Proposition 52K1656

Projet de loi modifiant la loi du 5 mai 1997 relative à la coordination de la politique fédérale de développement durable en ce qui concerne l'évaluation d'incidence des décisions sur le développement durable.

General information ¶

Authors

CD&V Nathalie Muylle, Jef Van den Bergh

Submission date

Dec. 9, 2008

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

sustainable development environmental protection

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

Groen CD&V Vooruit Ecolo LE PS | SP Open Vld MR FN VB

Abstained from voting

N-VA LDD

Party dissidents ¶

• Renaat Landuyt (Vooruit) abstained from voting.
• Peter Luykx (CD&V) abstained from voting.

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. 11, 2010 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

My report will be relatively concise.

Improving the law translates three major priorities.

1 of 1. The long term vision. The bill proposes to develop, by 2011, a long-term vision for sustainable development. In addition to the targets, this vision will also include intermediate targets: 2020, 2030, 2040 and indicators.

2 of 2. Coordination between the European Union and federal entities. The Federal Sustainable Development Plan is extended to five years in order to better coordinate its actions with strategies at other levels, in this case Europe and the Regions.

3 of 3. Simplification of instruments. The content of the plan is reduced to cooperation agreements with federal administrations. The federal report will be published in two parts during the period of validity of a plan.

Obviously, the cyclic process of federal sustainable development plans and reports remains unchanged, as is the participatory approach to civil society. However, the government has, of course, the possibility to insuffle its own dynamic.

During the committee work, we had the pleasure of listening to Mrs Nadine Gouzée, director of the task force Sustainable Development of the Plan Bureau, Mr. Théo Rombouts, President of the Federal Council for Sustainable Development (CFDD) and Ms Pichel, Secretary of the Interdepartmental Commission for Sustainable Development (CIDD). You will find in the written report the full list of the hearings.

I will not go into the details of the political interventions of the various groups; I do not doubt that each speaker will speak with the sensitivity of his group at the tribune. I would just like to focus my speech on the main points of discussion that were addressed during the work in committee.

Changes have been made compared to the original project and I will try to quickly brush the positions of the majority and the opposition.

The first item to be amended concerns the reference to the previously held UN summits on sustainable development, in particular the 1992 Rio Conference, a historic process that has made sustainable development a political priority. There was consensus to register it, majority and opposition, even though the latter would have also wanted to refer to the Johannesburg Summit. The majority preferred to limit itself to the reference to the first Conference, that of Rio.

The second element discussed and amended concerned the long-term vision, which can be updated and adopted on the basis of new international commitments taken by Belgium at regular intervals. This task has also been entrusted to the CIDD. In this regard, the opposition wanted to be able to adapt this office vision every ten years, but the majority chose a more flexible formula allowing, in some cases, to update it faster.

At the level of amendments, a third point was to associate the parliament, not that the minister’s will is not to associate the parliament, quite the opposite! It was about clarifying, in the bill text, the process of developing the long-term vision to which Parliament is associated. This has brought together a broad majority-opposition consensus.

A fourth point raised by the opposition takes on several points that revolve around the introduction and the willingness to introduce a series of deadlines at different stages. I do not mention them here. It is Ecolo-Groen. He will come back soon.

Finally, the debates led to a failure to consider the introduction of these different deadlines, in order to avoid making effectiveness difficult and paralyzing the entire system.

A fifth point on which amendments have been taken into account concerns the composition of the CFDD. The opposition wanted to keep the composition, as set today in the law, by also defining the representation of certain groups according to gender, age, culture or possibly the fact of being a disabled person. The debates did not lead to a consensus to be pointed out on the definition of certain groups that should be associated, simply to avoid any paralysis in the event that there would be no specific candidate corresponding to these different profiles.

On the other hand, we wanted to move forward together on the balanced representation of CFDD for these different actors, both at the level of environmental or development associations, and, of course, social partners as economic actors, as identified elsewhere since the United Nations Conference in Rio in 1992.

Finally, last point regarding the amendments: there was consensus that when the government does not follow the CFDD’s opinion, it must indicate the reasons – as is already the case in the text of the law as it exists today – but it was in no way the will of the minister or the government not to do so. We have amended in this regard.

The entire bill as it was adopted by 9 votes in favour and 5 abstentions.

