Proposition 53K2350

Proposition de résolution relative à la protection du parc national des Virunga en République démocratique du Congo, site inscrit sur la liste du patrimoine mondial de l'UNESCO.

General information ¶

Authors

CD&V Roel Deseyn
Ecolo Thérèse Snoy et d'Oppuers
LE Christian Brotcorne, Georges Dallemagne
MR Corinne De Permentier
PS | SP Olivier Henry, Rachid Madrane

Submission date

July 10, 2012

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

Democratic Republic of the Congo Unesco extraction of oil heritage protection biodiversity foreign policy mining operation environmental protection resolution of parliament national park nature reserve

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 ¶

Dec. 13, 2012 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

Mrs Christiane Vienne refers to her written report.

Mr. Speaker, colleagues, we have discussed this draft resolution extensively in the committee and I can immediately say that our group has also supported it. We have full respect for such a precious nature reserve and consider it no more than normal that we approve the text.

I would like to make two small remarks here. First, it is about an important natural area, about orang-oetans, about elephants, all very special natural affairs.

However, in the light of the problems in East Congo, the treatment of the draft resolution was a little cynical. We had to discuss the same day about very different issues in that region, which are, however, much more important than the one on which the present text speaks.

Second, it is strange that in Belgium we will adopt a draft resolution that will ask the Congolese to respect their own laws. That seems quite hallucinating. Imagine the opposite. Imagine that a resolution would be adopted in the Congo to ask our country to divide BHV in a proper way. That seems to me defiled. Nevertheless, because of the important green nature of that area, our group has given its support.

My speech will be brief. This debate about the preservation of a natural park, whose biodiversity is threatened by the avid interests of some, deserves our attention.

I would like to thank all the members of the committee for their contributions, especially Mr. Germany for carrying the file.

The issues at the heart of sustainable development have always been important for my group, as well as this region of the world and this country in particular, which is one of our key partners in development cooperation.

While my group is co-signatory of this text, we also amended it to take even better into account the social aspect, but also the need to allow a leverage in the protection of this park through a regional and multilateral approach.

What also matters is the accountability of both public actors and private companies who want to exploit these resources. All relevant initiatives must be taken from the shareholders of the oil companies involved, so that they withdraw from parks and other areas protected by law and international conventions and that, in a general way, they adopt a responsible behavior with regard to biodiversity.

Furthermore, this debate must be widespread at the European level and the international community, in order to truly implement policies for the conservation of forests and ecosystems. Let me, however, open a parenthesis on the actuality. We are all aware here of the heavy regional context, which this resolution indirectly addresses.

Behind the interests of environmental protection is also a complex conflict with multiple facets (human, territorial, natural resources).

For my group, it is more than time for the international community and the European Union to take the necessary measures.

We have always supported the action of Monusco as well as the active promotion, by our country and by the European Union, of the rule of law in Central Africa by fighting impunity, especially in relation to sexual violence.

In addition to the strengthening of Monusco to enable it to better fulfill its mission of protection of civilians, it is urgent that the international community intensify its efforts to ensure respect for the territorial integrity of the Democratic Republic of the Congo and the protection of human rights for the Congolese people, but also to ensure, subsequently, the judgment of all abuses committed in this conflict.

We hope that with the opening of talks last Sunday between the government of the Democratic Republic of Congo and the M23, this conflict can find a peaceful outcome.

Because, I will conclude with this, yes, the extraction of oil, minerals and other resources is possible in areas vital to our planet and its inhabitants but at what price! The price of condemning the future of our planet and future generations, or even the price of the increasing risk of triggering regional conflicts and resulting in social dramas.

This may seem strange, as Mr. Vercarmer said, to talk about the protection of a natural park while it is known that war is going on in this region, that women are raped, that children die. But it is precisely because of the challenge of controlling these natural resources, mining and oil that conflicts take place. Rwanda, Angola and the Democratic Republic of the Congo are fighting this precious and fragile area of eastern Congo, the Kivu, to put their hands on resources.

Behind the rebel movements, guerrillas, miners and those seeking to exploit oil, there are companies. But it is companies present in Belgium, in Europe, companies such as Total and Soco, who have precise goals to put hands on these extremely precious wealth. They do not care much about what will happen to the people.

