Proposition 52K1108

Proposition de loi concernant l'instauration de zones écologiques dans les villes et communes.

General information ¶

Authors

Ecolo Juliette Boulet, Muriel Gerkens, Georges Gilkinet, Fouad Lahssaini, Jean-Marc Nollet, Thérèse Snoy et d'Oppuers
Groen Meyrem Almaci, Wouter De Vriendt, Stefaan Van Hecke, Tinne Van der Straeten

Submission date

April 25, 2008

Official page

Visit

Subjects

motor car municipality air quality environmental policy environmental protection

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 ¶

June 4, 2009 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

The gentlemen De Potter and Van den Bergh are the reporters.

I refer to my written report.

I would like to thank the rapporteur for his comprehensive and detailed report.

It is actually a little difficult to take the word on this topic. We have launched a proposal for the introduction of environmental zones, more specifically to give a power to cities and municipalities to introduce on their territory zones where only environmentally friendly cars are allowed. Therefore, we do not want to impose anything at the federal level at all, but only include the possibility that cities and municipalities could do so. We were actually inspired by a very old proposal from Mr. Ansoms of CD&V, then CVP, who had already submitted it in tempore non suspecto. I suspect that Mr Ansoms has drawn up that proposal on the basis of successful examples abroad, ⁇ in Sweden, which already has extensive experience with such systems, and that he has taken the mustard there to advocate for a structural policy in the field of air quality. So I actually thought that could not go wrong. If you get your mustard from a notorious personality in the field of traffic and road safety, then there will be some chance of success?

So that was naive of me, because ultimately no one was found willing to support the proposal, despite the fact that the establishment of environmental zones, low-emission zones, or whatever one wishes to call it, was also one of the measures that came out on the Spring of the Living Environment. You will remember the great meeting of different levels of competence and stakeholders on environmental matters. One of the measures that came out there was to reduce emissions in local areas, in residential neighborhoods. A possible instrument for this would be the introduction of low-emission zones or environmental zones. Ultimately, that proposal ended up on the reserve list of unarrested proposals, because it was unclear to the people of the Spring of the Living Environment whether this was a federal or a regional jurisdiction.

Indeed, many of the discussions on the implementation of such a measure rest on a competence debate. Who is ultimately competent? Therefore, when we submitted our proposal, we urged the President – then Mr Van Rompuy – to request an opinion from the State Council. That opinion came up and the State Council ruled that it is indeed a federal competence. In fact, we have doubled our chances.

Finally, we missed the chance a third time. Two weeks ago we had a very interesting meeting of the Committee on Public Health and the Environment, on a proposal submitted by Mr. Cornil, which is currently not there. It was about advertising, the CO2 advertising on cars. The content of the bill is that advertising for very highly polluting cars should be banned. There was then a very interesting presentation in the committee by Mrs. Muylle, who is present. She made a very justified observation, namely that, first of all, it is not just about CO2. A policy on mobility and pollution should not focus only on CO2, it should also take into account all other emissions, such as fine dust. She also asked whether it was not of a certain level of detail to adopt a bill to ban advertising for polluting cars and whether we should not think of a more global, structural policy on transport. She mentioned, among other things, the autofiscality.

Mrs. Muylle, if I misrepresent your ideas, you will interrupt me.

Another proposal, which is also structural, is, for example, the installation of environmental zones. Why Why ? It is a structural policy on air quality. If we are faced with air pollution peaks today, we all have to start driving slower at some point, hic et nunc. That helps, I hope it works, but it is in any case a policy that runs behind the pollution peaks, but not a policy that prevents the pollution peaks. When it comes to air quality, we should not always follow a flashlight policy with a threshold after which we all go slower. We should put something on our feet to reduce emissions structurally.

Is the introduction of environmental zones the ideal solution? Of course not. The staff of the Secretary of State also pointed out in the committee that they are in favor of the sensitive reduction of the emission standards of cars. I am also for that. However, we see the European regulation only progress very gradually. I think of the prayer that has been around the regulation on CO2 and cars, indicating the number of grams of CO2 emitted. In this regard, we still have a long way to go.

I also know that most political parties in this hemisphere are in favor of a smart mileage tax. The autofiscality would get a better form with a payment per kilometer driven, and preferably even for the pollution that is caused. This is also a proposal that will not be implemented tomorrow or aftermorrow or in two, three years. On the contrary, if one sees how one tries to work out it in the Netherlands, it will be early in 2012. In addition, the news coming from the Netherlands is not very positive. I am afraid that there will also be a delay in the implementation of the regulation.