Mr. Speaker, I will promptly mention the unanimity, both in the debates and in the vote, that supported the bill proposed by Nathalie Muylle and Jef Van den Bergh on the coordination of the federal sustainable development policy with regard to the impact assessment of decisions on sustainable development. The aim was really to anchor the impact study of decisions on sustainable development (EIDD) into the law. It was important to strengthen this instrument and this has been the subject of a very broad consensus among all political groups.

Mr. Speaker, here is the report of which I have presented the most important elements in my view, at least those to which we have attached the most importance during our debates.

If you allow it, I will take advantage of my presence at the tribune to speak on behalf of my group.

Mr. Speaker, personally and the CDH group, we believe that this debate is existential and its importance could lead us to discuss it sustainably. At this time of day, it would mean discussing it all night long, but maybe we can’t afford this little pleasure. I will limit myself to the most important elements.

For the CDH, it is crucial that sustainable development is not synonymous with approximately, that it is a strong commitment, a commitment in the short, medium and long term, where everyone draws in the same direction, giving themselves clear and numbered goals to ⁇ .

It seemed to us equally important that the reference to the Rio Conference be incorporated into the text of the law, that the balance in the composition of the CFDD be ensured and that there is a return when the government does not follow the opinion of the CFDD, that it be summed up to explain. This enables not only transparency, which is an essential point for the government, but also a relationship of trust between authorities and civil society actors.

This long-term must not be a succession of five- or ten-year plans, nor the chain of wills of successive governments, and it must not depend on electoral deadlines. It must consist of continuity for a long-term achievement with a leading place of civil society.

On these points, a series of amendments have helped to improve the text in a way that the entire hearings had made it possible to determine, as well as contacts with civil society, in particular with NGOs dealing with environment, sustainable development and cooperation.

That EIDD be anchored in this law – I refer directly to the CD&V bill – so that every analysis of a government decision is carried out in the light of sustainable development and the potential impact on sustainable development is another step. Mr. Minister, you have yourself acknowledged, during the debates or prior questions, that in 35% of the points examined in relation to the Sustainable Development Goal, the review was too summary. This point requires increased attention.

Mr. Minister, if you allow me to overwhelm a little, it is hard to see that everything concerning the functioning of the expertise on sustainable development is quite complex. Probably not for the initiates, whether it be experts, administrations, the Plan Bureau, the CIDD or the CFDD or even civil society experts, but it remains complex for those who are not involved in daily life.

In the future, it will also be necessary to think about a reorganization of prospective instruments that is less complex and that could affect broader skills than those strictly linked to sustainable development, whether through its social, environmental or economic aspects. This issue is ⁇ important to my colleague Georges Dallemagne. Maybe we’ll be back in the future, but I wanted to touch a word about it today.

You understood that we will vote on the bill and the bill proposals with conviction and enthusiasm. This reminds us of the vital need for society’s adaptation, the vital need to anticipate the essential mutations of our planet and our society, and the vital need for a prospective because we all often tend to have “the nose in the handle.”

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, dear colleagues, here is the report – the discussions in the committee were interesting – and the position of the CDH.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, Dear and many colleagues, warm audience, since the 1980s, the paradigms that guide our political actions have profoundly evolved. Our civilization has had to become obvious: the resources offered by our planet are not infinite; growth will not be the solution to all evils; and the Western economic system is not extensible at will. It is not even extensible to all inhabitants of the planet, we know it.

From the moment that this finding is formed, it appears urgent to profoundly change our model in order to make it more sustainable, but also more equitable. We can no longer merely meet the needs of the population by limiting ourselves to increasing production and productivity. We must consider the social, economic and environmental impacts of our modes of production and consumption before taking action.

In order to meet these requirements, our administrative system must absolutely give itself the means to design and implement policies that will lead to sustainable development. As you know, this site is very large. The extent of the task must not make us forget that in an extremely complex society like ours, revolutions are made in small steps, consisting of slow movements, accumulations of targeted reforms and the fruit of a long process of raising awareness among institutional actors and our population.

The bill we are going to vote on today makes a modest, of course, but relevant and necessary contribution to this long global process. The federal policy aimed at integrating sustainable development is organized and coordinated by the Act of 5 May 1997. The bill submitted to us by the government aims to strengthen this legislation. It truly concrete the recommendations made by the Court of Auditors in its June 2005 report and implements the Government Agreement of March 2008 which stipulates: "In order to strengthen the coherence of its action, the Government will evaluate the coordination tools of the federal sustainable development policy."

