Proposition 53K2839

Projet de loi portant insertion des dispositions réglant des matières visées à l'article 77 de la Constitution dans la loi du (...) relative à la prospection, l'exploration et l'exploitation de ressources des fonds marins et leur sous-sol au-delà des limites de la juridiction nationale.

General information ¶

Submitted by

PS | SP the Di Rupo government

Submission date

May 27, 2013

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

civil procedure exploitation of the sea-bed exploitation of the seas resources of the sea criminal procedure law of the sea

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

CD&V Vooruit LE PS | SP Open Vld MR

Voted to reject

Groen Ecolo

Abstained from voting

∉ N-VA LDD VB

Party dissidents ¶

• Bernard Clerfayt (MR) abstained from voting.
• Peter Luykx (CD&V) abstained from voting.
• Olivier Maingain (MR) abstained from voting.

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 4, 2013 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

I refer to the written report.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Thubbens did not specify what it was, I will say a word about it. This law will allow the Belgian State to grant a sponsorship, a caution, to companies that would like to explore the seafloor in international seas, and that, in search of minerals; the main focus of interest concerns solid minerals, in particular polymetal nodules.

This activity is governed by a United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea dated 10 December 1982, to which the Belgian law of 18 June 1998 gave consent. This convention established an authority: the International Seabed Authority (ISA); it issues permits for the exploration of the seabed and controls the application.

In order for an authorisation to be issued to an undertaking in this context, the State of origin must grant its sponsorship. It is neither a financial guarantee nor a scientific guarantee, but a sponsorship that confirms its financial and technical reliability. It is this possibility of sponsorship that the law discussed and voted today establishes.

This sponsorship imposes various requirements described in the bill filed by the Minister of Economy, Consumers and the North Sea.

Mr. Minister, it was in a very short period of time that we discovered the bill in commission and the issues related to it were not fully taken into account. I regret him very much.

So I would like to start with a general, even philosophical question: How far will we exploit non-renewable resources in the ultimate zones of the planet?

Is it morally responsible? Is this right for future generations? Should we rush into the international competition for the exploitation of these resources that are becoming scarce? You explained that China monopolized some of them and that it had to provide itself with the means to look for them elsewhere.

We ask ourselves, as environmentalists, whether it is not appropriate to become pioneers of the eco-industry by reusing raw materials instead of looking for these rare metals located at the bottom of the sea, especially in the very deep fault of Clarion-Clipperton, located in the Pacific, whose biological and mineral riches are unknown.

Like international treaties, we consider that international seafloors constitute a common heritage of humanity. Therefore, we should manage them in cooperation and not in competition, respecting all forms of life in accordance with an objective of general interest, especially thinking about those to whom we will leave the planet.

I would like to remind you that you adopted in May the Long-Term Sustainable Development Strategy for Belgium. By 2050, our country will be among those who will reuse raw materials instead of exploiting them in a non-sustainable way. I think that we are opening up potentialities that are not gifts for future generations and that we are harming very valuable goods, but whose qualities and wealth we do not adequately value. The impact of exploration and, a fortiori, exploitation of the seafloor has an impact on ecosystems and fisheries resources. This impact is not known. Since the discussion in the committee, I have spent a lot of time trying to find out what scientific research was available on biodiversity in the seafloor. However, I have found very few elements. Research programs have been launched, but without producing results.

In any case, we know that these ecosystems are very fragile and they are very stable. The animals that live there live at a very slow pace, because the light is absent. They accumulate the few available resources and reproduce at the end of life. As soon as one touches such an environment, one affects the reproductive potential. These animals cling to the solid substrate that is on the ground. If they are removed—which will happen if you touch these polymetal nodules—there is only mud left for them, so they do not survive.

Submarine vehicles will suspend mud and decrease the little light captured at this depth.

You told me that this was just exploration, but you know properly that exploration will lead to exploitation. You have also acknowledged it.

Even exploratory intervention in this type of environment inevitably has a destructive effect. What importance after all? It’s the bottom of the sea and it doesn’t matter. I think this type of reaction can be dangerous because this environment participates in the circulation of organic matter in the ocean. You touch something of which you do not know the direct or indirect effects. The circulation of matter in the ocean may be a factor that will play on other determinants of the state of the planet.

