Proposition 53K2367

Proposition de résolution sur la vision à long terme en matière de développement durable.

General information ¶

Author

Ecolo Thérèse Snoy et d'Oppuers

Submission date

July 16, 2012

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

sustainable development resolution of parliament

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 ¶

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

Full source

Mr. Speaker, I would like to inform the Assembly of how this resolution has been handled. Parliament is called to give an opinion on a government obligation that was introduced in the 1997 Sustainable Development Act. An amendment introduced in 2010 requires the government to draft, develop a vision for Sustainable Development by 2050. This means that we must think much further than usual and try to think about what we want for our country and our citizens in this long-term perspective.

The review of this vision project has been entrusted to the Climate and Sustainable Development Committee. This was heard by the Interdepartmental Commission for Sustainable Development, which submitted a first project. We then received the Federal Council for Sustainable Development with the social partners. They presented their different projects to us, since there was no single opinion or common vision between the groups, whether it were north-south NGOs, environmental NGOs, employer representatives or trade union representatives. Then, we audited the Plan Bureau, whose Sustainable Development task force developed a series of indicators-related objectives.

After hearing these different points of view, we formulated, as a working group, a series of recommendations on what the long-term vision for Sustainable Development should contain, both methodological and substantive aspects. The working group has thus developed, in a fairly consensual manner, the resolution that is submitted to you today and on which I will return on behalf of my group.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, dear colleagues, at the time when we vote for reforms that will ⁇ mark the history of our country, the resolution that concerns us unfortunately risks to go unnoticed. It does not decide on a new division of powers between authorities, does not interest in the judicial and administrative division of the territory, nor does it aim at the use of languages in municipal councils.

Today, however, looking at the long-term vision of sustainable development is not lacking in relevance. Indeed, the work and hearings conducted in the Climate Commission in recent weeks have reminded members of several obvious things. Evidence to consider – why not? – as guidelines useful to our legislative activities.

First of all, our decisions are in time. The short-term effects sought by a measure do not allow to ignore the long-term impacts. In this regard, our management of natural resources can no longer afford to ignore its limits. Then, our laws and regulations must be adapted to the real space they claim to impact. When we talk about climate change and the environment, the concept of border no longer makes sense: we must take into account the rest of the planet and enter our policies into global logic. There is no other alternative.

Beyond spatial-temporal considerations, it emerges from the criteria that make up this long-term vision the objective of any political decision to ensure the well-being of all our fellow citizens, without hypothesizing that of future generations. A society that aims at the well-being of all must be an inclusive society, a solidary and free society, where everyone can participate and thrive, where access to the best health care and basic goods is assured.

Furthermore, the resolution recalls the essential place of public authorities in ensuring this transition.

We are therefore aware of this responsibility and our role is also to evaluate every law and regulation according to these criteria. Thus, the PS group will vote in favour of this resolution whose content and spirit, centered on the citizen, express what we can only aspire to.

To conclude, dear colleagues, let me remind you of the morality of the fable of La Fontaine "The Rainbow and the Bowl". Remember, the goat, after having drunk, had remained trapped at the bottom of the well, failing to anticipate a way to get out of it; The Fountain to conclude, already at the time: "In everything, one must consider the end."

At the beginning of 2010 the obligation to draw up a long-term vision was introduced in the Act of 5 May 1997 on the coordination of the federal policy on sustainable development. Such a long-term vision includes the long-term objectives that the federal government should pursue in its policies. It stands above the established cycle of federal plans and sustainable development reports. It also serves as a guide for the legal actors, namely the Interdepartmental Commission, the Federal Planning Bureau and the Federal Council for Sustainable Development. The law also stipulates that the long-term vision is drafted by the King after a parliamentary debate, together with the organised civil society.

In order to concrete the Parliament’s contribution to the long-term vision, CD&V proposed that a resolution be drawn up, together with the colleagues. The result is a broadly translated text, which was prepared after hearings with the legal actors and is presented for voting here today. The role of Parliament will be further strengthened by the Minister’s commitment to come to discuss the final long-term vision in Parliament before it is approved in the Council of Ministers.

For CD&V, it is important that the long-term vision is based on a number of fundamental principles. The pursuit of a socially inclusive society, creating sustainable economic growth, caring for the environment, achieving international solidarity and working according to the rules of good governance are essential for our group. Those principles were therefore translated in the text into a series of objectives to be pursued.

However, I would like to highlight some clarifications that are of particular interest to our group, namely the elimination of all discrimination based on gender, race and sexual orientation, ensuring access to lifelong learning, quality education and healthcare for all, taking the community economy as a starting point with an alternative indicator for GDP as the basis, focusing on sustainable production and consumption and also ⁇ ining Belgium’s pioneering role at European level, including in terms of climate targets. Colleagues, it is now important that the Government also, within the agreed timing and based on the input of the legal actors and the Parliament, develops a broad, long-term vision.