In 2005, the Court of Auditors examined the policy of sustainable development management by state services. It had then found that most of the measures envisaged in a first federal sustainable development plan 2000-2004 remained at the intention stage.

The Court of Auditors continued its analysis by examining the structural difficulties posed by the law and the decisions resulting therefrom. These can explain the gap between statements and achievements. The law of May 1997 is based on a logic of soft action, which requires, in order to be crowned with success, an exemplary behavior of the State, a networking operation, an institution that embodies its impulse as well as the means of continuous support.

The Court of Auditors has found that the means are not proportionate to the actions to be undertaken and the processes are slow and unbinding, often in contradiction with the urgencies imposed by sustainable development.

In response to the Audit of the Court of Auditors, the Council of Ministers of 25 March 2005 adopted a series of measures aimed in particular at strengthening the resources of the coordination actors. The amendments to the 1997 law proposed by the government will thus complement these measures by introducing four fundamental improvements.

First, the bill will allow to develop, by 2011, a long-term vision of sustainable development, in order to establish the main challenges posed by our current mode of development. In order not to remain at the stage of pure prospective analysis, this long-term vision will include objectives, intermediate steps and indicators, in order to enable follow-up.

Second, the project will improve coordination with European institutions and federated entities. The duration of the federal sustainable development plan is thus increased to five years instead of four, in order to coordinate its actions with European and regional strategies. A mechanism for revision of the Federal Sustainable Development Plan is also introduced, in order to ensure consistency between government policy and the content of the plan and thus stick to developments encountered in federal or international entities.

Third, this bill will also allow the federal plan for sustainable development to focus on concrete actions of cooperation between administrations. Thus, by stimulating cooperation between federal public services, the plan will add value to the sectoral policies carried out by the various departments.

Fourth, the project changes the composition of the Interdepartmental Commission for Sustainable Development in order to make its operation more efficient. It is no longer about bringing together members of ministerial cabinets, but rather officials of federal public services and programming. In this way, the committee will focus on preparation and coordination of concrete actions undertaken in the administrations.

All the reforms proposed by the project seem absolutely necessary to us as – we have seen in the past – sustainable development measures require collaboration between all public services in order to be able to go beyond the stage of political declarations and to concrete themselves in field actions.

I would also like to highlight the contributions of parliamentary debates during the review in committee of this project. The majority proposed a number of amendments that came to considerably strengthen the bill.

I believe that on a topic as fundamental as sustainable development, we can only welcome the Minister’s openness to the various proposals of the Commissioners.

The PS group has, of course, actively participated in the work of the Health Committee on this text. Under the impulse of Jean Cornil, the majority agreed to support our four amendments aimed at strengthening the project on various specific points.

First, we submitted an amendment to article 7 of the draft to re-insert in the law a reference to successive United Nations conferences on sustainable development. We found it important to incorporate the bill into the global process initiated by the Rio Summit in 1992 and continued ten years later in Johannesburg.

Secondly, our amendment to article 8 of the law aimed to set out the arrangements for consultation that the government must carry out when establishing the long-term strategic vision. The draft now specifies that the King will have to consult the legislative chambers and organized civil society before making a regulatory provision aimed at fixing the long-term vision.

Third, we also obtained the support of our majority colleagues in order to specify in Article 18 of the draft which actors should be represented in the Federal Council for Sustainable Development and although we understand the need to reform the functioning of the Council, it seems to us, for the future as for the past, that it must bring together representatives of environmental NGOs, NGOs for Sustainable Development, trade unions, employers, consumers and representatives of the scientific world.

Finally, the PS Group proposed a fourth amendment to the draft to explicitly provide for the procedure for updating the long-term strategic vision. With the support of our majority colleagues, we gave the Interdepartmental Commission for Sustainable Development the opportunity to forward to the Government adjustments to the long-term vision in order to maintain the highest coherence between the developments of the international commitments taken by Belgium.