The seafloor is classified as a World Heritage of Humanity. Article 3 of the Convention stipulates that no person may appropriate any part of the area or its resources. Paragraph 2 stipulates that all humanity is invested with all rights in this area. This discourse is at least contradictory when we see how concessions are distributed between countries, as does this international authority today. Everything indicates that the impact of these activities is not measured but also that it is inconsistent with the notion of common heritage, world heritage.

We therefore express all our distrust and we would have liked that Belgium behaves as it does in other valuable areas of the planet, especially Antarctica, as a country that defends cooperation, precaution, prevention and the beautiful principles contained in the law. I am afraid that you do not have the means to enforce them.

Our second major objection, Mr. Minister, is related to governance.

This law was made for the company G-Tec based in Ostende which actually has behind it a consortium in which we find Umicore, the University of Ghent, the University of Liège. What shocks us is that this law regularizes an accomplished fact.

At the meeting, I did not know. But we have examined documents from this International Seabed Authority that indicate that you have granted a first certificate of patronage as of May 8, 2012 to this company. With Minister Reynders, you confirmed by giving a second certificate on 21 June 2012. You deny, but I have documents from the ISA.

The area covered by the application covers an area of 148 000 km2, divided into two non-contingent parts. The ISA says it has conducted an assessment of the company’s technical and financial capabilities. Then, the commercial value of the landfill was estimated, so it is clear that we are in a commercial perspective. The applicant said it will respect the environment and that it has identified measures to mitigate impacts on the marine environment, but we do not know anything about these impacts because we have not found any study. G-Tec contacted researchers for an impact study but we do not know whether this study was conducted or whether it is public.

We now legislate to regularize the situation a year later. We do not understand why it took such a period of time or why you issued the certificate before legislating.

We also took note of the draft royal decree you have prepared. In Chapter 5, concerning transitional provisions, it can be read that the applicant with a temporary patronage certificate shall submit a request within two months of the publication of this Decree, in accordance with the provisions of Article 3. Such a request is admissible if the Authority has issued a favourable opinion. A positive opinion is therefore preceded by a request that will automatically be considered admissible. Therefore, we have the impression that this is created from all parts for G-Tec which, in fact, has already benefited from a patronage of Belgium for several months. What does this temporary patronage certificate legally correspond to? We have the impression that this is a way of regularizing and that you have acted outside the legal framework.

Finally, in order to obtain the patronage of Belgium, an impact study is requested but it is sufficient that this study is administratively validated by the Marine Environment service. This means that our administration will not, at any time, make a statement on the substance and environmental impacts on a scientific basis. Our administrations will not be able to affect their scientific resources there. You have inserted beautiful principles of precaution, prevention, sustainable management in this law. By the way, I have even been a little hesitant about this bill, but when I look at what really happened before, I can no longer believe it! You do not give the means to our administration to control, even a priori. And I’m not even talking about a posteriori control or control during exploration or exploitation! It is non-existent because we do not have the means to do it! You told me that this will be the burden of an international authority.

We tried to find out what means this authority had to effectively control the exploitation. To our knowledge, they are not legion to ensure control of ships and submarine vehicles.

Finally, two different administrations are concerned: the Continental Plateau Service of SPF Economy and the Marine Environment Service of SPF Environment. This could guarantee some objectivity, but, as you know, political authority is exercised by one person, namely the Minister of Economy and Marine Environment, Mr. by Lanotte.

All the cards are therefore in your hands, Mr. Minister, which is not, in our opinion, a good governance. We will therefore vote against those bills that are inconsistent with their own principles by allowing, in the absence of sufficient precautions, the pillage of a fragile and precious heritage of humanity.

This is an important bill. The attention of colleagues is limited.

In addition to the excellent intervention of colleague Snoy, I would still like to put some things in the paint to try to outline that importance for you all. I brought my laptop because I just saw you deny. We are quite economical when it comes to printing. I immediately come back to that.

Mr. Deputy Prime Minister, our group has important objections to the bill you submit here today.

