2021/2152(DEC) | [ParlTrack]

Proposal for a decision 1
Paragraph 1

1. Grants the Director of the European Joint Undertaking for ITER and the Development of Fusion Energy discharge in respect of the implementation of the Joint Undertaking’s budget for the financial year 2020 / Postpones its decision on discharge to the Director of the European Joint Undertaking for ITER and the Development of Fusion Energy in respect of the implementation of the Joint Undertaking’s budget for the financial year 2020;

Amendment 10 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3 a (new)

3 a. Points to the environmental hazards created by the ITER project, in particular in relation to the questionable quality and execution of the assembly and of the components of the project;

Amendment 11 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4

4. 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;

Amendment 12 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6

6. 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; notes that the contribution to the deactivation and decommissioning phases were estimated, respectively, at EUR 95 540 000 and EUR 180 200 000 (at 2001 values); is disappointed that the contribution of the Joint Undertaking to operation phase after 2035 is still not estimated; calls on the Joint Undertaking to report to the discharge authority of any development in that regard;

Amendment 13 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6

6. 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; notes that the contribution to the deactivation and decommissioning phases were estimated, respectively, at EUR 95 540 000 and EUR 180 200 000 (at 2001 values); questions whether the project is actually suitable, not least in view of its environmental impact and the nuclear waste that may need to be disposed of;

Amendment 14 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6

6. 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 Council Decision 2007/198/Euratom; notes that the contribution to the deactivation and decommissioning phases were estimated, respectively, at EUR 95 540 000 and EUR 180 200 000 (at 2001 values);

Amendment 15 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10

10. 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;

Amendment 16 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11

11. 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 %; is alarmed that serious safety problems are identified by the NSA inspectors related to the two main components of the vacuum chamber and detected leaks in the basins of the cooling towers of the vacuum chamber; is informed that these two main components of the vacuum chamber fell during handling at manufacturing sites, in South Korea in April 2021 and in Italy in May 2021; takes note additionally of the ITER organisation decision to lower the masterpieces into the pit without welding them;

Amendment 17 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11 a (new)

11 a. Is extremely worried about the radioprotection issue concerning the ‘bioshield’ two-metre thick concrete wall that surrounds the tokamak to protect workers and the environment. In fact, because of errors in the design and construction of the wall, the effective biological protection will be 30% lower than expected; is alarmed that the ITER organisation refuses to follow the French NSA recommendations and that on 5 January 2022 the NSA has announced that the reactor assembly is no longer authorized, which means in practice a shutdown of the ITER project; calls on the Joint Undertaking to report to the discharge authority of any development in that regard;

Amendment 18 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12

12. 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 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;

Amendment 19 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13

13. 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;

Amendment 2 #

Proposal for a decision 2
Paragraph 1

1. ~~Approves the closure of the accounts of the European Joint Undertaking for ITER and the Development of Fusion Energy for the financial year 2020 /~~ Postpones the closure of the accounts of the European Joint Undertaking for ITER and the Development of Fusion Energy for the financial year 2020;

Amendment 20 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14

14. 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;

Amendment 21 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15

15. 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; encourages the Joint Undertaking to introduce such training scheme on a permanent basis, with compulsory sessions for newly employed staff and regular reminder sessions for all staff; is concerned that while F4E has implemented actions plans, organised trainings for the F4E managers, the working situation in the organization has been constantly deteriorating; points that successive management assessments in 2019 and 2020 and several internal surveys highlighted repeatedly the enormous workload and pressure on staff, the disproportionate use of external resources undermining the long term sustainability of the organization, the lack of trust in the Director and the Senior Management, the dysfunctional and non- transparent internal decision-making, and the overall weak management practices;

Amendment 22 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15

Amendment 23 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16

16. 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 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;

Amendment 24 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16

16. 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 continue to improve processes in this regard, particularly with regards to transparency and to report to the discharge authority any development in that regard;

Amendment 25 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16 a (new)

16a. Is concerned by the poor working conditions exposed by trade unions and whistleblowers, and also reported in the media, which are the result of an excessive workload placing staff under stress and pressure and having an impact on their mental health; in this regard, is alarmed by the fact that, in recent months, one employee committed suicide, another attempted suicide and two others suffered heart attacks;

Amendment 26 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16 b (new)

16b. 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 harrassment'; believes, therefore, that there needs to be an independent investigation into what went on, as also called for by the F4E Director;

Amendment 27 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16 c (new)

16c. Notes that there have been several cases of unjustified dismissal which have resulted in judgments from the Administrative Tribunal of the International Labour Organization (ILO) obliging the ITER Organisation to pay compensation; believes that this conduct not only undermines the principles of fairness which should underpin a joint undertaking in receipt of EU funds, but also damages the financial interest of the Union;

