Commissioner Jozef Síkela has outlined how the European Commission plans to improve monitoring and project selection for international nuclear safety cooperation, responding to a critical European Court of Auditors report. In a written answer to MEP Joachim Streit (Renew), Síkela emphasised that future projects will use performance indicators focused on actual safety improvements, not just outputs, and that geopolitical interests will be balanced with technical risk criteria.
The answer comes after the ECA's Special Report 08/2026 found that EU nuclear safety measures lacked a comprehensive strategy and robust monitoring. Streit's question pressed the Commission on three specific shortcomings: output-focused monitoring, geopolitical influence on project selection, and uneven cost-sharing with other donors.
Concrete indicators and monitoring Síkela pointed to the Multiannual Indicative Programme for the European Instrument for International Nuclear Safety Cooperation, which already specifies that improvements will be tracked using impact, implementation, and project-specific indicators. He said the Commission checks these indicators at the design stage and receives regular reports from implementing partners. This addresses the ECA's finding that monitoring often measured outputs rather than actual safety gains.
Selection criteria and geopolitical weight On project selection, Síkela listed criteria including budget, duration, maturity, partnership track record, magnitude of nuclear safety risk, political priority, added value for EU policies, sustainability, and urgency. He acknowledged that geopolitical or foreign policy interests are 'important and embedded' in some criteria but stressed they are not the only factors. This directly responds to Streit's concern that geopolitical considerations might override nuclear safety risks.
Cost-sharing flexibility On cost-sharing, Síkela explained that each donor decides independently on the size and fairness of their contribution to multi-donor funds. However, when a shortfall from other donors is expected, the Commission may decide to contribute a larger share due to urgency, priority, relevance for the EU, and to prevent additional nuclear safety risks and cost escalation from delayed implementation. This confirms the ECA's finding that the EU sometimes shoulders a larger burden than planned.
Policy orientation and follow-up The answer signals a commitment to more rigorous monitoring and balanced project selection, but stops short of announcing new legislation or binding targets. The Commission's reliance on existing frameworks suggests incremental improvements rather than a strategic overhaul. The ECA report and this exchange may feed into the next Multiannual Financial Framework negotiations, where nuclear safety cooperation funding will be reassessed.
← Atlas › News › Energy