The first objection is of an ecological nature. You said it was “exploration.” However, it is sufficient to refer to the title of your own bill, which also refers to “exploitation” of the natural resources of the deep sea floor. We also find that in the agreement between the requesting party, G-Tec, the Oostend company in question, and the International Seabed Authority, there is a black-and-white reference to exploitation. We assume that you know those documents. We believe that such an exploration of the natural resources of the Pacific – and ⁇ the exploitation of such areas – is ecologically unreasonable. Your bill does not provide sufficient safeguards to protect those ecosystems.

Mr. Minister, we would therefore like to hear your views, the story that you want to explain to Parliament in order to defend such exploration and exploitation – black on white in the agreement of the Eastern Company with the International Seabed Authority. Why does the so-called greenest government ever – dixit your party chairman – come up with this bill?

Second, this bill is actually also a disgrace in terms of good governance and administrative ethics. Collega Snoy has just explained that you, as Minister of Economy, responsible for the North Sea, actually already on 8 May 2012 delivered a certificate to the company in question to give green light to the work. You say that this is not the case. So you say that you never, ⁇ not on 8 May 2012, gave a certificate to the company in question. You are very clear about this. I have a PDF document here. I suggest that the bodies spread it. I think Mr. Snoy has it on paper.

In the agreement between the Oostends company G-Tec and the International Seabed Authority, an authority at the level of the United Nations, it is said black on white that the first certificate of patronage was delivered by the Deputy Prime Minister, Minister of Economy, Consumer Affairs and North Sea Johan Vande Lanotte, dated 8 May 2012. You seem to know your powers very well. The second certificate of patronage was delivered on 21 June 2012, signed by you and by the Minister of Finance – meanwhile Foreign Affairs – Reynders.

My question is whether this is true or not? You say this is not true. You have not delivered a certificate of patronage.

Then I propose to challenge this point. After all, I can’t imagine you want to give today a legislative green light to a company that lies to the International Seabed Authority, an agency of the United Nations.

That ought to be. Either you delivered those certificates together with your colleague in May-June 2012 and we are all here in our exposure and the Parliament must regularize a gentleman’s agreement – I don’t know where it is closed. Either the company in question lies to the International Seabed Authority, an agency of the United Nations, and then I can’t imagine that you say you want to do business with such companies.

I suggest that we challenge this point and that you check whether the company in question is worthy of your trust and that of the Belgian government. That seems to be the minimum minimum.

I am not asking you to vote away. I am not asking the majority parties, or the classical tripartite, to change their voting behavior. If the company in question lies to international authorities about the signatures of vice prime ministers, it seems to me logical that this point is challenged.

It does not remain with the certificates. Meanwhile, the Oostend company in question, G-Tec, has already concluded a contract with the International Seabed Authority on 14 January 2013. In any case, the company disregards the legislative and executive power. The question is whether you will play that game. Have you played that game in the last few months and years or not? I would like to clarify this, Mr. Deputy Prime Minister. I think the file deserves that.

Third, you may be challenging the bill as the company in question seems to be lying. In relation to the International Seabed Authority and other international bodies, the Company lies about the fact that you have provided a signature. So I assume that you will not give green light to the bill today.

If the approval would come anyway, you are actually a sponsor, cheerleader and supporter of such exploration and exploitation of the deep sea floor. I read the committee’s report well. The question is what the guarantee actually means. What does the support of the Belgian government and Johan Vande Lanotte mean for the project? This is not clear to me. I have also asked this question in the committee. What does the guarantee mean? How far does it reach? What are the criteria and conditions that a company must meet in order to obtain such a guarantee? Is a friendly conversation with the Deputy Prime Minister enough to get such a certificate and legislative work, or are there more criteria? This is not clear to us at this stage of decision-making. I think it is logical that this clarity comes. How is the guarantee monitored and evaluated? These are questions that, in our opinion, still need to be answered, Mr. Deputy Prime Minister.

It is, in any case, a very strange way of working of the Oostend company in question, but also of you as a political leader.

I have a few questions, Mr. Deputy Prime Minister. The most important question is how the certificates are now. Have you delivered a signature? If this is not the case, then we must challenge the point, because then the company in question lies about the signatures of two Belgian deputy prime ministers. There are also many questions that deserve an answer.

