Proposition 52K2037

Projet de loi relatif à l'obligation d'incorporation de biocarburant dans les carburants fossiles mis à la consommation.

General information ¶

Submitted by

CD&V the Van Rompuy government

Submission date

June 9, 2009

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

environmental protection motor fuel substitute fuel

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

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

Abstained from voting

Groen Vooruit Ecolo N-VA LDD

Party dissidents ¶

• Peter Logghe (VB) abstained from voting.
• Luc Sevenhans (VB) 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 ¶

June 25, 2009 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Ministers, Mr. Colleagues, your committee examined the bill during the meetings of 16, 23 and 24 June 2009.

In his introductory presentation, the Minister explained that, within the framework of the law of 10 June 2006, a tax incentive was provided for gasoline and diesel supplemented respectively by 7% bioethanol, pure or in the form of bio-ETBE, and 5% EMAG.

Today, it is hard to see that oil companies incorporate little biofuels and that the taxed quotas provided in the law are far from being reached.

Following discussions with the biofuel and oil sector, the government became aware of the profitability problem of the biofuel industry as well as the threatening loss of investment in the sector. More than €500 million in employment and hundreds of direct and indirect jobs are involved.

In collaboration with the departments of the Prime Minister and the relevant ministers (Finance, Economy, Agriculture and Mobility), a balanced solution for promoting the use of biofuels and achieving European objectives in this area was sought.

The bill provides for an obligation to incorporate during a calendar year of 4% of sustainable biofuels when putting into consumption of fuels (benzine and diesel), in accordance with existing product standards.

This bill is a mixture of obligations and tax incentives. There is a legal obligation to place on the market motor fuels containing at least 4% EMAG for road diesel or at least 4% bioethanol or bio-ETBE for gasoline.

Under the Law of 10 June 2006 on biofuels, biocomponents acquired for mixing may also benefit from an exemption from excise duty provided for in the case of acquisition from approved production units.

With this mix of legal obligations and tax incentives, we want to ⁇ various achievements. In this way, the European target figures for the placing on the market of biofuels will finally be achieved. For 2010, this reference target is 5.75%. Products will be produced in a sustainable way. This is guaranteed by the fact that the sustainability criteria are the same as those imposed in 2006, in particular for the allocation of quotas for biofuels.

The raw materials must come from agriculture. They should be grown using as little fertilizer and pesticides as possible. They may not come from agricultural surfaces located outside the European Community which have recently been deforested.

Produced biofuels must implement a substantial reduction in CO2 emissions. Production of biofuels must meet the technical specifications imposed by the European Union for compliance with social and environmental regulations. Thus, in these times of economic crisis, the investments of licensed organic producers will be safeguarded, as well as employment. Consumers will finally be able to fill up a biofuel that benefits from a reduced excise rate, rather than the increased excise rate applicable to insufficiently mixed or unmixed motor fuel.

In addition, the competent services will ensure the technical quality of the biofuel. The program contract fixing the maximum output for petroleum products will be adapted to this situation. The Directorate-General for Energy, in collaboration with the SPF Finance and the Directorate-General for Environment, will take care of the control of the law and its enforcement orders. The Directorate-General for Energy will also take care of the collection of administrative fines.

The application of the law is limited in time: 24 months from 1 July 2009 with a possible extension of 24 months.

In the general discussion, Mr. Clarinval wanted to know why the figure of 5.75% had not been held while it was the target to be reached for 2010. How concretely can companies provide proof of biofuel sustainability? Is there a label for this? Compared to APETRA stocks, he points out that our country does not meet the storage obligations in this area. Will the project not hinder APETRA further? The interviewer wishes to know the conditions under which the extension of 24 months provided for in Article 13 may be decided. Finally Mr. Clarinval wanted to know what conclusions the working group gathering representatives of the Regions and the federal had come to.

Referring to the State Council, Mr. Logghe believed that this matter should not be discussed in the federal, but rather in the Region. by Mr. Germany believed that the bill was going in the right direction, but it nevertheless had to resort to coercion because tax incentives were not sufficient. He noted that the raw materials defined in Article 2 must come from agriculture and asked whether it should be concluded that raw materials from recycling or other materials are therefore excluded. by Mr. Germany emphasized that entire parts of primary forest have recently been converted to monoculture, notably that of oil palm. He suggested that any forest recently or not processed for the production of biofuels be excluded from the supply of biofuels.

by Mr. Germany has also requested that the terms " raw materials" be clarified. In this regard, he asked whether it could be estimated the Belgian production and the share of imports, what is the agricultural area required for this production and what this production consists of. This should not be done at the expense of primary forests or food security.

