushima-Daiichi  event,  the  European  Commission  and 
national authorities have requested the performance of comprehensive and transparent 
risk  and  safety  assessments  (“stress  tests”)  of  nuclear  power  plants  in  EU  Member 
States. The European Nuclear Safety Regulators Group (ENSREG) specifications and 
a schedule for this unprecedented assessment have been agreed and the extension of 
the  exercise  to  third  countries  (particularly  in  the  EU  neighbourhood)  is  being 
pursued. 

The health, environmental, social and economic impact of nuclear accidents in third 
countries  in  the  EU  has  been  confirmed  to  be  potentially  very  high.  The  need  to 
the 
establish  effective  cooperation  aimed  at  preventing  accidents 
establishment  of  high  levels  of  nuclear  safety  is  being  reaffirmed.  Some  countries 
have taken the political decision to phase out nuclear power and others decided not to 
start  envisaged  programmes,  however  a  large  number  of  countries  will  continue 
operating nuclear power plants and some are likely to build new ones. While the EU 
recognizes that the use of nuclear power is a sovereign decision, it is in the EU’s best 
interest  that  nuclear  installations  are  operated  safely,  in  particular  in  the  EU 
neighbourhood,  and  that  nuclear  materials  are  properly  accounted  for.  The  EU  will 
cooperate with third countries and organizations in these respects. 

through 

1.4.1.  The  Commission's  multiannual 

strategic 

objective(s) 

targeted 

by 

the 

proposal/initiative  

The European Union 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. 

1.4.2. 

Specific objective(s) and ABM/ABB activity(ies) concerned  

Specific objective No. 1 

Promotion  of  an  effective  nuclear  safety  culture  and  implementation  of  the  highest 
nuclear safety standards and radiation protection. 

ABM/ABB activity(ies) concerned 

Specific objective No. 2 

EN 

20 

   EN 

 
Responsible  and  safe  management  of  spent 
decommissioning and remediation of former nuclear sites and installations. 

fuel  and 

radioactive  waste, 

ABM/ABB activity(ies) concerned 

Specific objective No. 3 

Establishment of frameworks and methodologies for the application of efficient and 
effective safeguards for nuclear material in third countries. 

ABM/ABB activity(ies) concerned 

1.4.3.  Expected result(s) and impact 

– 

– 

– 

– 

– 

– 

Creation  of  an  effective  culture  of  nuclear  safety  and  implementation  of  the 
highest  standards  of  nuclear  safety  and  radiation  protection  for  nuclear 
installations and in radiological practices in third countries; 

Establishment  of  effective  regulatory  frameworks  concerning  nuclear  safety, 
including procedures and systems to ensure adequate protection against ionizing 
radiations from radioactive materials;  

Establishment  of  effective  arrangements  for  the  prevention  of  accidents  with 
radiological  consequences  and  mitigation  measures  of  such  consequences 
should  they  occur  and  for  emergency-planning,  preparedness  and  responses, 
civil protection and rehabilitation measures; 

International  cooperation  and  support  for  nuclear  safety  matters  to  ensure  that 
the  highest  and  most  robust  levels  of  nuclear  safety  are  in  place  and 
implemented; 

Elaboration  and  implementation  of  responsible  strategies  concerning  the 
disposal  of  spent  fuel,  waste  management,  decommissioning  of  installations, 
restoration of former nuclear sites and recovery and management of sunken or 
dispersed radioactive objects and material at sea or on land;  

Establishment of effective frameworks and methodologies for the improvement 
of nuclear safeguards worldwide. 

1.4.4. 

Indicators of results and impact  

– 

The annual action programmes detail the activities to be carried out by the EU, 
including  the  objectives  pursued  by  the  respective  actions  and  the  expected 
results.  Specific  indicators  are  defined  prior  to  implementation  of  projects, 
having in mind the particularities of each action. One indicator per objective is 
provided in Article 1 of the Regulation for overall progress assessment.  

1.5. 

Grounds for the proposal/initiative  

The legal base of the INSC is the Euratom Treaty, in particular the Article 203. 

EN 

21 

   EN 

 
1.5.1.  Requirement(s) to be met in the short or long term  

legislative  proposal  addresses 

The 
the  promotion  and 
implementation  in  third  countries  of  the  highest  nuclear  safety  standards,  radiation 
protection and efficient and effective safeguards of nuclear material. 

the  requirement  for 

1.5.2.  Added value of EU involvement 

With a large number of commercial nuclear power plants (146 out of 436 worldwide) 
and nuclear power providing for about 30% of the electricity generation, the EU has 
accumulated  a  long  experience  in  the  domain  of  nuclear  safety,  including  in 
decommissioning  of  nuclear  installations  and  radioactive  waste  management.  As  a 
result a wide expertise in all the domains of nuclear safety is available in EU Member 
States. The diversity of technologies, which requires different approaches, allows for 
the necessary flexibility in addressing the needs of third countries. 

The  EU  has  adopted  common  legal  frameworks  concerning  nuclear  safety  and 
radioactive  waste  and  spent  fuel  management.  In  this  respect,  the  EU  has  set  up  an 
example and expects to persuade others to adopt similar high standards. 

In the face of increasingly complex challenges, none of the EU's internal priorities – 
security,  growth  and  job  creation,  climate  change,  access  to  energy,  health  and 
pandemics  and  migration  -  will  be  achieved  in  isolation  from  the  wider  world.  In 
times of economic crisis, a more coordinated and integrated approach between the EU 
and its Member States through joint programming will bring about more added value, 
increased strength and legitimacy, and more impact and effectiveness. 

