WRITTEN QUESTION E-1811/00 by Neil MacCormick (Verts/ALE) to the Commission. Climate-change levy.
Date: 2000-06-08
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EU industrial policy, climate change, environmental tax, hydroelectric power

C 89 E/90

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

20.3.2001

Joint answer
to Written Questions E-1809/00 and E-1848/00
given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(26 July 2000)

The Commission has asked its scientific committee on animal health and animal welfare (Scahaw) to
prepare a report on the welfare of chickens bred and kept for meat production (broilers). The Scahaw
adopted a report on 21 March 2000.

In relation to the welfare of broilers a recommendation on domestic fowl adopted on 28 November 1995
by the standing committee of the European Convention for the protection of animals kept for farming
purposes is in force. The Member States and the Community are contracting parties to this Convention
and participate in the work of the committee.

In the Community, Council Directive 98/58/EC (1) provides the main principles for the protection of all
species of animals kept for farming purposes. It addresses the welfare requirements to be applied for the
protection of animals kept for the different types of production, including the keeping of chickens for meat
production. The Directive also imposes a responsibility on the owner or keeper of the animals to ensure
that their welfare respects the minimum requirements provided.

The Directive also provides a legal base under which proposals for Community measures in relation to the
Convention or recommendations made under it are prepared if this is necessary for its uniform application
within the Community.

Following the conclusion of the report from the Scahaw and in the light of the above mentioned Directive,
the Commission is working on a proposal to establish the welfare requirements for keeping broilers in the
Community.

(1) OJ L 221, 8.8.1998.

(2001/C 89 E/095)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1811/00

by Neil MacCormick (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(8 June 2000)

Subject: Climate-change levy

Does the Commission consider hydrogenerated electricity to be electricity generated from a renewable
source? If hydroelectricity is a (cid:145)renewable energy(cid:146), is there any reason to discriminate against it in the
context of climate-change policy?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(18 July 2000)

The Honourable Member inquires about discrimination against hydroelectric power in the context of
climate change policy. In this context it should be mentioned that the Commission on 10 May 2000
adopted a proposal for a directive on the promotion of electricity from renewable energy sources in the
internal electricity market (1). This proposal reflects the Commission(cid:146)s traditional position on the role of
hydro power: it is clearly a renewable energy source, but electricity from large hydroelectric installations
(i.e. with a capacity above 10 mega watt (MW) is in general competitive and does not need particular
support. Member States thus can include electricity produced from large hydroelectric stations for
achieving their national target for consumption of electricity produced from renewable energy sources as
indicated in the annex to the proposal. All forms of hydropower are therefore also included in the
provisions on certification of origin, as consumers should have the right to know if their electricity is
produced from renewable sources of energy. However, in the case of hydroelectric installations, guarantee
certificates have to specify whether the capacity is above or under 10 MW. Furthermore, large hydro does
not benefit from the more technical provision of the proposal, e.g. priority access to the grid, as this is not

20.3.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 89 E/91

needed to assure its economic viability on the market. In sum, the Commission does not discriminate
against hydropower in its energy policy, but tries to focus public support on the types of renewable energy
sources where it is most needed and justified in economic terms.

(1) COM(2000) 279 final.

(2001/C 89 E/096)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1813/00

by Theresa Villiers (PPE-DE) to the Council

(13 June 2000)

Subject: Ecofin meeting of 28 February 2000

Did the Council discuss common rules governing national tax cuts at the Ecofin Council meeting of
28 February 2000 or at any other meeting?

If so:

1. Did the Council reach agreement on these common rules?

2. Could the Council explain the criteria adopted for the assessment of whether a Member State may cut

taxes without contravening commitments on budgetary discipline?

3. Could the Council explain why details of the agreement did not appear in the Council conclusions

published following the meeting?

Reply

(23 October 2000)

The Council informs the Honourable Parliamentarian that it has not discussed common rules governing
national tax cuts, or the other issues raised in his question at its meeting of 28 February 2000 or at any
other, and thus is not in position to give an answer.

(2001/C 89 E/097)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1814/00

by Piia-Noora Kauppi (PPE-DE) to the Council

Subject: Coordination of forest protection classifications

(13 June 2000)

In Europe, an area of some 3 million hectares of forest has been strictly protected. This equals 1,6 % of
forests in Europe. The Nordic countries are top of the list and in a league of their own as regards the area
of protected forests in the EU.

As a Finnish MEP, I am somewhat concerned about the classification of forest protection, which is still
carried out on a purely national basis. The lack of conformity in protection classification and statistical
data is a problem which should be tackled as a matter of urgency.

What is the Council(cid:146)s view of the importance of coordinating forest protection classifications, and will the
issue be raised when the 6th Environmental Programme is being drawn up?