Behind the Virunga, there are not only gorillas. It’s not just about preserving a park but about the governance we need to establish at the international level on the mining and oil resources.

There is also the whole issue of the fight against global warming. The fact that the Democratic Republic of the Congo preserves its forests and natural areas is obviously equally important to us, as they constitute CO2 wells and prevent the greenhouse gas emissions that deforestation would generate. However, what right can we ask these countries to preserve all their natural heritage while we have destroyed ours and we exploit and consume all the oil and mining wealth that we want to prevent them from exploiting. It is necessary to preserve these areas that are classified as the World Heritage of Humanity for the populations that live there, who live there but who also live from ecotourism or fishing.

We must therefore assume this duty of preservation otherwise than by voting a simple resolution here. We must work with these countries on a form of governance and study the general issue of the exploitation of resources. I would like to quote here the report of the International Crisis Group on the oil exploitation in the Congo entitled: "The black gold of the Congo, risk of instability or opportunity for development?" It is a very recent and very interesting report that makes recommendations to the government of the DRC in favour of a regulation of the oil exploitation, a cross-border negotiation to share deposits and impose rules on these farms as well as on the transparency of payments between companies and governments. This report addresses its recommendations to the Government of the Congo and to international oil companies. Europe must look at the practices of oil companies. This is our primary duty.

I am personally satisfied with the resolution that was voted. It is full of generosity and it is known that some Belgians are very engaged in the management of the Virunga National Park. It is a treasure of humanity that must be preserved. However, in order to be consistent, it is necessary to extend the issue to the practices of multinational companies here and in Europe. There are good intentions in the OECD rules and some EU countries have stricter regulations for the transparency of these companies and to combat government corruption practices.

Therefore, there is still work to be done.

This is what disappointed me in the negotiation of the resolution: amendments brought by our group on the issue of better regulation regarding investment transparency, their control and the sanctioning of corruption practices were rejected by my colleagues.

Like the amendment I introduced on the feasibility study of a compensation mechanism, like the one implemented in the Yasuni Park in Ecuador. I think this initiative sponsored by the United Nations remains an interesting initiative. It consists of supporting a government that has decided to give up oil exploitation under a natural park and to compensate by setting up a fund that serves to finance alternatives to the exploitation of fossil resources.

This is an interesting system. Without claiming that it is perfect, I regret that some did not want to go further in considering this possibility and adapt it to the Virunga Park.

The work is just beginning. We must go much further in the coherence between what we demand here as preservation of a world heritage, a treasure of humanity, and what we could improve in our own practices towards our ⁇ .

Mr. Speaker, dear colleagues, Mr. Minister, everyone knows the Virunga Park, located on the border between Congo, Rwanda and Uganda, which takes its name from the magnificent chain of volcanoes that travel through it, with its eight major volcanoes, two of which are still active: Nyiragongo and Nyamuragira.

The Virunga Park is one of the oldest natural reserves in Africa. It was the first one created in the Congo in 1925. It is home to a flora and fauna of invaluable beauty and rarity, whose diversity is unique in the world, containing endemic species, such as the iconic okapi, and a quarter of the total population of mountain gorillas.

Due to its unique geography and topography, located on this large African fracture that constitutes the Albertin Rift, with its volcanoes, snowed peaks, savannah and primary forest, the Virunga Park is home to almost every imaginable African species.

Since 1979, it has been listed as a World Heritage Site by UNESCO due to its exceptional universal value. But the Virunga Park has, for some time, been in a situation of extreme fragility. Since 1994, it has been listed by UNESCO on the list of World Heritage in Danger. He suffered very serious depredations and enormous aggression. Deforestation is massive. Large flocks of elephants, buffaloes, hippopotams were slaughtered and only 600 of the 30,000 hippopotams that fertilized the shores of Lake Édouard would remain with obvious repercussions on the fish reserves of the lake. The famous gorillas of the park were harassed and the survival of this species itself was a matter of concern. I was confirmed this morning that elephants had been slaughtered in recent weeks in the zone of confrontation between the FDLR and the May May.

