Proposition 53K2866

Projet de loi relatif aux volumes nominaux minimaux de biocarburants durables qui doivent être incorporés dans les volumes de carburants fossiles mis annuellement à la consommation.

General information ¶

Authors

CD&V Leen Dierick
LE Joseph George
MR David Clarinval
Open Vld Willem-Frederik Schiltz
PS | SP Isabelle Emmery
Vooruit Ann Vanheste

Submission date

June 6, 2013

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

energy policy motor fuel reduction of gas emissions substitute fuel

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.
• Damien Thiéry (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 ¶

June 19, 2013 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

Karine Lalieux, the rapporteur, refers to her written report.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Secretary of State, my speech will be relatively short and will aim to address the procedure. By loyalty, my group co-signed the text but we nevertheless believe that the initiative should have come from the government. The deadline for June 30 was known and I think we could have done better knowing that this afternoon in the committee, we urgently voted on an amendment introducing a chapter to the program law. The urgency is therefore possible and, in my opinion, it could also have been in this case.

We are not quite satisfied with the way the associative sector was consulted. You have ⁇ met some associations in the cabinet but I think we could have done better here too. My group is not used to work this way, especially in such important files.

For example, in cases such as food speculation or tax shelter. When we conduct these debates, we believe that external hearings and consultations should be conducted in a fairly broad manner.

I hope that we will do better afterwards and my group will be ⁇ attentive to the follow-up that will be given to this legislation. I will not go into the details as to the substance but we will put a few bemools as to the procedure.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Secretary of State, dear colleagues, the previous law, that of July 22, 2009, came to expire. It was therefore appropriate that a new law be voted because, in the absence of a device, the situation would be worrying for the sector and would leave free course to all initiatives.

Discussions were held and consultations were conducted. The Secretary of State will surely reassure us about this.

Today, it is important to avoid shortcuts because this proposal has not been either well read or well understood. It remains consistent, balanced, cautious and responsible. Obviously, we want sustainable biofuels produced locally.

First, as regards the percentage of the obligation to incorporate biofuels, the proposal is consistent, as it implements the Commission draft directive, which aims to limit first-generation biofuels to 5 % in terms of energy. At the committee, I have already pointed out that some criticisms formulated confused volume percentages and energy percentages. The percentages of the proposal expressed in volume are consistent with the 5 % of the directive.

The European Union has set a target of 10% renewable energy in transport. This measure contributes to this and, contrary to the ideas received, we are rather behind other European countries: France is at 7% and Germany at 6% of biofuels.

The proposal is balanced because it opens the door to second-generation biofuels. That is what is important! The percentage of biofuels is initially set at 1.5%, which allows producers such as BioWanze to flow out the quotas of biofuels produced from European agricultural materials, but it also gives a signal to our industrials to develop new processes and adapt their tools. I will return soon to all the final provisions which I find important and contained in Article 15.

The proposal is cautious with the use of the notion of second-generation biofuels, because in this matter, abuses potentially exist and you are not without knowing that the risk of derivative is also present. It is therefore essential that the European Commission quickly establish the list of raw materials and clearly define what second-generation biofuels are before increasing the obligation to incorporate them.

The proposal is responsible both in relation to the investments made, because units have actually been set up on our territory, and in relation to the jobs created through these investments. A stable, long-term legal framework should provide investors with guarantees to avoid relocation of tools outside/to other EU countries, which would lead to a loss of the environmental quality of biofuels.

I insist once again that the proposal takes into account the evolution of technologies through a dynamic approach, allowing existing biofuel units to convert their production tools to the second generation. Indeed, industrials must absolutely take advantage of the existing tax advantage to switch to second-generation fuels, better for the environment, valuing the non-food waste of our agriculture.

Of course, the path is difficult because three goals must overlap: reduce our CO2 production; avoid competition between food production and energy production both in Belgium and elsewhere on the planet; and enable our companies to be innovative and performing in this sector.

This is all of the interest of Article 15 of the bill – I have no doubt that Ms. Emmery will read the proposal until Article 15 – which provides for the possibility of changing the percentages of incorporation of biofuels into fossil fuels based on technological developments and/or a modification of European directives.

