Proposition 51K2432

Projet de loi concernant les biocarburants.

General information ¶

Submitted by

PS | SP MR Open Vld Vooruit Purple Ⅰ

Submission date

April 20, 2006

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

excise duty indirect tax motor fuel substitute fuel

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 ¶

May 18, 2006 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, I will actually make the oral report on the biofuel project. Our committee examined the Government’s amendments to this bill during its afternoon session on 18 May 2006. by Mr. The Minister of Finance indicates that following the examination of the bill in committee on 2 and 3 May 2006, a debate took place on how to award the various approvals in the framework of the tender procedure. He refers to the interpretation he gave of Article 6 in the committee. There is no need to change this interpretation.

Contrary to what has been claimed by some, there is no question of abandoning the criteria taken in environmental matters. The Government has therefore decided to maintain the text of article 6 of the bill, as adopted in committee. In each of the categories (biodiesel and bioethanol), there will be 2 to 4 bidders with a maximum of 75% for a producer.

However, the government wanted to respond to the concerns expressed regarding the number of companies likely to receive an authorisation. There might be more projects than initially announced. The Minister recalls that the government wants to promote the use of biofuels as part of the policy implemented at European level. He has made every effort, both at the national and European level, to develop a biofuel chain that will provide new opportunities for Belgian farmers.

The bill provides for agreements between producers and the agricultural world. The government is obviously demanding that production capacities be set up in Belgium. The Minister had talks with the Government of the Walloon Region and the Flemish Region on this subject.

In order to address the expressed concerns, the Minister proposes to retain the simplest solution, namely to increase capacity volumes, i.e. a volume close to 10% (rather than 7%) for bioethanol and 5% (rather than 4.29%) for biodiesel. This is the purpose of Amendment No. 7 to Article 4 of the Bill. These percentages are higher than the average percentages planned at European level, but Belgium started this project with some delay.

Amendment No. 8 to Article 7 should allow any registered operator to mix biofuel, regardless of the tax warehouse considered.

Finally, amendment No. 9 to Article 8 aims to make a text correction since it is about targeting the excise duty and not the special excise duty. by

The Government submits amendment No. 6 to insert the word "mixed" after the word "biofuels" in the title of the bill. by

by Mr. Van der Maelen points out that the EU directive covers biofuels. Another directive is being prepared for mixed biofuels. Does this amendment not lead to some confusion?

by MM. Tommelein and Devlies, on the other hand, are in favor of the amendment. They ask the Minister to specify the exact scope of the bill. The Minister indicates that this bill is aimed at mixed biofuels, i.e. mixtures of fossil products (gasoline or diesel) with a certain percentage of biofuel. by

Despite these measures, a tax exemption is granted since April 3 for pure colza oil. The planned authorisation allows authorised producers to use the product themselves or put it on sale to third parties. by

In the future, the possibilities in this area will be expanded. Following the comments made, the Minister decides to withdraw his amendment.

The Government presents a 7 amendment aimed at increasing the permitted biofuel volume capacity. by Mr. Bogaert expresses satisfaction with this amendment, which helps to address producers’ concerns. However, he would like to know why the planned volumes are declining again from 2009. Biofuels are twice as expensive as normal fuels. Can the Minister give an estimate of the additional cost based on the volumes retained?

by Mr. Goyvaerts emphasizes the Community dimension of this amendment, which should enable the two main Regions of this country to develop biofuel pipelines.

Based on what criteria did the government determine the volumes recovered? It appears that the Minister of Pensions and the Environment had made certain reservations regarding the proposed compromise, in particular as to the technical feasibility of the measures adopted and their impact on the environment.

by Mr. Chabot expressed his satisfaction. He is pleased that the industrial logic has won it.

The Minister indicates that the volume retained is obviously dependent on the targeted period (3, 9,12 or 15 months).

The provisions to be considered are the result of a decision taken by the Government as a whole. This amendment aims to address the legitimate concerns expressed by producers and regional authorities. The Minister, however, insists on the fact that he does not here give any guarantee to the candidate producers.

