Proposition 53K2110

Proposition de résolution relative à la Conférence des Nations Unies "Rio + 20" sur le Développement durable.

General information ¶

Authors

N-VA Bert Wollants
PS | SP Christiane Vienne

Submission date

March 16, 2012

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

UN Conference sustainable development climate change environmental protection resolution of parliament development aid

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

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

Abstained from voting

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 ¶

March 21, 2012 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

I refer to this in my written report.

That being said, I immediately address my speech on behalf of the PS group.

The technical group chaired by my colleague Julie Fernandez Fernandez took the European Parliament resolution of 29 September 2011 as the basis for discussion. Collegiate and effective work has resulted in a text that will reflect the sensitivities of our Parliament. However, we share most of the concerns of our European counterparts. We can rejoice because we must not forget that Rio is a global summit where, like many international meetings, the union of Europeans will be their main force.

Furthermore, I welcome with the PS Group that the concept of “just transition” is expressly included in the proposal. It will indeed be about ensuring that this necessary transition to a sustainable economy is conducted intelligently for workers in the sectors concerned, which should not be left on the road.

The issues of this summit are crucial. As the resolution correctly recalls, the future generations discussed in 1992 in Rio have become those of today. Meanwhile, we are far from having taken the whole road that the Rio Summit has yet to pav.

Mr. Minister, dear colleagues, it is here to talk about the preparation of a United Nations summit that should be decisive for the model of civilization that we want to defend and leave to our children. In June, all states should agree on how to manage a common heritage and, above all, to share it for the benefit of present and future generations. This is a real challenge.

At this summit, we will have to recognize and accept a certain bankruptcy of the Western development model, which has not integrated the limits of growth and the scarcity of resources. This is something that fascinates me personally. Economists have always considered that economic growth had no boundaries and did not integrate the boundaries of natural capital.

Today, we are aware of this because, in relation to a population that will grow from six to ten billion individuals, a problem of resource scarcity arises: non-renewable resources, that is, those that currently provide us with energy; renewable resources, that is, those that depend on the state of infrastructure (soil, water and space). This is a huge challenge, to which our country, within the European Union, must prepare itself.

I am pleased with the process that has been started here, as sustainable development and the follow-up of these international negotiations have entered the Parliament. This is quite recent. Previously, this topic was not discussed. Then, because, Mr. Minister, you are present among us; you are in charge of Sustainable Development, Finance and a member of the kern. You have also, in your recent speeches in the committee, stated the voluntary nature of your commitment to a strong definition of sustainable development.

You are aware that it will not be easy. It will not be about holding speeches that “everything will go well”, “we will continue growth, reduce poverty and continue to exploit resources.” You are aware of the limits of this reasoning and that certain costs will have to be borne, even though we all know that the cost of inaction is higher than the costs that will follow our action. I came back from a session in the European Parliament, where I heard Commissioner Potocnik deliver the same speech. You are aware of these difficulties. At the same time, the will within the European Union is to hold a strong and common discourse.

Two major themes are at the heart of this conference: green economy and governance.

When we learned that Rio+20 would focus on the concept of green economy, we feared that this would weaken the overall concept of sustainable development. It is important not to consider only the economic dimension or simply add a green touch to it. I will cite the example of a MEP who talked about BMWs that now consume less fuel and who talked about green economy. If it is this type of example that is highlighted, it worries me a little.

The green economy means for us that we need to make a transition to sustainable societal models. We have been useful in the definition of the resolution. We insisted that green economy should be defined as follows: “Green economy must be understood as a whole economy that operates within the limits of sustainability in terms of biodiversity, preservation of ecosystem services, climate protection and use of natural resources.” We also emphasize that more weight should be given to human, social, environmental and natural capital. Sustainable development is much more than a green economy. Therefore, we should not allow ourselves to be locked in a mono-dimensional reasoning.

Important things can be done for this green economy. In particular, it must be measured. I would like to remind you that we have submitted a bill aiming at ensuring that our country is endowed with indicators. For example, a synthetic indicator that measures the state of our natural and environmental capital and a social synthetic indicator. This seems to us very important. We cannot continue to talk about sustainable development and resource conservation without having standards to measure our consumption and the balance between resource renewal potential and consumption.

We also submitted a proposal to revise the Constitution so that Belgium – we want this to happen at all levels – tends toward the balance between resource consumption and replacement over the same period. This is absolutely not the case today. We are sometimes very proud of our achievements in reducing CO2 emissions or reducing certain pollution, but our ecological footprint far exceeds the potential for renewable resources. We spend our time importing resources and consuming them so quickly that they cannot renew themselves. We take resources in emerging countries or in countries that need them.