For now, our group is inclined to push the red button rather offensively and assertively. It smells of customization for the Oostends company in question. It opens the door for the exploitation of ecosystems. We as ecologists cannot accept this. Unless you have the courage to challenge the point if there is a lie about the signatures of two Belgian deputy prime ministers, it is for the time being an example of how democratic decision-making should not just go. These are reasons enough for our group to vote in principle against the bill. If you do what you have to do, there will be no vote on the bill today.

Dear colleagues, we really differ in views. An international treaty on the exploitation and exploration of the natural resources of the oceans has been adopted. Countries that do not accept that international law, such as the United States of America, cannot cooperate in that exploitation or exploration.

Therefore, one must be a member and have approved the treaties in order to participate in them. This is what Belgium has done. The International Seabed Authority is responsible for the environmental conditions under which the exploitation or exploration takes place. Thus, it is not Belgium that determines the environmental conditions, fortunately, but because otherwise each country would set its own rules for its own ⁇ . That would not be a good thing.

It is the international authority that defines the ecological conditions, not the state itself. It’s not the national service that defines them and I say “happily”, because each country could, in this case, define its own ecological criteria.

For now, the ecological criteria that are implemented concern exploration. As for the exploitation, the authority has not yet given its green light, as the ecological conditions under which this could take place are not yet determined.

The international authority gives itself a five-year deadline to do so, but for now, no rules are established in this matter. Today we are talking about exploration. The exploitation could continue if and only if the international authority gives its green light through new ecological rules.

The terms exploitation and exploration should not be confused. I have said this clearly in the committee. Exploration is possible, exploitation is not. For me it does not matter. When one explores, it is with the intention of exploiting. In this we differ in opinion. I think this should be possible in the long term. You have a different opinion on this; I have no problem with it, but I have the opinion that if the conditions are met one should make exploitation possible.

I would like to emphasize that the whole process is that when a company explores and determines that exploitation is possible, it must give half of its concession to countries that do not have the ability to develop it itself. In other words, third-world countries or other countries that do not have the resources because exploration costs a lot of money, receive half of the concession from the industrially developed country that did the exploration. In this way, the International Seabed Authority seeks to distribute the raw materials there in a fair way between the different countries, and therefore not only between the industrialized countries.

France and Germany already have legislation on this subject. They have companies that are active. Belgium does not yet have such legislation. Unlike the other two speakers, I do not agree that we should stay away from it. I think we should be present there. It is about fully valorizing the industrial and scientific knowledge of our universities.

Regarding the procedure, Minister Reynders and I have sent a letter to the International Seabed Authority in which we support the project. In the letter it is called sponsorship, which in Dutch means support. Is it a certificate of parrainage? No to! You confuse the terms. It is your right to sow some confusion here. We said in our letter that we support the project, but also that another legal framework needed to be created and that we would submit it to Parliament.

This also means that G-Tec’s contract with ISA is not enforceable, unlike the contracts that German and French companies have. This is well known by the International Seabed Authority. An agreement was made with reservations. The first condition is that the legislator creates a framework and the second condition is that a parrainage takes place. The question to clarify whether the Belgian government wanted to support that project was a request from the International Seabed Authority to review the file as well. We said in the application that we support it in principle. This is called sponsorship, not sponsorship or borg in Dutch. However, another law had to be passed and that law is now in place. Based on this law, an application may be submitted. Only if we give the guarantee, can that contract be executed. There is no reason to suspend treatment. This clear situation is known to both the International Seabed Authority and the company.

At the committee meeting, I have already explained this situation. There can be played as many political games as you want, but you will not touch me. In the committee I literally said that there was a letter written. I also literally cited the aspect of sponsorship and I also literally said that another law needs to be passed and that is identical to what I say here today. There is nothing wrong with this whole file.

First, I would like to answer this question of terms. Certificate or not certificate? We had visited the ISA website and found that it was mentioned "sponsored by Belgium". In the committee, you said you supported.

But then, we became aware of this document from the International Seafloor Authority: Report and Recommendations of the Legal and Technical Commission to the Council of the International Seafloor Authority regarding an application for approval of a work plan for the exploration of polymetal nodes submitted by G-Tec Sea Mineral Resources NV.