As regards the cost, the Minister refers to Article 18 of the European Directive, which prohibits any compensation other than a reduction of the excise duty.

Production of bioethanol will begin only in October 2007. Biodiesel could be produced from the end of 2006. Therefore, it is too early to know what the pump price will be, which will depend on the prices of fossil products and the level of excise duties.

The Minister will provide a first budget estimate on the occasion of the next budget control and the preparation of the 2007 budget. The current objective is to pursue fiscal neutrality. The Minister refuses to give a reference price. He awaits the offers that will be made by the producers and hopes, in any case, that the price of biofuels will be as low as possible.

by Mr. Massin also believes that it is necessary to wait until the end of the tender procedure before determining the prices. The speaker welcomes that the government is showing voluntarism in compliance with the European directive. If the operation is successful, it will always be possible to increase the allowed volume of products, given the fact that these chains are less energy-consuming and therefore less polluting.

Ms Gerkens notes that Amendment No. 7 provides for an increase in the theoretical production capacity of biofuels. The bill provides for a number of criteria that production chains must meet, including environmental criteria. Has the government set minimum standards in this regard? Can projects that pose too much environmental burden be rejected or should the least polluting project in any case be retained, even if the burden on the environment should be very significant?

by Mr. Devlies notes that the reverse cliquet system applies to the special excise right. However, the amendment No. 9 to Article 8 removes precisely the word "special".

The Minister indicates that this is merely an element of the formula contained in Article 8. This is not a reference to a certain amount of excise duty. The system of reduced excise duties will apply to both fossil fuels and mixed biofuels.

The question of mr. Asked whether the current system of the reverse cliquet, for the price exceeding 1.10 euros for the litre of diesel and 1.50 euros for the litre of gasoline, is ⁇ ined, the minister responds by the affirmative.

As for future developments, the Minister is ready to examine the production of other products. As regards minimum environmental standards, he notes that the risk is not very high for the production of biofuels. It will always be possible not to comply with the offer submitted by a candidate if the presented environmental assessment does not offer sufficient guarantees.

Amendments No. 8 to Article 7 and No. 9 to Article 8 do not give rise to comments.

Amendment No. 7 and Article 4, as amended, are successively adopted unanimously.

Amendment No. 8 and Article 7 as amended are successively adopted unanimously.

Amendment No. 9 and Article 8 as amended are adopted successively.

The draft law as amended is adopted unanimously.

I would like to thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, dear colleagues, I would like to begin by thanking the rapporteur for this comprehensive oral report, which well translates all of the exchanges we had in committee this afternoon.

Today more than ever, energy plays a central role in the lives of our citizens. In 2000, energy consumption within the European Union accounted for 15% of global consumption and we are the world’s leading energy importer as Europeans. It should also be clarified that energy consumption is ⁇ significant and harmful to the environment in the transport sector, whether it is the transport of persons or goods. Therefore, the development of renewable energy should be clearly promoted.

China’s enormous energy demand, coupled with political instability in the Middle East, has caused the price of the barrel of oil to rise to record levels. So it is the combination of these environmental and economic reasons that imposes us today to find a solution to this important use of fossil fuels in our country. by

We can only look forward to the place that biofuels should occupy in the coming years. This is ⁇ important, it is one of the solutions that must be supported today, ⁇ in Belgium. by

Moreover, agriculture can play this important role in energy policy. With the inexorable rise of oil prices, there is no doubt, we must actively market viable sources of alternative energy such as biofuels. Conscious of the fact that these issues are far more than purely national issues, the European Union has committed itself to biofuel targets by 2010. Indeed, if Belgium makes a small step forward, it will not be enough, it must be done at the international level. And Europe understood that it must play a role in this matter.

In my opinion, the advantage of incorporating biofuels in the fuel available to the pump must not only make the transport sector contribute to the effort to reduce polluting emissions while allowing to conquer a significant energy share, but above all to develop at the same time agro-industrial chains of production of bioethanol or biodiesel.

In this context, it cannot be denied that agriculture will play an important role. If we should not expect mountains and wonders from this new market, it would nevertheless be senseless to let go of this new outlet that could prove valuable for the producers of beets, cereals or colza or future products.

