Resolution (EU) 2022/1829 of the European Parliament of 4 May 2022 with observations forming an integral part of the decision on discharge in respect of the implementation of the budget for the European Joint Undertaking for ITER and the Development of Fusion Energy (F4E) for the financial year 2020
Date: 2022-05-04
Institutions: European Parliament
Subjects: European Joint Undertaking, budgetary discharge, financial year, general budget (EU), nuclear fusion, nuclear research








L_2022258EN.01048301.xml










5.10.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


L 258/483








            RESOLUTION (EU) 2022/1829 OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT
         
of 4 May 2022
         
with observations forming an integral part of the decision on discharge in respect of the implementation of the budget for the European Joint Undertaking for ITER and the Development of Fusion Energy (F4E) for the financial year 2020


THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT,







—


having regard to its decision on discharge in respect of the implementation of the budget of the European Joint Undertaking for ITER and the Development of Fusion Energy for the financial year 2020,










—


having regard to Rule 100 of and Annex V to its Rules of Procedure,










—


having regard to the report of the Committee on Budgetary Control (A9-0076/2022),











A.


whereas the European Joint Undertaking for ITER and the Development of Fusion Energy (the ‘Joint Undertaking’) was established in April 2007 for a period of 35 years by Council Decision 2007/198/Euratom (1) of 27 March 2007;










B.


whereas the members of the Joint Undertaking are Euratom, represented by the Commission, the member states of Euratom, and third countries which have concluded a cooperation agreement with Euratom in the field of controlled nuclear fusion;










C.


whereas the objectives of the Joint Undertaking are to provide the Union’s contribution to the ITER international fusion energy project, to implement the broader approach agreement between Euratom and Japan, and to prepare for the construction of a demonstration fusion reactor and related facilities;










D.


whereas the discharge for the financial year 2020 concerns the Fusion for Energy (F4E) as ITER is an international nuclear fusion research and engineering megaproject and F4E is the organisation managing the Union’s contribution to ITER;










E.


whereas the Joint Undertaking started to work autonomously in March 2008;





General







1.


Notes that the report of the Court of Auditors (the ‘Court’) on the Joint Undertaking’s annual accounts for the financial year 2020 (the ‘Court’s report’) finds the annual accounts to present fairly, in all material respects, its financial position at 31 December 2020 and the results of its operations, its cash flows, and the changes in net assets for the year then ended, in accordance with its financial regulation and with the accounting rules adopted by the Commission’s accounting officer; notes, moreover, that the underlying transactions to the accounts for the financial year 2020 are, in all material respects, legal and regular;










2.


Notes with concern from the Court’s report the emphasis of matter drawing attention to the estimate of the total cost for completing its delivery obligations for the ITER project in 2042, assessed by the Joint Undertaking at EUR 17 968 050 000 (in 2020 values) and to the fact that changes in key assumptions concerning the estimate and the risk exposure could lead to significant costs increases and/or to further delays in the implementation of the ITER project; notes that among the key assumptions the ITER baseline approved in November 2016 by the Council of the ITER Organization leading to First Plasma in December 2025, and the start of the Deuterium-Tritium phase in December 2035 is maintained; notes in contrast that the 2010 baseline estimated the achievement of the construction phase in 2020, and that the current ITER baseline approved in 2016 is considered to be the earliest possible technically achievable date; calls on the Joint Undertaking to report to the discharge authority of any development in that regard; notes that the Court’s report refers to in particular changes in nuclear safety requirements that are under the ultimate authority of the French Nuclear Safety Authority, the cost estimate for the Hot Cell Complex which has not been revised, as well as requirement changes;










3.


Suggests that the Joint Undertaking control better the costs of the project and communicate more transparently on all the expenses related to the overall operation;










4.