What will be the impact of the measurement on the pump price?

How can we ensure that producers implement the measure when previously they did not want to do so for economic reasons? How has this question been resolved?

Van der Straeten found that biofuels have been the subject of a lot of discussion and controversy, ⁇ with regard to the 10% target in the EU’s “climate package”. The bill has become more or less indispensable because a whole series of promises have been made in the past.

The UN Special Rapporteur, Olivier De Schutter, was presented in the Special Committee on Climate and Sustainable Development. In particular, in the context of the Environmental Spring, the creation of a biomass observatory was announced but nothing has yet been done. In Belgium there is no general policy on biofuels and biomass.

The bill, which aims to remove legal uncertainty regarding sustainability criteria, creates new legal uncertainty. In fact, the law of 10 June 2006 already contains a relatively vague list of sustainability criteria, while the bill under consideration produces a derogatory regime, with the consequence that one falls under a different regime depending on whether it is an authorised enterprise or not. Furthermore, neither the criteria of the law of 10 June 2006 nor those of the draft under consideration correspond to those of Directive 2009/28/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2009 on the promotion of the use of energy produced from renewable sources and amending and repealing the two directives published in the Official Journal of 5 June 2009.

Although amendment No. 1 of the majority already contains progress with regard to the sustainability criteria, the interviewer pleaded in favour of the text of its amendment No. 3, which literally reproduced the applicable criteria of the aforementioned directive. Its amendment thus explicitly stipulated that the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions resulting from the use of biofuels should reach at least 35% rather than the imprecise terms of the bill.

Van der Straeten pointed out another inconsistency in this bill: Article 3 refers to the latest versions of product standards set by the European Committee on Standardization, while the work of that committee is blocked because only a few Member States wish to make real progress in this area.

If it is logically a temporary measure, the extension of the period of validity provided for in Article 13 is not desirable because developments do not mention any criteria in this regard. The King is granted a very large delegation. Furthermore, when does the period of 24 months provided for in Article 13 begin to run: on 30 June 2011 or on the date of the royal decree in question? The confusion surrounding this issue is indeed a source of legal uncertainty for the companies concerned.

by Mr. Henry found that biofuels are only a limited solution, as long as strict sustainability conditions are imposed on the chain and the food chain is not challenged.

Now we have to move to a compulsory stage. by Mr. Henry stressed the importance of having measurable sustainability criteria and providing for prohibitions of origin or areas to be protected. Amendments in this regard have been submitted. by Mr. Henry regrets the automatic exemption from the burden of proof in terms of sustainability criteria for companies based in the country. For oil companies, the burden of proof that is incumbent on them is not explicit in terms of method and calculation, which is questionable.

Ms Van der Auwera noted that many royal decrees would be needed to enforce the draft law, but that it must nevertheless enter into force on 1 July 2009. What is the state of progress of the draft royal arrests, in particular as regards the information obligation? The financial impact of the bill under consideration will be greater than that of the reduction of excise taxes in 2007. It requested an estimate of the budgetary impact of the bill, in particular in terms of excise duties, as well as revenue that could come from administrative fines provided for in Article 10 of the bill.

Under Articles 7 and 8, will the control of the obligations arising from the law and its enforcement orders be an additional burden for the staff of the departments concerned? If yes, what order will it be? How many additional agents will be recruited, if necessary, for this purpose? Can the Minister, in addition, specify the basic product regime for already mixed biofuels?

With regard to contacts with the industry, were producers prepared for the implications of this legislation and informed about it? What were their reactions if necessary? What was the attitude of the Belgian Oil Union?

The president, on the other hand, described the article as a very vague and almost symbolic legislation. Since the sustainability criteria listed in Article 2.8 are very vague, he questions the meaning of the words "using as little fertilizer and pesticides as possible". How will this be controlled? For the second indent referring to an agricultural area outside the European Community which has recently been deforested, what do the words “recently” and “substantial reduction in CO2 emissions” referred to in the third indent mean here?

The Minister responded and clarified that the bill was intended to change only the method and not the objective or general philosophy of the law. The method was based on tax incentives and on a voluntary basis. Since this method does not work, it was necessary to consider another approach which always includes tax incentives, to which from now on are added legal obligations to ⁇ the objectives set.

