Proposition 53K2340

Projet de loi portant assentiment à l'Accord entre l'Union économique belgo-luxembourgeoise, d'une part, et le Gouvernement de la République du Kosovo, d'autre part, concernant l'encouragement et la protection réciproques des investissements, fait à Pristina le 9 mars 2010.

General information ¶

Submitted by

The Senate

Submission date

May 10, 2012

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

Belgo-Luxembourg Economic Union Kosovo international agreement investment

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

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

Abstained from voting

Groen Ecolo

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 ¶

July 19, 2012 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

by Mr. Herman De Croo, rapporteur, refers to his written report

Mr. Speaker, dear colleagues, the bill approving the agreement between the Belgian-Luxembourg Economic Union and the Government of the State of Qatar, as well as the other projects that you mentioned, have already been the subject of numerous discussions, Mr. Minister, with our colleagues in the Senate.

In fact, beyond simple bills with consent, these texts have been a valuable opportunity to point out a ratification procedure that poses some problems. This is not an anodin act. They are not so in view of the importance of the social and environmental clauses contained in these texts, which will have to be fully taken into account in such agreements that will be concluded in the future, in particular with Indonesia. These clauses are, for my group, indispensable, as is reciprocity, to which my group attaches a particular importance.

Therefore, it is for us to give the assemblies the opportunity to influence and infuse a more democratic dimension on the model of these investment protection agreements, even though our country already appears to be one of the most proactive for obtaining these clauses.

Thus, as I pointed out in the committee, a request from Parliament ahead of negotiation of this type of agreement could be beneficial. For my group, this is a certainty: we cannot devote the primacy of investors over states and it is important to ensure reciprocity between the contracting parties.

Given the relatively immutable nature of these bills and the work already carried out on this subject by the Senate, in the field of hearings in particular, my group will support these texts, since these clauses are fully incorporated there.

However, the question now arises is how to verify compliance with these famous social and environmental clauses.

Therefore, during our committee, I made, on behalf of my group, a formal and imperative request, the one to include in the reports of all these bills the three recommendations made by my colleague, Marie Arena, as the rapporteur of these texts to the Senate, namely:

– first, in the future, Parliament will need to be informed of the opening of future APPIs and of the work of the European Commission so that up-to-date work can be carried out;

- Secondly, the social and environmental clauses must be accompanied by actual binding measures and evaluation opportunities and therefore, where appropriate, reform of the text templates for negotiations;

Third, it is absolutely necessary that a clause be provided in future agreements in order to preserve the right of States to regulate.

Some will say that these recommendations are utopian, that they are surreal. Let me contradict them: these are principles. But these same principles are the very soul of our work as parliamentarians. In an interconnected world, how can we care about respect for workers and the environment here and not with our economic partners?

Now that these three recommendations are fully reflected in the report of Mr. De Croo, whom I thank even though he is absent for the moment, I would like to conclude by saying that I hope that our assembly, together with the Senate, will be able to continue its work in this direction, as the minister has committed to do in the future. We will therefore be attentive to the organization of a debate on the modalities for negotiating future TIBs (Bilateral Investment Treaties), in particular in view of the significant evolution of the European context in this area.

On 1 June 2009, Belgium had concluded investment treaties with 90 countries, most of them developing or transition countries.

These agreements have remained quite consistent over time and follow a traditional European model: they are brief and poorly detailed, define investments in general, prohibit host governments from discriminating against foreign investments in favor of domestic investments or investments from third countries; they require these governments to be treated fairly and fairly; they force host governments to allow foreign investors to transfer funds and to repatriate capital.

These are the same requirements for the host countries. Sometimes they even limit their ability to legislate for a public interest that would be the social or environmental interest.

Fortunately, Belgium has already improved the model of bilateral agreements: with Madagascar from 2005, with Korea in 2006, of which we talked recently. These revised agreements included various principles and details, the most notable of which are clauses on the relationship between investment protection and the protection of labour and environmental rights.

These provisions are incorporated into what is logical to call the Belgian model of bilateral investment treaty of 2002. Nevertheless, it is in line with Belgium’s previous practices in that it follows the European model widely.

