WRITTEN QUESTION P-0110/04 by Eija-Riitta Korhola (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Legality of certain EU decisions should the Kyoto Protocol founder.
Date: 2004-01-19
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: accession to the European Union, application of EU law, environmental law, interpretation of the law, ratification of an agreement, reduction of gas emissions, restriction on competition, tradeable emission permit

C 84 E/764

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

3.4.2004

(2004/C 84 E/0859)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0110/04

by Eija-Riitta Korhola (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(19 January 2004)

Subject: Legality of certain EU decisions should the Kyoto Protocol founder

The recitals (especially 4, 22, and 26) of the EU’s emissions trading directive (Directive 2003/87/EC) (1)
show that the directive has been produced on account of the Kyoto Protocol and is based on the
assumption that the Protocol will be implemented. No national
limits are imposed on emissions, but
Article 9 refers to the criteria for allocation plans set out in Annex III: point 1 of that annex stipulates that
each Member State’s total quantity of allowances must be consistent with Decision 2002/358/EC (2) and
the Kyoto Protocol. In addition, point 5 of Annex III refers to Articles 87 and 88 of the Treaty, relating to
competition and aid. It is thus clear that without the Kyoto Protocol the ten new Member States at any rate
will not fall under any national limitation.

The Council’s burden-sharing decision (Decision 2002/358/EC) does not say that the Community will limit
Member States’ emissions in accordance with the annex, but that ‘The European Community and its
Member States shall fulfil their commitments under Article 3(1) of the [Kyoto] Protocol jointly’ (Article 2,
first paragraph) and ‘The quantified emission limitation and reduction commitments agreed by the
European Community and its Member States for the purpose of determining the respective emission levels
allocated to each of them for the … period, from 2008 to 2012, are set out in Annex II’ (Article 2, second
paragraph).
the above two paragraphs would be rendered
meaningless. All that would remain in force is the stipulation that ‘The European Community and its
Member States shall take the necessary measures to comply with the emission levels set out in Annex II, as
determined in accordance with Article 3 of this Decision’ (Article 2, third paragraph).

the Kyoto Protocol were to founder,

If

Article 3 has to do with determining absolute emission levels (in tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent) for
the 15 Member States in accordance with various provisions of the Kyoto Protocol, on which it therefore
likewise hinges to a large extent.

Annex III to the burden-sharing decision also refers to implementation of obligations resulting from
international agreements and the emission reduction commitment under the Kyoto Protocol. Can that be
interpreted to mean that the force of the burden-sharing decision will be limited if the above-mentioned
international agreement fails to come into being?

Is the Council’s burden-sharing decision binding without the Kyoto Protocol? Can the Commission take a
lawful decision to alter the burden to be shared, in tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent, if the Kyoto
Protocol does not enter into force? Can the emissions trading directive be implemented without the
burden-sharing decision?

If the burden-sharing decision and the emissions trading directive are implemented in any case in their
present form, would the Treaties allow ten Member States to engage in emissions trading if they had no
binding emission limitation target?

(1) OJ L 275, 25.10.2003, p. 32.
(2) OJ L 130, 15.5.2002, p. 1.

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(7 April 2004)

The Community and its Member States firmly support the Kyoto Protocol and they are committed to
meeting its objectives. The EU’s 6th Environment Action Programme, adopted by the Parliament and the
Member States on 22 July 2002 as Decision 1600/2002/EC (1), recognises that
the Community is
committed to achieving an 8 % reduction in emissions of greenhouse gases by the period 2008 to 2012
compared with 1990 levels, and that in the longer term, global emissions of greenhouse gases will need to
be reduced by approximately 70 % compared with 1990 levels (recital 2 of Directive 2003/87/EC) (2).

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 84 E/765

The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) was adopted in New York on
9 May 1992. It has been ratified by over 180 countries. The Kyoto Protocol, adopted on 11 December
1997, complements the Framework Convention and sets reduction targets for 39 industrialised countries
(the so-called Annex I countries). Its entry into force is dependent on ratification by at least 55 countries
accounting for at least 55 % of the world’s CO2 emissions in 1990. While the first criterion has already
been met (cid:1) over 120 countries have now ratified the Kyoto Protocol (cid:1) the second still needs to be
accomplished. In this context, only ratification of the Protocol by Russia, which is responsible for 17,4 %
of the world’s CO2 emissions, or the United States, responsible for 36,1 % of emissions, could swing the
balance, as the remaining countries together represent only 2,1 %.

Under the UNFCCC the Community and its Member States are committed to implementing policies to
reduce greenhouse gas emissions to meet its objective of stabilising greenhouse gas emissions at a level
that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system (Article 2).

The Community has approved the Kyoto Protocol through Decision 2002/358/EC. As such, the Kyoto
protocol will, once it enters into force, become part of Community law. This Decision also contains the
Community’s and Member States’ greenhouse gas emissions reduction targets for 2008-2012. Moreover, it
requires the Community and its Member States to comply collectively with the target of an 8 % reduction.
Therefore,
instruments, binding on the Member States, aimed at
reaching its climate change commitments in a cost-effective manner including Directive 2003/87 on the
establishment of an emission trading regime. Neither the burden sharing agreement nor the EU’s emissions
trading scheme are conditional on the Kyoto Protocol’s entry into force.

the Community has adopted legal

As with any of its legislation, the Community could review Decision 2002/358/EC or Directive 2003/87
on the basis of its internal procedures, and alterations to it would have effect in Community law.

The 10 countries due to join the EU in May 2004 have all ratified the Kyoto Protocol, and the eight of
them which are listed in Annex I (industrialised countries) have each been set a target on that basis (cid:1)
depending on the country, the required reduction ranges from 6 % to 8 %. No targets have been set for
Malta or Cyprus, which are not listed in Annex I. However, Annex III to Directive 2003/87/EC contains
precise and objective criteria for allocating them pollution rights in the market which will start operating
on 1 January 2005 (criteria 2 to 11 apply to them). Accordingly, all 25 Member States will operate in the
pollution rights market provided for by Directive 2003/87/EC. It should also be noted that the 8 %
reduction target set for the European Community only applies to the 15 current Member States. This
situation will not alter after enlargement, as the 10 future members will not be included in the Kyoto
Protocol’s ‘EU bubble’ but will continue to be subject to the targets set for them when they ratified the
Protocol.

(1) OJ L 242, 10.9.2002.
(2) Directive 2003/87/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 13 October 2003 establishing a scheme for green

house gas emission allowance trading within the Community and amending Council Directive 96/61/EC.

(2004/C 84 E/0860)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0181/04

by Charlotte Cederschiöld (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(29 January 2004)

Subject: Network and information security

In this time of ever-increasing threats to our information security, does the Commission see the value of an
internationally recognised, independent method of evaluating and certifying the security of information
communications technology (ICT) products? Does the Commission agree that the ‘Common Criteria’
provide such a method, and is it aware that the Common Criteria have been recognised by major countries
in Europe, North America, and elsewhere, but that they have not yet been adopted by all Member States,