It is well mentioned that the first certificate of patronage issued by the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Economy, Consumers and the North Sea, Mr. Johan Vande Lanotte, is dated 8 May 2012. I read this and I consider that you did not say this in the commission! You claimed that this was a simple letter of support. I have heard this before. But then why is it talking here about a first patronage certificate? The following is a second certificate of patronage, signed by you and Mr. and Reynders.

Who says right? I have an official document according to which, in these certificates of patronage, Belgium is responsible for the activities of the applicant, that the application is supported without reservation. The employer state declares that it is working on drawing up legislation to assume its responsibilities – which is true. You have already issued the certificate. And that is very shocking!

Madam, if we are working on a legislation, how can we issue a already executive patronage certificate?

Why are they writing it?

They can write what they want, I know what I sign.

You are questioning an official document.

I wrote a letter about sponsorship.

If things are as you say, why is the contract not executable?

I did not see anywhere that the contract was not enforceable. It is you who say it!

You are playing with words!

We have a document that contradicts your statements.

In fact, you make us approve of an accomplished fact. It’s shocking and that’s why we’re not going to participate in such things.

This is not true, it is not an accomplished fact. The company must apply for a certificate of patronage that will be issued, after consideration of the application. I cannot sign a certificate of patronage in the absence of a law. With M . Reynders, I sent you a letter of sponsorship. As I said before, there is no other explanation.

Mr. Speaker, a wise man with considerable political experience once told me that something is going on when Johan Vande Lanotte interrupts a member of Parliament.

The (...)

If tricks are used and political games are played, then there is already something going on.

You have the opportunity to ask questions in the committee, but you are not there! You could get an answer there. In the committee, one abstains and one votes against.

In the committee one abstains and then one is against, because the press is absent.

That wise man also said that when you become personal, there is definitely something going on.

I would like to calmly and with pleasure compare the presence of our group and myself with that of other groups. Indeed, we abstained in the committee, because the information that prompted us to ask these questions today reached us only afterwards.

I have a few elements of replication.

Mr. Deputy Prime Minister, you were clear. You said that exploitation is the ultimate purpose. You also acknowledge the disagreement between you and our group: you are a social democrat, we are ecologists. We clearly have a different view on this, of which act. What we share, whether we are an ecologist or a social-democrat, a member of Parliament or a deputy prime minister, is the democratic thought and a thought of ethics, transparency and openness, but it really lacks something.

You said rightly that the International Seabed Authority in this file should extend the lines and extend them. In your response, you attached great importance to that authority.

The [...]

You attach great importance to this institution. You said clearly that it is not an institution of voddenvents and rubbish women, but an important institution.

Then you should also agree with me that the documents that these institutions put on their websites, which they make available to members of Parliament like us who are trying to do our job, either in the plenary session, in the committee, or in the newspaper, are relevant.

You have still not answered. You say we play with the words, while that is absolutely not true. We make a very clear distinction between sponsorship, support and writing letters — you do and you acknowledge that too — and un certificat de patronage. Colleague Snoy has already stated this clearly, but you do not respond to it. In the documents of the International Seabed Authority, which you consider to be an important institution, the following is written in black on white.

"The first certificate of patronage issued by the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Economy, Consumers and the North Sea, Mr. Johan Vande Lanotte was born on May 8, 2012. The second certificate of patronage is dated 21 June 2012.

It was signed by both you and Minister Reynders. These are the documents. I will give them to you.

( ... ... )

There is clearly “certificate the patronage” and not “sponsoring”. The International Seabed Authority makes this very clear.

You also know that the text also states that another law had to be passed.

Now you change the gun of shoulder. You just said that no hair on your Oostend’s head thinks of delivering a certificate if no law has yet been passed and that you’ve just written a support letter. That’s what you just said. Now you have a document in your hands, on which it is stated black on white that you have delivered a certificate of patronage twice.

There are two possibilities: either you acknowledge that you have just jumped creatively into the truth, or you share the outrage of our group and take the point out of the agenda, because there can be no misunderstanding on that point.

Mr. Calvo, would you like to read the text well? You play with words.

We have written a letter in which we support it. The word “sponsoring” is in the letter. At the same time, we have stated that we will submit a law to Parliament.

Indeed, here it is stated that they regard it as a certificate the patronage, which is not the same as what we will have to deliver later. In our law, the word is not “certificat de patronage”, but “borg”, which is something else.