Our country has taken a lot of delay — Mr. Minister, you recalled it just recently in the commission — with the consequence of risking to become dependent on biofuels, as we are on fossil fuels since we do not find them on our territory. But in terms of biofuels, Belgium, by the kiss of our agricultural world, can play an important role. There is no shortage of producer candidates. by

If the case has long been focused on the issue of taxation, it remains no less that the selection of operators must be registered and must enroll our country in a dynamic of development based on the growth of new branches, respecting all the rules, both national and European, in particular in terms of competition. In this perspective, we think it is necessary to retain our main assets and to bet on the economic and agricultural training effects that investments can have.

While it is legitimate and healthy to want to avoid any risk of a single supplier, it should also be relied on significant economic operators who will be able to exercise a genuine chain effect from the agreed investments.

The question of the arrangement for the approval of tax-taxed productions is therefore far from banal, especially for the Walloon Region and, in particular, for a project of which we have talked a lot, and also in a commission, which is the creation of a bioethanol factory in Wanze, for the Tirlemontese Refinery. For us, this opportunity is given to show investors that Belgium is the ideal place to host and develop business in the biofuel sector.

However, if the negotiations between the federal and the Regions, which have been conducted for several months, have resulted in satisfactory tendering arrangements, last-minute changes at the federal level could undermine the fragile balance in the distribution of quotas by involving a third producer. by

I am delighted that, thanks to everyone’s goodwill, an agreement has finally been reached today in the committee to increase the quantities for which tenders will be launched, by increasing the production of bioethanol from 192 to 250 million liters.

It remains, however, that the original text, resulting from the consultation between the Regions and the federal government, could, in my opinion, have enabled us to avoid any ambiguity, any new discussion and negotiation. It could also have allowed us to save a little time, especially since Belgium had already lagged in this matter.

We will, of course, support this text with conviction because it allows to link environment, economic development and support to the agricultural world. That is why we will support this text soon.

Mr. Speaker, colleagues, the CD&V group has approved the bill in the committee, because our group considers it an important draft.

One hundred and fifty years ago, someone built a well in the soil from which oil came out. Since then, we have done a lot of useful things with oil.

The disadvantage is that after 150 years, half of the world’s oil reserves have been exhausted. It is obvious that it won’t take 150 years before the second half is also exhausted. Some professors speak of 30 years, others of 40, 50 or 60 years.

It is not my job to say which professor is at the right end or not. What I know is that we have a problem with fossil fuels. It is obvious that we must look for alternatives. Imagine the challenge that developing countries face today with oil prices per barrel, per barrel, of more than $70. Suppose that after World War II we should have rebuilt our economy with a oil price of $70 per barrel instead of $10 or $15 per barrel, at the time. Can you imagine the challenge for many developing countries? They are in the aforementioned situation.

This is an additional dimension that we need to pay attention to when we evaluate the issue and evaluate alternative energy sources. A third aspect why the case is important is our own interest, our trade balance. Remember that our trade balance suddenly became deficit in the first months of 2006. We all thought that we were the country of exports and of the eternally positive trade balance. Suddenly, due to the more expensive oil imports, our trade balance became deficitary.

We are very vulnerable to oil imports. Therefore, we cannot emphasize enough why we are in favor of alternative sources.

It can be raised in order to use nuclear energy. In recent weeks and months, nuclear energy has been discussed frequently. We are not a strong supporter of nuclear energy. There are obvious dangers associated with the use of nuclear energy. Think about the yet unresolved issue of nuclear waste. Our party has never been a strong advocate of nuclear energy. The question here, however, is whether we can throw away the clothes we wear at the moment when the new clothes have not yet arrived.

That is the essential question that we stand here. I fear, although I am absolutely not in favour of nuclear energy, that we will have to continue with nuclear energy for a while.

As long as those alternative sources have not arrived, as long as that train from those alternative sources has not arrived, it makes no sense to leave that other train. Then we will remain alone on the perron. We are waiting and we do not know what is actually going on.