To conclude, my group considers that the draft submitted by the government as amended by the majority will strengthen the institutional framework for sustainable development. This is absolutely fundamental in enabling public authorities to have participatory legislation, instruments and structures to advance towards our ultimate political goal which is nothing less than the establishment of an entirely new form of development at the local, national, European and international levels.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank Ms. Fonck for her very comprehensive and correct report. My speech will be very short. This project aims to enable the development of a long-term vision for sustainable development from 2011 onwards. Furthermore, it aims to enable a better coordination of the federal strategy with the strategies of the Regions and Europe, and a simplification of the instruments.

The most important thing according to our group is the completion of the current cycle of planning and reporting with a long-term policy vision. That policy vision should set objectives, and is also implemented through existing plans and reports. The long-term plan will have a limited content with the emphasis on cooperation actions between the various federal government agencies and the counties. In addition, a review mechanism is also introduced to respond to the new impulses. The report is also reviewed in the context of a long-term planning.

The advantage of this approach is that the current federal plans will no longer stand on their own, but will be framed in a long-term vision to which they can be tested. The question remains whether it will be possible to develop such a long-term vision by the beginning of 2011 and whether that system will not prove to be too stringent. If we want to respond to the rapidly evolving technologies and trends, flexibility is and remains the key word. As you have probably understood, our group would be very pleased to support this proposal. We will also work together to approve this draft later.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, Colleagues, the theme of sustainable development was first specifically defined in 1987 in the Brundtland Report. According to the definition, sustainable development is the development that corresponds to the needs of the present without jeopardizing the ability of future generations to meet their own needs. CD&V as a party expressly recognises itself in this, as it is the same definition as that of the rentmaster, a term that has already existed since the establishment of the CVP in 1945.

Our sensitivity to this is clear. Meanwhile, the political world as a whole is no longer insensitive to this. For the first time, a government, this government-Leterme, has a Minister of Climate and Sustainable Development among its members. The consequences for future generations of how we deal with our planet have become more and more a common concern. In practice, however, it is not always easy to translate sustainable development into policy. It is a broad concept that spans both economic, ecological and social interests, which often makes decision making in this area difficult.

Over the years, a number of instruments have been developed to incorporate sustainable development into federal policy. First, there is the law of 5 May 1997. It establishes the coordination of the federal policy on sustainable development by law.

Secondly, the Royal Decree of 22 September 2004 establishes the establishment of Sustainable Development Cells in the federal public services, the programmatic federal public services and the Ministry of Land Defense. The various public services fulfill these tasks on their own funds.

Third, the Sustainable Development Impact Assessment, shortly DOEB, was introduced in the federal plan 2000-2004. A procedure for DOEB was provided in the circulation letter concerning the functioning of the Council of Ministers.

Today, a major step is being taken by reviewing two of these three instruments to make them more practical. On the one hand, the law of 5 May 1997 was urgently revised after more than ten years. A government bill is now on the vote. As the CD&V group, we stand behind this draft whose text largely takes over the text of our own bill. This design aims to organize the cycle of planning and reporting more efficiently and add a long-term vision.

On the other hand, the DOEB test as it is applied today requires a legal anchorage. The bill that my colleague Nathalie Muylle and I present here today at the plenary session aims to make this DOEB test a powerful tool. Where sustainable development no longer sounds sexy, the word sustainable development impact assessment is even more difficult in the mouth. Nevertheless, the importance of the first concept is clear and the usefulness of the second, provided a good fulfillment, too. The DOEB examines the effects of proposed policies on the social, economic and environmental levels, as well as the effects on the revenue and expenditure of the state, before a decision is taken.

In reality, this test appears to be performed today in few cases. In the report attached to bills and KBs, in addition to the DOEB test, the words “not applicable” are usually returned. Ms Fonck has just said that the test is applied in only 35% of cases. In addition, there are a lot of cases, I think for example of the law on development cooperation, where no DOEB test was carried out, even though it should actually be. When the DOEB test is performed, it is the question of how it is actually taken into account when making a policy decision. However, everyone is convinced that this test is useful. There is therefore a broad consensus that this application in practice should be organized more broadly and more transparently.

The bill that is now presented aims to make this DOEB test, the sustainable development impact assessment, really play a role and require the government to take the sustainable development aspect into account in its decisions. The bill, which was unanimously approved in the committee, therefore incorporates this DOEB in the law of 5 May 1997.

What exactly does this involve?

First, it provides that a preliminary examination should be based on objective criteria to determine whether or not a DOEB is applicable. The words “not applicable” can therefore no longer be placed freely and subjectively in the DOEB test.