It is nice and good – I am 100 percent in favour – to look at the structural measures, such as the smart mileage tax and tightened emission standards, but in the meantime we will ⁇ need instruments that intervene as much as possible. Examples abroad – in the Netherlands, Germany, Sweden – show that the introduction of environmental zones can be one of the measures. There is no need to create an environmental zone everywhere. It can be handled intelligently.

I refer to the Region where I live, the Brussels Capital Region, where mobility interventions are regularly carried out. For example, the entire metronet has changed. The people who use the subway, together with me, will find that it mainly runs in the soup, but the new subway network is partially built around the West Station, in a neighborhood in Brussels where important mobility interventions take place. It is a typical example of a place where one could simultaneously introduce an environmental zone. It has an enormous good impact on local air quality in certain neighborhoods.

If one looks at the latest findings of Professor Nemery, for example on the effects of fine dust on immediate mortality – today a study on babies appeared – then we can only conclude that such measures are more than necessary. However, I will be patient. I hear several colleagues say they are for structural policy. I hope that the evidence will continue to build up, that we will be able to reach a compromise on this subject in the foreseeable time, that we will be able to use such instruments in the future and that it will be easier to find a majority to do so.

I am pleased to be able to present this “Ecoscore” resolution and to see it result. Indeed, the discussions in the committee were not easy since we had to regret some frilance from the majority in this regard.

In the introduction, I would like to mention a few figures. In 1970, 29.4 billion kilometers were traveled by car; in 2005, it was 94 billion kilometers, an increase of 220% in 35 years. Currently, we travel every day the equivalent of 6,400 times the round of the earth on the Belgian road network.

Transport is responsible for 25% of greenhouse gas emissions. Should we remember that it is the sector that is least controlled and whose emissions are always increasing?

But beyond the issue of CO2 and its effects on global warming, Ecoscore aims to draw our attention to pollutant emissions. Our debate comes to a good point, as today's "Le Soir" addresses, in one of its articles, the issue of pollutants, especially fine particles. Benoît Nemery, toxicologist at the KUL, recalls that the problem is not only to manage pollution peaks, but that it is also necessary to manage background pollution, which is far more serious than peaks. It compares our very high requirements for food safety – requirements that we have gradually met through a series of measures – and our tolerance for the quality of the air we breathe. If every year, 1,000 deaths are attributable to peak pollution, Mr. Nemery estimates that ground pollution is responsible for 10,000 to 12,000 deaths per year.

This is a problem that we need to pay attention to. All our measures regarding motor traffic must take into account not only CO2 emissions and global warming, but also pollutants, not to mention the noise damage caused by road traffic.

Scotland responds to these concerns. This is a synthetic indicator, validated by scientific institutions. It was developed by VITO, with the collaboration of VUB and ULB.

This is a score that measures from 0 to 100 and that includes CO2 emission aspects for 50%, air pollution aspects for 40% and noise disturbance aspects for 10%. With Ecoscore, you can therefore compare vehicles with different technologies and fuels.

It cannot be said that diesel is worse than gasoline because this is not the case. It is necessary to compare vehicle by vehicle by combining different indicators.

Ecoscore is already available in databases that come from FEBIAC and SPF Mobility. This is not a fake invention.

Why do we offer Scotland? What can it serve?

It serves first and foremost to inform and raise consumer awareness. This is a very synthetic indicator and very easy to understand. It can remember the labels that are on our household appliances and on which performance is indicated with the letters A, B and C. It is very easy to understand and it scales from green to red. This indicator incorporates the different aspects and performance of an equipment – I consider cars as an equipment – and is desirable for the consumer so that he finds himself in the jungle of different data, including advertising which, at the moment, is all but clear. For example, sometimes we boast some cars for their speed or for their low CO2 emissions but, in the end, we don’t know which one to choose. The consumer must be able to make an informed choice.

Logically, if this indicator is to inform and raise consumer awareness, it must be visible. In our opinion, it should be taken back in advertising, in any form of promotion, in showrooms. We also proposed that it be visible on the vehicle but this provision was rejected.

Scorecard can also be useful in terms of taxation. In addition, the Flemish Region and the Brussels Region have chosen to change the automobile taxation by basing it no longer on the cylinder, but on the ecological performance of vehicles, in particular on their Ecoscore.

It is quite possible that the federal state can also use this indicator for tax measures that are still within its competence.