Notes the ITER Council decided to maintain temporarily this baseline plan with First Plasma set in December 2025 despite the forecasted delay of eight months due to the accumulation of delays in component deliveries, the start of the installation activities at the Cadarache site, and the effect of the COVID-19 pandemic; notes that the ITER Organization has acknowledged that there is an irreversible slippage of the schedule for First Plasma; regrets that the delay is estimated in total at about 17 months and that that is not only driven by the health pandemic but also by the late delivery of some components, in particular the Vacuum Vessel, and particularly its sectors under European responsibility, as well as the overall slower assembly works by the international organisation; calls the Joint Undertaking to report to the discharge authority in that regard; notes, moreover, the lack of contingency in the schedule and that the suggestion of Commission and the United States Department of Energy were not retained and included at Union level; notes from the 9th Annual Assessment report that the schedule contingency reserve should be introduced in the concerned Joint Undertaking’s activities planning and that it should be part of the schedule baseline; notes, moreover, the recommendations made by the panel of assessors on management reserves; calls on the Joint Undertaking to report to the discharge authority in that regard;










5.


Notes that the ITER Organization is expected to present an updated schedule on the construction of the ITER site in Spring 2022 with the view of its adoption in November 2022, subject to an assessment by a panel of independent experts; calls on the Joint Undertaking to urgently report any development in that regard and especially on the date of the starting of the Deuterium-Tritium phase;










6.


Notes that on 31 January 2020, the United Kingdom (UK) left the Union and Euratom; notes that following the Withdrawal Agreement the UK committed to paying all its obligations under the current Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF) and previous financial perspectives arising from its membership of the Union and that it has paid into the 2020 EU Budget during the year, and received payments, as if it was a Member State; notes that the UK will become an Associated State of Euratom, under equivalent conditions as full Member States, pending the ratification of the protocol on the UK’s association to Union programmes; calls on the Joint Undertaking to report to the discharge authority of developments in that regard;










7.


Is aware of the fact that in addition to the construction phase, the Joint Undertaking will have to contribute to the ITER operational phase after 2035 and to the subsequent ITER deactivation and decommissioning phases as specified in the Agreement on the Establishment of the ITER International Fusion Energy Organization for the Joint Implementation of the ITER Project (2); notes that the contribution to the deactivation and decommissioning phases were estimated, respectively, at EUR 95 540 000 and EUR 180 200 000 (in 2001 values);










8.


Notes that for the next MFF period 2021–2027, the European Council has agreed a budget for the Euratom contribution to ITER amounting to a total value of EUR 5 614 000 000 (in current values) of which EUR 5 560 000 000 (in current value) of direct contribution to the project;





Budget and financial management







9.


Notes that the final 2020 available budget included commitment appropriations of EUR 885 669 069 and payment appropriations of EUR 816 458 884; notes that the utilisation rates for commitment and payment appropriations were 100 % and 98 % respectively (compared to 99,8 % and 97,1 % in 2019);










10.


Notes that out of EUR 885 669 069 available for commitment appropriations, 100 % was implemented through individual commitments (corresponding to EUR 885 349 020);










11.


Notes from the Court’s report that the Joint Undertaking’s calculation method for the 2020 annual membership contributions did not comply with the respective provisions of its financial regulation and instead of using the contribution estimates as adopted by the governing board, the Joint Undertaking levied the contributions based on a yet to be adopted draft estimate; calls on the Joint Undertaking to comply with the provisions of its financial regulation and to report, in a comprehensive and transparent manner, to the discharge authority on the reasons of having departed from the use of the governing board estimate; notes from the Joint Undertaking’s reply that it has adopted the measure to approve the draft single programming document for the following year by the last governing board of the year to avoid this issue happening again;





Performance







12.


Notes that the Joint Undertaking has achieved the ITER Council/governing board milestone for the crane access between the Assembly Hall and Tokamak Building which allowed for the start of ITER assembly in July 2020 and delivered first major components to ITER Organization; notes, moreover, from the progress report that in 2020 the ITER Organization announced that the overall project had reached 72,1 % of the total construction work scope to First Plasma against a planned value of 77,3 %, and that including all post First Plasma construction work to achieve Deuterium-Tritium the ITER project execution reached 57,7 %;










13.