Second, when the preliminary examination requires it, the DOEB will not only have to be carried out, its results will also actually have to be charged. In fact, the proposal stipulates that if the conditions of the preliminary examination or the conditions of the DOEB test, as determined by the King, are not met, a bill cannot be submitted to the legislative chambers, a draft of KB and a proposal for a decision that may not be approved by the minister.

The legal anchoring of this DOEB test is a signal that sustainable development is important in all cases when drawing out policies. However, it is more than a signal. It elevates the Sustainable Development Impact Assessment above the subjective and non-binding assessment which, unfortunately, is still too much today. The test will no longer be just a piece of paper, but a transparent document that will need to be taken into account and that will work steadily. Policy decisions will need to be valued not only in theory but also in practice based on the impact they have on sustainable development.

It is intended that this instrument — and we are pleased that the Minister endorses it — will become as important in the future as the opinion of the Budget and the Financial Inspectorate.

The bill, for which we ask for your support, will ensure that the government will effectively maintain a sustainable policy in all its decisions.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, dear colleagues, if you could compensate for the large number of absent by listening carefully, I would be grateful.

Dear colleagues, this topic is so essential that I cannot hide my disappointment of seeing the weak mobilization of members of our assembly. Here, we vote on an institutional architecture, on modes of governance but these should determine the heart of our policies and inscribe in them that development that everyone dreams of, which would bring a balance in choices and would allow to treat the environment, social and economic in a more balanced way and ⁇ offer a living framework for future generations with preserved resources, much more justice and equity and an economy that has a future.

We are talking about primary things through a text ⁇ rebarbative but which nevertheless organizes our ways of deciding and should organize them even more according to us. In Belgium, since the law of 1997, we have a beautiful architecture, a more advanced system than in other countries of Europe. I have said it often, it is one of the reasons to be proud of our country: when I was a member of the Federal Council for Sustainable Development, I was able to find that elsewhere, we admire our system very much. The fact is that we have a planning system, an interdepartmental Commission supposed to bring together all federal administrations around sustainable development and a – very broad – Council of civil society that gives opinions.

Unfortunately, all this is rather ignored and even neglected by the federal government for years, at least these last legislatures. Like the mr. Blanchart said it, the Court of Auditors recalled it and it has been extremely critical of our way of applying our beautiful system which is not in the hearts of government members or in the mentalities. Even though we have institutions, we do not use them sufficiently. What have we done with all these plans? The first plan for sustainable development was in 2000. He was very ambitious. Unfortunately, it was little applied. There was a second plan subsequently and there was no third and we are still waiting for it.

We have been quite critical to you about this because, instead of focusing on this third plan, you have launched the “Environmental Spring” and sowed confusion. Today, there is still no plan.

In the government statement, you were committed to amending this law. Why Why ? Maybe it should have worked properly first. I don’t think it was you who decided to change it. Some members of the government wanted to restore other balances. This is what worries us. We fear that this amendment of the law does not hide intentions that are not all good.

We were also surprised to hear, during the three hearings we were able to obtain (the Federal Council, the Administration of the Interdepartmental Commission for Sustainable Development and the Office of the Plan), that these people were not aware. They discovered with us the bill you submitted to us. The Federal Council was even surprised that it had not been consulted because it was discussed, in the law, its composition and a possible modification of internal balances. There was therefore little concertation and parliamentary hearings arrived very late.

As members of the opposition, we have loyally tried to improve this project but you have a little blocked the game. Fortunately, amendments by the majority, quite strongly inspired by ours, were adopted. This is the game! I am beginning to know! However, we could have reached something more consensual and deepened the amendments that improve this law.

Let us highlight the positive aspects! A positive aspect is definitely the long-term vision. We agree; to introduce a long-term vision in planning is to see far away and raise the nose on horizons. Society must evolve. It must probably evolve radically to ensure the survival and quality of life of future generations. It is important to see far away. Unfortunately, the long-term vision you propose does not take much back. We know that there will be goals and indicators, without knowing the deadlines. We proposed forty years. It seems that this is the order of magnitude that you are also forecasting, although this is not specified. This is also a government decision.

This has been a problem for us as we would have wanted a long-term vision of sustainable development to be widely discussed and voted by the Chambers. It is about the future of our country in relation to the world.