The Reflection Group was established and met on 4 and 22 June 2009. He supported the guidelines of the bill, which will be validated in a consultation committee on July 1 next. Regarding the definition of sustainability criteria, the Minister stressed that it was indeed a provisional arrangement with a duration of 24 months, eventually renewable for 24 months.

It is about launching a new industrial chain that requires, during the launch period, both tax incentives and constraints. The difficulty of transitional provisions is that different levels of power must be taken into account. The law of 10 June 2006 established sustainability criteria on the basis of which quotas were allocated to different producers. The European Directive was published on 5 June 2009 and has not yet been transposed. The Minister stresses that it will be transposed into Belgian law as soon as possible. However, there should not be an immediate transposition through the bill under discussion. Indeed, if foreign producers were imposed stricter criteria based on the EU directive while Belgian producers were imposed quotas based on the law of 10 June 2006, the European Commission could consider that Belgium plays on the timetable of transposition to discriminate and hinder trade.

Regarding the issue of competence, the Minister recalled that the State Council noted that the provisions of the project are within the scope of existing product standards and that, therefore, it is a federal competence.

Sustainability objectives and control mechanisms are at the heart of the political debate on this project. Sustainability criteria are vague because they refer to other texts. The amendment drafted by the majority will clarify certain criteria such as the use of pesticides. Other criteria may therefore be defined in the Royal Decree.

The reference to the royal decree provides full legal certainty. The Royal Decree, which will be submitted to the Council of Ministers on 26 June 2009, exemplifies the criterion of a 35% reduction in CO2 emissions.

Compared to the standard of the European Committee for Standardization, these imperatives of prompt adaptation to European standards are taken into account. Controls on sustainability criteria exist well since producers must make a statement to the administration on the type of raw materials used. These statements must be made both to the DG Environment of the SPF Public Health and to the DG Energy of the SPF Economy. There is also a mechanism of sanctions with fines for oil tankers who would not carry out the mixture. The commitment of three agents is also planned for this mission of control and collection of fines, which commitment represents a budget of 85,000 euros that will be registered in the 2010 budget.

The Minister stresses that the cost impact on consumers may potentially be generated within the framework of the program contract rules, but the activation of reduced excise duties may neutralize this impact.

Regarding the 4% rate retained, the minister points out that the 5.75% rate is an average. Knowing that at this stage, we cannot incorporate more than 5% for diesel and more than 7% for gasoline, an average of 4% has been established to avoid overdose for diesel. He adds that the program will have no impact on APETRA and storage conditions.

Following the various replicas of the members, the minister clarified that an exemption clause was envisaged for APETRA storage products that will be supplied to companies that do not have a tax number, namely those that do not enter the normal trade. There is therefore no impact on the issue of storage.

The final cost estimate can only be made when the negotiations with the oil federation are completed and the impact on the program contract is known. The estimate made so far suggests that the reduction of excise duties generates a margin such that there should be no impact on the consumer.

The Minister stressed that, during the Environment Spring, it was agreed to conduct an evaluation of these first-generation biofuels. The report should be submitted to the Minister on 25 June 2009. Provisional findings indicate that there would be interest in sliding to the second generation, even if the problems will persist. The question of the treatment of genetically modified peelings can be addressed at that time, when products from non-food agriculture will be taken into account.

In terms of quantities, they will be substantial. That is 400 million liters. This is not a problem in terms of quotas, but it is a challenge in practical terms for the industry. The arrangement provides for an evaluation shortly before the end of two years, both on the technical, financial and industrial level. At that time, and based on this assessment, a possible decision on extension will be made.

Regarding the discussion of the articles, in Article 1, the Minister pointed out that an erratum had been deposited to remove the reference to Article 108 of the Constitution.

In Article 2, Amendment No. 1 was filed by Mrs. Lalieux et consorts to specify the sustainability criteria that best correspond with the regulation. Van der Straeten pointed out that Amendment No. 1 referred to a regulation which is directly applicable without transposition; she thus finds it meaningless that elements of a directive cannot be taken back.

Amendment No 3 aims to replace point No 8: the sustainability criteria stated are insufficient and must at least meet the requirements of Directive 2009/28/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2009 on the promotion and use of energy produced from renewable sources.

