WRITTEN QUESTION E-2181/99 by Jorge Moreira da Silva (PPE-DE) to the Council. CO2 emissions in Portugal.
Date: 1999-11-30
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Portugal, environmental protection, greenhouse effect, reduction of gas emissions

1.8.2000

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 219 E/111

Answer given by Ms Schreyer on behalf of the Commission

(4 January 2000)

Like the Honourable Member, the Commission believes that reallocating appropriations within heading 4 of
the financial perspective in line with established priorities is, in principle, preferable to an across-the-board
reduction in expenditure and should be considered as an option for financing items such as aid for the
reconstruction of Kosovo, the fisheries agreements with Morocco, the rehabilitation of East Timor and aid
to Turkey before any decision is taken to exceed the financial perspective framework.

It was this idea in mind that the Commission drew up its proposal for Letter of Amendment No 4/2000.
Compared with the initial preliminary draft budget, the redeployment of appropriations proposed in
heading 4 is determined by current political priorities. For example, although the Commission is proposing
to reduce the total allocation for cooperation with Mediterranean non-member countries by 3,5 %
compared with the preliminary draft, the amount remaining is still higher than in the 1999 budget,
precisely to allow for the priority given to support for the Community(cid:146)s neighbours, including Turkey. In
general, the Letter of Amendment contains a list of proposed redeployment operations, accompanied by
detailed grounds.

It is proposed that the Council set its priorities on this basis and on the basis of the figures for
implementation of the 1999 budget. Letter of Amendment No 4/2000 also contains financing proposals
which exceed the ceiling of heading 4 and entail use of the flexibility instrument, as the Commission feels
that the new requirements for external action cannot be financed solely by redeployment without harming
programmes already adopted.

(2000/C 219 E/142)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2181/99

by Jorge Moreira da Silva (PPE-DE) to the Council

(30 November 1999)

Subject: CO2 emissions in Portugal

The 1997 Kyoto Conference on climate change saw Portugal, on the basis of its economic backwardness,
negotiate the right to increase its CO2 emission levels to the year 2012 by 40 %, against the 1990 levels.

While the majority of EU countries agreed to lower their greenhouse gas levels, Portugal became the only
country in the EU with the right actually to increase its emission of these gases.

However, last week, an exhaustive study on the major sources of greenhouse gas emissions was published
by the Environmental Systems Analysis Working Party of the New University of Lisbon.

The study concluded that as of now, Portugal has already increased its levels of emissions by 34 % over
1990 values, and forecast that by the year 2010, Portugal will be emitting 62 % more CO2 than in 1990,
far more than the extremely generous allowance of 40 % to 2012 actually agreed.

Given the seriousness of the situation, will the Council please tell me, as a matter of urgency:

1. The most recent figures it has for greenhouse gas emission levels in Portugal;

2. What specific measures the Portuguese Government enacted with a view to controlling and lowering

greenhouse gas emissions;

3. Whether there are other countries, apart from Portugal, where the discrepancy between the ceilings of
CO2 emission levels established in Kyoto and the levels currently forecast for 2012 is so glaring;

4. What it intends to do to avoid a potential general failure on the part of the EU Member States to meet

the emission levels laid down at Kyoto?

C 219 E/112

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

1.8.2000

Reply

(14 February 2000)

It is recalled that the Kyoto Protocol

includes a provision enabling Parties jointly to fulfil their
1.
commitments. On 16 and 17 June 1998, the Council agreed the determinations of the contributions of
Member States to the 8 % reduction commitment undertaken under the Protocol by the Community and
all Member States, according to the annexed table.

In its latest conclusions on the Community strategy on climate change, adopted on 12 October 1999,
2.
the Council reaffirmed the importance of early ratification and implementation of the Kyoto Protocol, and
confirmed its commitment to continue to work towards this objective.

It stressed in the context that the further assessment, development and further implementation of common
and co-ordinated as well as national policies are necessary in order to meet the Kyoto commitments, and
requested the Committee of Permanent Representatives to prepare a progress report for early 2000 on the
preparations for ratification.

The Council further called upon the Commission to strengthen and speed up its efforts in the development
and implementation of common and co-ordinated policies and measures that can facilitate and contribute
to fulfilling the commitments of the Kyoto Protocol by the Community and its Member States.

It is not for the Council to answer the Honourable MEP on his questions concerning statistical data,
3.
nor on specific actions undertaken by a Member State.
the
Commission has at its disposal a mechanism to monitor inter alia the progress of Member States in
meeting the agreed national contributions to the Community(cid:146)s commitments under the UN Framework
Convention on Climate Change and the Kyoto Protocol.

is recalled in this connection that

It

ANNEX 1

Commitments
in accordance
with Article 4
of the Kyoto Protocol
(in %)

(cid:141) 7,5

(cid:141) 21
(cid:141) 21
+25
+15
0
+13
(cid:141) 6,5

(cid:141) 28
(cid:141) 6
(cid:141) 13
+27
0
+ 4
(cid:141) 12,5

Member States

Belgium
Denmark
Germany
Greece
Spain
France
Ireland
Italy
Luxembourg
Netherlands
Austria
Portugal
Finland
Sweden
United Kingdom

(2000/C 219 E/143)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2184/99

by Klaus-Heiner Lehne (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(29 November 1999)

Subject: Abolition of advance tax deduction from subsistence allowances and accommodation costs on

business and service travel and commercial relocation costs

In its latest round of tax-relief legislation, the Federal Republic of Germany abolished the advance tax
deduction from subsistence allowances and accommodation costs on business and service travel, and on
commercial relocation costs.