Amendment 28 #

Michal WIEZIK, Ramona STRUGARIU, Olivier CHASTEL, Alin MITUȚA

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16 d (new)

16d. questions whether staff and experts working for the joint undertaking have true freedom of expression in view of the alleged reprisals against those who have gone public with their doubts about the project;

Amendment 29 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18

18. Notes with concerns from the Court’s follow up of 2019’s observations that corrective actions towards problems and risks at senior management and corporate culture level identified by an external expert panel are still ongoing; reiteraits 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;

Amendment 3 #

Motion for a resolution
Recital C a (new)

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

Amendment 30 #

Michal WIEZIK, Ramona STRUGARIU, Olivier CHASTEL, Alin MITUȚA

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18 a (new)

18 a. Is extremely concerned that in May 2021 a F4E staff member committed suicide denouncing, in his last letter to his family, the work pressure and unhealthy working environment in F4E; is aware that a technical audit of the work of his team had been undergoing for more than 15 months accompanied by a far-reaching reorganization, and the F4E Governing Board and the Commission launched a preliminary assessment of the events that led to this dramatic event; is also aware that the staff of the F4E and trade unions openly disputed the findings of this preliminary assessment and organised a massive strike to denounce the insufficiency of the proposed measures to improve the working environment of the JUs;

Amendment 31 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18 a (new)

18 a. Notes with concerns 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 JU’s overall performance, such as the retention of key competences, unclear accountability channels, and lower staff efficiency;

Amendment 32 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18 b (new)

18 b. 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 Hahn and Simson about the critical situation in F4E asking the Commission to support an OLAF inquiry into the F4E professional environment; notes that in addition they also ask that the Commission performs “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;

Amendment 33 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19 a (new)

19 a. 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 well-being have not been sufficiently improved;

Amendment 34 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19 b (new)

19 b. Notes that, the Joint Undertaking has adopted a Diversity Strategy to support and seek gender balance and geographical representation of staff; Notes that, F4E has in 2020, for the Senior Managers, 14% of Female Senior Managers and 86% of Male Senior Managers. Regarding the Middle Managers, it has 16% of Female Middle Managers and 84% of Male Middle Managers. Welcomes that 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;

Amendment 35 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 20

20. 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 percent of staff were worried about their workload;

Amendment 36 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 20 a (new)

20 a. Notes that 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 JU report back to the discharge authority without delay on these actions;

Amendment 37 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 27

27. 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;

Amendment 38 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 28 a (new)

28 a. Notes that over the years, the Joint Undertaking has made considerable efforts to implement an electronic document management system. During the 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. Call on the Joint Undertaking to continue using this instrument and to expand it to other features;

Amendment 39 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 30

30. Notes from the Court’s report that the Joint Undertaking uses its own e- Procurement portal, which is not fully synchronized with the Commission’s eProcurement solution and could lead to unnecessary duplications with the Commission's development efforts and investment in the future; notes from the Joint Undertaking 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 Joint Undertaking’s operational requirements; calls on the Joint Undertaking to ~~report to the discharge authority in that regard~~harmonise its procurement solution with the Commission's;

Amendment 4 #

Michal WIEZIK, Ramona STRUGARIU, Olivier CHASTEL, Alin MITUȚA

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2

2. Notes 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 204235, 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 ITER Organization leading to First Plasma in December 2025, and the start of the Deuterium-Tritium phase in December 2035 is still maintained even if ITER organisation acknowledges significant delays resulting from the late delivery and quality problems of some components, and the world health pandemic; 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; notes that ITER organisation is currently assessing the extent and impact of any delays and that ITER Council is planned to receive an updated baseline in June 2022; 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;

Amendment 40 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 30

30. Notes from the Court’s report that the Joint Undertaking uses its own e- Procurement portal, which is not fully synchronized 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 foreseen by the EU financial regulation; notes from the Joint Undertaking 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 Joint Undertaking’s operational requirements; calls on the Joint Undertaking to report to the discharge authority in that regard;

Amendment 5 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2

2. Notes 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 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~~stresses with concern 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 which prevent the joint undertaking from developing a credible cost estimate;

Amendment 6 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2

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 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;

Amendment 7 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2 a (new)

2 a. Is extremely alarmed that serious safety and radioprotection problems are identified by the French Nuclear Safety Authority (NSA) inspectors and that the ITER organisation refuses to follow their recommendations in this regard. Takes note that on 5 January 2022, the NSA has announced that the reactor assembly is no longer authorized, which means in practice a shutdown of the ITER project. Calls on the Joint Undertaking to report to the discharge authority of any development in that regard;

Amendment 8 #

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2 a (new)

2 a. 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;

Amendment 9 #