One is compatible with the other. It is often said that one is either for nuclear energy, or for alternative sources. I do not think this is a good reasoning. One can be perfect for those alternative sources and yet say that we must temporarily keep nuclear power. It is important for the agricultural sector. We all know that the agricultural sector is ⁇ difficult, including in Flanders. The agricultural sector is often disputed. I think it is important that we give that hope, even if it is just a spark, to the agricultural sector, which should be able to draw some courage from it. It will not be the solution for every farmer in Flanders. Nevertheless, we must ensure that whatever there is of hope, it can unfold.

With regard to the budgetary impact, we asked in the committee how it is now. Is this budget neutral for the government? Is this budget neutral for consumers? The two seem incompatible. We are told that a liter of biofuel is actually much more expensive than fossil fuel. We will see in the future what exactly is the difference between the two.

It is indeed too early — I think the minister in the committee was right — to fix a price on biofuels already. This has absolutely no sense. A simple calculation, starting from 250 million liters of biofuel, teaches us that it will cost twice as much as a liter of fossil fuel. A liter of fossil fuel now costs 0.4 euros per liter. If that doubles, then we have 250 million liters times 0.4. That means that we have to deal with approximately 100 million euros of additional costs.

The question is, of course, who will bear the additional costs. Will it be the government or will it be the consumer? If we look at the books of the government, we also notice in this budget adjustment — I refer to the Chairman of the Commission — that there is zero euro to do so. There are currently zero euros in the books. This means that if the government does not pay it, if it subscribes zero euros, someone else must pay it. Who will it be? Per ⁇ it is the consumer. 250 million liters times 0.4 means 10 million euros in total. We believe that this will be accounted for to the consumer. That will only be the beginning. If that is the case, then I think the government should communicate properly and honestly about this. For now, there is no response from the government side and we are still on our hunger.

Colleagues, Mr. Speaker, the biofuels dossier has also had a community dimension in recent days. It is remarkable how the community has fallen into such a file as well. I understand that the Marshall Plan is very important for Wallonia and that there is a lot of money ahead.

We welcome investments in new branches of industry and in new technologies. We find this ⁇ important. We were pleased with the solution developed together with the states in this area, in particular increasing the volumes, so that there are potentially two power plants open. Imagine that there were three regions with plans for this. It would mean that even more biofuels could be produced, because what was ultimately the solution of this government? We will ensure that we provide a sufficient volume of biofuel to ensure that a viable factory is set up in both the north and south of the country.

We are in favour of this law, we are in favour of this law. We consider it important for the future of Belgium and Flanders and we consider it important for the future of agriculture that this law is approved. It took two years, but what are two years in a human life, Mr. Minister? I think we can be satisfied that this law exists, if we sum up everything. Therefore, our group will approve this law later.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Prime Minister, Mrs. and Mr. Deputy Prime Ministers, allow me, in my turn, to thank our colleague Luc Gustin for the quality of his report.

From the beginning, I would like to tell you that, like my group, I fully support this project, project on which I would like to make a few comments, in my opinion, important.

This project aims to encourage the production and incorporation of biofuels (bioethanol for gasoline, biodiesel for diesel) in Belgium by fixing the modalities of taxation.

With this project, our country sets in place the elements that will allow to see a real biofuel policy develop, a policy that should allow to place it in a good position on the European market.

The rise in power of biofuels is due to the implementation of three European directives which must be fulfilled as best as possible.

The first of these directives aims to meet the objectives of the Kyoto Protocol by reducing polluting emissions. Road transport is responsible for a very significant share of these emissions, and the incorporation of biofuels into conventional fuels is a realistic and relatively quick measure to make road transport contribute to the effort to reduce polluting emissions. by

The second directive aims to ensure a certain level of energy independence for the European Union and its Member States as an economic and strategic objective. For this purpose, the development of renewable energies and a more rational use of energy are indispensable. By participating in the diversification of the supply, the production and use of biofuels allow to conquer a share of energy independence.

In this design, the choice of preferring an industrial production chain over an imported product processing chain is of course crucial.