The EU is in a uniquely neutral and impartial position to deliver on external action on 
behalf  of  and  with  Member  States,  giving  enhanced  credibility  in  the  countries  in 
which it works. It is best placed to take on the role of global leader on behalf of its 
citizens. 

With 27 Member States acting within common policies and strategies, the EU alone 
has  the  critical  weight  to  respond  to  global  challenges,  while  the  action  of  Member 
States can be limited and fragmented, with projects which are often too small to make 
a  sustainable  difference  in  the  field.  This  critical  mass  also  puts  the  EU  in  a  better 
position to conduct policy dialogue with partner governments.  

When programming its cooperation, the EU pays particular attention to the structural 
as  well  as  economic  capacity  of  the  countries  concerned. The  possibility  to  react  to 
unforeseen  needs  is  envisaged  within  the  current  INSC  regulation  and  was  made 
available to Japan after the Fukushima accident. 

The EU has a network of international agreements all over the world, not matched by 
individual  Member  States,  which  gives  them  influence  in  almost  all  fields  of 
international  relations,  including  nuclear  safety.  The  EU  plays  a  major  role  in  this 
domain but needs to continue enhancing its visibility.  

The  EU  can  do  more  than  other  international  organisations  as  it  has  a  holistic 
approach to development and external relations. Division of labour through the EU is 
a crucial component of its added value. With its network of international agreements 
with  partners  and  organisations  all  over  the  world,  the  EU  is  a  natural  coordinator, 

EN 

22 

   EN 

 
and  can  influence  almost  all  fields  of  international  relations,  which  individual 
Member States, acting within common policies and strategies, cannot do alone.  

Furthermore,  at  a  time  of  budgetary  restrictions,  when  several  Member  States  are 
compelled to exit entire sectors and countries, the EU is able to continue playing an 
active role. 

1.5.3.  Lessons learned from similar experiences in the past 

The  root  causes  of  the  major  nuclear  accidents  have  been  mainly  lack  of  nuclear 
safety  culture,  design  safety  (safety  aspects  of  the  plant  design)  and  operational 
safety.  It  was  therefore  considered  appropriate  that  the  nuclear  safety  cooperation 
programmes of the European Union addressed the nuclear operators, to improve the 
situation on the ground, and the nuclear regulators to ensure that they had the required 
technical  capability  and  independence  to  enforce  adherence  to  appropriate  nuclear 
safety standards.  

In some cases, safety related equipment had to be supplied to ensure that urgent cases 
were  promptly  resolved.  However,  as  these  cases  have  been  addressed  and  the 
programmes  are  guided  by  the  principle  of  the  most  efficient  use  of  resources  and 
avoidance  of  practices  which  might  have  commercial  and  competition  implications, 
supply of equipment has, in general, been discontinued.  

Under  the  INSC,  cooperation  was  initiated  with  a  number  of  third  countries  which 
intend  to  use  nuclear  energy  as  part  of  their  energy  mix  (the  so  called  'emerging 
countries').  The  cooperation  covered  mainly  the  building  up  of  the  capacity  of  the 
regulators,  the  regulatory  infrastructure  and  waste  management  strategies  to  ensure 
that a nuclear safety culture and framework is developed at a sufficiently early stage. 
The selection of the countries followed the criteria proposed by the Council.  

The  consequences  of  nuclear  accidents  can,  to  some  extent,  be  mitigated  by 
emergency  preparedness.  Therefore,  emergency  preparedness  needs  to  remain  an 
important part of the programme. 

Major  accidents  with  radiological  consequences  have  required  the  help  of  the 
international  community  to  the  affected  population  and  to  restore  the  sites  to  an 
environmentally  safe  situation.  This  was  the  case  with  Chernobyl  where  the  major 
construction  projects  are  entering  the  final  phase.  The  possibility  should  be  left  in 
future  programmes  to  cooperate  with  third  countries  in  this  respect,  if  needed  and 
appropriate. 

Past activities related to the nuclear fuel cycle, the use of nuclear powered ships and 
submarines  and  radioisotopes  have  not  always  been  up  to  the  standards  required  to 
protect the population and the environment. Governments and local authorities have 
been left with the difficult task of restoring affected sites to an environmentally safe 
situation  and  the  disposal  of  nuclear  spent  fuel  and  waste,  for  which  international 
cooperation  may  be  required.  This  part  of  the  nuclear  safety  programme  should  be 
among the instrument’s priorities in the future.  

In  order  that  spent  nuclear  fuel  and  nuclear  waste  be  dealt  with  in  a  proper  and 
responsible way, the nuclear safety programmes have provided for cooperation with 
third countries to establish national strategies and frameworks for the spent fuel and 
nuclear waste. As the European Union has just adopted a radioactive waste and spent 

EN 

23 

   EN 

 
fuel management directive, third countries should continue to be encouraged to adopt 
similar high standards, cooperation in this field should also be continued as a matter 
of priority.  