The Government also faces the difficult challenge of translating the objectives reached into effective, ambitious and credible indicators. Actually, the work is only beginning now. A long-term vision is beautiful on paper, but only has value when it is put into practice. It must serve as a guide and teststone for the policy of every day, not only for us, policymakers, but also for families, ⁇ and civil society groups, among others. Therefore, it is also important that the long-term vision is not only broadly carried out, but also widely known.

Today we are voting for a first step on a long road. I would like to thank my colleagues for their cooperation. The text that we put to the vote today also gives the voice of the Parliament. It is now up to the Minister to do his job. We look forward to his vision after the summer.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker. As the rapporteur, Ms Snoy, recalled, our Subcommittee on Climate and Sustainable Development has been able to adopt a comprehensive, balanced and ambitious text:

- complete, because we have been able to hear many speakers and integrate their different points of view in our resolution;

- balanced, because we have taken into account their sometimes divergent opinions and have been able to produce a synthesis of them;

- Ambitious, finally, because it will allow the government to develop a concrete sustainable development policy, with sharp and enlightening indicators for the future.

On behalf of the MR, I congratulate myself in particular for having brought important elements into the debate: the competitiveness of enterprises, rural areas and the balanced energy mix. Sustainable development is based on three pillars: social, environmental and economic. This latter aspect should not be overlooked, as it is thanks to it – and the competitiveness of companies – that ambitious social and environmental policies can be developed. It is therefore important that this principle appears in the text in the same manner as the other two.

On the other hand, too often we tend to forget about rurality in the work that we occupy in parliament. I am therefore pleased that this topic is not omitted in this text.

Finally, our position on the energy level was very balanced and was not considered with dogmatism, but on the contrary with a certain pragmatism, which I welcome.

As a result, you will not be surprised that our group will enthusiastically support this resolution.

Mr. Speaker, colleagues, our group is also very pleased that this resolution will be adopted today. As several colleagues have already made clear, hard work has been done, by different parties, across different party boundaries, in order to be able to adopt this resolution jointly.

It is very important for us that we can develop a long-term vision for the social, economic and environmental challenges of the future. These challenges are inseparably interconnected and need to be addressed together in order to keep our society alive. For us, this resolution is a step in the right direction.

Sustainable means sustainable. It is essential that we develop a policy that can also be implemented in practice. We live with a lot of people together on a small area for which we need to take great care. We must act from the perspective of sustainable development. The word is used very widely, and also abused, but it is very important.

Our way of life has an immense impact on our environment. We must have a viable environment, ensure that the generations after us can still live in a viable environment and, above all, that that environment can also meet their needs. Therefore, we must be very conscious to deal with our scarce natural resources.

Sustainability also means justice. In a long-term vision, a socially just society should take precedence, a society where there is no place for poverty and for social exclusion and where everyone has equal opportunities, an ideal society. Therefore, we must strive for sustainable development and we must make every effort to do so.

This resolution is, as I said, a step in the right direction. Our group will approve this resolution with great pleasure.

Mr. Minister, colleagues, I had not initially planned to speak in the debate on the draft resolution on the long-term vision for sustainable development. The chairman of the House, Mr. Flahaut, will understand why. My group has been prevented in a perverse way from contributing to that resolution, which at any cost had to be submitted to the vote before the recess Wellicht also makes that part of the agreement with Ecolo-Groen.

In any case, I would like to emphasize that the Flemish Interest Group also considers a genuine parliamentary debate, and even an even broader debate, in connection with this matter absolutely necessary. Sustainable development is a complex, but extremely important matter. We also believe that we must cherish the earth, which we have borrowed from our parents, and give it unharmed to the offspring. A lot of study and research needs to be done, but urgent action and a awareness-raising campaign need to be developed.

In addition, several interesting hearings were held in our Interdepartmental Committee on Sustainable Development in preparation of this resolution. The interest of the colleagues was not too compelling, but I can assure you that I followed the hearings with great interest and listened to the explanations of the three actors of the law, namely the Interdepartmental Commission for Sustainable Development, the Federal Council for Sustainable Development and the Federal Planning Office. With regard to all those people who have put a lot of time in it to dust the present resolution, I would find it disrespectful if my group and myself did not pay attention to it.