Although this latter ABI model contains certain clauses indicating an attempt to ensure mutual reinforcement of the policies of the Contracting Parties, in our opinion, the text should still be subject to many important revisions and clarifications to promote sustainable development and preserve the capacity of the policy, the ability of States to sometimes establish rules to protect both their workers and their environment, even if it is at the expense of certain investments.

Finally, there is the problem of conflict resolution. A system of settlement of investor/state conflicts allows to resort to international arbitration courts and escape the justice of partner states. This can affect both Belgium and the partner country. This type of conflict resolution is heavily criticized by the social partners as it is poorly transparent and does not allow workers to assert their rights. It constitutes a rather excessive privilege for investors and it weakens the local legal system. In fact, it undermines the ability of governments to conduct policies of social and environmental protection and promotion. That is why our group remains suspicious of these agreements. The Minister’s representative also acknowledged in a committee that the social and environmental clauses were not binding and that there was no control mechanism to verify their implementation.

Today we will ratify an agreement with Qatar. In Qatar, there are 85% of migrant workers whose rights are virtually nonexistent. They live in sometimes inhumane conditions and cannot appeal to trade unions. The situation of migrant workers in Qatar is catastrophic socially. How, with this agreement, will we be able to ensure the protection of these workers through our investments? The question is, for us, still too open, even though we recognize the progress made.

We have submitted a proposal for a resolution which we hope to be dealt with as soon as possible in the Committee on Foreign Affairs in order to improve the Belgian model of the agreement and inspire the future European model, which will soon take its place. We call for a strengthening of social clauses, an improvement in the definition of labour legislation so as to incorporate freedom of association, the right to collective bargaining, non-discrimination, the eradication of forced labour and child labour. These points must be explicitly addressed. In addition, it will be necessary to provide that any ILO convention ratified by the country is respected within the framework of this agreement.

We want to demand both sides commitment to comply with the OECD Guidelines on Multinational Enterprises and the ILO Tripartite Declaration on Multinational Enterprises and Social Policy.

I then pass you a whole set of claims that appear in this resolution, which is still in the services, but which must be taken into consideration very soon.

Our second request is to strengthen the environmental clauses and change their wording to make them more affirmative and binding, for example by ensuring the protection of the territories and resources classified as UNESCO World Heritage – I refer to the Congo.

We also want these agreements to be concluded with the very clear will to avoid violations of food sovereignty and access to land. In particular, we want the idea of applying FAO’s voluntary guidelines for responsible governance of land regimes applicable to land, fisheries and forests to be explicitly reaffirmed. We wish that these investments do not impair the national food supply by allocating land to energy or non-food crops for export.

Finally, we want to avoid capturing natural resources such as water at the expense of local communities.

You see, we are asking for a more precise and explicit text. And I hope that we will receive the support of our partners, especially in coherence with Ms. Vienne’s remarks. Thus, the Belgian model of bilateral investment agreements will be improved. In addition to this clause, control and sanction mechanisms should of course be provided.

In anticipation of this guarantee, our group will abstain from ratifying these agreements.

Mr. Speaker, dear colleagues, I would like to thank the rapporteur for the summary of the discussions that took place in committees, for this treaty as well as for the other treaty texts that are submitted to Parliament today.

As regards the interventions in the session, I take good note of the various recommendations. Consultations have already taken place to improve the information of parliamentarians from both the House and the Senate. We will continue this type of information and special session at the end of October and we will try to approach the discussion as early as possible. From this point of view, progress is real. I also welcome the return of the speaker to the session.

In addition, I would like to remind you that Belgium is at the forefront of a number of debates, in particular on social and environmental clauses. However, progress is always possible.

The [...]

After a brief speech by Ms. Vienne, the general discussion will be closed. You are not obliged to intervene, Mr. De Croo!

I regret not having arrived on time.

Mr. Speaker, I wanted to thank the Minister and tell him that if Belgium is at the forefront, we can always do better. In any case, we will be attentive and will support the efforts made in this regard.