The  promotion  of  international  cooperation  will  remain  essential  to  ensure 
coordination  of  activities  by  the  different  actors  and  the  best  use  of  resources.  The 
IAEA will continue to play a fundamental role in this respect, particularly to enhance 
the  Global  Nuclear  Safety  Regime  (the  framework  for  achieving  the  worldwide 
implementation  of  a  high  level  of  safety  at  nuclear  installations).  Support  to  IAEA 
activities,  particularly  those  of  global  or  regional  nature  should  continue  to  be 
envisaged, with the appropriate visibility for the EU actions /contributions. 

Following  the  Fukushima-Daiichi  accident,  issues  related  to  the  comprehensive  risk 
and safety assessments of operating nuclear power plants (‘stress tests’) are likely to 
become  more  relevant  and  to  be  extended  to  other  nuclear  facilities,  including 
research  reactors,  spent  fuel  interim  storage  facilities,  radioactive  waste  storage  and 
disposal facilities. 

Cooperation with nuclear regulators (including their technical support organizations) 
should remain at the centre of the nuclear safety cooperation, while cooperation with 
nuclear  power  plant  operators  needs  to  be  reconsidered  taking  into  account  the 
performance and results of the ‘stress tests’ and specific circumstances.  

Disposal  of  spent  fuel,  waste  management,  decommissioning  of  installations, 
restoration of sites have gained increased relevance over the years. Future cooperation 
in these areas should be treated as a programme priority.  

Geographical  proximity  to  the  EU  (including  pre-accession  countries  and  EU 
neighbourhood) should remain a priority but not an exclusive criterion when deciding 
on cooperation programmes under the future instrument.  

The evolution of the international situation requires a change in focus and in priorities 
rather than a change in the broader scope of nuclear safety cooperation. 

1.5.4.  Coherence and possible synergy with other relevant instruments 

Consistency  with  the  measures  envisaged  in  the  domain  of  chemical,  biological, 
radiological, and nuclear (CBRN) risk mitigation, in the framework of the Instrument 
for  Stability  (IFS)  must  be  ensured,  particularly  those  related  to  nuclear  safeguards 
(including  countering  illicit  trafficking  of  nuclear  and  radiological  materials  and 
border control) as well as emergency preparedness. 

EN 

24 

   EN 

 
1.6. 

Duration and financial impact  

⌧ Proposal/initiative of limited duration  

–  ⌧ Proposal/initiative in effect from 2014 to 2020  

–  (cid:133)  Financial impact from YYYY to YYYY  

(cid:133) Proposal/initiative of unlimited duration 

Implementation with a start-up period from YYYY to YYYY, 

followed by full-scale operation. 

1.7.  Management mode(s) envisaged13  

⌧ Centralised direct management by the Commission  

⌧  Centralised  indirect  management  with  the  delegation  of  implementation  tasks 
to: 

(cid:133) 

(cid:133) 

executive agencies  

bodies set up by the Communities14  

⌧ 

national public-sector bodies/bodies with public-service mission  

–  (cid:133)  persons entrusted with the implementation of specific actions pursuant to Title 
V of the Treaty on European Union and identified in the relevant basic act within 
the meaning of Article 49 of the Financial Regulation  

⌧ Shared management with the Member States  

⌧ Decentralised management with third countries  

⌧ Joint management with international organisations (IAEA) 

If more than one management mode is indicated, please provide details in the "Comments" section. 

Comments  

The major part of the projects and programmes of the instrument will be managed by 
centralised  direct  management.  When  necessary  and  appropriate  to  improve 
efficiency  of  the  interventions,  for  logistic  and  political  reasons,  indirect,  shared  or 
joint  management  may  be  considered;  the  later  may  in  particular  be  applied  when 
Member  States  and/or  their  Agencies  or  the  International  Atomic  Energy  Agency 
(IAEA) have already launched or are preparing similar actions. 

13 

14 

Details  of  management  modes  and  references  to  the  Financial  Regulation  may  be  found  on  the 
BudgWeb site: http://www.cc.cec/budg/man/budgmanag/budgmanag_en.html 
As referred to in Article 185 of the Financial Regulation. 

EN 

25 

   EN 

 
                                                 
2. 

MANAGEMENT MEASURES  

2.1.  Monitoring and reporting rules  

Specify frequency and conditions. 

The  European  Commission's  Monitoring  and  Evaluation  systems  are  increasingly 
focussed on results. They involve internal staff as well as external expertise. 

in  Delegations  and  Headquarters  continuously  monitor 

Task  Managers 
the 
implementation  of  projects  and  programmes  in  various  ways,  including  wherever 
possible through field visits. Monitoring provides valuable information on progress; it 
helps  managers  to  identify  actual  and  potential  bottlenecks,  and  to  take  corrective 
action. 

through 

three  different  systems.  These  assessments  contribute 

External, independent experts are contracted to assess the performance of EU external 
actions 
to 
accountability,  and  to  the  improvement  of  ongoing  interventions;  they  also  draw 
lessons from past experience to inform future policies and actions. The tools all use 
the  internationally-recognised  OECD-DAC  evaluation  criteria  including  (potential) 
impact. 

Firstly,  at  the  project  level,  the  Headquarters-managed  Results  Oriented  Monitoring 
(ROM)  system  provides  a  brief,  focused  snapshot  of  the  quality  of  a  sample  of 
interventions.  Using  a  highly  structured,  standardised  methodology,  independent 
ROM  experts  attribute  grades  which  highlight  the  strengths  and  weaknesses  of  the 
project and give recommendations on how to improve effectiveness.  