However, I believe that the outcome of the discussions, the resolution itself, is rather poor. The report contains a unanimously supported proposal for a resolution, but I myself did not participate in the vote. As with most forced unanimously adopted resolutions, there are some evidence to be found in and one remains on the plane on a number of other points. I am referring, for example, to the third point of the part of the petition, in which the Government is requested to prioritise the concern for the environment in its long-term vision by under no circumstances deviating from compliance with the climate objectives.

On this point, the so-called Technical Working Group has undoubtedly developed an interesting discussion, which I would have really liked to participate in. As usual, however, I was not invited to the committee in my capacity as Commissioner for the Flemish Interest. I would have liked to have participated in the discussion in the spirit of the resolution itself.

In paragraph A.2 of the petitioning part of the resolution, it is stated that the Minister responsible for Sustainable Development would present his long-term vision to Parliament before it is approved by the Council of Ministers, so that the vision reflects the broadest possible consent of Parliament.

Furthermore, in relation to the content of the vision in B.1, the Government is asked to prioritise in its long-term vision the pursuit of a socially inclusive society, by ensuring that everyone can freely participate in society as a cornerstone of social integration, and by eliminating discrimination based on gender, race, culture, sexual orientation and so on.

These are very beautiful words. However, you may not blame me, knowing how the present draft text was made, for asking myself whether one can be even more hypocritical. I mention this only on the side.

In any case, my concrete participation in the preliminary discussions might not have led to a more unambiguous formulation of the climate objectives. At that point I might have also asked the question – what I am doing now, since this cannot be denied to me in a parliamentary debate – whether one really believes or believes that man is supreme and has the whole world in his hands, since it is stated that under no circumstances will deviate from compliance with the climate objectives.

As far as I know, climate targets should ensure that global warming remains limited to 2° Celsius. It would be fantastic if man could realize such a limitation on his own. However, allow me to doubt this. Man can do a lot. Man can destroy the world and make it unlivable, which we must absolutely prevent. That man can prevent the world from becoming unlivable is, of course, another matter.

I would therefore prefer to pay a little more attention to the aspects that we have in our hands. I would like to point out one of the things that I think has been paid too little attention to, namely the aging of our society.

The number of European citizens over the age of 65 will double over the next 50 years, from 87 million in 2010 to 148 million in 2060. For every person aged 65 years or older, there are four people working today.

By 2060, this ratio will fall to one in two. This is a problem that the Greens may not be awake to. She plays too close to home. One might better call aging de-greening. Maybe there would be a bell ringing among them.

In any case, if I had been involved in the preliminary draft resolution, I would have also included this aspect in the, in my opinion, important first loop, which calls on the government to put a socially inclusive society at the forefront.

In the context of intra- and intergenerational care and solidarity, consideration F refers – and correctly – to the rights of future generations. However, reference should also be made to the rights of those over 65 in the context of solidarity between generations.

We will submit an amendment on this subject and I will explain it immediately. In the petitioning part, we would like to add, in paragraph B.1, in relation to the content of the vision, an element in which we request to ensure that, within the framework of solidarity between generations, the appropriate attention is also given to the possibility of participation in society by the elderly, to promote the self-sufficiency of the elderly, if desired and possible by promoting an appropriate and dignified participation in the labour market and the provision of the necessary health care.

We also consider that important points in sustainable development, also here with us in Western Europe.

We do not make ourselves illusions about the possible support for our amendment, but by submitting it, I would like to draw the attention of the Minister concerned on this point.

Furthermore, our group will abstain from voting on the draft resolution, inter alia because the draft itself ignores the need for broad support for a successful sustainable development policy. The question is what the government will do with such a draft resolution if the submitters themselves do not take the content seriously.

In any case, I would like to thank the attendees for their attention. I had to take a bit of your precious time. For this reason, I did not have the opportunity.

Mr. Speaker, dear colleagues, I would like to intervene because if Ecolo-Groen did not give its point of view on a resolution that has such importance, it would be serious.

The elected members of this parliament, but also all the elected members, are now facing a rather exceptional exercise. Indeed, we need to develop a long-term vision that goes far beyond our mandate and that aims to address the absolutely gigantic challenges raised by the scientific world regarding planetary resources.

As is often the case, we find ourselves facing a paradox as we make decisions that engage the next 60 to 200 years while we are elected for a short time, just like governments.

In terms of sustainable development, by amending the law of 5 May 1997, we wanted to adapt in order to give us a more distant time horizon that is consistent with the problems to be solved. Indeed, the big question of resources and the sharing of resources at the global level for humanity and the small Belgians we are cannot be solved in the horizon of a government. It is not a plan that is set here, but a vision, that is, desirable goals based on scientific hypotheses. Unlike most generations before us, we have information about the future. In doing so, our responsibility is much greater.