The Minister considers that the amendment No. 3 constitutes a kind of transposition to the Hussard. Elements such as those included in points 1 and 2 of Amendment No. 3 will be included in the Royal Decree defining the sustainability criteria. The Minister said that it will also be necessary to see whether the transposition can be done by royal decree or must be done by legal means. Van der Straeten asked what the word “recently” meant and what the words “substantial reduction” meant. The minister added that the substantial reduction concerns the 35%; the notion of "recently" will be specified in the royal decree. The other criteria find an answer in Amendment No. 1, which refers precisely to the European Regulation that deals with these criteria.

The Royal Decree will be submitted to the Council of Ministers on 26 June 2009. The emergency will be requested to the State Council to be as soon as possible.

Mrs Van der Straeten refers to point 10. How many production units have been recognized? Seven units were recognised: four in biodiesel and three in bioethanol. The annual checks are carried out by the Biofuels Commission, a mixed administrative commission that brings together the administrations of the relevant ministers, namely the ministers of Energy, Public Health and Finance.

In Article 7, at the request of Ms. Van der Straeten, the minister confirmed that all royal decrees implementing the bill will be submitted to the Council of Ministers on Friday, June 26, 2009.

In Article 8, Amendment No. 5 by Mrs Van der Straeten et consorts aims to delete paragraph 2. The author refers to the general discussion and the legal uncertainty resulting from the two different regimes, on the one hand, on the basis of the law of 10 June 2006 and, on the other hand, on the basis of the draft law.

The Minister also referred to the general discussion. We are in a transitional regime after the law of 10 June 2006. As soon as Directive 2009/28/EC is transposed into national law, the same criteria will apply to all production units.

Mrs Van der Straeten would like to know whether the DG Energy has sufficient resources and personnel to carry out the checks provided for in paragraph 4; the Minister replied that the checks provided for in Article 8 can be carried out with the existing staff. On the other hand, for the collection of administrative fines provided for in Article 10, the DG Energy may employ three additional staff members.

In Article 9, the amendment no. 2 was submitted by Mrs Van der Straeten et consorts. It aims to add to Article 9 the following sentence: "The report of these assessments is transmitted to the Federal Parliament", a coherent sentence in the light of similar obligations contained in electricity and gas laws. The Minister acknowledges that parliamentary control is important. However, members of Parliament already now have a right of view on a simple request for all administrative reports.

In Article 16, the President, Mrs Jadin, pointed out that there was a legal correction to be made to the text of this article.

Amendment No. 4 by Ms. Van der Straeten et consorts removes the words "except for a 24-month extension by a royal decree deliberated in the Council of Ministers"; the member also wanted to know whether the maximum extension could exceed the date of 30 June 2013.

The Minister disapproved of the amendment. He wished that the arrangement ⁇ ined the possibility of renewing, by a royal decree deliberated in the Council of Ministers, commitments for two years. The Government will, of course, take into account the assessments and other reports available. It is clear that this royal decree must take place before 30 June 2011.

It therefore confirms that the law will cease to be in force by 30 June 2013.

In Article 14, the President, Ms. Jadin, noted that this article is superfluous since Article 108 of the Constitution stipulates that the King makes the regulations and decrees necessary for the execution of laws.

As regards votes, the articles to which no amendment has been submitted, as well as the amendment submitted by the majority, were voted unanimously. Amendments submitted by the opposition were rejected and articles to which the opposition had submitted amendments were voted by a majority, with the opposition abstaining.

Article 14 was obviously rejected unanimously because it no longer had a reason to be.

The entire draft law as amended through the legal corrections was adopted by 10 votes and 3 abstentions.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the services who, with only 24 hours, have done their utmost to make the report in both languages available today on your benches.

During the discussion, the minister used the terms "to the hussard". This is how the services worked, and I congratulate them.

Mrs. Burgeon, I thank you for your full report.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, allow me to thank Mrs. Burgeon for her very comprehensive report.

Directive 2003/30 of the European Parliament aims to promote the use of biofuels in the Member States. The Belgian indicative figures in this regard are fixed by royal decree to 5.75% of biofuels. In order to ⁇ this goal, Parliament adopted, on 10 June 2006, a law taxing incentives for the incorporation of biofuels in road diesel and gasoline.

Unfortunately, – and we had noted this on this tribune several weeks ago, Mr. Minister – this incentive policy has not been sufficient because the oil companies incorporate little biofuels and the taxed quotas are far from being reached.

