CELEX: 52011PC0841
Language: en
Date: 2011-12-07
Title: Proposal for a COUNCIL REGULATION establishing an Instrument for Nuclear Safety Cooperation

|
			
		
		
		52011PC0841
		
			Proposal for a COUNCIL REGULATION establishing an Instrument for Nuclear Safety Cooperation /* COM/2011/0841 final - 2011/0414 (CNS) */
			
				
		
		
			
			   	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
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
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 evaluations systems in
the future instruments and in the implementation of projects/programmes. 
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.
(b)                   
’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.
(c)                   
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.
(d)                   
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.
4.           BUDGETARY IMPLICATIONS 
The Commission proposes to allocate €70
billion for the period 2014-2020 for the external instruments[1]. 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.
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.
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 Parliament[2],
Acting in accordance with a special
legislative procedure,
Whereas:
(1)              
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
Cooperation[3]
which expires on 31 December 2013.
(2)              
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.
(3)              
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.
(5)              
By Commission Decision 1999/819/Euratom[4] the Community acceded to the
1994 Convention on Nuclear Safety. By Commission Decision 2005/510/Euratom[5] the Community also acceded to
the Joint Convention on the Safety of Spent Fuel Management and on the Safety
of Radioactive Waste Management.
(6)              
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 installations[6].
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 waste[7].
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.
(7)              
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.
(8)              
The Union Member States are signatory parties of
the Non Proliferation Treaty and the Additional Protocol.
(9)              
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 laying down the rules and
general principles concerning mechanisms for control by Member States of the
Commission's exercise of implementing powers[8].
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)         
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.
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;
(b)         
status of development of the spent fuel, nuclear
waste and decommissioning strategies, the respective legislative and regulatory
framework and implementation of projects;
(c)         
number and importance of issues identified in
relevant IAEA nuclear safeguards reports.
3.                      
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.
4.                      
Specific measures supported by this Regulation
and criteria applying to nuclear safety cooperation are detailed in the Annex.
5.                      
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 
1.                      
Union cooperation under this Regulation shall be
implemented on the basis of multi-annual strategy papers.
2.                      
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.
3.                      
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. 
4.                      
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.
5.                      
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.
Article 3
Multiannual Indicative programmes
1.                      
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.
2.                      
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. 
3.                      
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.
4.                      
Multiannual indicative
programmes shall be adopted in accordance with the examination procedure referred to in Article 15(3) of the Common
Implementing Regulation.
5.                      
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 procedure. However, the examination procedure
shall not be required for modifications to multiannual indicative programmes, which
make technical 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
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.                      
The financial reference amount for the
implementation of this Regulation over the period 2014 to 2020 is EUR 631 100
000.
2.                      
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,
                                                                       For
the Council
                                                                       The
President
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. transport,
pre-treatment, treatment, processing, storage and disposal), including the
development of specific strategies and frameworks for the responsible
management of spent nuclear fuel and radioactive waste; 
–              
 the development and implementation of
strategies and frameworks for decommissioning existing installations, for the
remediation of former nuclear 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.
Criteria[9]
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 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)                   
the degree of urgency of intervention in a given
country, in the light of the situation as regards nuclear safety and security;
and 
(b)                   
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
technical support organisations and the development and implementation of
strategies and frameworks for the responsible and safe management of spent fuel
and radioactive waste.
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 map[10].
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.
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
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 structure[11]

External Relations, Nuclear Safety Cooperation
1.3.        Nature of the
proposal/initiative 
¨ The
proposal/initiative relates to a new action 
¨ The
proposal/initiative relates to a new action following a pilot
project/preparatory action[12] 
x The proposal/initiative
relates to the extension of an existing action 
¨ 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 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 establish effective cooperation aimed at
preventing accidents through the 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.
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
Responsible and safe management of spent fuel and radioactive waste,
decommissioning and remediation of former nuclear sites and installations.
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.
1.5.1.     Requirement(s) to be met in
the short or long term 
The legislative proposal addresses the requirement for the promotion
and implementation in third countries of the highest nuclear safety standards,
radiation protection and efficient and effective safeguards of nuclear
material.
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, 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 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.
1.6.        Duration and financial
impact 
x Proposal/initiative of limited
duration 
–     
x Proposal/initiative in effect from 2014 to 2020 
–     
¨  Financial impact from YYYY to YYYY 
¨ 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) envisaged[13] 
x Centralised direct management by the Commission 
x Centralised indirect management with the delegation of implementation tasks to:
¨        executive agencies 
¨        bodies set up by the Communities[14] 
x        national public-sector bodies/bodies with public-service
mission 
–     
¨  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