The third of the EU directives aims to develop agro-industrial chains for the production of bioethanol and biodiesel. The aim here is to use the agricultural potential of the member countries to carry out the transformation into efficient industrial units, capable of imposing on the domestic market and then on the European market. by

The development of a high-performance production chain should provide the agricultural sector as a whole with a future outlet for these products. This is ⁇ true of course for beet producers, hard tested by the reform of the European sugar market. In this context, the prospect of seeing an industrial chain emerge that can be a stable partner in the long run is of course crucial.

In addition to opening new opportunities for existing productions, the production of biofuels should allow for the development of new productions, especially with regard to oil plants such as colza and thus to enhance cattle. by

In addition to this potential directly related to the project that we are currently dealing with, we want the emergence of this branch to be only the first step in the development of other related lines, such as biomethanization for example.

In addition to this agricultural potential, our country has several assets to host and develop activities in the biofuel sector. The most obvious of these advantages are the location and existence of a communication network that makes it possible to believe that the development of a biofuel production chain will allow not only the emergence of a national market but also the conquest of other export markets. by

On the method that presided over the preparation of this text, I can only congratulate myself on the result that we know today and which testifies, faithfully I think, the balances negotiated between the different political actors.

We all know that this balance has not been easy to find or maintain. Therefore, I am ⁇ pleased to find that the economic logic and the industrial logic alone have been taken into account and that the disputes that may have been known around this text have been eased for the benefit of the Belgian economy.

It is therefore well thinking about the economic interests of our country and the development of integrated industrial chains bringing innovation, jobs and growth that I invite you to vote on this project so that biofuels combining new opportunities, energy independence and better respect for the environment finally become a reality in Belgium.

I thank you.

Mr. Speaker, dear colleagues, I would like to speak briefly in the context of the draft law on biofuels.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, we will support the bill on biofuels. I would like to take this opportunity to say something not unimportant about this case. Our political opponents systematically accuse us that we always look at Belgian political policy through a community eye. It will surprise you. At first glance, the bill on biofuels appears to be something of a technical nature, little politically loaded, but it is not. The fact that the committee met again this afternoon, of course, has to do with that community aspect. Following a community discussion initiated by the French speakers — specifically the Party Socialiste and the CDH — there has been some discussion about the volumes to be expected. The allocation of the production capacity of biofuels has apparently blamed a number of politicians in the south of the country, creating some community tension, despite the Northern governments, including the Wallish Region, having approved the preliminary draft of the text on biofuels.

Two major players are interested in the supply of bio-ethanol, the German Südzucker, with a planned factory in Luikse Wanze, and Alco Bio Fuel with a project in the Ghent Canal Zone.

The purpose of this Act is, in fact, to establish the framework in which the different suppliers or producers of such fuels must meet technical criteria in order to transition to production capacity. It is this law that sets the conditions. Before this law is voted, it is apparently in the south of the country that one must already do a lot of lobbying work in which one tries to get the majority of the production to Wallonia, because otherwise Südzucker threatens to disrupt his plans in Wanze.

According to the principle of working for my own people in my own region, I could still earn in that logic. On the other hand, it is, of course, far too early to already record the allocation, or to begin lobbying before the allocation.

It is intended to produce 48,000 tons of bio-ethanol by 1 November of next year, and from the period 2008-2012 that production should increase to 250,000 tons. There was some discussion about that figure, as it was originally 192,000 tons. Given the possible Community imbalance, you have to adjust your text somewhat through an amendment. By 2013, 187,500 tonnes of bio-ethanol would be produced.

In order to make biofuels more attractive, you also have the instrument of the excise duties. On biofuels they would be reduced, but the discussion on this has already taken place in the committee. In any case, the community aspect leads us today to this tribune.

As I said before, it is strange that such a discussion takes place in advance of a bill that creates the conditions. The elements of Südzucker in Wanze, who want to make employment and investments, are known to us. But that turns out to be, of course, not an argument for the Wallonian part of the country to submit to slavery, a practice, I think, which must be applied in the south of the country a little more.

It is, of course, for obvious reasons that the Wallonian socialists have declared in the committee meeting this afternoon that they are very satisfied with your amendment, Mr. Minister. In the meantime, of course, we know what that means. They may have a fight at home. However, I would not be too early with this, because of course there are several players on the field.