Based on this finding, the present draft provides for an obligation to incorporate biofuels at 4% during a first 24-month period. The General Directorate of Energy will deal with the SPF Finance with the control of the law and its decisions.

That being said, some clarifications should be made. The MR group will of course support this law because it is balanced in four respects. First, it is balanced in terms of the impact of the new obligation on consumer prices.

Indeed, according to our information, the incorporation of biofuels creates a surplus cost for the final consumer but this is largely offset by the taxation provided. by Mr. The Minister communicated figures in the commission that it could even see a decrease in the final cost because the surplus cost of 10 euros per 1,000 litres is erased by a reduced tax rate of 16 euros per 1,000 litres.

The second balance concerns the sustainability criterion considered. Indeed, not having been able to have the European directive in preparation in this regard in time, even though Mrs. Van der Straeten handed it over to us, the draft does not include strict criteria in the field of pesticides, in the field of non-competition with food products and in the protection of primary forests. In addition, these criteria will be further strengthened through the royal decrees in preparation.

The third balance lies in the indispensable addition that this obligation of incorporation will generate in the Belgian factories that process these products but also and above all in the farmers of this country who are in an incredible economic distress, as has been noted recently. Of course, biofuels cannot and should not be the only solution for the agricultural world, but they will in any case contribute to this solution.

The fourth balance lies in the implementation and evaluation timeframes it is expected to have. The Minister insisted: the law will be evaluated and the royal decrees will take into account changes made at the European level.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, here are the four great balances and the four main reasons for the MR Group’s total support for this project.

Mr. Speaker, dear colleagues, you ⁇ doubt the interest of the Ecolo-Groen Group! In the case of biofuels, which we prefer to call agrofuels. First of all, I will change my vocabulary.

Biofuels are a kind of mirage. They allowed us, instead of reducing our mileage consumption, to imagine that it would be possible for us to drive with biomass energy.

In doing so, we have forgotten to question our car fuel consumption. We also assumed that agricultural land was extensible and that we could use it massively for energy production, even when the food crisis was already on the rise. This mirage had dramatic consequences. Quite quickly, we were able to see that the announcement of European targets first of 5% and then of 10% has aroused expectations and hopes of the European Union buying biomass fuels. This has led to speculation in many emerging countries. Instead of growing for food, many engaged in oil palm or sugar cane crops. It has also been speculated on colza, soybeans, etc. All could be used for agrofuels and exported to Europe. Unfortunately, this movement is on the way in many countries. Large companies appropriated land. Farmers were expelled and human rights violated. Some areas have been destroyed by deforestation. Precious sites of biodiversity have disappeared due to the indirect effect of the increased cultivation of agrofuels.

I would like here to recall the opinion of the Federal Council for Sustainable Development (CFDD) because it seems interesting to me, in the sense that it expresses a consensus at the level of the social partners in Belgium. I quote: “Knowing whether biofuels can contribute to reducing greenhouse gas emissions depends mostly on the type of biomass, land use and whether or not indirect emissions are taken into account. The CFDD therefore reiterates the need, above all, to promote a general mobility policy focused on demand management, a fair price for all modes of transport, the development of alternatives to road and air transport, technological innovations, area planning, better labour organisation and better management of employment rates. He further said: “The target of 10% of biofuels can currently be achieved only if the European Union introduces large-scale biofuels.”

I would also like to remind you that we must use 11% of the useful agricultural area to produce, for example in Belgium, 5.75% of our fuels by biomass. If we want to reach 10%, we must use between 15 and 20% of the agricultural area. Are we ready to sacrifice this agricultural land? We know that this is not realistic and that we will inevitably have to use imports to ⁇ these goals. We will then address the induced effects that can be dramatic on the social and environmental levels.

The Greens group in the European Parliament has thus effectively challenged this goal. We did the same in the various parliamentary halls. We called for a moratorium. We demand that biofuels ⁇ an effective reduction of at least 60%. It seems us unnecessary to use so much energy to produce biomass that does not save so much CO2 and greenhouse gases. We also want to associate this measure with a policy of reducing the consumption of cars.

At the federal level, we would be for a more subtle taxation, based on the CO2 emissions produced. This may be subject to further reflection. This is at least one of the measures we have supported.

What happened in the meantime? The Renewable Energy Directive was voted in the European Parliament and was published in the Official Journal earlier this month.