It should not be believed that this park is uninhabited. On the contrary, a large population has still lived there but influx of population and refugees have occurred since 1993, especially since the Rwandan genocide, the wars in eastern Congo and human tragedies. Much of the park is now in a situation of armed conflict. Last Friday, another park guard was seriously wounded by bullet and machete.

To this all comes a new risk. This is probably the most serious threat that weighs today on the park, according to the unanimous opinion of observers and defenders of the park. There would indeed be oil in the basement. They were found elsewhere in the Albertin Rift and some are convinced that they might be in the park. The Congolese law, however, is very clear: it prohibits any exploitation and even any oil exploration in the park. Congo has joined the UNESCO Conservation Convention that prohibits any oil exploration and exploration in the park. But this did not prevent an English company, Soco International, whose headquarters is in London but whose operating subsidiaries are based in the Virgin Islands – which says a lot about its probability – from signing in 2010 a production sharing agreement with the Congolese government in order to start exploration activities by penetrating the park, including violently. Soco acts illegally under Congolese law and international law and is in full violation of the OECD Code of Conduct applicable to companies in the field of environmental conservation.

Thierry Vircoulon, whom we received last week in the Foreign Affairs Committee, described the rush to gas and oil in Central Africa as a Niger bis delta.

He meant that there would be, in the future, a ⁇ disturbing cocktail of environmental pillaging, impoverishment of populations, increased circulation of weapons, violence, rivalry between communities, with an additional ingredient: rivalry between states in a context where borders are not always clearly delimited.

Total, another major oil group also active in the region, has obtained a concession agreement that also enters into the Lake of Virunga, even though it has declared – one must be grateful to him – that it wants to refrain from any oil exploitation in the park. All observers therefore agree that there is a clear link between the resurgence of the conflict – other colleagues have referred to it – in eastern Congo and the willingness of certain groups to control the underground natural resources and, in particular, the possible oil resources of the park.

Our resolution is today the important element of a long-term work, since it has raised many questions from several colleagues in the Committee on Foreign Relations, to the Minister of Foreign Affairs; that the Minister himself, by the way, came to tell us in the committee the initiatives he had taken in this regard. This resolution comes to ask, in a clear, firm and clear way, that one stop looting this extraordinary park, that one immediately put an end to the will to exploit its basement, that one prevent the irreparable, so that the populations who live and live there can continue to enjoy it without the depredations seen in recent years.

This resolution addresses clear demands to the Belgian government. She asks that the Government may refer the Commission and the European Council on this issue; that finally the Commission and the Council may take a stance. The resolution also demands that pressure be continued and intensified on the British government, since Soco is British; on the French government, since there remain ambiguities highlighted by UNESCO in particular on the behavior of Total; on the companies concerned and their shareholders. Let us not forget that, when it comes to Total, BNP-Paribas is a major shareholder and that the Belgian State is a shareholder of BNP-Paribas.

The resolution also addresses a request to the Congolese government – it may seem curious, indeed, but I thought it was important not to overlook this element – so that it respects its own laws and cancels disputed contracts signed with the companies concerned. It calls for consideration of sanctions against the companies concerned and to take any useful initiatives with the shareholders of the oil companies involved. In this regard, I would like the Government to ask the Belgian shareholders of Total and Soco, to respond to the call launched by UNESCO at the end of its meeting in St. Petersburg last June, to "submit to the commitments already accepted by Shell and ICMM not to undertake exploration or oil or mining operations within the world heritage assets".

Finally, the resolution insists on the existence of other economic possibilities – and this is a fundamental element – than oil production in the park. They are much more credible in terms of stability, income distribution, sustainability and the interest of the population, than we think of tourism, reasoned fishing, the hydroelectric potential that allows to provide a more serious source of energy than coal and oil. A hydroelectric power plant has just started on the sides of the Rwenzori River. Within some time, it will be able to produce ten megawatts, which will cover the needs of several hundred thousand people in and around the park.

As you can see, it is not about preserving the environment at the expense of the economic interests of the local populations, but to guarantee the biodiversity, the economy and the safety of the populations.

