WRITTEN QUESTION E-0054/04 by Camilo Nogueira Román (Verts/ALE) to the Commission. Compliance with the Kyoto protocol by the Spanish state.
Date: 2004-01-20
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EU environmental policy, Spain, environmental monitoring, environmental policy, reduction of gas emissions

C 84 E/756

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

3.4.2004

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(26 February 2004)

As the Commission recently replied to the Honourable Member in its answer to written question E-3828/
03 (1), the Commission, in 1997, decided that Fene (ex-Astano) should be closed for shipbuilding in order
to ensure the production restriction on public Spanish shipbuilding. This was, therefore, a counterpart for
the approved restructuring aid (2) authorised in 1997. Furthermore, the Council requested, in its Regulation
(EC) 1013/97 of 2 June 1997 on aid to certain shipyards under restructuring (3), on which the Commission
decision mentioned above was based, that Fene should be kept closed for shipbuilding.

The Commission is currently examining the issue of allowing Fene to restart shipbuilding and is therefore
not able to prejudge what its final position will be.

The Commission is actively pursuing a policy to defend EU shipbuilding from unfair international
competition, by a World Trade Organisation (WTO) action against South Korea and by having proposed a
temporary defensive mechanism for shipbuilding. Shipyards in all Member States, including Spain, may
benefit from this approach specifically designed for this industry.

(1) See page 104.
(2) OJ C 354, 21.11.1997.
(3) OJ L 148, 6.6.1997.

(2004/C 84 E/0851)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0054/04

by Camilo Nogueira Román (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

Subject: Compliance with the Kyoto protocol by the Spanish state

(20 January 2004)

The Commissioner responsible for the environment, Mrs Margot Wallström, recently announced that the
EU will not be able to meet its obligations under the Kyoto protocol, stating that the Union member with
the worst record is the Spanish state, which is considered unlikely to meet the 33,3 % target by 2010.

Given that the Commissioner had written to all the national governments urging them to step up their
efforts to reach the target, can the Commission explain this failure of the Spanish state to comply? What
measures has the Spanish government taken to adjust to the proposed objectives?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(4 March 2004)

The recent Commission progress report on reducing greenhouse gas emissions (1) shows that the policies
and measures taken in the Member States so far will not be enough to meet their Kyoto emission targets.
A letter has been sent to Member States proposing that the additional measures that are needed to meet
the EU’s Kyoto targets be identified in the course of 2004, underlining the necessity for Member States to
keep the timeline for implementation of the EU emission trading Directive (2), to update national policies
and measures within the next 12-18 months, and to include more substantive information on their
projections for using the Kyoto Protocol’s mechanisms to supplement domestic action.

Spanish emissions were 32 % above 1990 levels in 2001, while its 2008-2012 commitment is to an
increase of no more than 15 %.

Since the publication of the Commission’s report, Spain has adopted a climate change action plan
consisting of a package of 440 greenhouse gas reduction measures. The measures proposed include fiscal

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 84 E/757

incentives for companies that generate or use clean energies, a shift from coal to gas-fired electricity
generation, the promotion of biofuels, the promotion of renovation of private vehicles, installation of solar
energy in public buildings and the promotion of public transport in companies and public administrations.

A Decision for a monitoring the mechanism of Community greenhouse gas emissions and for
implementing the Kyoto Protocol was formally adopted by Council on 26 January 2004. This Decision
requires Member States to notify national programmes to the Commission within three months of their
adoption. In accordance with this Decision, the Commission will assess the progress of the Community
and its Member States towards fulfilling their commitments under the United Nations Framework
Convention on Climate Change and the Kyoto Protocol as set out in Decision 2002/358/EC later in 2004.
A report compiled on the basis of this assessment will be submitted to the Parliament and to the Council.

(1) COM(2003) 735 final.
(2) Directive 2003/87/EC of the Parliament and of the council of 13 October 2003 establishing a scheme for
greenhouse gas emission allowance trading within the Community and amending Council Directive 96/61/EC,
OJ L 275, 25.10.2003.

(2004/C 84 E/0852)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0068/04

by Miet Smet (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(20 January 2004)

Subject: International Convention on the protection of the rights of all migrant workers and their families

To date, not a single one of the 15 current Member States nor any of the ten future Member States of the
European Union has signed the International Convention on the protection of the rights of all migrant
workers and their families, which was adopted at the 45th session of the UN General Assembly on
18 December 1990 and entered into force on 1 July 2003.

What is the Commission position on the Convention referred to above?

To what extent is the Convention in line with the policy pursued by the EU and the policy objectives

1.
established?

On what issues is the Convention not in line with the policy pursued by the EU and the policy

2.
objectives established?

From the European point of view, are there any serious objections to the signing of the Convention

3.
by a Member State of the Union?

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(5 March 2004)

The Member States are [probably] better placed than the Commission to explain their reasons for not
ratifying the United Nations International Convention on the protection of the rights of all migrant
workers and members of their families.

Nevertheless, one of the main obstacles to ratification seems to be that the Convention recognises rights in
respect of all migrant workers regardless of whether they are in the host country legally or illegally.

Furthermore, it seems that many of the rights listed in the Convention are also guaranteed at EU level for
citizens and third-country nationals alike in other instruments (Charter of Fundamental Rights of the
European Union, European Convention on Human Rights). However,
the wide range of provisions
guaranteeing the same rights leads to varying interpretations which could prove damaging to legal
certainty for individuals.