I recall that other provisions of the bill under consideration refer to fuels of various categories, some of which could be accepted provided that a complete technical dossier containing all the relevant data proving that they are in compliance with the European Directive is provided to the General Directorate of Energy, approved by the Minister, after possible intervention of Fapetro, which could be assisted by experts.

This is what I had to tell you so that the CDH will pay particular attention to the fact that biofuel targets are assessed. The first assessment provided for in Article 15 must be made no earlier than twelve months and no later than thirty-six months after the date of entry into force of this Act. After that period, Article 15 ultimately provides for an evaluation every two years.

I would like to ask if this is always your intention in this article.

As you know, in 2006, the legislator had set quotas for biofuels. They must meet a number of criteria. I have heard criticism about the origin of biomass, which must be European. Can you tell us that we will not import biomass to make biofuels and that this type of fuel is not available on the Belgian market?

Can you confirm that there is no inconsistency, in this proposal, with the position of Belgium at European level on biofuels? This is also a criticism I have heard.

Can you confirm that the percentages stated in the bill are not in conflict with the value advocated by the European Commission?

Finally, this proposal opens the door to advanced biofuels for electric mobility. The bill under consideration is clearly just taking an additional step towards other means of locomotion using other forms of energy. Can you confirm that it’s really your goal to take additional steps as quickly as possible?

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, Mr. Secretary of State, colleagues, this bill sought and found a balance between, on the one hand, the implementation of the commitments made with regard to the biofuel production sector and, on the other hand, the introduction of non-conventional second and third-generation biofuels. Both objectives are praiseworthy.

In order to address the initial concern, the existing duty-free production quota was extended until all allocated volumes were exhausted and for a maximum of six years.

In addition, this legislative proposal for the first time creates room for mixing non-conventional biofuels, insofar as they meet sustainability criteria; 1.5 % of the beet mixing obligation can thus be achieved. This will create a market for second and third-generation biofuels without rushing. It is very important to develop a good monitoring and control system to guarantee the effective sustainability of these fuels.

It is essential to note that everything is linked to decisions at European level.

The present legislative proposal provides for the possibility of revising the volume of mixing, taking into account the European policy in the field. This is very important for us.

Within a few months we will know whether the European Commission will accept the extension of the excise-free production quota under the Community rules on state aid.

If the European Commission decides that the quota cannot be ⁇ ined, there is a risk that conventional biofuels that do not meet the sustainability criteria, as set out in the KB of 26 November 2011, will appear on this market, and that can not.

Furthermore, at European level, there is still an amendment to directives that could potentially determine the transition from conventional to non-conventional biofuels.

We are aware that the discussions at European level in this context are very difficult, but also a new directive on this subject could lead to the revision of the mixing of volumes.

It is therefore of great importance for us that the evaluation provided for in this bill is thoroughly carried out and that adjustments to the legislation are made if necessary.

Mr. President, Mr. Secretary of State, dear colleagues, we read this law with a lot of misunderstanding and amazement.

My first concern is the procedure you have followed. We knew that this law had to be re-validated, which was due to expire on 30 June 2013. We knew you had a bill in your drawers that we assumed would follow the usual path through the Council of State and other bodies. And here we suddenly saw a bill arriving signed by a colleague from your party, submitted to urgency. Parliamentarians who have co-signed it are, in the end, not quite flagrant, not so convinced that this is a good proposal.

This proposal almost doubles the percentage of ethanol and biodiesel to be incorporated into fuels by July 1. It sets a minimum threshold for the use of agrofuels higher than the maximum recommended today by the Commission. As of 1 July, diesel will contain at least 6% biodiesel and petrol at least 9% bioethanol.

Our misunderstanding also comes from the fact that you were committed to consulting with stakeholders in the framework, among others, of the Federal Council for Sustainable Development, you spoke with NGOs and civil society, and you were committed to supporting the European guidelines that today aim at reducing the use of agrofuels.

This is the subject of a second misunderstanding. The European Commission is aware of the effects of the European demand for biofuels, is considering challenging the 10% target by 2020 and, in any case, is firmly debating reducing the share of first-generation biofuels, i.e. those in direct competition with food production.

Options are on the table, which you have supported on behalf of Belgium, the federal state and in agreement with the federal entities. What is on the table today, Belgium’s paper position, is just to support, on the contrary, a minimum, a ceiling. “Belgium could support a cap for the contribution of conventional biofuel to the objectives (...) in view of preventing an increasing use of food crops for energy production.”