We regret not being able to amend the text in order to give it a deadline, more content, intermediate steps and broader legitimacy.

A PS amendment wanted this draft long-term vision to be submitted to Parliament and organized civil society. As this must be done within a year, I propose you to start very quickly so that you can mobilize parliamentarians more widely than tonight. Then we will discuss the content.

The House Speaker, who also chairs the Sustainable Development and Climate Committee, could very well initiate a broad debate within Parliament on this long-term vision. We hope that this will not be done at the last moment since we are now required to comply with a one-year deadline.

With regard to five-year plans and reports, there is indeed an improvement. The fact of adding a deadline and being able to be attached to government programs ensures more consistency.

The last positive point concerns the EIDD, this sustainability test. All bills, bills, royal decrees, and decision proposals will be subject to this test. We supported this proposal by Ms. Muelle and Mr. Van den Bergh and we are going to adopt it. However, I would like to point out that the tags are not yet well defined. We leave the latitude to the government to escape this because it is he who will determine what will be subjected to this test. Therefore, we do not know what will be subjected to it and a lot of things could escape from it.

Nor is it defined the means that we will give ourselves to do this test. Mr. Minister, in response to parliamentary questions, you said that the current practice of this test was very weak because your administration did not have the means to accomplish it. Will you provide your administration with the human and financial resources to do this? Deadlines will also need to be set. We would have liked to introduce our concept of Sustainable Development Inspection.

Ecolo has been offering it for a long time at various levels, in parallel with the Financial Inspection to examine government projects. For this purpose, a body, serious, administrative, human and budgetary resources must effectively be created.

Let us come to a negative aspect in the evolution of this law, which concerns the composition of the Federal Council for Sustainable Development. My questions remain suspended. Yesterday again, I received a call from the Council asking me about your intentions. I don’t know what you are going to do. I do not know why the composition of the Council was removed. Who removed it from the law? Who asked you? For what purpose?

In fact, the current composition reflects the groups cited in the Rio Convention. The balance between the people who represent the defense of the environment, the interests of the countries of the South, those who represent the economic and social actors, this balance is present. Sometimes there is a lack of consensus within the Council. Sometimes, some actors feel underrepresented.

We are not in favor of absolute immobilism. We had even proposed internal changes to the representation of NGOs, but we thought it was important that this composition was included in the law. Now she is no longer there. This is definitely a step back!

Mr. Minister, you have a lot of challenges to face. First, successfully involve the Regions and Communities in the process of defining long-term goals. In this regard, the environment ministers in the governments of the Communities and Regions will propose a collaboration to their governments. You can count on it! Do not try to work without them either!

Successfully engaging the population in this work on a long-term vision is a challenge to be addressed in the very short term. For if you need to organize consultations of panels of citizens, organized civil society, it is not enough to ask for an opinion from the Council. It is important to make sustainable development percolate so that it becomes a cultural change, otherwise, although we will have new institutions, nothing will change in the level of consistency of our government decisions.

It is also necessary to engage the administrations. These, with expertise, should be able to propose future scenarios.

In its fourth federal report, the Federal Plan Office developed scenarios, but which were designed outside the administration.

It would be appropriate to integrate the steps, in which you also have a responsibility, that of bringing sustainable development into the daily decisions of the government, with or without EIDD. So it seems to me that there is still a lot of work to be done, but we will be there to support this type of approach and to prevent this law from leading to a regression of sustainable development in institutional matters.

My group will abstain at the vote on the bill, but will support the bill of Mrs. Muylle and Mr. by Van den Bergh.

First of all, I would like to thank Ms. Fonck for the report.

The 1997 law reminds me of something. Jan Peeters was then Secretary of State. 1977 was an important year, with the Act on Product Standards, the Law on the Marine Environment and the relevant law, which marked a turning point in the discussion on the integration of the environment in various fields at European level. For the first time, a tool was created to ⁇ the integration of the environment, economy and the social domain. It is a very good instrument. Once one starts with it in practice, it is logical that it needs to be amended, which is now the case.

We support the proposed amendments as they complete the cycle report, plan and advice. In the meantime, the POD Sustainable Development must be involved. The coordination of policy with a new government is also a good point. In the event of a decalage, a competent minister would indeed not support anything if that is not in line with government policy.

