WRITTEN QUESTION P-2179/99 by Per Stenmarck (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Budget.
C 219 E/110 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 1. 8. 2000 (2000/C 219 E/140) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2170/99 by John McCartin (PPE-DE) to the Commission (29 November 1999) Subject: Impact of the introduction of the euro on the early retirement scheme Following the introduction of the euro this year, farmers in Ireland suffered a 5,055 % reduction in payments under the early retirement scheme. The Department of Agriculture has stated that full compensation will be payable for this reduction once it has received final approval from the Commission. Can the Commission provide full details of the compensation that will be awarded and the categories of farmers in this scheme who will be eligible to receive it and state when the compensation scheme will be approved by the Commission and when compensation will be paid to farmers. Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission (16 December 1999) The reduction in payments under the farm early retirement scheme in Ireland, resulting from the introduction of the Euro on 1 January 1999, will be compensated by the direct aid paid to Ireland in the framework of Commission Regulation (EC) No 755/1999 of 12 April 1999 fixing the maximum compensatory aid resulting from the rates for the conversion of the euro into national currency units and the exchange rates applicable on 1 and 3 January 1999 (1). The Irish proposals, in relation to the accompanying measures of the common agricultural policy (agri- environment and early retirement) affected by the transition to the euro in Ireland, were notified to the Commission on 2 November 1999. The proposals in question include compensation according to the maximum compensatory aid foreseen in the annex of the Commission Regulation. At this stage the Commission is examining the Irish notification. This examination, under Commission Regulation (EC) No 2808/98 of 22 December 1998 laying down detailed rules for the application of the agrimonetary system for the euro in agriculture (2), is carried out in conformity with the procedure laid down in Article 88(3) (ex Article 93) of the EC Treaty. (1) OJ L 98, 13. 4. 1999. (2) OJ L 349, 24. 12. 1998. (2000/C 219 E/141) WRITTEN QUESTION P-2179/99 by Per Stenmarck (PPE-DE) to the Commission (19 November 1999) Subject: Budget The risk with the 2000 budget is that the European Parliament will denounce the financial perspective adopted less than six months ago. This would be extremely serious and could mean increased costs for all EU tax-payers. The Council is proposing a flat-rate cut of 10 % in Heading 4. This is a poor way of setting jointly establish the priorities and may have adverse consequences. The budgetary authorities must necessary priorities in such a way as to remain within the financial perspective. Is the Commission prepared to produce the basis which the Council needs in order to establish the necessary priorities before the second reading of the budget? 1. 8. 2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 219 E/111 Answer given by Ms Schreyer on behalf of the Commission (4 January 2000) Like the Honourable Member, the Commission believes that reallocating appropriations within heading 4 of the financial perspective in line with established priorities is, in principle, preferable to an across-the-board reduction in expenditure and should be considered as an option for financing items such as aid for the reconstruction of Kosovo, the fisheries agreements with Morocco, the rehabilitation of East Timor and aid to Turkey before any decision is taken to exceed the financial perspective framework. It was this idea in mind that the Commission drew up its proposal for Letter of Amendment No 4/2000. Compared with the initial preliminary draft budget, the redeployment of appropriations proposed in heading 4 is determined by current political priorities. For example, although the Commission is proposing to reduce the total allocation for cooperation with Mediterranean non-member countries by 3,5 % compared with the preliminary draft, the amount remaining is still higher than in the 1999 budget, precisely to allow for the priority given to support for the Communityís neighbours, including Turkey. In general, the Letter of Amendment contains a list of proposed redeployment operations, accompanied by detailed grounds. It is proposed that the Council set its priorities on this basis and on the basis of the figures for implementation of the 1999 budget. Letter of Amendment No 4/2000 also contains financing proposals which exceed the ceiling of heading 4 and entail use of the flexibility instrument, as the Commission feels that the new requirements for external action cannot be financed solely by redeployment without harming programmes already adopted. (2000/C 219 E/142) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2181/99 by Jorge Moreira da Silva (PPE-DE) to the Council (30 November 1999) Subject: CO2 emissions in Portugal The 1997 Kyoto Conference on climate change saw Portugal, on the basis of its economic backwardness, negotiate the right to increase its CO2 emission levels to the year 2012 by 40 %, against the 1990 levels. While the majority of EU countries agreed to lower their greenhouse gas levels, Portugal became the only country in the EU with the right actually to increase its emission of these gases. However, last week, an exhaustive study on the major sources of greenhouse gas emissions was published by the Environmental Systems Analysis Working Party of the New University of Lisbon. The study concluded that as of now, Portugal has already increased its levels of emissions by 34 % over 1990 values, and forecast that by the year 2010, Portugal will be emitting 62 % more CO2 than in 1990, far more than the extremely generous allowance of 40 % to 2012 actually agreed. Given the seriousness of the situation, will the Council please tell me, as a matter of urgency: 1. The most recent figures it has for greenhouse gas emission levels in Portugal; 2. What specific measures the Portuguese Government enacted with a view to controlling and lowering greenhouse gas emissions; 3. Whether there are other countries, apart from Portugal, where the discrepancy between the ceilings of CO2 emission levels established in Kyoto and the levels currently forecast for 2012 is so glaring; 4. What it intends to do to avoid a potential general failure on the part of the EU Member States to meet the emission levels laid down at Kyoto?