This concept of balance between consumption and renewal of resources seems to us essential. I suggest that the government and parliament go and say it at the Rio Conference, but that they also discuss with us the bills submitted by our group.

The second point that the summit will address is the issue of international governance for sustainable development. Some things need to be absolutely reinforced. Indeed, when we review these twenty years and find that we have not stopped the degradation of resources, poverty and the difficulties of a large part of the population in accessing a minimum of resources, water, energy and housing, I think that the governance of sustainable development at the international level must be greatly strengthened. It must be reinforced by a Sustainable Development Council, a UN council, and not just by a commission as it is now. In addition, the UN environmental institutions must also be strengthened. We advocate for an environmental agency that is put on the same level as other UN branches and that can benefit from a more equal strength ratio compared to other international treaties and trade standards, such as those of the WTO.

We also advocate for the establishment of an international court to deal with conflicts and impose sanctions. As long as there is no instrument for conflict management and sanctions, despite the beautiful statements, there will be no means of management or control.

In governance, Mr. Minister, I suggest that you support – you said you would, but the voice of Belgium must be very proactive! – the introduction of the Financial Transaction Tax, which can be an instrument of financing this international progress towards sustainable development.

I would like to address the water issue. Water should be seen as a common good, a public good. Unfortunately, this has not been included in the text of our resolution and I regret it. For the rest, I think this is a good text. There was an exchange, a sharing, quite interesting between all the groups.

I therefore entrust you with this resolution proposal, hoping that you will carry it and that we will be able to follow you and support you in these negotiations. We will also ensure that you are very volunteer within the European Union.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, Colleagues, first of all, I would like to thank the colleagues who, on the recommendation of the Speaker of the Chamber, made the effort to draw up this draft resolution in a special technical working group.

Just like the European Parliament resolution of 29 September 2011 on the development of a common European position, on which it is based, it has become a cane of a proposal for a resolution.

Everything that would relate to global sustainable development has really been considered, taking into account both socio-economic factors and ecological aspects.

Nevertheless, the colleagues were able to get rid of their tasks quite quickly. There was no real parliamentary discussion to reach a wide-chamber resolution. It may have been a fun, constructive conversation, but there has not been a real parliamentary discussion, because the ambetanterics, the non-conformist Flemish-Belangers, were not welcome in this special technical working group.

You are probably ordinary and we are also ordinary, but yet I find it weird. In the last paragraph, paragraph 109 of the resolution, the working group itself calls for the active involvement of parliamentary representatives in the Rio+20 Conference. I suppose that in a democracy we mean all parliamentary representatives, but I have not been able to experience that in any case.

Nevertheless, we must acknowledge, I expressly acknowledge, that there are many positive points in this resolution. Most of the comments and recommendations are even praiseworthy.

Therefore, we will not vote against, but we will abstain. We will abstain, not because we were not allowed to play, but because, as is so often the case with resolutions supported across chambers, it is mainly about praiseworthy words and that one does not always go into action.

I have already talked about point 109: listen to my words, but do not look at my deeds. I could also refer to point 49 as an example. Paragraph 49 of the resolution states that access to adequate and healthy food is a fundamental human right. That’s true, and that’s nice, but if one is pointed out in time that the food supply and the agricultural sector, in a country like South Africa, for example, are threatened and that the know-how needed for the local food production is eliminated and expelled, then one looks the other way and refuses to act strongly and coordinated, as demanded in this resolution. That is an example.

Of course, that argument is not heavy enough to prevent us from stepping behind those beautiful words. Our attitude is mainly substantially based. Sustainable development is also at our heart. We will not be prevented, as I have already said in the committee, from thinking about our future. We are also in favor of a green economy and believe that the necessary development of renewable energy forms should take place with the utmost respect for economic, ecological and social balances.

It is positive that the recommendations of the international climate conferences and the IPCC would be integrated into the sustainable development policy. After all, I believe that certain measures intended to be taken within the framework of the Kyoto Goals could drive sustainable development on the wheels. They must therefore be tested for that sustainable development, in order to prevent the remedy from being worse than the disease.

For example, I think of the mass production of biofuels, which could jeopardize local food production. I also think of waste and wood-burning plants that replace fossil-fuel-based electrical installations, but if their fuel or themselves are not of the highest quality, they can affect public health around these plants. I also think of the social disturbance of communities that must evade the establishment of giant hydraulic power plants.