It is not only Alcobiofuel and the German sugar group Südzucker. Apparently, the animal feed producers Aveve of the Boerenbond, Wal.Agri and Vanden Avenne are also looking forward to such a production capacity. Therefore, it could still be interesting for the offers that are expected from you from the moment that this bill has known its definitive seizure. Their

In any case, we will support this bill because, of course, this is not insignificant for the Flemish agricultural sector as well and can lead to the reorientation of that agricultural sector. This could mean a new boost in agricultural crops that can be used for biofuels. To support that, we will support the bill, even if it is just to put the Flemish agricultural sector a heart under the belt.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, colleagues, I have been asked to speak in this dossier, also from the agricultural sector, because it is too late today. Their

Collega Bogaert has already said that we will agree, because it is a very good thing for agriculture in our country that this bill is finally voted. Their

After all, it has gone a very long way. I would like to clarify this again today. On 8 May 2003, the European Directive 2003/30 on the promotion of biofuels was finally adopted. It was intended that Minister of Life Environment Bruno Tobback would transpose this directive into Belgian legislation as soon as possible. Their

Minister Tobback can, in my opinion, be accused in this case very little. We know that he is a very strong advocate of biofuels and that he has therefore tried very quickly to get this translated into Belgian legislation. Their

Finally, we saw that on 4 March 2005 the KB here was approved, which set out the transposition of the European Directive. Their

The percentages for biofuel interference were also established.

At that time, we were very hopeful. At that time, March 4, 2005, it could have gone very quickly. But what do we see? Today we are in May 2006 and only now is the implementation of the design there.

Again, we had to have 2.75% interference in 2005 to be able to go to 5.75% in 2010. In 2005, our country failed to do so. We failed to get the interference in order. We were not able to fulfill our obligations. What do we see? Today we are in 2006 and it has taken a very long time before we can come to a decision about the implementation of the design. I have questioned Minister Reynders on this in the committee several times, because it could go very quickly.

We have noticed that the regions had their measures ready. Both Minister of Agriculture in Wallonia, Mr. Lutgen, and Mr. Yves Leterme, Minister of Agriculture in Flanders, had prepared a whole package of measures to promote biofuels through the VLIF. Europe also had a complete package of measures ready to start the production of biofuels. After all, as already stated by many colleagues here today, both in Wallonia and in Flanders, the initiatives were ready to start.

For certain, dark reasons, this was not possible. At Minister Reynders there was very little motivation to do this work. After repeated insistence — I am convinced that this was also done by the regions, who repeatedly asked Minister Reynders how long the distribution of the quota would last on its own — a proposal was finally submitted in this Parliament, on which we can agree with all parties.

It must be said again that the decision comes too late. It is a good decision, but for agriculture in our country it comes too late.

Agriculture has had it very hard and hopes that innovation can bring salvation. Biofuel, the production of bio-ethanol and also of biodiesel was ⁇ a solution. They hoped to start much faster.

The agriculture in our country could no longer have expected from the Belgian government, which ⁇ in the last year has not high up with agriculture. Agriculture is very difficult, even today. However, if we look at the decisions taken, we see the following. In the context of the sugar dossier, both the price of sugar beets and sugar has dropped very sharply. It was a European decision. The regions have still tried to link this with Minister Laruelle, who has contributed positively to this. Ultimately, however, the European decision has been cases that were very nefast for the sugar beet in our country. The production of bio-ethanol is ⁇ a solution to the declining incomes of farmers.

There are other threats. We are in the final phase of the WTO where the price that agriculture will have to pay will be very heavy. Not only in terms of export subsidies, which are already being abolished in 2013. With regard to import restrictions, the pressure is great to demand a lot of restrictions from Europe. We have been able to conclude that both Prime Minister and Minister De Gucht did not really counter the proposals of European Commissioner Mandelson.