Notes with concern from the 9th Annual Assessment that the panel of assessors detected a lack of a common project identity and common goal, in particular at managerial level between the F4E and the ITER Organization and that these ‘soft’ elements of project management are of central importance; wonders whether this situation might not affect the effectiveness of the project and calls on the Joint Undertaking to report to the discharge authority in that regard; notes furthermore from the annual assessment that the Joint Undertaking needs to reinforce its technical core expertise in the fields concerning on-going and future critical activities in relation to functional requirements of ITER Organization and technical specifications and compliance of industrial contractors; calls on the Joint Undertaking to follow the recommendations issued in the annual assessment and to report to the discharge authority in that regard;










14.


Notes from the Court’s report that the Joint Undertaking assessed that the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic has been serious but not significant and that by April 2021, the pandemic had caused delays of up to four months for some deliveries, with a resulting increase in costs of around EUR 47 000 000 (in 2008 values) for the overall ITER project, and that further repercussions are possible should the pandemic worsen in 2021; calls on the Joint Undertaking to keep the discharge authority informed of any additional delays and cost increases associated with the pandemic;





Prevention of fraud and of conflicts of interest







15.


Notes the Joint Undertaking’s anti-fraud action plan covering the period 2020 through 2023, following its strategy adopted in 2019, and the awareness raising events and trainings organised for staff and management; moreover, notes that in 2020, 33 anti-fraud actions have been implemented; calls on the Joint Undertaking to report to the discharge authority on the outcome of those actions;










16.


Notes that with a view to preventing and managing conflicts of interest, the anti-fraud and ethics officer organised a training for new staff and specific training for F4E managers; urges the joint undertaking to keep improving its fraud prevention measures;





Staff and recruitment







17.


Notes with concern from the Court’s report that the Joint Undertaking’s recruitment procedures made in 2020 lacked transparency in drawing up the final shortlist of candidates to be invited for the next assessment phase (interviews and written tests), and that it is not clear how the selection committee took account of the advantageous criteria for shortlisting candidates; notes the Joint Undertaking’s reply that in 2021 it started to include fully quantitative assessments of applications; calls on the Joint Undertaking to diligently review and continue to improve its recruitment policy with the aim of increasing transparency and fairness of the process and to report to the discharge authority any development in that regard;










18.


Notes that a preliminary internal investigation determined that it was not clear whether the employee’s suicide was connected to the working environment, but points out that the same employee left a note in which they made clear that ‘burnout at work’ was a factor and, in an earlier email to a representative of the administration dated 22 January 2020, they wrote about their exposure to ‘a severe case of harassment’; believes, therefore, that there needs to be an independent investigation into what went on, as also called for by the F4E director;










19.


Notes that in 2020, a special focus was put on the implementation of a new training and qualification programme for Joint Undertaking’s staff performing protection important activities, in application of the new Joint Undertaking’s policy related to nuclear safety competence and qualification and that at the end of 2020, 92 % of protection important activities’ performers were trained and qualified, meeting the corporate objective;










20.


Notes with concern from the Court’s follow-up action to its 2019’s observations that corrective actions towards problems and risks at senior management and corporate culture level identified by an external expert panel are ongoing; reiterates that this situation, if remaining unsolved, could negatively affect the performance of the staff; calls on the Joint Undertaking to report to the discharge authority in that regard; notes that in 2020 the policy on contracts of employment in the Joint Undertaking was modified;










21.


Notes with concern that staff continued to decrease slightly by 0,9 % in 2020; reiterates that problematic Joint Undertaking’s human resources have been flagged by ECA also during previous audits; stresses that lack of sufficient statutory staff leads to increased use of interim staff or the contractual insourcing of workers; is of the opinion that this presents particular risks that could negatively affect the Joint Undertaking’s overall performance, such as the retention of key competences, unclear accountability channels, and lower staff efficiency;










22.


Is aware that on the 17 January 2022 the heads of the three main trade unions sent a letter on behalf of the F4E staff to the Commissioner for Budget and Administration, and the Commissioner for Energy, about the critical situation in the F4E asking the Commission to support an OLAF inquiry into the F4E professional environment; notes that in addition they also ask the Commission to perform ‘an in-depth assessment of the current F4E Senior Management, in particular in relation to their credibility and capacity to implement, in the present context, a change programme capable to restore trust and to transform the F4E working environment and corporate culture’; calls on the Joint Undertaking to report to the discharge authority of any development in that regard;










23.