Project-level evaluations, which are managed by the EU Delegation in charge of the 
project,  deliver  a  more  detailed,  in  depth  analysis  and  help  project  managers  to 
improve ongoing interventions and prepare future ones. External, independent experts 
with thematic  and geographic  expertise are hired to conduct the analysis  and gather 
feedback and evidence from all stakeholders, not least the final beneficiaries. 

its  policies,  from 
The  Commission  also  conducts  strategic  evaluations  of 
programming and strategy to the implementation of interventions in a specific sector 
(such  as  health,  education  etc),  in  a  country  or  region,  or  of  a  specific  instrument. 
These evaluations are an important input to the formulation of policies and the design 
of instruments and projects. These evaluations are all published on the Commission's 
website  and  a  summary  of  the  findings  is  included  in  the  Annual  Report  to  the 
Council and the European Parliament. 

2.2.  Management and control system  

The  measures  financed  under  this  Regulation  shall  be  implemented  in  accordance 
with the Financial Regulation.  

In  duly  justified  cases,  the  Commission  may,  in  accordance  with  Article  54  of  the 
Financial  regulation,  decide  to  entrust  tasks  of  public  authority,  and  in  particular 
budget  implementation  tasks,  to  bodies  referred  in  Article  54(2)(c)  of  the  Financial 
international  standing,  comply  with 
Regulation 

they  are  of  recognised 

if 

EN 

26 

   EN 

 
internationally recognised systems of management and control, and are supervised by 
public authority. 

In accordance with the Financial Regulation, measures financed under this Regulation 
may  be  implemented  directly  by  the  Commission,  in  shared  management  with 
Member  States  or  indirectly  by  entrusting  budget  implementing  tasks  to  any  of  the 
entities or persons listed in Article 55(1) point c) of the Financial Regulation. These 
entities or persons may, under the conditions laid down in Article 57 of the Financial 
Regulation,  be  authorised  to  use  their  own  contract  and  grant  award  rules  and 
procedures. 

2.2.1.  Risk(s) identified  

Risk environment 

The  operational  environment  of  aid  under  this  instrument  is  characterised  by  the 
following  risks  of  not  achieving  the  instrument's  objectives,  suboptimal  financial 
management  and/or  of  not  complying  with  the  applicable  rules  (legality  and 
regularity errors): 

– 

– 

– 

– 

– 

economic/political instability and/or natural disaster may lead to difficulties and 
delays in the design and implementation of interventions, particularly in fragile 
states;  

a lack of institutional and administrative capacity in partner countries may lead 
to difficulties and delays in the design and implementation of interventions;  

geographically  dispersed  projects  and  programmes 
(covering  many 
states/territories/regions) may pose logistical/resource challenges to monitoring 
- particularly any 'on-the-spot' follow-up of activities;  

diversity of potential partners / beneficiaries with their diverse internal control 
structures  and  capacities  can  fragment  and  therefore  reduce  the  effectiveness 
and efficiency of the Commission's available resources to support and monitor 
implementation;  

poor  quality  and  quantity  of  available  data  on  the  outcomes  and  impact  of 
external  aid  /  national  development  plan  implementation  in  partner  countries 
may hinder the Commission's ability to report on and be accountable for results. 

Expected level of risk of non-compliance with applicable rules 

The compliance objective for the instrument is to maintain the historic level of risk of 
non-compliance  (error  rate)  for  DEVCO  portfolio  which  is  a  residual  'net'  level  of 
error  (on  a  multi-annual  basis  after  all  planned  controls  and  corrections  have  been 
executed  on  closed  contracts)  of  less  than  2%.  This  has  traditionally  implied  an 
estimated  error  range  of  2-5%  in  terms  of  an  annual  randomised  sample  of 
transactions  undertaken  by  the  European  Court  of  Auditors  for  the  purposes  of  the 
annual Statement of Assurance (DAS). DEVCO considers this to be the lowest risk of 
non  compliance  achievable  in  relation  to  its  high  risk  environment  and  taking  into 
account  the  administrative  burden  and  necessary  cost  effectiveness  of  compliance 
controls.  

EN 

27 

   EN 

 
2.2.2.  Control method(s) envisaged  

DEVCO Internal Control architecture 

DEVCO's  internal  control  /  management  process  is  designed  to  provide  reasonable 
assurance regarding the achievement of objectives in the effectiveness and efficiency 
of  its  operations,  the  reliability  of  its  financial  reporting  and  compliance  with  the 
relevant legislative and procedural framework. 

Effectiveness and efficiency 

To ensure the effectiveness and efficiency of its operations (and to mitigate the high 
level  of  risk  in  its  external  aid  environment),  in  addition  to  all  the  elements  of  the 
Commission wide Strategic Policy and Planning process, internal audit environment 
and other requirements of the Commission's Internal Control Standards, DEVCO will 
continue  to  have  a  tailored  aid  management  framework  in  operation  under  all  its 
instruments which will include: 

– 

– 

– 

– 

– 

– 

A  devolved  management  of  the  majority  of  external  aid  by  EU  delegations  in 
the field. 