It is still that a long-term vision should not be the fact of a single government in power; it should be shared much wider. However, the law stipulates that it can only be adopted by the government. Fortunately, the committee asked the minister to present the vision to parliament before it is adopted by the government. We will therefore again hear the minister who will come to present us the government project, so that it is the result of a common foundation as wide as possible and to ensure the sustainability of this vision. But approval should also exceed the level of elected members, even if this is not provided for in the law. Therefore, it would be desirable to have the consent of the entire civil society. The Federal Council for Sustainable Development has already issued an opinion in which it specifies that it wants to continue to be involved in the adoption of the vision. We can therefore only encourage the Minister to continue to involve civil society through, in particular, this Council.

The resolution we adopt today concerns the methodology to be adopted for the definition of this long-term vision and its content. We have drawn the attention of colleagues and the Minister on the rigour necessary to the issue. The vision of 2050 is the representation of a desirable world, but it must take into account the constraints, the challenges we know today. This vision has also been initially treated by some journalists as a vision "bisounours" or "sweet rose", where we put side by side wonderful goals, where everyone will see their well-being assured, where health care is guaranteed for all, where the environment is protected, where the economy is performing. But this goes hand in hand with inevitable interactions and threats to planetary resources and, logically, to their distribution and accessibility for all.

We want this vision to be more embodied, to be specific to Belgium and the Belgian citizens. We want to take into account the data from the IPCC’s work on climate, that of scientists on biodiversity or on agricultural, mining, etc., that the most refined global demographic prospects are integrated, and that the international commitments already made by our country and at European level are taken into account.

It is based on the three pillars of sustainable development. With regard to the pillar of social inclusion, we can of course adhere to everything that is registered. As regards the pursuit of a performance and sustainable economy, the point A relating to competitiveness appears to us to be unsatisfactory in its formulation. That is why we are proposing an amendment on this point. In fact, this is the definition of competitiveness. by Mr. Clarinval has asked to take into account the competitiveness of our companies by 2050. We can adhere to this option, of course, but it depends on how we define it in 2050. Will we still be based on the 1996 salary law? I ignore it.

On the other hand, given the scarcity of resources and the over-exploitation of renewable and non-renewable resources, we need to think more about competitiveness in terms of resource management. This is why we want, with our amendment, to take into account the fact that competitiveness will be defined by the ability to save resources and to avoid, as we do today, over-exploiting or wasting them at the expense of future generations.

Of course, we also want everyone’s wages to be decent and equitable, but I think it should be defined at a broader level than it is today.

We are at the heart of our vision for 2050. We will face a scarcity of resources and it is about seeing how we can then live well and fairly.

Our amendment therefore brings back a broader concept of competitiveness.

On the environmental level, I will conclude by saying whether we can join the text, however it seems to us that our Parliament remains frigid and expresses timidly.

WWF’s 2012 report shows an alarming picture. We live as if we had a second planet. Our planet is very sick. Belgium has the sixth heaviest ecological footprint in the world, behind Qatar, the United Arab Emirates, Denmark and the United States. According to these calculations, we consume 7.1 hectares per capita, while if we compare the total capacity of the planet to the number of inhabitants, we could only have 1.8 hectares. This shows the inequality in the world and the excess of resource capital.

All this because our energy efficiency is still very low. Previously, we were seen from the moon because of the highway lights. Today, we are seen from the moon because of the infrared radiation that escapes into our atmosphere due to the poor insulation of our buildings.

We need to have much more voluntary energy efficiency targets, with numerical steps. This is what we want in all climate negotiations.

Recently there were also warnings to the RTBF and La Libre Belgique about biodiversity and the abrupt collapse of certain ecosystems.

Resource collapse occurs, whether it is insect-pulling, species disappearance, destruction of lakes or certain environments, as a result of over-exploitation or an imbalance caused by human activities.

Researchers are constantly warning us about the risks of collapse. We cannot say when or where they will take place, but we know that they can seriously threaten human well-being.

In conclusion, I would like to quote the United Nations GEO-5 report, released on the occasion of the Rio Conference. I read you a short excerpt where he speaks of these critical thresholds: “As human pressures on the Earth system accelerate, several critical thresholds at global, regional and local levels are about to be reached or have been exceeded. Once these critical thresholds are exceeded, abrupt and ⁇ irreversible changes in planetary functions necessary for life will likely occur with significant adverse consequences for human well-being.”

This perspective is quite frightening but we remain positive and voluntary in the face of these threats and we just think that we must do this exercise of a long-term vision with voluntarism and determination, going further in defining goals and steps to ⁇ it. I hope that in the coming months, Parliament will encourage the government to make this vision have something in its belly!