Recalls that the 2019 discharge report noted several problems and risks at senior management and corporate culture level; which, if unresolved, could negatively affect the performance of the Joint Undertaking’s staff; notes that several measures have been adopted in an attempt to address these issues, including the appointment of a new head of administration, the introduction of a coaching programme and an agreement with three unions; remains however, seriously concerned that the working environment and the staff’s well-being have not been sufficiently improved;










24.


Notes that, the Joint Undertaking has adopted a diversity strategy to support and seek gender balance and geographical representation of staff; notes that in 2020 the 14 % of the F4E’s senior managers were female and 86 % were male and that 16 % of its middle managers were female and 84 % were male; welcomes the fact that the F4E has appointed a female head of administration position; urges the Joint Undertaking to continue to improve gender and strive for a balanced geographical balance in this respect;










25.


Notes that in 2020, the Joint Undertaking adopted its first Strategy on Diversity, Equal Opportunities and Non-Discrimination to undertake promoting equality and diversity in the workplace, spanning over three years;










26.


Notes that the Joint Undertaking launched its first survey on the impact of COVID-19 in June 2020 and that following its result the Human Resources decided to focus on psychosocial preventive actions in the area of emotional wellbeing and stress management; is concerned that a recent psychosocial risk assessment found 54,2 % of staff were concerned about their workload;










27.


Notes that the F4E recognises the need for further improvement with regards to ‘resources, values, trust and culture’ and has launched actions to meet its corporate objective ‘F4E being a Greater Place to Work’; requests that the Joint Undertaking report back to the discharge authority without delay on these actions;





Internal control







28.


Notes that the 2020 annual assessment of the internal control system concluded that all the components are operating together in an integrated manner, except one control where a critical deficiency related to the formalisation of legal commitments for operational expenditure in the Joint Undertaking’s contract management tool (DACC); notes, however, from the Court’s report that the DACC and the IT application for the document management (IDM) are not applicable to the systems and workflow of the Commission’s central financial information system (ABAC) and that in March 2020, the Joint Undertaking’s executive director decided that the advanced electronic signatures in DACC should not only be used for managing and signing contract amendments but also for initial contracts, as temporary administrative measures, during the COVID-19 pandemic; notes that the Joint Undertaking did not fully align its local IT applications with the internal processes for delegations and that significant weaknesses remain to be resolved which include legal, technical, and internal control aspects; moreover, notes with concern that the DACC application cannot evidence that staff had properly understood the contents of a document and agreed to sign it with their personal signature; calls on the Joint Undertaking to report to the discharge authority in that regard;










29.


Notes from the Joint Undertaking reply that in early 2021, in the frame of the annual assessment of the Joint Undertaking’s internal control system, errors were detected by its internal control coordinator regarding the signature phase of some operational contracts in DACC and therefore not in line with the Joint Undertaking’s financial regulation, and that although the contracts are still considered legal under Spanish and French law, the issue revealed serious deficiencies in the Joint Undertaking’s internal control systems; notes that the Joint Undertaking’s executive director included a non-quantified reputational reservation in its annual declaration of assurance for the year 2020 on that regard; notes furthermore from the Joint Undertaking’s reply that from 2021 its internal audit capability (IAC) will extend the scope of its annual review of ABAC access rights to also include DACC; notes that the Internal Audit Service launched in June 2021 an audit on ‘Delegations and efficiency of decision making in F4E and cooperation mechanisms with DG ENER’; calls on the Joint Undertaking to report to the discharge authority on findings in that regard;










30.


Notes from the Court’s report that the Joint Undertaking created, in addition to individual user accounts, user group accounts with virtual identities to facilitate the management of its local IT applications (DACC, IDM) and that until the end of 2020, the functional group account created for the Joint Undertaking’s director was also used to approve and sign a variety of important documents, contrary to the basic principles of the Joint Undertaking’s information and communication technology’s access management policy requiring user accounts to be unique and linked to a single user, and therefore allows all persons included within the group account to perform actions uniquely reserved for the responsible authorising officer; calls on the Joint Undertaking to report to the discharge authority in that regard;










31.


