WRITTEN QUESTION P-3051/03 by Dorette Corbey (PSE) to the Commission. Ratification of the Kyoto Protocol by Russia.
Date: 2003-10-09
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EU environmental policy, Russia, climate change, diplomatic relations, intra-EU relations, protocol to an agreement, ratification of an agreement, reduction of gas emissions, tradeable emission permit

C 70 E/206

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

20.3.2004

international human rights obligations. The Thessaloniki European Council asked the Commission to
further explore how more orderly and managed entry to the Union for those requiring protection can be
assured and how protection capacity in the regions of origin can be enhanced. A comprehensive report is
to be presented before June 2004.

(1) Commission Regulation (EC) No 1560/2003 of 2 September 2003 laying down detailed rules for the application of
Council Regulation (EC) No 343/2003 establishing the criteria and mechanisms for determining the Member State
responsible for examining an asylum application lodged in one of the Member States by a third-country national,
OJ L 222, 5.9.2003.

(2) COM(2003) 291 final: Communication from the Commission to the Council and the Parliament ‘Biannual update of
the scoreboard to review progress on the creation of an area of’Freedom, Security and Justice‘in the European Union
(first half of 2003)’.

(3) Second Commission report on the implementation of Communication COM(2000) 755 final: COM(2003) 152 final.
(4) COM(2003) 315 final.

(2004/C 70 E/222)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-3051/03

by Dorette Corbey (PSE) to the Commission

(9 October 2003)

Subject: Ratification of the Kyoto Protocol by Russia

On 29 September 2003 President Putin announced that Russia had still not taken a decision on whether
or not to ratify the Kyoto Protocol. This represents a serious setback for international climate policy and
for the EU, which has been advocating ratification of the Protocol by Russia. However, Russia has criticised
EU diplomacy concerning the Protocol, describing it as ‘disastrous’ and ‘clumsy’ (1). Until such time as
Russia ratifies the Protocol, no international obligations can be imposed. However, the EU has announced
that it will continue its efforts to achieve the objectives regarding emissions reductions.

1.
Does the Commission take the view that the EU’s diplomatic efforts in connection with the Kyoto
Protocol have failed and can it state how much consideration was given to effective cooperation between
the Commission and the Member States with a view to conducting bilateral and multilateral talks designed
to persuade Russia to ratify the Protocol promptly, in particular in the light of the ‘green diplomacy’
initiative launched at the Thessaloniki European Council?

2.
Can the Commission outline the strategic and legal implications of Russia’s continuing failure to
ratify the Protocol and how it now intends to move the Kyoto process forward and implement the
European measures (such as emissions trading) drawn up as part of that process?

3.
Is it the case that, until such time as the Kyoto Protocol enters into force, Member States cannot use
CDM (Clean Development Mechanism) and JI (Joint Implementation) ‘credits’ in order to meet undertakings
given at EU level, and if so, what measures does the Commission plan to take in that connection?

(1) De Standaard, 22 September 2003.

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(25 November 2003)

1.
No, the Commission does not regard the Union’s diplomatic efforts to persuade Russia of the case for
ratifying the Kyoto Protocol as in any way a failure. The Commission expects that Russia will ratify when
it has completed its own scrutiny of the facts and the arguments. Diplomacy does not mean subjecting
another country to the will of the Union, or imposing a timetable for decisions, but rather involves a
continuous two-way process of mutual explanation and understanding.

20.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 70 E/207

The Green Diplomacy initiative has reinforced information exchange and co-ordination. Throughout the
past two years there has been good co-ordination between the Commission and the Member States. Many
statements by Russian representatives have testified to their good appreciation of the global and national
advantages to be derived from ratification. Some more negative opinions have also been expressed from
time to time as the debate has continued. The Commission is confident that Russia will proceed with the
ratification of the Kyoto Protocol in a timely manner. The Union, as well as the other Parties having
ratified the Kyoto Protocol, should continue to encourage Russia in this direction.

In order to do so, the Union is regularly discussing with Russian counterparts the advantages that the
Kyoto Protocol could bring. To this end, seminars, workshops, visits and other activities are regularly
organised.

The Kyoto Protocol will not enter into force until Russia ratifies. But, as far as the Union is
2.
concerned, the implementation of policies and measures to comply with the commitments under the
United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change and the Kyoto Protocol, including the Union
emission trading scheme (ETS), will continue as planned, as most of these measures are internal measures
of the Union. The Union together with the nearly 120 other Parties that have ratified the Kyoto Protocol
will in fact proceed with immediate implementation. It is essential for the Union to pursue this line as this
is an indication of political leadership and a confirmation to the other Parties that the Union takes its
commitments very seriously.

Credits from Joint Implementation (JI) and Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) will exist as of the
3.
entry into force of the Kyoto Protocol. The Commission has recently proposed to link JI and CDM credits
to the Union emissions trading scheme so as to allow companies to use these credits for compliance with
the obligations under the Union emissions trading scheme.

As the Commission expects Russia to ratify, it sees for the time being no need for any further measures to
be taken in this respect.

(2004/C 70 E/223)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3056/03

by Dorette Corbey (PSE) to the Commission

(17 October 2003)

Subject: Measures to safeguard security of natural gas supply

On 23 September 2003 Parliament voted on the Commission proposals concerning measures to safeguard
security of natural gas supply and security of supply for petroleum products. By means of both proposals
the Commission is endeavouring to strengthen control over these energy sources. Parliament voted by an
absolute majority to refer the proposal concerning security of supply for petroleum products back to the
Commission and adopted substantial amendments to the proposal on measures to safeguard security of
natural gas supply.

Can the Commission state how the Netherlands were consulted during the process of drafting the

1.
proposal on gas supply?

Can the Commission state how the fundamental interests of the Netherlands, the EU’s largest natural

2.
gas producer, were taken into account in the proposal concerning natural gas supply?

Given the substantial similarities between the two proposals, does the Commission intend to

3.
withdraw both following the vote in Parliament?