WRITTEN QUESTION E-3524/03 by Giacomo Santini (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Eco-point scheme in Austria.
Date: 2003-11-28
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Austria, commercial vehicle, road transport, sustainable mobility, tradeable emission permit, transit

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 84 E/65

(2004/C 84 E/0070)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3504/03

by Hiltrud Breyer (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(24 November 2003)

Subject: Information on the level of EU funding granted to Rhineland-Palatinate between January 1997 and

December 2002

For what measures was EU funding paid to Rhineland-Palatinate between 1997 and 2002, and what

1.
were the sums involved from the following programmes and funds:

(a)

the European Social Fund;

(b)

the Fifth Framework Programme for Research;

(c)

the European Regional Development Fund;

(d) EU environmental and energy programmes;

(e)

the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (Guidance Section and Guarantee Section);

(f) other EU programmes?

2.
How much was paid from the programmes and funds for cross-border projects involving Rhineland-
Palatinate and, respectively, Luxembourg, Belgium, Lorraine and Alsace? What are the projects involved in
each case?

Supplementary answer
given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission

(29 March 2004)

In view of the length of its answer, the Commission is sending it direct to the Honourable Member and to
Parliament’s Secretariat.

(2004/C 84 E/0071)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3524/03

by Giacomo Santini (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(28 November 2003)

Subject: Eco-point scheme in Austria

As regards the issue of HGV transit in Austria and the Eco-point scheme, and now that the most recent
attempt to reconcile Austria’s claims with those of other EU countries has resulted in utter failure, further
consideration of the matter has been held over until 25 November, on which date a fresh attempt to reach
an agreement will be made.

It seems that the fault now lies with France and Germany, which appear to have done a volte-face and are
now in favour of extending the Eco-point scheme beyond the 31 December 2003 cut-off point. Within the
Conciliation Committee the Italian Government (in the person of an under-secretary, Paolo Uggè) has
pointed out that both the Commission and the European Parliament are in favour of abandoning the
Eco-point scheme.

Italy wished to reach an agreement with Austria whereby, for a further year, 20 % of the Eco-points would
be retained for vehicles in categories EUR 1 and EUR 2, whilst category EUR 3 would be left open. France
and Germany rejected the agreement, since their HGV fleets are older, higher-mileage ones which include a
significant proportion of highly polluting vehicles.

Is the Commission aware of the further difficulties which have recently been experienced in reaching

1.
an agreement, and what view does it take of the Austrian authorities’ attitude?

2. What does the Commission intend to do in order to facilitate the conclusion of an agreement on the
Eco-point scheme?

C 84 E/66

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

3.4.2004

Has the Commission assessed the economic losses being suffered by EU haulage companies on

3.
account of the fact that the search for a solution to this EU problem has been postponed once again?

Answer given by Ms de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(26 January 2004)

In December 2001 the Commission presented a proposal to extend the ecopoints system for the transit of
it has made sustained efforts to help the parties
heavy goods vehicles through Austria. Since then,
concerned come to an agreement. Such an agreement was reached during the meeting of the Conciliation
Committee on 25 November 2003. The Honourable Member will be aware that fourteen Member States
and the delegation from Parliament came out in favour of the option put forward by the Commission.
The Regulation was finally adopted on 22 December 2003 (1).

(1) Regulation (EC) No 2327/2003, OJ L 345, 31.12.2003.

(2004/C 84 E/0072)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-3539/03

by Chris Davies (ELDR) to the Commission

(24 November 2003)

Subject: Windfarms in EU special areas of conservation

The construction of electricity-generating windfarms can cause some significant and permanent damage to
fragile habitats such as upland peat moorland. They require the building of service roads, and as much as
300 tonnes of concrete may have to be laid in deep pits in order to support the new generation of wind
turbines.

There is also concern that in some locations wind turbines can kill very significant numbers of rare birds.

The range of measures available to most Member States to reduce energy consumption and increase the
supply of electricity from renewable sources, together with the fact that the individual contribution of each
windfarm to national electricity consumption is usually very small indeed, surely means that it is difficult
for any Member State to justify the siting of windfarms in special areas of conservation on the grounds
that they are of overriding national importance.

In what circumstances does the Commission believe that there would be grounds to challenge the
construction of one or more windfarms within EU special areas of conservation on the grounds that they
breach the intentions of the Habitats Directive?

What, if any, guidelines has the Commission issued on this matter?

In view of the fact that most SACs have yet to be declared by the Commission, and yet construction of
windfarms is proceeding rapidly in many Member States, what steps can be taken to prevent irreversible
damage being done prior to formal SAC declaration?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(16 December 2003)

It is not possible for the Commission to specify all conceivable circumstances in which the construction of
one or more windfarms within a special area of conservation would contravene the requirements of
Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna
and flora (1).

Under the terms of Article 6 of this Directive, any plan or project likely to have a significant effect on the
conservation values for which the site is included in Natura 2000 must be subject to an appropriate
assessment. Where such assessments show that significant damage to a site will occur, Member States may