Clear  and  formalised  lines  of  financial  accountability  (from  the  Delegated 
Authorising  officer  (Director  General))  by  means  of  a  subdelegation  from  the 
Subdelegated Authorising Officer (Director) at HQ to the Head of Delegation; 

Regular  reporting  from  EU  Delegations 
to  HQ  (External  Assistance 
Management Reports) including an annual Statement of Assurance by the Head 
of Delegation; 

Provision  of  a  substantial  programme  of  training  for  staff  both  at  HQ  and  in 
delegation; 

Significant HQ/Delegation support and guidance (including via internet); 

Regular 'verification' visits to 'devolved' delegations every 3 to 6 years; 

A project and programme cycle management methodology including:  

– 

– 

Quality  support  tools  for  the  design  of  the  intervention,  its  delivery  method, 
financing  mechanism,  management  system,  assessment  and  selection  of  any 
implementing partners, etc. 

Programme  and  project  management,  monitoring  and  reporting  tools  for 
effective  implementation  including  regular  external  on-the-spot  monitoring  of 
projects. 

– 

Significant evaluation and audit components. 

Financial Reporting and Accounting 

DEVCO  will  continue  to  pursue  the  highest  standards  of  accounting  and  financial 
reporting using the Commission's accruals based accounting system (ABAC) as well 
as external aid specific tools such as the Common Relex Information System (CRIS).  

EN 

28 

   EN 

 
In  relation  to  compliance  with  the  relevant  legislative  and  procedural  framework, 
compliance control methods are set out in section 2.3 (measures to prevent fraud and 
irregularities). 

2.3.  Measures to prevent fraud and irregularities  

Given  the  high  risk  environment  in  which  EuropeAid  operates,  its  systems  need  to 
anticipate  a  significant  occurrence  of  potential  compliance  errors  (irregularities)  in 
transactions and build in a high level of prevention, detection and correction controls 
as early as possible in the payment process. This means in practice that EuropeAid's 
compliance controls will place most reliance on significant ex-ante checks on a multi-
annual basis by both external auditors and Commission staff in the field before final 
project payments (while still executing some ex-post audits and checks), going well 
beyond  the  financial  safeguards  required  by  the  Financial  Regulation.  EuropeAid's 
compliance framework is made up inter alia of the following significant components: 

Preventative measures 

– 

– 

– 

– 

– 

– 

Compulsory  core  training  covering  fraud  issues  for  aid  management  staff  and 
auditors; 

Provision of guidance (including via internet) including the Practical Guide to 
Contracts,  the  EuropeAid  Companion  and  the  Financial  Management  Toolkit 
(for implementing partners); 

Ex-ante  assessment  to  ensure  that  appropriate  anti-fraud  measures  to  prevent 
and detect fraud in the management of EU funds are in place in the authorities 
managing the relevant funds under joint and decentralised management); 

Ex-ante screening of the anti-fraud mechanisms available in the partner country 
as  part  of  the  assessment  of  the  eligibility  criterion  of  public  finance 
management for receiving budget support (i.e. active commitment to fight fraud 
and corruption, adequate inspection authorities, sufficient judicial capacity and 
efficient response and sanction mechanisms); 

The Commission signed the International Aid Transparency Initiative (IATI) in 
Accra in 2008, agreeing on a standard for aid transparency which ensures more 
timely, detailed and regular data on aid flows and documents.  

The Commission implements since 14 October 2011 the first phase of the IATI 
standard for publishing aid information transparency before the next High Level 
Forum  on  aid  effectiveness  in  Busan  in  November  2011.  In  addition,  the 
Commission  will  work  in  cooperation  with  the  EU  Member  States  on  a  joint 
web-based  IT  application  called  TR-AID  which  transforms  the  EU  aid  data 
provided through the IATI and other sources into user-friendly aid information. 

Detective and corrective measures 

– 

– 

External audits and verifications (both mandatory and risk based) including the 
European Court of Auditors; 

Retrospective checks (on a risk basis) and recoveries; 

EN 

29 

   EN 

 
– 

Suspension of EU funding where there is a serious fraud case, including large 
scale corruption, until the authorities have taken appropriate action with a view 
to correcting and preventing such fraud in the future. 

EuropeAid  will  further  devise  its  anti-fraud  strategy  in  line  with  the  Commission's 
new anti-fraud strategy (CAFS) adopted on 24 June 2011 in order to ensure inter alia 
that: 

– 

– 

– 

EuropeAid's  internal  anti-fraud  related  controls  are  fully  aligned  with  the 
CAFS;  

EuropeAid's  fraud  risk  management  approach  is  geared  to  identify  fraud  risk 
areas and adequate responses; 

The systems used for spending EU funds in third countries enable relevant data 
to be retrieved with a view to feeding this data into fraud risk management (e.g. 
double funding); 

–  Where  necessary,  networking  groups  and  adequate  IT  tools  dedicated  to 

analysing fraud cases related to the external aid sector could be set up. 

2.4 

Estimate of the costs and benefits of the controls 

For the EuropeAid portfolio as a whole, internal control / management costs total an 
in commitments in the 2014-2020 budget 
estimated annual average of € 658 million 
planning.  This  figure  includes  the  management  of  the  EDF  which  operates  in  an 
integrated  way  within  the  management  structure  of  EuropeAid.  These 
'non 
operational' costs represent approximately 6,4 % of the estimated annual average of € 
10.2  billion  planned  for  the  overall  (operational  +  administrative)  commitments  by 
EuropeAid on its expenditure portfolio financed by the General Budget of the EU and 
the European Development Fund for the period 2014-2020.  

These  management  costs  take  into  account  all  EuropeAid  staff  at  HQ  and  in 
Delegations, infrastructure, travel, training, monitoring, evaluation and audit contracts 
(including those launched by beneficiaries). 