There are some good points, but I also have some concerns. In this way, our group joins the Ecolo-Groen!. The long-term vision could be embedded a little more planned. This is not now preserved. The long-term vision is in there, but we will see how the legislation is implemented. I feel good about it, because it was a very constructive debate. I hope the implementation will be just as constructive.

Another point is the composition of the Federal Council for Sustainable Development, which is now being removed from the law. This is very regrettable to us. The fact that the federal council was not asked to advise on the draft is a little strange. There is an advisory board, but it is not used. By the way, with the other bills of recent weeks, we note the same line. We had Mrs. Laruelle’s Service Act, for which no formal advice was requested due to its high urgency. This was not a matter for the Federal Council, but for other advisory bodies, which really are no longer used. It is said that one has made a phone call and then it remains. The government really undermines our advisory councils. We have experienced the same in the context of the Law on Commercial Practices, for which the opinions were given three years ago. They are not updated. I find that very regrettable. The removal of the composition of the council from the law lies in the same line. There will be a KB, but I still think it is an important signal that advice advice, if one respects them, also gives a legal basis.

Therefore, we will abstain from voting on the bill.

We ⁇ support the CD&V bill in connection with DOEB as an instrument, because it provides a legal basis. At that time we were involved in the creation of that instrument. I must admit that it is heavily used. As a result, it is almost not used. I hope that we can quickly move forward with a more restricted form of its application. In fact, everything is present. It is simply a question of how one uses it, what criteria one will include and such, in what framework. I hope that work will be done quickly.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to say that our discussion on the issue of sustainable development and the amendment of the law is a repeat of the debate we had at the Copenhagen Conference. I can only share the frustration of my colleague Ecolo over the very low interest that she arouses in this homicide. I would have dreamed that the 150 MEPs would be present to attend our discussion on this theme that, beyond the environment, brings together the economy, the social, the way to live in society and to question us by questioning us about our future. Unfortunately, this is not the case. Everyone in his party must pursue a work of conviction.

We support the reform of the law. Together with our majority partners, we have defended several amendments that we think are going in the right direction. This document is only an instrument. Then, as my colleague Thérèse Snoy and d’Oppuers said, we will need to give fuel to the Council for Sustainable Development.

That the composition of the Council arouses state of mind, I can understand. But, on the other hand, we all need to convince ourselves that sustainable development no longer concerns only a few sectors. This topic should mobilize us all. Through the composition of the Council, the government’s will was precisely to make sure that everyone feels concerned.

As I said rightly, the deadlines are relatively close, Mr. Minister. We will be attentive to the projects you submit to us. We will look at them without taboo and with a lot of volunteerism. It is obvious.

However, we still face a few obstacles. I think of the indicators.

I remember a debate a few months ago, a debate that had raised some questions – not to say anything else – from our minister on the ecological footprint, a highly controversial subject. I think this can be an element, like others, of a form of indicator. Anything can be good to raise awareness of this problem.

My great frustration – in this regard, Ms. Snoy has probably heard of my intervention –, my great question is how to make Belgian machinery work in this area. It is well known that many of the elements discussed today are sometimes no longer or almost more within the competence of the federal, but primarily within the competence of regional and local authorities.

Mrs. Snoy reassured me. It effectively holds the environmental controls of the power of the Walloon Region and the Flemish Region. Sustainable development is more than the environment. Therefore, a whole series of other elements will be useful and interesting to consider. I hope that Minister Magnette will have enough finger to make sure that the machinery of sustainable development produces its effects in the Regions and local authorities.

I give an appointment to everyone, hoping to be more, for our next debate in less than a year on this issue.

Meanwhile, I also welcome that the House President has set up an ad hoc committee on sustainable development and climate. It must be the spark, the engine of the other commissions; it is also for this reason that it was set up.

Therefore, it is with enthusiasm that we will vote on the projects that are submitted to vote today.

I would simply say that in my turn, I look forward to this modernization and this strengthening of the law.

I have questions, but they focus more on the implementation of the law than on the law itself. Of course, we will remain attentive to make sure that this long-term debate takes place as soon as possible and on the best conditions, as broad as possible; that is all the interest. We will also ensure that the EIDD is in practice as strong as its legal anchorage now allows.

I would also like to welcome an extremely rich and open parliamentary debate, which has helped to further improve the text through a large number of amendments from various political formations.