Proposition 53K1894

Projet de loi modifiant la loi du 12 juillet 1973 sur la conservation de la nature.

General information ¶

Submitted by

CD&V Leterme Ⅱ

Submission date

Nov. 23, 2011

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

administrative sanction protection of animal life protection of plant life zoo transit import restriction environmental protection export animal welfare

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

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

Contact form ¶

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

Discussion ¶

June 7, 2012 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

I would like to briefly recall the general lines of this law on the protection of nature. We were waiting for it for a while when it was introduced in the Public Health Commission. Before I begin, I must remind you that the commercialization of non-indigenous plant and animal species is indeed a regional competence. It was therefore necessary for the federal state to legislate on the import, export and transit of non-indigenous plant and animal species.

While it is important for the Regions to act in terms of marketing, it is also appropriate for the federal to intervene, since we are aware of the danger posed by certain species both in terms of biodiversity and health.

The law provides that the King may regulate, suspend or prohibit the import, export and transit of these species. It may also submit these acts to prior notification or set the conditions thereof.

I come to three other elements, in addition to the possibilities left by the royal decree. A federal advisory council can first be established, able to give opinions in these different areas – but only, of course, when they fall within the federal competence. Sectorial agreements may also be concluded with companies that participate in the dispersion of these non-indigenous animal or plant species. The last point is practical. This is the implementation of sanctions – criminal or administrative – to be taken when the law is not complied with. It was time to clarify again the respective roles of the actors who will have to take these sanctions.

The discussion was not very long. Some remarks have been made, in particular regarding marketing – which is well, I repeat, a regional competence. Thanks to the help of the Secretary of State, we were able to solve another issue, which Mrs. Muylle had raised. The law provides for sectoral agreements provided that the signatory organisations demonstrate that they have legal personality. But we know well that, in the horticultural sector, some of them do not have them and are constituted as de facto associations. This problem was resolved by an amendment submitted by the majority and approved by the majority of the groups.

Sectorial agreements can therefore be concluded, even if some actors in the sector do not have this legal personality.

It was necessary to legislate on this subject. This bill is important because it responds to a demand from the sector. The cooperation with the regions has been effective. The proof that this is a good bill is that it was voted unanimously by the commission.

Mr. Speaker, dear colleagues, our group will support this bill that is submitted to us. We attach great importance to this problem of import, export and transit of non-indigenous plant or animal species, since it is known that some can pose problems because they are invasive and undermine biodiversity. As Ms Schyns said, other cases can harm animal and human health.

We worked very constructively on this project. I asked a number of questions to the Minister. The first was the marketing. If one can settle import, export and transit, one must also be able to settle what will be put on the market in Belgium by manufacturing certain plants. In our gardens and in our shops, we still find plants, invasive species fought by public authorities and regions. There is a certain contradiction here. I hope that the minister will convince his colleagues from the federated entities to be consistent between what will be voted today and what will happen at the level of the federated entities.

The reservation I expressed concerned sectoral agreements. There was the question of legal personality or not, which was settled by an amendment. However, if sectoral agreements apply to those who have signed them, what about those who will not have signed them? How will the established rules be applied to all? Regulation for all remains preferable to the conclusion of agreements that would concern only some or trigger the accession of only some in the sector.

For the rest, it is obviously relevant to establish administrative sanctions and fines to make consistent the application of the measures we are going to vote on. We will remain vigilant on these issues of invasive plants that undermine biodiversity. This remains one of our concerns at all levels.

I would like to respond briefly.

The law opens the opportunity to conclude these sectoral agreements which then apply to the entire sector.

There are even articles that are incorporated into the law, in particular Article 5ter, which have a character of public order and which will therefore have to apply to the entire sector. This is why, through sectoral agreements, binding mechanisms within these sectors can be provided.

Furthermore, with regard to marketing, as you pointed out, it falls within the regional competence. However, I hope that this type of text will have the purpose of unifying federal and regional policies. However, this is an obligation of means and not results.