x Shared management with the Member States 
x Decentralised management with third countries 
x 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.
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.
Task Managers in Delegations and Headquarters continuously monitor
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.
External, independent experts are contracted to assess the
performance of EU external actions through three different systems. These
assessments contribute 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.
The Commission also conducts strategic evaluations of its policies,
from 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 Regulation if they are of recognised
international standing, comply with 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. 
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). 
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;
–              
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 estimated annual average of € 658 million in
commitments in the 2014-2020 budget 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. 
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 || Type of expenditure || Contribution 
 Number 19 06 04 Assistance in the nuclear sector || DA/NDA ([15]) || from EFTA[16] countries || from candidate countries[17] || 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. || from EFTA countries || from candidate countries || from third countries || within the meaning of Article 18(1)(aa) of the Financial Regulation 
   || [XX.YY.YY.YY]   ||   || YES/NO || YES/NO || YES/NO || YES/NO 
3.2.        Estimated impact on
expenditure 
3.2.1.     Summary of estimated impact on expenditure 
                EUR million (to 3 decimal places)
 Heading of multiannual financial framework: ||   || Assistance in the Nuclear Safety Sector 
 DG: <…….> ||   ||   || Year N[18] 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 
  Operational appropriations ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   
 Instrument for Nuclear Safety Cooperation (19.06.04) || Commitments || (1) || 83,584 || 85,277 || 86,970 || 88,763 || 90,478 || 92,348 || 94,241 || 621,661 
 Payments || (2) || 0,581 || 38,592 || 59,602 || 69,624 || 76,548 || 84,636 || 81,649 || 411,232 
 Appropriations of an administrative nature financed  from the envelop of specific programs[19] ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   
 Number of budget line 19.0104 06 ||   || (3) || 1,316 || 1,323 || 1,330 || 1,337 || 1,422 || 1,352 || 1,359 || 9,439 
 TOTAL appropriations for DG <…….> || Commitments || =1+1a +3 || 84,900 || 86,600 || 88,300 || 90,100 || 91,900 || 93,700 || 95,600 || 631,100 
 Payments || =2+2a +3 || 1,897 || 39,915 || 60,932 || 70,961 || 77,970 || 85,988 || 83,008 || 420,671 
  TOTAL operational appropriations || Commitments || (4) || 83,584 || 85,277 || 86,970 || 88,763 || 90,478 || 92,348 || 94,241 || 621,661 
 Payments || (5) || 0,581 || 38,592 || 59,602 || 69,624 || 76,548 || 84,636 || 81,649 || 621,661 
  TOTAL appropriations of an administrative nature financed from the envelop of specific programs || (6) || 1,316 || 1,323 || 1,330 || 1,337 || 1,422 || 1,352 || 1,359 || 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
  TOTAL operational appropriations || Commitments || (4) ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   
 Payments || (5) ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   
  TOTAL appropriations of an administrative nature financed from the envelop of specific programs || (6) ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   
 TOTAL appropriations under HEADINGS 1 to 4 of the multiannual financial framework (Reference amount) || Commitments || =4+ 6 ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   
 Payments || =5+ 6 ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   
 Heading of multiannual financial framework: || 5 || " Administrative expenditure " 
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 
 DG: <…….> || 
  Human resources || 2,440 || 2,415 || 2,391 || 2,367 || 2,367 || 2,367 || 2,367 || 16,716 
  Other administrative expenditure || 0,368 || 0,340 || 0,335 || 0,335 || 0,335 || 0,335 || 0,335 || 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 commitments = Total payments) || 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 of the multiannual financial framework || Commitments || 87,708 || 89,356 || 91,026 || 92,802 || 94,602 || 96,402 || 98,302 || 650,199 
 Payments || 4,705 || 42,671 || 63,658 || 73,663 || 80,672 || 88,690 || 85,710 || 439,770 
3.2.2.     Estimated impact on
operational appropriations ¨            The proposal/initiative does not require the use of
operational appropriations 
x        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   ò ||   ||   || 2014 || 2015 || 2016 || 2017 || 2018 || 2019 || 2020 || TOTAL 
 OUTPUTS 
 Type of output[20] || Average cost of the ouput || Number of ouputs || Cost || Number of ouputs || Cost || Number of ouputs || Cost || Number of ouputs || Cost || Number of ouputs || Cost || Number of ouputs || Cost || Number of ouputs || Cost || Total number 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 