In addition, there is also the distortion of competition that European companies have to face as a result of the high CO2 standards unilaterally imposed by Europe, or the loss of billions of dollars and the loss of jobs as a result of the carbon tax, against which European airlines and the European aviation industry already warn.

In the context of sustainable development, it remains important to also pay attention to the negative effects of this green, low-carbon economy. We fear that further integration of the climate debate and of the IPCC in the Rio+20 United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development will also transfer the pathogenic microbes from the IPCC to the International Conference on Sustainable Development. After all, we agree with Dr. Drieu Godefridi, a liberal philosopher who had the opportunity to develop his statement here last week at the conference on sustainable development that the IPCC is a political institution that formulates policy proposals to mitigate climate change, after having formed a value judgment on certain scientific studies that evaluate the negative effects of climate change. So I’m talking about a value judgment and about certain scientific studies.

What does not fit in the wardrobe should not be published by the IPCC without the approval of the General Assembly, which consists of politicians. With what is published, absolutely no questions should be asked, and that is, in my opinion, highly unscientific.

We ask questions, and we are not alone. The theory of the enormous responsibility of man, the Western man, for the so-called out-of-hand temperature rise due to CO2 emissions, cannot convince us. We are not alone here too. I think only of the courageous presentation of Professor István Markó of the UCL. The absent in the committee for Sustainable Development were wrong, but what benefits candles and glasses if the uil does not want to see. Or not to see.

I will not repeat his statement, but in this discussion I want to address and meet his final plea: for an honest investigation, without a priori, rather than dogmatic consensus; for letting the real world primate on the virtual, feasible society; for a courageous attitude that dares to leave the politically correct framework of thought in order to be able to address the real problems of humanity.

The beautiful words in, among other things, paragraphs 108 and 109 of this proposal for a resolution are a step in the right direction. However, the practice – to which I just referred – and the frequent references to the Kyoto Protocol, the IPCC’s assessment reports on climate change and climate refugees – for which a arrangement should then be developed, because there was some discussion about it in the working group – are for me little hopeful.

Given the lack of genuine open debate and genuine transparency, and given the political abuse of science, my group will assume its responsibility and with conviction abstain from this resolution.

Mr. Speaker, dear colleagues, today we are examining a resolution that concerns more than a hundred requests, largely drafted by the European Parliament and collectively revised by the Sustainable Development Committee. I am delighted that the work has been started from a common basis.

That said, I would like to remind you that this resolution contains very symbolic phrases. So far, Vienne has spoken of a “just transition.” There is also a "green economy" which is also one of the central themes of this resolution.

As far as I am concerned, I would like to insist on the fact that, according to Article 14, this transition must absolutely include all stakeholders, which was undertaken by the Minister, both at the Belgian and international level. On that occasion, he had pointed out that the transition would not be costless, that this transition in terms of employment and for companies would represent costs that should be shared by all. He added that these costs would in any case be lower than those that could have been incurred by inaction. For our part, we wanted to emphasize this aspect by making known that at a certain point, it is action that must prevail.

That said, this Rio Summit should also be an opportunity to set concrete goals that can be measured and controlled. This is not just a statement of good intentions. It must enable real progress by taking into account the three pillars of sustainable development: economic, social and environmental.

In addition, it is necessary to evaluate initiatives already taken at this level, knowing that the interest of the evaluations is to allow adjustments. In this regard, two elements were highlighted and partially added in the resolution under review: I mean the implementation of the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs), but also the need to refine the Sustainable Development Indicators (SDGs).

Many of us have validated the option of finding an indicator that goes beyond GDP, an indicator of growth and well-being.

At this point in the discussion, I would like to tell Ms. Snoy that in the Senate, the Joint Committee on Economy and Finance is currently considering the establishment of a working group on indicators. We can therefore hope that this working group will be launched quickly.

A fifth recommendation: Strengthening the United Nations Environment Programme. Indeed, we would like to transform this PNUE into a specialized agency of the United Nations, which would give it more efficiency and binding power.

Finally, it becomes clear that this resolution covers a multitude of themes: resource management, water, energy, food security, forests, governance issues, of course, and citizen involvement.

We will support this resolution and, in response to the previous speaker, we will remain attentive to the entire climate debate. Indeed, last week, in a committee, we had the opportunity to hear two representatives, which makes it indispensable to engage in a contradictory debate, both scientific and political.

Mrs. De Bont, we will have the opportunity to talk about the environment. The future will tell us not who is right, but how it is possible to act to improve things.