EuropeAid  plans  to  reduce  the  management  /  operational  activities  ratio  over  time 
under the improved and simplified arrangements of the new instruments, building on 
changes likely to come in under the revised Financial Regulation. The key benefits of 
these management costs are realised in terms of meeting policy objectives, efficient 
and effective use of resources, and the exercise of robust cost-effective preventative 
measures and other checks to ensure the legal and regular use of funds. 

While  improvements  in  the  nature  and  targeting  of  management  activities  and 
compliance checks in relation to the portfolio will continue to be pursued, these costs 
are  globally  necessary  to  effectively  and  efficiently  achieve  the  objectives  of  the 
instruments at a minimal risk of non compliance (below 2% residual error). They are 
significantly less than risks involved in removing or scaling back internal controls in 
this high risk area.  

EN 

30 

   EN 

 
3. 

ESTIMATED FINANCIAL IMPACT OF THE PROPOSAL/INITIATIVE  

3.1. 

Heading(s) of the multiannual financial framework and expenditure budget line(s) affected  

•  Existing expenditure budget lines  

In order of multiannual financial framework headings and budget lines 

Heading of 
multiannual 
financial 
framework 

Budget line 

Number 19 06 04 
Assistance in the nuclear sector 

Type of  
expenditure

DA/NDA 
(15) 

Contribution  

from 
16
EFTA
countries 

from 
candidate 
17
countries

from third 
countries 

within the meaning 
of Article 18(1)(aa) 
of the Financial 
Regulation  

Number 19 06 04 01 

DA 

NO 

NO 

NO 

•  New budget lines requested NOT APPLICABLE 

In order of multiannual financial framework headings and budget lines. 

Heading of 
multiannual 
financial 
framework 

Budget line 

Type of 
expenditure

Contribution  

Number  
[Heading……………………………………..] 

Diff./non-
diff. 

[XX.YY.YY.YY] 

from 
EFTA 
countries 

from 
candidate 
countries 

from third 
countries 

within the meaning 
of Article 18(1)(aa) 
of the Financial 
Regulation  

YES/N
O 

YES/N
O 

YES/N
O 

YES/NO 

15 
16 
17 

DA= Differentiated appropriations / DNA= Non-Differentiated Appropriations 
EFTA: European Free Trade Association.  
Candidate countries and, where applicable, potential candidate countries from the Western Balkans. 

EN 

31 

EN 

 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
3.2. 

Estimated impact on expenditure  

3.2.1. 

Summary of estimated impact on expenditure  

Heading of multiannual financial 
framework:  

Assistance in the Nuclear Safety Sector 

EUR million (to 3 decimal places) 

DG: <…….> 

(cid:121) Operational appropriations  

Year 
N18 
2014 

Year 
N+1 
2015 

Year 
N+2 
2016 

Year 
N+3 
2017 

Year 
N+4 
2018 

Year 
N+5 
2019 

Year 
N+6 
2020 

TOTAL 

Instrument for Nuclear Safety Cooperation 
(19.06.04) 

Commitments 

Payments 

(1) 

(2) 

83,584 

85,277  

86,970 

88,763 

90,478 

92,348 

94,241 

0,581 

38,592  

59,602 

69,624 

76,548 

84,636 

81,649 

Appropriations of an administrative nature financed  
 from the envelop of specific programs19  
Number of budget line 19.0104 06 

TOTAL appropriations 
for DG <…….> 

Commitments 

Payments 

(3) 

=1+1a 
+3 

=2+2a 

+3 

1,316 

1,323  

1,330 

1,337 

1,422 

1,352 

1,359 

84,900 

86,600  

88,300 

90,100 

91,900 

93,700 

95,600 

631,100  

1,897 

39,915  

60,932 

70,961 

77,970 

85,988 

83,008 

420,671 

621,661 

411,232 

9,439  

18 
19 

EN 

Year N is the year in which implementation of the proposal/initiative starts. 
Technical and/or administrative assistance and expenditure in support of the implementation of EU programmes and/or actions (former "BA" lines), indirect research, direct 
research. 

32 

EN 

 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
(cid:121) TOTAL operational appropriations  

Commitments 

Payments 

(cid:121) TOTAL appropriations of an administrative nature 
financed from the envelop of specific programs  

(4) 

(5) 

(6) 

83,584 

85,277  

86,970 

88,763 

90,478 

92,348 

94,241 

0,581 

38,592  

59,602 

69,624 

76,548 

84,636 

81,649 

1,316 

1,323  

1,330 

1,337 

1,422 

1,352 

1,359 

621,661 

621,661 

9,439  

TOTAL appropriations  
under HEADING <4> 
of the multiannual financial framework

Commitments 

=4+ 6 

84,900 

86,600  

88,300 

90,100 

91,900 

93,700 

95,600 

631,100  

Payments 

=5+ 6 

1,897 

39,915  

60,932 

70,961 

77,970 

85,988 

83,008 

420,671 

If more than one heading is affected by the proposal / initiative: N/A 

(cid:121) TOTAL operational appropriations  

Commitments 

Payments 

(cid:121)  TOTAL  appropriations  of  an  administrative  nature 
financed from the envelop of specific programs  

(4) 

(5) 

(6) 

TOTAL appropriations  
under HEADINGS 1 to 4 
of the multiannual financial framework
(Reference amount) 