Belgium defends a maximum and here we will vote a minimum that is above the maximum!

Furthermore, with regard to second-generation fuels, the European Commission, fortunately, understood that it was necessary to look for new generations of biofuels or agrofuels, that it was necessary to turn to agricultural waste or other types of biomass production, which do not compete with food. What the European Commission proposes today, in those negotiations which, I acknowledge, have not yet been achieved but which are convergent between the Member States and the Commission – and in any case between the Belgian position and the Commission – is that second-generation fuels would be supported and that a minimum threshold would be introduced. This is what the negotiators are defending before the European Commission. And here, what are we doing? On the contrary, a maximum of 1.5 percent – if I have understood it correctly – is voted within the percentage of incorporated agrofuels. You can confirm it. But 1.5 percent of 6 or 9 percent is really not much. Here, one puts a maximum, as if one feared that there would be competition, that a second generation of agrofuels would not come too quickly to replace the first, which arranges some of them.

We cannot understand that, on the one hand, you support a position before the Commission and that, on the other hand, the House will adopt a proposal in the opposite direction. It was initially a bill, which you referred to a parliamentary member of your group to make a bill, which others signed without worrying about consistency.

This is the process of which we see the outcome today. Now let’s talk a little about the essence of the problem. It is actually a matter of energy supply and greenhouse gas emissions from the transport sector. This is a much broader issue than the use of agrofuels. It is not only by using agrofuels that the energy and climate problems posed by the transport sector will be solved. The use of agrofuels or renewable energy sources was considered, more than a decade ago, as a solution, never as the solution. Because this does not solve the problem of the total increase in the number of vehicles circulating and the number of kilometers traveled per vehicle. This does not solve the problem of car congestion and the innumerable inconvenience associated with road traffic.

The use of these new fuels and the demand from the industrialized countries have triggered a huge wave of new land cultivation. These are lands that had not yet been used for agriculture or that were previously occupied by food crops, located largely in the South countries as well as in the United States (maize), in Brazil (sugar cane). Today, even countries in sub-Saharan Africa are exposed to this pressure to produce fuel instead of insufficient food production.

Producing to feed or producing to drive has since quickly become a dilemma. Even environmentalists who sought to develop renewable energies realized that this track was not consistent with their goals due to environmental, social consequences, and even human rights violations.

I am referring here, in particular, to the Special Rapporteur for the Right to Food because, in my opinion, this is the best of references. Olivier De Schutter, in April 2013, mentioned different data. For example, that 6.6 million hectares of additional land would have been cultivated for biofuels between 2003 and 2008. That this puts pressure not only on the earth, but also on resources such as water. Sometimes these crops need to be irrigated. It also happens that these crops pump underground water. This puts a significant pressure on biodiversity. As the rapporteur denounces, sub-Saharan Africa has, in recent years, been ⁇ exposed to these massive land acquisitions for the production of fuel.

Why did the rapporteur on the right to food talk about this? Because all of this has an impact on food security and on the price of food. During the great food crisis of 2008-2009, this policy was regarded as one of the leading factors that caused the price explosion and was the source of hunger riots, causing thousands of deaths. We can no longer tolerate this suffering that continues to strike the world.

The rapporteur also points out that, ultimately, this does not bring much benefit to rural areas: this first generation of agrofuels is designed in an industrial agricultural perspective. Thus, peasants are sometimes expelled from their lands; violence, aggression and even murders are sometimes committed; the jobs created are few and do not in any way replace the food-based agriculture which allowed the populations to survive or develop.

The contradiction is evident with our development cooperation policies.

Development cooperation promotes support for peasant agriculture, ⁇ ins jobs in rural areas, keeps peasants on the land and supports new productivity, and, moreover, this first generation of agrofuels in Europe generates significant demand.

I return to the law. In 2009, the law passed could be considered acceptable. In fact, it aimed at a 4% volume percentage for both diesel and gasoline. The text of the law specified the sustainability criteria; at the time, we had already considered them insufficient: these were criteria of direct impact.

I read this law this afternoon. Sustainable biofuels are those that do not come from areas inducing deforestation and that meet certain characteristics on the mode of cultivation, reduced use of pesticides, soil protection, etc. This law therefore re-established sustainability criteria, without specifying criteria on indirect impact - the indirect impact of land use changes. It was only after these elements were proposed for negotiation at European level; they were gradually integrated into the 2011 Decree.