The third utility of this indicator concerns traffic management, ⁇ in urban environments. My colleague spoke to you about the proposal for the establishment of ecological zones which, unfortunately, was rejected. However, it can be considered to use the Score to act in case of peak pollution or to protect certain ⁇ densely populated areas and protect residents from car pollution.

You should know that almost all people interviewed about the Scorecard have stated in favour of this indicator, if not with a few nuances. Even FEBIAC acknowledged its interest, while emphasizing that this should be established at European level. The Flemish Region voted quite favourably against Scotland, while the other two Regions did not. It should be noted that the three regional organizations of the Union of Cities and Municipalities were also in favour of this.

Mr. Secretary of State, you have actually supported Ecoscore as the foundation for differentiated car taxation and you have undertaken – and I thank you for this – to initiate a consultation with a number of associations regarding the establishment of Ecoscore.

Initially, we had proposed to refer to this indicator, to put in place a system of labelling, to impose the visible placement of a vignette on the vehicle as well as the mention of the Score in all forms of advertising and promotion.

The visible placement of a vignette on the vehicle has been rejected by our political partners. “It’s not negotiable!” they told me. I do not understand why there is so much reluctance to want to raise awareness about their vehicle. They say it is discriminatory. This would primarily discriminate against a class of well-designed people who often drive in the city in completely inappropriate vehicles, polluting vehicles, among others the 4x4 to not mention them. A lot more people would actually suffer this “discrimination” which is, in my opinion, very sensible. Not placing the vignette visibly on the vehicle means refusing to use it as a measure of traffic management.

I come to the obligation to mention the Scorecard in promotions and advertisements. If you look at automotive advertisements today, you find it difficult to spot the mentions on CO2 emissions. Belgium is also in breach because it does not apply European regulations with regard to this mention of CO2 emissions.

It is in violation to the extent that my colleague Mr. Cornil had to file a bill requiring that this mention occupy 20% of the advertising surface so that it complies with the European regulation. We have denounced this fact several times in the committee. It’s not all about reporting on CO2 emissions: it’s also about reporting on air pollution performance – which has health impacts. It is therefore logical and relevant to request that Scores be mentioned in any form of promotion and advertising. This was rejected in the committee. I find the frilance of our political partners incomprehensible: some parties abstained, others voted against and finally, there was no majority in favour of this point 3 which, however, constitutes the logical follow-up of point 1, which you are going to vote just now. I reintroduce an amendment with my colleague Mrs. Van der Straeten to impose the Scorecard on advertisements.

by Mr. Cornil also filed a bill on limiting car advertising. It also refers to the CO2 indicator. Again, since we are going to vote today on a resolution proposal that proposes to refer to the Ecoscore indicator, it would be logical that any measure to limit advertising refers to that same indicator. Our amendment goes in this direction. I just submitted it and it will be distributed. If this amendment is rejected, you will ⁇ understand that for our group, this resolution will lack content. That’s why two of us will abstain to miss our disappointment over this lack of content. We will refer to it and we will try to enforce this resolution, but if, after saying yes, we say no and we reject practical measures of enforcement, this justifies our abstention despite the support of the vast majority of our group.

The proposal for a resolution on Ecoscore, which we are going to vote today, should only be considered as a first step in the implementation of a new indicator of vehicle pollution.

Although my group is not a priori in favor of the use of the Ecoscore as the only indicator, it is desirable nevertheless to consider uniformising the classification of vehicles according to pollutant emissions at national level. I would like to remind that if the Ecoscore became a legal standard, then important accompanying measures would be needed: an accurate description of the standard, the establishment of an independent audit body, the introduction of a remedy for manufacturers who do not subscribe to the assignment of a certain Ecoscore to a vehicle or another.

It should also be remembered that the European Union already now imposes the mention of the CO2 emissions of vehicles. From a theoretical point of view, the Ecoscore seems to be a better indicator when it takes into account relevant elements. However, with this new figure that will appear on vehicles, one can question the readability of the information for the consumer. We would have both CO2 emissions and Scorecard. This is not especially readable especially on environmentally friendly cars that display a very low level of CO2 emissions but that can have a high Score. Consumers may find it difficult to understand these two environmental claims.

We therefore find it necessary to develop a more detailed and, above all, more uniform regulation than what is specified in the resolution that we are called to vote today. It is especially worth asking the government to advocate at the European level – it is indeed at this level that we discuss with manufacturers – for the replacement of the mention of CO2 emissions by a more elaborate indicator of the type of Ecoscore.

I think the parties around the table within the committee have made great efforts to reach a common text. I regret that it will not be voted by the whole Ecolo-Groen group!