The criteria set are a 35% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions – this is a minimum. Other criteria are interesting – although for us they are not sufficient – in that they indicate that biofuels cannot be produced from raw materials from land of high value in terms of biodiversity. It cites primary forests, turbines and a whole series of areas included in the International Convention on Biodiversity.

This text has been worked with precision and we recognize its qualities. We believe that it should now serve as a reference.

This is our disappointment with the bill we are presenting today. Mr. Minister, you knew that these criteria, published in the Official Journal, were in the European Directive published in March. You could use them in this bill. We do not understand why you did not do it. This is the subject of our main amendment, which we reintroduce today hoping to convince you.

We are in favor of the majority amendment that amended the original text saying that a biofuel from agricultural practices that used as little pesticides as possible could be called sustainable. This was in the first text, rather vague. Here, you have taken back the eco-conditionality. If you could take back the eco-conditionality text, I don’t see why you could not take back the text of the directive that is at your disposal and that can be transposed into that law.

I come to your objection that Belgian production units would be subject to less constraints than agrofuel importers. Why not change the 2006 law and the approval criteria for those production units that we want to support?

We maintain an amendment that focuses primarily on the nature of sustainability criteria and an amendment on the question of traceability and control. We are not opposed to the mandatory incorporation of biofuels produced by these authorised units in Belgium and which are subject to taxation but we want more serious criteria. That is why we will abstain, unless our amendments are accepted.

Mr. Speaker, colleagues, despite Mrs. Burgeon’s very comprehensive report, in which my arguments were sufficiently clearly outlined, I would still like to use this forum. When the committee broke out yesterday, there seemed to be a small misunderstanding. Collega Lalieux, who is not here today, said between nose and lips: you see now, the Greens are against biofuels!

I would like to say clearly that the Greens are indeed against biofuels and against the use of biomass when it comes to cutting off biofuels in cars. It is definitely not a sustainable measure. I am not convinced of it in terms of CO2 and it is ⁇ not a solution to the mobility issue as a whole, which ultimately is about moving in a different way.

I am not alone with this determination. I always listen with great pleasure to another PS colleague, Mr. Cornil, who does not neglect to speak in various forums, such as in the Special Committee on Climate, as Mr. De Schutter has come to speak, to point out the harmful effects of unconscious use of biomass in the form of biofuels for cars. Mrs. Lalieux understood this very well. I think she should listen carefully to her party counterpart, Mr. Cornil, because there are really other, better applications for biomass than making it fuel.

The position of my party is clear. We support strictly certified biomass for the production of heat and electricity, which is much more efficient than making biofuels. I have said several times in the committee and also here in the plenary session that today in our country we are the victims of a schizophrenic policy in which several ministers several years ago believed at different levels of competence to have seen the light and strongly encouraged biofuels. All buses should run on biofuels. A certain industry has emerged that has been devoted to it. In this sense, I also understand that the bill is being dealt with today. After all, it is a temporary transitional measure, as it may not be intended to overlook certain companies.

It is a bit of a missed opportunity. For these criteria, there is a European directive, and it is clear. However, the criteria are not included in the draft law in the same exhaustive manner, on the one hand, and there are several texts side by side using different criteria, on the other hand.

It is a thorn in the eye for me and for my group that an exemption from evidence is granted when it comes to existing companies, the approved production establishments. They no longer need to provide evidence of sustainability, as they had already to meet certain criteria in order to get their recognition. It is not desirable to create a certain form of discrimination. In this regard, even a temporary measure could have been a little more consistent.

I can take limited peace with it, because it is a temporary measure, up to two plus two years, thus up to four years. It would end, you clearly said, Mr. Minister, in 2013. We are willing to collaborate on this, with all our expertise and all possible input. The time has come to develop a consistent vision and a consistent policy on biomass. In this regard, I expect much from the Biomass Observatory. In the Spring of the Living Environment it was promised that there will be work on the transparency of the chain. I know that the regions find this annoying and wonder why this should be done at the federal level. I hope that the federal and regional levels will join forces to develop, from the Spring of the Living Environment, a consistent vision.

In this way, we will no longer have to deal with repair legislation, as we do today. This could be the start of a structural policy that uses biomass in the most efficient way. With current knowledge, this will be more for electricity and heat than for mobility applications in the form of fuel.

The import of biomass should be avoided. After all, the examples we have today involve a very strong competition with food, but also with biodiversity and other matters.