It can also be said that with these 4% our industries use raw materials that are almost European. Today, the percentage is increasing, which is worrying. Even when European raw materials are used, it indirectly induces a displacement of the need for agricultural land elsewhere. I am very doubtful that we can continue to use purely European fuels. BioWanze boasts of using purely local raw materials.

In addition, I know that we have a dispute with Argentina, which attacks Belgium because it believes that our law sets obstacles to its exports of cereals for processing into fuel.

Does this bill hide the need to settle a dispute with Argentina? I could read it in some notes and I would like you to tell me the opposite. I would also like you to tell me that the raw materials processed in our factories come from European countries and that they are truly managed sustainably, which one can never prove.

We are really opposed to voting this law today. We think it is going in the wrong direction. It is contrary to the evolution at European level, which Belgium supports.

We invite you to vote on the amendment we submit, which I co-sign with Ms. Gerkens and Mr. Calvo, which aims to remove the text of the bill and replace it with an amendment to the law of 2009 in order to extend its validity by one year. During this year, we would make an assessment of what these 4% of embedded volume can cause as effects. Furthermore, it would also be interesting to work on the definition of second-generation biofuels. This second generation must be able to meet criteria that are not, as the text today proposes, very unclear and very untransparent. This proposal allows the King to define whether an agrofuel is second-generation, is sustainable and can be accounted for with a factor multiplying its percentage.

For us, this text is unacceptable and almost unreadable. That is why it must be amended with sufficient time to be incorporated into the 2009 Act.

It is important that environmentalists explain what they want in terms of renewable energy in the field of transport and what they want in terms of the use of biomass. We are not inclined to definitively condemn all agrofuels, but we believe that those belonging to the first generation have a predominantly negative impact. On the other hand, we endorse new energy sources that can be combined with a use of biomass that is not in competition with food production and that are part of closed cycles in accordance with a relocation of the agricultural model. Techniques should be suitable for all. These are the biofuels we want to develop. Therefore, it is necessary to look for renewable energy sources for transport, but not to accept the current model.

In conclusion, we call for policy coherence, in particular between Mr. Wathelet and himself – whose contradictions we have shown – or even between the PS and the PS. Ms. Emmery expressed her unhappiness well, and she did so very courageously. Last Monday, we heard Ms. Vienne at the NGO Round Table explain that she wanted policies to be coherent in terms of development. You have clearly stated the importance of agrofuels. We advocate for harmony between cooperation policies, agricultural and energy measures, in favor of the right to food and the rights of the world’s most precarious populations.

Mr. Speaker, I allow myself to go up to the tribune because Ms. Snoy spoke of a number of misunderstandings in this text. I will try to take them up and allow myself a few considerations.

First, I would like to react to the remarks of Ms. Emmery, who accuses herself of a lack of vigilance in relation to a text she signed. I leave it to you... I just ask you to be also more vigilant with regard to the work of a government that is chaired by a prime minister you know, I suppose, who himself fully endorsed this text on May 31 last ...

(Brouhaha on the banks of the PS)

I simply say – and this also allows me to answer Mrs. Snoy – that this text was approved by the government. It could have been submitted to Parliament as a draft. The proposal was submitted at the same time. Overall, let us acknowledge that a text of a bill itself benefits directly from the urgency, which is not the case of a proposal, which is why the urgency had to be requested.

As you know, this text was supposed to be adopted before 30 June because even in your proposal – if we agree well – you do not underestimate the fact that it is necessary to take an initiative before 30 June. We are at least of the same opinion on this point!

Whether it was a draft or a proposal, we had this respect for the parliament that had submitted this proposal. It is exceptional! What is extraordinary is that when the government makes plans, it is blamed for not respecting parliamentary initiatives. When parliamentary initiatives are taken while the government simultaneously takes a project and leaves the priority to the parliamentary initiative, we are also blamed! I understand it. When I was the leader of the opposition group, I did the same thing.

Let us all recognize in any case that this theme deserves much better than this debate to know who is at the origin of the text or if we should be more vigilant when reading the text. This issue is important enough to deserve another discussion. I hope to be able to convince you, despite your vigilance, thanks to the various arguments I will draw up here.