Commitments 

=4+ 6 

Payments 

=5+ 6 

EN 

33 

EN 

 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Heading of multiannual financial 
framework:  

5 

" Administrative expenditure " 

Year 
N 2014 

Year 
N+1 
2015 

Year 
N+2 
2016 

Year 
N+3 
2017 

Year 
N+4 
2018 

Year 
N+5 
2019 

Year 
N+6 
2020 

TOTAL 

EUR million (to 3 decimal places) 

DG: <…….> 

(cid:121) Human resources  

2,440 

2,415  

2,391 

2,367 

2,367 

2,367 

2,367 

(cid:121) Other administrative expenditure  

0,368 

0,340 

0,335 

0,335 

0,335 

0,335 

0,335 

16,716  

2,383 

TOTAL DG <…….> 

Appropriations  

2,808 

2,756 

2,726 

2,702 

2,702 

2,702 

2,702 

19,099 

TOTAL appropriations 
under HEADING 5 
of the multiannual financial framework 

(Total 
= Total payments) 

commitments 

2,808 

2,756 

2,726 

2,702 

2,702 

2,702 

2,702 

19,099 

EUR million (to 3 decimal places) 

Year 
N 2014 

Year 
N+1 
2015 

Year 
N+2 
2016 

Year 
N+3 
2017 

Year 
N+4 
2018 

Year 
N+5 
2019 

Year 
N+6 
2020 

TOTAL 

TOTAL appropriations  
under HEADINGS 1 to 5 

Commitments 

87,708 

89,356 

91,026 

92,802 

94,602 

96,402 

98,302 

650,199 

of the multiannual financial framework  Payments 

4,705 

42,671 

63,658 

73,663 

80,672 

88,690 

85,710 

439,770 

EN 

34 

EN 

 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
3.2.2.  Estimated impact on operational appropriations (cid:133) 

The proposal/initiative does not require the use of operational appropriations  

⌧ 

The proposal/initiative requires the use of operational appropriations, as explained below: 

Commitment appropriations in EUR million (to 3 decimal places) 

Indicate 
objectives and 
outputs  

2014 

2015 

2016 

2017 

2018 

2019 

2020 

TOTAL 

OUTPUTS 

Type 
of 
output
20

Avera
ge 
cost  
of the 
ouput 

r
e
b
m
u
N

s
t
u
p
u
o

f
o

(cid:216) 

Cost 

r
e
b
m
u
N

s
t
u
p
u
o

f
o

Cost 

r
e
b
m
u
N

s
t
u
p
u
o

f
o

Cost 

r
e
b
m
u
N

s
t
u
p
u
o

f
o

Cost 

r
e
b
m
u
N

s
t
u
p
u
o

f
o

Cost 

r
e
b
m
u
N

s
t
u
p
u
o

f
o

Cost 

r
e
b
m
u
N

s
t
u
p
u
o

f
o

Cost 

Total 
numbe
r of 
ouputs 

Total  
cost 

SPECIFIC OBJECTIVE No 1

21

Promotion of an effective nuclear 
safety culture and implementation of 
the highest nuclear safety standards 
and radiation protection 

- Output 

- Output 

Sub-total for specific objective N°1 

25,08 

25,58 

26,09 

26,63 

27,14

27,70 

28,27 

186,50 

20 
21 

Outputs are products and services to be supplied (e.g.: number of student exchanges financed, number of km of roads built, etc.). 
As described in Section 1.4.2. "Specific objective(s)…" 

EN 

35 

EN 

 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
SPECIFIC OBJECTIVE No 2  
Responsible and safe management of 
spent fuel and radioactive waste, 
decommissioning and remediation of 
former nuclear sites and installations 

- Output 

- Output 

- 

Sub-total for specific objective N°2 

54,33 

55,43 

56,53 

57,70 

58,81

60,03 

61,26 

404,08 

SPECIFIC OBJECTIVE No 3  
Establishment of frameworks and 
methodologies for the application of 
efficient and effective safeguards for 
nuclear material in third countries 

- Output 

- Output 

Sub-total for specific objective N°3 

4,18 

4,26 

4,35 

4,44 

4,52 

4,62 

4,71 

31,08 

TOTAL COST 

83,58 

85,28 

86,97 

88,76 

90,4
8 

92,35 

94,24 

621,66 

N.B. It should be underlined that the breakdown per specific objectives and their allocations among outputs can only, at this stage, be indicative. The 
outputs are thus based on initial estimates and been presented for illustrative purposes. 

EN 

36 

EN 

 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
3.2.3.  Estimated impact on appropriations of an administrative nature 

3.2.3.1.  Summary  

(cid:133) 

⌧ 

The proposal/initiative does not require the use of administrative appropriations  

The proposal/initiative requires the use of administrative appropriations, as explained 
below: 

EUR million (to 3 decimal places) 