We have an ingediend text. They say themselves: “It has been signed.” Over het certificat de patronage zeggen zij zelfs het volgende: "Belgium is responsible for the activities of the applicant, in accordance with (...). The employing State declares that it is working on the development of legislation to assume its responsibilities in this capacity.”

So they themselves say that the law must first be enforced because otherwise one does not come to those responsibilities. This is also why the contract was not enforceable.

I still don’t see the problem; you see it. The better it is that there is a difference because that is rather reassuring.

It helps Parliamentarians in the committee, in the plenary session or in the newspaper — publishing it in the media, sometimes helps to put matters on the agenda — do their work. After all, we are now one step closer to the truth about the deal that was concluded there.

You just said that there was only sponsorship and that you wrote a letter. In the meantime, you acknowledge, with the documents of the International Seabed Authority, that a certificate has indeed been delivered.

The [...]

Please leave Mr. Calvo finish, please!

Mr. the President, M. Calvo with dance ma bouche des mots que tu n'ai pas prononcés. And it adds, and outre, that I’ve accepted or that I’ve confessed. and no.

I said it was a letter of sponsorship. Do not put your words in my mouth. Everyone has their own opinion, there is no need to agree. However, to say what I would have said, I have no message to that. I couldn’t sign it, or I ⁇ ’t sign it if there wasn’t a law that allows me to do that, so simple it is. You’re out of constant insinuations and you’re good at that.

Mr. Calvo, please conclude: the time allocated for the replies is 5 minutes. You have already exceeded that time.

Mr. Deputy Prime Minister, I have absolutely no ambition to be your spokesman or to repeat your presentations. I quote only from documents of the International Seabed Authority.

Despite the confusion that prevails in connection with the file, you are not inclined to challenge it. We will be happy to vote against this bill.

Mr. Speaker, since the Deputy Prime Minister refers to several letters, I would like to propose that he forward the letters of May 2013 to Parliament. Then we can make the ultimate judgment post factum – because that is apparently the fate that the MPs in this country are waiting for – the ultimate judgment.

Mr. Minister, you say there is nothing wrong with the file. My group’s opinion is that there is nothing wrong with the bill. We will therefore vote against with great pleasure.

Do you want to speak again, Ms. Gerkens?

Yes, Mr. President, except for [...]

Normally, those who have spoken have 5 minutes. You are asking to intervene. I agree, and then I close the discussion.

I would like to make a few clarifications to my colleagues.

Mr. Minister, if our colleague abstained in the committee, it is because the text was worked on there immediately after being submitted and voted just as quickly. I don’t know who read this before or while we were in the committee. In such cases, it is wise to refrain before examining and inquiring.

What is disturbing, Mr. Vande Lanotte, is that even if the terms of the emails are not the same, it would be interesting that you provide us with copies, so that we can verify it. And even if they are, let’s admit that in this matter, we are working in the opposite direction! It is said to support an exploration project, while knowing that these companies aim for future farms! We support and we will follow. How do you want, after drawing up a law, not to continue to support the project for which you have given your approval?

We are actually busy normalizing a situation, where the will is to support ⁇ in their economic project, and we do not see any disadvantage that companies are working, developing business. We mentioned G-Tec, but there is also DEME, a large dragging company, as the latter is also constantly sitting around the table in these discussions. We wish him all the success, but it is obvious that everything is organized so that these companies can develop ⁇ .

Neither the facts nor the predictions show at any time a real concern about the environmental impacts of the seafloor and an obligation to preserve and respect them. And we know that is not possible at the moment. And we know that this international body lacks means of investigation.

We cannot accept that you find it normal and interesting that the validations by the Belgian authorities are merely administrative validations because scientific validations are within the competence of the international stage: the international authorities do not have the means to carry out scientific validations; you know this very well.

Mr. Minister, we are working in reverse and maybe we are opening the door to the deep degradation of these seafloors, which we know are fragile; we measure very little of their potential impact.

I am ready to bet that in four or five years, parliamentarians will submit a resolution to fight at the international level for the preservation of the seafloor from speculation and their purely economic exploitation. Today, we are authorizing it and organizing it on behalf of Belgium.