As stated by the SPD and, less surprisingly, by Mr. George, this text is truly balanced. Why Why ? For several reasons. First, a text was needed before the end of this month. On this we all agree. Secondly, you are not unaware that this text is taken within a European framework that imposes a number of targets for 2020, including the functioning of means of transport with 10% renewable energy. We are at 3.5 percent. France is at 6 percent and Germany at 7 percent. At least we are late!

Also, to hear some say that we can take freedoms from targets imposed at the level of the European Union, from the development of a number of renewable productions related to the transport sector, is, in my view, take freedoms that one can easily take when one sits in the opposition, but more difficultly as a member of a government that feels responsible and respects the roadmap imposed by the EU. And when it comes to taking freedoms from European targets, I think we shouldn’t do so either in this, in the CO2 or in the production of renewable energy. I suppose you will agree with me.

As for opening up to the second generation, Mrs. Snoy, when you no longer talked about the text, I have to admit that I was pretty much in agreement with you. When we talked about biofuels, many of us thought it was the miraculous solution: we were going to replace oil with crops that would not pollute and drive our cars forward. If I caricaturized, the proposal had an exceptional character. And countries like those of northern Europe have plunged into this path. Moreover, they are far ahead of us in terms of percentage of use of agrofuels.

Then, all of us, we have to dismay because this overproduction of palm oil for example, especially in Southern countries, causes real environmental and food crises that are unacceptable. We must adapt and change our approach.

Your proposal to extend the current law means that you don’t even give a chance to second-generation biofuels. We do not make that choice. We prefer to insert it now, but we are putting a slope at 1.5% because we need to make sure that we do not “surinsert” second-generation fuel. Indeed, there remains a series of uncertainties regarding the status of second-generation fuel, all the criteria are not yet defined.

You say there should be more space for second-generation fuel. You ask me why I limit it to 1.5% because it is contrary to what is said at the European level. You also say that you should not use it at all.

All components of the second generation fuel are not defined. That is why they are limited to 1.5%. We do not want to deteriorate the Belgian first generation chain. It is true that I have a lot of reluctance towards the first-generation fuel, but not on that of Belgium! I have no feelings about the sustainability criteria or the European proximity of the Belgian first-generation fuel because I know that it is of quality. However, I have problems with those who do not come from the European Union, especially the Argentine you mentioned recently. By giving too much of second-generation fuel, I do not want to kill a responsible chain that was created in Belgium, not to mention BioWanze for example, and I do not want to kill those who have invested in this chain in a sustainable and responsible way. The best way to do this was to go from 4 to 6, with a maximum of 1.5%.

Madame Snoy, you say that I am not consistent with myself. Let me at least assume my own consistency. I will not try to find consistency in your speech; I do not always get it, but I do not ask you to find it at home. Let’s stay at home and everything will be easier.

Obviously, when I advocate at European level for a maximum of 5% in the first generation, look at the figures, Mrs. Snoy. You know like me that 6% in volume of first generation corresponds to 5% in energy produced at European level. It is the same thing. That’s why you proved yourself right by confessing that you may have misunderstood: yes. A volume production of 6% is worth 5% in energy terms.

I will then return to the ethanol, the gasoline.

For now, we are talking about diesel. The E10, which is referred to in the text, is not yet applied, the framework is not yet created. Today, the discussion is quite hypothetical. In my opinion, before the first assessment, we should have talked about this topic again. Today, diesel is the topic of the real debate.

But 6% of volume correspond well to 5% in energy, without including a second-generation start. Even if we advocate for a maximum of 5% at the European level, in what is proposed at the vote, we will not even succeed if we do not have any second-generation fuel inserts. That is the basic difference. Be careful when comparing percentages in volume and energy capacity.

The transcription of this element may lack clarity in the text. Nevertheless, this element allows to demonstrate a total consistency: simply, the calculation base differs between those early texts where it was about volumes and the updated texts that refer to energy production.

Some people say, “We need to open up to the second generation as much as possible.” This no longer appears in your proposal, I note. By the way, those who want to open the most to the second generation, because the criteria are not yet defined, belong to the oil sector. Oh yes ! At most they can incite a second generation that is not well defined, at most they have some freedom in terms of the quality of the biofuel they inject into the diesel. That is why we did not choose this option either.