Notes from the 9th Annual Assessment report that the Joint Undertaking risk management process may be improved in particular as regards the cost and schedule contingencies, sensitivity and confidence level, and against the guidelines of the International Organization for Standardization; calls on the Joint Undertaking to report to the discharge authority in that regard; notes with concern that findings from the report on the risk maturity assessment 2020 indicate that the Joint Undertaking did not record any lesson learned on risk management; calls on the Joint Undertaking to follow the recommendations stemming from the assessment and to report to the discharge authority in that regard;










32.


Notes that following an IAC’s audit on Nuclear Safety in 2019 covering the management and compliance aspects of the Joint Undertaking’s nuclear safety management, the IAC performed a follow-up in May 2020, and that by the end of 2020, 22 actions out of the 23 on the action plan were already implemented, with the last action being in progress; calls on the Joint Undertaking to report to the discharge authority on developments in that regard;










33.


Notes from the Court’s report that at the end of 2020, the framework of the delegations in the Joint Undertaking’s DACC and IDM did not automatically establish technical delegations but instead, relied on each responsible authorising officer to select the correct person to delegate to, based on the framework approved by the Joint Undertaking’s Director and, moreover, that delegation powers that are provided by the contracts are given to staff, other than the responsible authorising officer, which is not reflected in the Joint Undertaking’s framework of delegations; notes from the Joint Undertaking’s reply that delegation powers correspond exclusively to daily management activities of the contract, and do not amend the contract as such, and that the Joint Undertaking will update the respective provision in the model contract; calls on the Joint Undertaking to report to the discharge authority any development in that regard;










34.


Notes with concern from the Court’s report that the Joint Undertaking’s DACC application has never been subject to an internal control audit, to ensure the compliance of user rights to authorise transactions with delegations assigned to staff and therefore there is a high risk that non-compliance due to breaches of the Joint Undertaking’s delegation policy may not have been identified nor mitigated; notes from the Joint Undertaking’s reply that a validation of the user right is being performed by a third party to provide assurance; calls on the Joint Undertaking to report to the discharge authority in that regard;










35.


Notes from the Court’s report that although in 2016, the Joint Undertaking started to use the DACC for the legal commitment or contract management (in 2020 including for initial contracts), and therefore as an additional source for accounting and financial data, no validation of the its accounting system has been performed since 2013, which is contrary to the Joint Undertaking’s financial regulation; notes from the Joint undertaking reply that a validation of the accounting systems will be launched in 2021 and that DACC is not automatically synchronized with ABAC and that data entered in the accounting system is validated in line with the internal control system; calls on the Joint Undertaking to report of any development in that regard;










36.


Notes that over the years, the Joint Undertaking has made considerable efforts to implement an electronic document management system and that during the COVID-19 pandemic the advanced electronic signatures in DACC was not only used for managing and signing contract amendments but also for initial contracts, as temporary administrative measures; calls on the Joint Undertaking to continue using this instrument and to expand it to other features;





Procurement and grants







37.


Notes that during 2020, 42 operational procurement procedures were launched, and that 47 operational procurement contracts were awarded and 55 were signed, while only one grant was launched, and none signed;










38.


Notes from the Court’s report that the Joint Undertaking uses its own eProcurement portal, which is not fully synchronised with the Commission’s eProcurement solution and could lead to unnecessary duplications with the Commission’s development efforts and investment in the future; reminds that this is not in line with the principle of a single ‘electronic data interchange area’ for participants, as provided for by the Financial Regulation; notes from the Joint Undertaking’s reply that when the tool offered by the Commission covers all procurement procedure types relevant for the Joint Undertaking and the incident reported rate decreases, the Joint Undertaking will evaluate a potential move to the Commission toolset and take a decision based on the Joint Undertaking’s operational requirements; calls on the Joint Undertaking to harmonise its procurement solution with that of the Commission.







          
      



(1)  Council Decision 2007/198/Euratom of 27 March 2007 establishing the European Joint Undertaking for ITER and the Development of Fusion Energy and conferring advantages upon it (OJ L 90, 30.3.2007, p. 58).

(2)  
            OJ L 358, 16.12.2006, p. 62: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A22006A1216%2803%29