WRITTEN QUESTION E-2181/99 by Jorge Moreira da Silva (PPE-DE) to the Council. CO2 emissions in Portugal.
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? C 219 E/112 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 1. 8. 2000 Reply (14 February 2000) It is recalled that the Kyoto Protocol includes a provision enabling Parties jointly to fulfil their 1. commitments. On 16 and 17 June 1998, the Council agreed the determinations of the contributions of Member States to the 8 % reduction commitment undertaken under the Protocol by the Community and all Member States, according to the annexed table. In its latest conclusions on the Community strategy on climate change, adopted on 12 October 1999, 2. the Council reaffirmed the importance of early ratification and implementation of the Kyoto Protocol, and confirmed its commitment to continue to work towards this objective. It stressed in the context that the further assessment, development and further implementation of common and co-ordinated as well as national policies are necessary in order to meet the Kyoto commitments, and requested the Committee of Permanent Representatives to prepare a progress report for early 2000 on the preparations for ratification. The Council further called upon the Commission to strengthen and speed up its efforts in the development and implementation of common and co-ordinated policies and measures that can facilitate and contribute to fulfilling the commitments of the Kyoto Protocol by the Community and its Member States. It is not for the Council to answer the Honourable MEP on his questions concerning statistical data, 3. nor on specific actions undertaken by a Member State. the Commission has at its disposal a mechanism to monitor inter alia the progress of Member States in meeting the agreed national contributions to the Communityís commitments under the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change and the Kyoto Protocol. is recalled in this connection that It ANNEX 1 Commitments in accordance with Article 4 of the Kyoto Protocol (in %) - 7,5 - 21 - 21 +25 +15 0 +13 - 6,5 - 28 - 6 - 13 +27 0 + 4 - 12,5 Member States Belgium Denmark Germany Greece Spain France Ireland Italy Luxembourg Netherlands Austria Portugal Finland Sweden United Kingdom (2000/C 219 E/143) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2184/99 by Klaus-Heiner Lehne (PPE-DE) to the Commission (29 November 1999) Subject: Abolition of advance tax deduction from subsistence allowances and accommodation costs on business and service travel and commercial relocation costs In its latest round of tax-relief legislation, the Federal Republic of Germany abolished the advance tax deduction from subsistence allowances and accommodation costs on business and service travel, and on commercial relocation costs