Dear colleagues, the Vice President of Soco has just written to me. I will share the content of this letter with those who are interested. He came, by the way, to send me a second this afternoon. He defends himself from carrying out illegal activities, claiming that his company acts at the invitation of the Congolese government. The validity of such an argument will be appreciated when we know the current state of governance in the Congo. Furthermore, he believes that the situation in the Virunga Park is already so deteriorated that, ultimately, his intervention would not change much to the current situation. The quality of this argument will also be appreciated.

I would like to conclude my speech by paying tribute to all those who fight for the preservation of this exceptional and unique park in the world, sometimes at risk of their lives, in the first place of which the Congolese guards of the site. I would also like to pay tribute to the unwavering mobilization of UNESCO, which has intervened and continues to do so, to preserve this park. I would also like to thank all my colleagues, who fought and helped improve this resolution. In particular, I think of the President of our Commission, Mr. from Donnea, to Mrs. Snoy, who submitted a text, to Mr. Henry, who submitted amendments. I hope that we can continue to work together to ensure that looting – especially oil exploration and exploitation – ends in this park. Finally, I would like to thank the Minister of Foreign Affairs, who mobilized, and ask him to strengthen his involvement in this matter.

Our resolutions and actions carried out for months are not empty. Total has already made commitments, although they are insufficient. Soco is on the defensive, while he has so far been locked in mutism. The British government has taken its distances with the company Soco, although its attitude is far from firm enough.

Soco begins to perceive the cost in terms of image and tomorrow maybe on the course of his action, if he is stubborn. In addition, its exploration activities have decreased considerably. Its agents were forced to retreat to Uganda due to the war, which demonstrates – if it was still useful – that it is extremely random and dangerous to exploit oil in this region.

To these few interesting news, I add real good news, which comes this morning from the Congo: some animals that had disappeared are returning to the park. The recounting of gorillas, after the last events, allowed to confirm that all the groups had been found and that there were six new births.

Mr. Speaker, dear colleagues, I sometimes, I would even say often, have the impression of swimming in full surrealism in this Parliament. While Congolese people are starving every day, we talk to them about ecology!

As an environmental activist, I consider the need to protect the Virunga National Park in the DRC. It is obvious! It is important to protect this park, its biodiversity, its fauna and flora, especially the gorillas that live there and are threatened with extinction.

You will come with me to the Bonobos, if you wish!

They are not there, the Bonobos!

No, they are not there, unfortunately. They may be smarter than some of those who inhabit this Assembly!

Let us go! Let us go!

Mr. Speaker, I am tired of having to systematically suffer the insults of the Socialist Group, every time I speak!

Your comments are not objective.

Your comments are not objective either.

Mr Louis, go on! There are still a lot of projects to discuss!

I know, but it is not my fault.

Obviously, these gorillas are threatened with extinction, but the Congolese people are also being exterminated and millions of deaths have been counted for years! And we, we watch and we even participate in these crimes! That is why, instead of taking care of this park, it would be especially welcome to take care of the well-being of the Congolese who have been oppressed for years.

very well ! Here we are concerned about biodiversity, while the Congolese are starving, their wives, their children are raped, because of the puppet dictator Kabila, whom you defend and who oppresses his people with the support of Rwanda and Belgium, a major player in the Balkanization of the region.

Therefore, I cannot support this ⁇ hypocritical resolution which has no other purpose, no other objective, but to give itself a good conscience, as is customary in this parliament.

We have already oppressed the Congo for more than a hundred years. We do not yet have any order or advice to give to this country. I believe that those who support this resolution should understand one thing: the time of colonies has passed, even though I find that the nostalgia of that time is many among us.

As an opponent of the interference, I can in no way support this hypocritical resolution. I will abstain from voting soon. I don’t understand how one can ask the Congo to respect its own environmental laws while the governments of this country we support and its neighbor Rwanda no longer respect human rights, the most fundamental rights.

We would have been more inspired by abolishing development aid for the benefit of the Democratic Republic of the Congo and for the benefit of Rwanda since this money does not benefit the people in need, but it benefits exclusively to the dictators who lead them, who oppress them.

I will not participate in this simulation of democracy.