Another point — which, in my opinion, can be said again — which we have faced in recent weeks is the way this government has treated agriculture in terms of rural development. A multiannual budget has been agreed in which tens of millions of euros have been lost to rural policy. There are parties in this hemisphere that at their congresses proclaim loudly that rural development and policy is the future of agriculture in Flanders. Nevertheless, we must note that tens of millions of euros are lost under the multiannual budget for agriculture.

I find this very concerned. It must be said again. We could have expected something different, colleagues, from a government that has not always been positive for agriculture.

However, there are hijackers on the coast. We have the proposal here today, but there are hijackers. Our neighbors like the Netherlands and Germany are already busy with production. However, we also know that Brazil stands there, Brazil that through the production of sugar cane is very strongly engaged in the production of bio-ethanol. It is ready to supply the necessary bioethanol capacity with ships in Europe in order to complete the mandatory intervention.

In 2005, we failed to meet our obligations. It is already May of this year. The question is whether we will be able to do that in 2006.

Ladies and gentlemen, I want to finish. As it turned out from what my colleague Bogaert said and the attitude of my party in the committee, we support this decision. Why Why ? We believe that agriculture in Belgium deserves a future. Innovation is ⁇ one of the elements that will sustain the future of agriculture. However, we regret that this decision comes too late. This is another case in which socialists and liberals — and especially the MR who has hesitated under the pressure of the petrochemistry — are far too late. For the future of agriculture, this is another bad signal.

Mr. Speaker, dear colleagues, I would like first of all to thank the members of the Finance Committee who, unanimously, supported this project and remind that the objective, although it is obvious to develop new categories of fuel, it also wants to provide the agricultural sector with new opportunities by allowing the development of new industrial and economic projects, as many projects as possible in Belgium. It is both a protection of the environment, an energy policy but also an economic policy in particular for the agricultural sector. I must say you say that we are on the basis of this design of van deze wet moeten werken met gemengde products in alleen met gemengde products. We will be a gemengd product verkrijgen dat uitgaat van benzine of diesel in one aanvullend volume has van bio-ethanol of van biodiesel. There are other rules for clean products such as koolzaad. It has been in existence since April 3, 2006. Here we work, however, with a number of gemengde products. Thirdly, during the committee debates, it was reminded that as regards the selection procedures, nothing changes. The text submitted to Parliament has not been amended on this point, we have not amended it. I would like to confirm that the environmental criteria for the selection of tenderers and the price criteria will continue to apply, with the possibility to designate two to four approved tenderers for each product category. In addition, a bidder may never exceed 75% of the volume allocated to either of the two products. It is also another evolution with the amendment on article 4, one evolution with regard to the volume. Er is one larger volume voor bioethanol, enerzijds, in voor biodiesel, anderzijds. It will and may be possible to get more producers in different countries. That is a very good thing, not only for the agricultural sector, but also for new industrial projects. Mississippi comes with new jobs in different Gewesten. I also confirm that through this project, through this law, we cannot give any guarantee to any producer. I mentioned it in the committee. From now on, it will be compliance with charges specifications, tender calls and of course, the selection will be carried out based on the criteria established in the law and the best offers delivered. Competition will play. I simply hope that the forecasts of the Regions will come true and that we will have a large number of quality projects in both biodiesel and bioethanol.

I will not extend further, as the debate resulted in a unanimous vote in the committee. This is a great thing for a project that is actually carrying in terms of energy, environment, as well as at the level of economic development, especially for the agricultural sector.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, at the last discussion in the committee there was some discussion about the title of this bill. The original title was “Draft Bill on Biofuels”. It was determined that this is only about mixed biofuels. The government has - rightly - submitted an amendment changing the name to "laws on mixed biofuels".

In the end, you withdrew that amendment. I would like to hear why you refer to this bill, which clearly relates to mixed biofuels, as a "biobrandle bill".

Mr. President, Mr. Devlies, I have always said that we use the same terminology as in the European Directive. So we stay with the first version of our design.

I confirm that on the ground we will only work with mixed products, i.e. biofuels – bioethanol or biodiesel – on the one hand, and fossil products – ordinary gasoline or ordinary diesel – on the other. There is no problem in this regard. It is only a problem of terminology in the title of a law. I think it is better to keep the same terminology as in the European Directive.