201422 

2015 

2016 

2107 

2018 

2019 

2020 

TOTAL

HEADING 5 
of the multiannual financial 
framework 

Human resources  

2,440 

2,415 

2,391 

2,367 

2,367 

2,367  

2,367 

16,716 

Other administrative expenditure  

Subtotal HEADING 5 
of the multiannual financial 
framework  

Outside HEADING 5

23

of the multiannual financial 
framework  

Human resources  

Other expenditure  
of an administrative nature 

Subtotal  
outside HEADING 5 
of the multiannual financial 
framework  

0,368 

0,340 

0,335 

0,335 

0,335 

0,335 

0,335 

2,383 

2,808 

2,756 

2,726 

2,702 

2,702 

2,702 

2,702 

19,099 

0,968 

0,968 

0,968 

0,968 

0,968 

0,968 

0,968 

6,778 

0,348 

0,355 

0,362 

0,369 

0,453 

0,384 

0,391 

2,661 

1,316 

1,323 

1,330 

1,337 

1,422 

1,352 

1,359 

9,439 

TOTAL 

4,124 

4,079 

4,056 

4,039 

4,124 

4,054 

4,062  28,538

22 
23 

Year N is the year in which implementation of the proposal/initiative starts. 
Technical  and/or  administrative  assistance  and  expenditure  in  support  of  the  implementation  of  EU 
programmes and/or actions (former "BA" lines), indirect research, direct research. 

EN 

37 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
3.2.3.2.  Estimated requirements of human resources  

(cid:133) 

⌧ 

The proposal/initiative does not require the use of human resources  

The proposal/initiative requires the use of human resources, as explained below: 

Estimate to be expressed in full amounts (or at most to one decimal place) 

Year 
N 
2014 

Year 
N+1 
2015 

Year 
N+2 
2016 

Year 
N+3 
2017 

Year 
N+4 
2018 

Year 
N+5 
2019 

Year 
N+6 
2020 

Establishment plan posts (officials and temporary agents) 

18,5  

18,4  

18,2  

18,0  

18,0  

18,0  

18,0  

1,3  

1,2  

1,2  

1,2  

1,2  

1,2  

1,2  

17,3 

16,9 

16,6 

16,3 

15,9 

15,6 

15,3 

Assistance in the Nuclear Sector 01 01 01 
(Headquarters and Commission’s 
Representation Offices) 

Assistance in the Nuclear Sector 01 01 02 
(Delegations) 

Assistance in the Nuclear Sector 01 05 01 
(Indirect research) 

10 01 05 01 (Direct research) 

Assistance in the Nuclear Sector 01 02 01 
(CA, INT, SNE from the "global envelope") 

Assistance in the Nuclear Sector 01 02 02 
(CA, INT, JED, LA and SNE in the 
delegations) 

Assistance in the 
Nuclear Sector 01 
04 yy 24 

- at Headquarters25 

- in delegations  

Assistance in the Nuclear Sector 01 05 02 
(CA, INT, SNE - Indirect research) 

10 01 05 02 (CA, INT, SNE - Direct 
research) 

Other budget lines (specify) 

TOTAL 

37,0 

36,5 

36,0 

35,5 

35,1 

34,8 

34,5 

The human resources required will be met by staff from the DG who are already assigned to 
management of the action and/or have been redeployed within the DG, together if necessary 
with any additional allocation which may be granted to the managing DG under the annual 
allocation procedure and in the light of budgetary constraints. 

Description of tasks to be carried out: 

Officials and temporary agents 

External personnel 

24 
25 

Under the ceiling for external personnel from operational appropriations (former "BA" lines). 
Essentially  for  Structural  Funds,  European  Agricultural  Fund  for  Rural  Development  (EAFRD)  and 
European Fisheries Fund (EFF). 

EN 

38 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
3.2.4.  Compatibility with the current multiannual financial framework  

⌧ 

(cid:133) 

Proposal/initiative is compatible the current multiannual financial framework. 

Proposal/initiative  will  entail  reprogramming  of  the  relevant  heading  in  the 
multiannual financial framework. 

Explain what reprogramming is required, specifying the budget lines concerned and the corresponding 
amounts. 

(cid:133) 

Proposal/initiative requires application of the flexibility instrument or revision of the 
multiannual financial framework26. 

Explain what is required, specifying the headings and budget lines concerned and the corresponding 
amounts. 

3.2.5.  Third-party contributions NOT APPLICABLE 

The proposal/initiative does not provide for co-financing by third parties  

The proposal/initiative provides for the co-financing estimated below: 

Appropriations in EUR million (to 3 decimal places) 

Year 
N 

Year 
N+1 

Year 
N+2 

Year 
N+3 

… enter as many years as 
necessary to show the duration 
of the impact (see point 1.6) 

Total 

Specify 
financing body  

the 

co-

TOTAL 
appropriations 
cofinanced  

26 

See points 19 and 24 of the Interinstitutional Agreement. 

EN 

39 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
3.3. 

Estimated impact on revenue ( NOT APPLICABLE) 

(cid:133) 

(cid:133) 

Proposal/initiative has no financial impact on revenue. 

Proposal/initiative has the following financial impact: 

(cid:133) on own resources  

(cid:133) on miscellaneous revenue  

EUR million (to 3 decimal places) 

Impact of the proposal/initiative

27

Year 
N 

Year 
N+1 

Year 
N+2 

Year 
N+3 

… insert as many columns as necessary 
in order to reflect the duration of the 
impact (see point 1.6) 

Appropriations 
available for the 
ongoing budget 
year 

Budget 
revenue line: 

Article 
…………. 

For miscellaneous assigned revenue, specify the budget expenditure line(s) affected. 

Specify the method for calculating the impact on revenue. 

27 

As regards traditional own resources (customs duties, sugar levies), the amounts indicated must be net 
amounts, i.e. gross amounts after deduction of 25% for collection costs. 

EN 

40 

   EN