I would like to close my eyes, given the past, but I hope this is not an excuse to leave things blue in the future, as is the case today. I hope that in the future the cow will be taken by the horns and a better and more consistent policy will be developed, where all entities in this country are backed and where all stakeholders, including industry and energy producers, are backed. Sustainability should be exhaustive and at the top of the agenda, but should not be an annoying appendix.

In this case, Europe imposed a legal framework in 2003: “Member States must ensure that a minimum share of biofuels and renewable fuels is made on the market.”

In 2005, a royal decree set the indicative figures. It is good to remind them: in 2005, 2%, plus an annual growth base of 0.75%. In 2006, tax incentives were chosen in order to fit in this logic; it is a 2006 law that allowed reduced excise rates for biofuels.

We are in 2008. The Minister reminded us of this in the committee, but we saw it: the results did not follow. The percentage of biofuels would have been only 1.15% in 2007 and will even be less than 1% in 2008. It was therefore, as was specified in the committee, to change the method: instead of a purely incentive method, where one would let the market, it would be to choose a more directistic and more compelling method.

It is apparently the only one that would prove effective since, it must be believed, oil companies are reluctant to incorporate biofuels either because the tax incentives would be insufficient, which appears to us obviously untrustworthy, or because there would be technical difficulties, which appears to us also resolute, or because they do not intend to open the door to potential competitors, which could be more credible.

The system implemented, after the change of method, aims to impose at least 4% per year from 1 July next year.

The key element in the arrangement to be implemented is obviously that of the sustainability criteria. We all agree and the submitted amendment aims to emphasize this aspect of things: it cannot be considered in this context that the raw materials come from agricultural areas outside the European area. It cannot be accepted to use products from other countries of the planet to satisfy this need.

To supplement the statements of other speakers, I recall that in 2003, Europe had previously known the system of crawlers; it may be forgotten, but this system required our farmers not to exploit part of their agricultural land, which is a nonsense in relation to the simple economic reality.

Mr. Minister, we will be attentive to the royal decree that will be taken. It could indeed be even more precise in terms of sustainability criteria. It will be important to be very clear in this regard. If we fit into this logic, it may be necessary to review all the devices more clearly in the short term. But in any case, the arrangement provided by the law is part of a logic that must be followed.

Mr. Speaker, dear colleagues, during the discussion in the committee, our group abstained from voting on the whole bill and we supported most amendments from the opposition.

Our group will approve the bill in globo in the plenary session, because we believe, contrary to what Ms. Van der Straeten says, that gasoline and diesel should be mixed with biofuels in a more mandatory way. I would immediately add that there should indeed be a fundamental debate about biofuels, Mrs. Van der Straeten. The hype, which arose about biofuels a few years ago, is indeed over. So we would rather have a fundamental debate about the usefulness or inutility of biofuels.

I will abstain from voting in the plenary session, unlike the rest of my group, because I want to express my concern about three points in the bill.

First, the environment is actually a competence of the Regions. The present draft law may partially enter the area of the competences of the Regions.

I refer to the opinion of the State Council, where, however, there remains clear doubts as to whether anything belongs entirely to the competence of the federal government. For example, on page 20 of the opinion, we read: "The explanatory note shows that the proposers of the draft scheme with the proposed scheme apparently do not intend to establish product standards or technical regulations" Therefore, according to the State Council, it would not fall within the competence of the federal government.

A little further: “The State Council, however, cannot get rid of the impression that with the proposed arrangement the field of product standards” – read federal jurisdiction – “is entered”. There is, however, a contradiction that we want to express our concern about.

Second, a general policy on biofuels – in this regard I join a number of colleagues – does not exist in Belgium. The present draft law does not end this. We remain in the cold.

Mr. Minister, we also have concerns about some uncertainties and vagues in the bill. I refer to page 28, article 2, 8° “sustainable biofuels”. It is about using “as little fertilizer as possible”. That is little accurate. I quote: “The raw materials must not come from agricultural land outside the EC which has recently been the subject of deforestation.” We do not think this is such a good legislation.

Basically, we agree with the majority to impose more mixing with biofuels.

Mr. Speaker, our group has a few comments. Most biofuels will be produced from food crops. I quote former Prime Minister Leterme: “It is unethical to convert food into fuel at a time when one billion people are starving.”

Secondly, we are also not fully satisfied with the sustainability criteria. That is why we will abstain.