Proposition 50K2177

Projet de loi portant assentiment au Protocole financier du 4 octobre 2002 à l'Accord de coopération du 05 avril 1995 entre l'Etat fédéral, la Région flamande, la Région wallonne et la Région de Bruxelles-capitale relatif à la politique internationale de l'environnement.

General information ¶

Submitted by

Groen Open Vld Vooruit PS | SP Ecolo MR Verhofstadt Ⅰ

Submission date

Dec. 6, 2002

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

environmental policy environmental protection

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

Groen CD&V Vooruit Ecolo LE PS | SP Open Vld N-VA MR

Abstained from voting

FN VB

Contact form ¶

Do you have a question or request regarding this proposition? Select the most appropriate option for your request and I will get back to you shortly.

Discussion ¶

Feb. 19, 2003 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

Mr. Speaker, before the Christmas trip, the Public Health Committee decided not to discuss this bill in the light of the program law. The draft was discussed at the meeting of 4 February 2003.

As usual, the Minister specified the draft and stated that it was intended to approve a financial protocol dated 4 October 2002 and in conjunction with the Cooperation Agreement of 5 April 1995 on international environmental policy. That agreement with the Protocol will provide a legal basis for the payments of the annual mandatory contributions of Belgium to the mixed multilateral agreements. Furthermore, in his introduction, the minister also said something about the distribution key, namely 30% for the federal state and 70% for the regions. The protocol also sets the distribution key between the regions, namely 58% for the Flemish Region, 33% for the Wallish Region and 9% for the Brussels Capital Region.

I would like to mention the percentages again explicitly in this reporting, since they were primarily the subject of the discussion. For example, colleague Hubert Brouns argued that it was high time for a distribution key to be established and made a counternote that joined the State Council’s criticism of Article 4. The Council says that the period of this distribution key is not really specified and therefore considered that it was a period of five years. The Minister has replicated and said that the distribution key between regions can be revised at the request of one of the parties.

Collega Annemie Van de Casteele also asked some questions about that distribution key of 30/70. She also wondered on the basis of which bases, parameters and criteria the distribution key for the Regions was determined. She also asked the question of the year used as a reference. There was some uncertainty about this. The commissioners did not know exactly what those figures were based on. Collega Van de Casteele therefore wondered whether these figures also apply to the implementation of the Kyoto Protocol.

Also colleagues Jacques Germeaux and Koen Bultinck had some objection to this distribution key. The Minister pointed out that the choice of a distribution key instead of a flat-rate contribution was motivated by practical considerations, as the contributions arising from international agreements are subject to change. The distribution key of 30/70 between the federal level and the regions is the result of negotiations and is also based on the Special Act of 16 January 1989 as amended in 2001.

There were also some questions about the completion of the figures. The Minister’s explanation showed that this was done according to the current rules. If the distribution key no longer corresponds to the Finance Act, the financial protocol may be revised at the request of one of the parties to the agreement.

Regarding the Kyoto Protocol, the Minister replied that this Protocol should not be directly related to this draft law. The Kyoto Protocol is about reducing CO2 emissions. Furthermore, the distribution key set out in this draft should not be considered as a decisive precedent for the implementation and costs associated with the Kyoto Protocol.

Finally, colleague Hubert Brouns pointed out a discrepancy between the dates on which the State Council’s opinions were issued. There was also a simple explanation. It was apparently a negligence, a mistake that had crashed into the text. This complication around the dates was partly caused by the fact that the opinions of the State Council were formulated in the light of the Program Law. However, the bill was dated some time ago. So there was a little confusion around the dates of the opinions.

There was actually no long discussion and during the same committee meeting the two articles and the whole bill were adopted with 12 votes in favour and 1 abstinence.

Are you still speaking in your own name?

and no.