 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 ||   
 - 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 ||   || 90,48 ||   || 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.
3.2.3.     Estimated impact on
appropriations of an administrative nature
3.2.3.1.  Summary 
¨        The proposal/initiative does not require the use of
administrative appropriations 
x        The proposal/initiative requires the use of administrative
appropriations, as explained below:
EUR million (to 3
decimal places)
   || 2014[22] || 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 || 0,368 || 0,340 || 0,335 || 0,335 || 0,335 || 0,335 || 0,335 || 2,383 
 Subtotal HEADING 5 of the multiannual financial framework || 2,808 || 2,756 || 2,726 || 2,702 || 2,702 || 2,702 || 2,702 || 19,099 
 Outside HEADING 5[23] of the multiannual financial framework ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   
 Human resources || 0,968 || 0,968 || 0,968 || 0,968 || 0,968 || 0,968 || 0,968 || 6,778 
 Other expenditure of an administrative nature || 0,348 || 0,355 || 0,362 || 0,369 || 0,453 || 0,384 || 0,391 || 2,661 
 Subtotal outside HEADING 5 of the multiannual financial framework || 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 
3.2.3.2.  Estimated requirements of
human resources 
¨        The proposal/initiative does not require the use of human
resources 
x        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) 
 Assistance in the Nuclear Sector 01 01 01 (Headquarters and Commission’s Representation Offices) || 18,5 || 18,4 || 18,2 || 18,0 || 18,0 || 18,0 || 18,0 
 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") || 1,3 || 1,2 || 1,2 || 1,2 || 1,2 || 1,2 || 1,2 
 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 Headquarters[25] || 17,3 || 16,9 || 16,6 || 16,3 || 15,9 || 15,6 || 15,3 
 - 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 ||   
3.2.4.     Compatibility with the
current multiannual financial framework 
x        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.
¨        Proposal/initiative requires application of the flexibility
instrument or revision of the multiannual financial framework[26].
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 the co-financing body ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   
 TOTAL appropriations cofinanced ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   
3.3.        Estimated impact on
revenue ( NOT APPLICABLE)
¨        Proposal/initiative has no financial impact on revenue.
¨        Proposal/initiative has the following financial impact:
¨ on own resources 
¨ on miscellaneous revenue 
EUR million (to 3 decimal places)
 Budget revenue line: || Appropriations available for the ongoing budget year || 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) 
 Article …………. ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   
For miscellaneous
assigned revenue, specify the budget expenditure line(s) affected.
Specify the method for
calculating the impact on revenue.
[1]               EDF, Global Climate and Biodiversity Fund and
Emergency Aid Reserve are additional to this and remain outside the EU budget.
[2]               OJ C , , p. .
[3]               OJ L
81, 22.3.2007, p. 1–10
[4]               OJ
L 318, 11.12.1999, p. 20. 
[5]               OJ
L 185, 16.7.2005, p. 33.
[6]               OJ L 172, 2.7.2009, p. 18.
[7]               OJ L 199, 2.8.2011, p. 48.
[8]               OJ L 55, 28.2.2011, p. 13.
[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).
[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)
[11]             ABM: Activity-Based Management – ABB: Activity-Based
Budgeting.
[12]             As referred to in Article 49(6)(a) or (b) of the
Financial Regulation.
[13]             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
[14]             As referred to in Article 185 of the Financial
Regulation.
[15]             DA= Differentiated appropriations / DNA=
Non-Differentiated Appropriations
[16]             EFTA: European Free Trade Association. 
[17]             Candidate countries and, where applicable, potential
candidate countries from the Western Balkans.
[18]             Year N is the year in which implementation of the
proposal/initiative starts.
[19]             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.
[20]             Outputs are products and services to be supplied (e.g.:
number of student exchanges financed, number of km of roads built, etc.).
[21]             As described in Section 1.4.2. "Specific
objective(s)…"
[22]             Year N is the year in which implementation of the
proposal/initiative starts.
[23]             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.
[24]             Under
the ceiling for external personnel from operational
appropriations (former "BA" lines).
[25]             Essentially for Structural Funds, European Agricultural
Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) and European Fisheries Fund (EFF).
[26]             See points 19 and 24 of the Interinstitutional
Agreement.
[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.