Our option allows us, at least, to enter into a logic of respect for European goals. We’re going a little further toward the 10% but we’re still far from it. 10% is in volume. It cannot be compared to 6%. When we’re at 10, it means we’re not even at half of the 2020 target.

Then, it is the mechanism that allows to give a perspective to the second generation. I advocate for it at the European level and I would have voted for a law in which it was not mentioned? That would have been completely inconsistent. We are here in a targeted and framed perspective. Most importantly, we do not kill the current sector, linked to the first generations. In addition, our text contains tags in terms of consultation, evaluation and evolution of laws.

I am confident that we will continue to hold a debate on biofuels in the Parliament in the next twelve months. It is changing and evolving. There have been several European texts and pleasures at European councils. I will continue to follow them and defend the dossier there. Therefore, we have included in the text that various evaluations will need to be made. We even set a deadline for this. I am therefore committed to re-consulting the different partners, the different stakeholders.

We have met with representatives of the industry many times. It is true that we did not follow them all. It was so contradictory for some that it was impossible! In this regard, we have been inspired by the opinions of the Federal Council for Sustainable Development (CFDD). And we will consult him again, mainly on the evolution of European texts and on the evaluation that will be done in the next twelve months.

So I come to the last part of the order a little more political.

I refer here to the intervention of Ms. Snoy. As I said earlier, we come back a little bit from the miracle solution of biofuels. You said that in the South, land was looted to send biofuel to other parts of the world, to drive cars at the expense of feeding the local population. This is an unacceptable situation that, like you, strikes me. Such a situation is frankly disgusting!

But as you know, fortunately, in Belgium, we have inserted a whole series of mechanisms that protect us at this level. I am talking about sustainability. You said that it would be enough to extend the law, but that would pose a technical problem. Indeed, if one merely extends the law, the sustainability criteria of the said law will no longer correspond with the evolution of European directives. They will be in contradiction with a royal decree that, he, would become obsolete because taken between two texts of law. The Royal Decree of 26 November 2011 defines the criteria for sustainability. If a new legislation reinserts new sustainability criteria, they will delete that previous decision. This is not OK!

All the sustainability criteria of the Royal Decree of 2011 must be ⁇ ined and, above all, the European Union must continue to be protected in relation to the elements related to taxation. Why Why ? In some way, to protect our market from non-EU biofuels, which would distort our market.

In this regard, Argentina, which was discussed, demonstrates that the European Union is making sure not to be at the mercy of these unacceptable biofuels in terms of sustainability. Why Why ? It even attacks Belgium because our country refuses to buy this type of biofuels. I take the commitment that we will continue to do so.

I will continue to prefer European biofuels. They are so privileged that they are even tax favored! We will continue to accept on our territory only biofuels that meet all the sustainability criteria of the Royal Decree of 2011. Let us be very clear and very firm on this point! That was true for the past. This remains true today. This law does not change. As long as I am here, it will be like that.

I will not accept any compromise on sustainability criteria. I will not accept that other biofuels are preferred than those that do not actually endanger the countries of the South, whether in terms of biodiversity and agro-food or in terms of purely food.

This is not easy because it is taken at the wrong time. If there had not been this deadline of 30 June, I think we would all have expected the European debate to be more advanced, to give us more certainty and legal certainty; that is clear. There is a date, and it must be respected. The initiative had to be taken before 30 June.

This proposal was the only way to compromise between respecting our European goals and introducing a second generation, but with different limits, with a ceiling of 1.5%, and creating legal certainty for those who had invested in the first generation. This proposal will finally provide a little more legal certainty in the future. It creates clarity. However, at the international and European level, I will continue to advocate for a change of view on biofuels.

Mr. Secretary of State, I thank you for your answers. It is true that we all agreed that something should be done by 30 June. However, I think that another way would have been more respectful of civil society and the legal system. This proposal has not been submitted to the State Council, which may be a shame for its solidity. We could have heard you in the committee, but you weren’t there.

I think you took it too late and you were caught by the emergency at some point. It’s a pity, you won’t take this idea out of my head.

I will answer you on some points. First, the freedoms in relation to the requirements of the European Union. The directive providing for the 10% figure for 2020 has already been challenged many times, including in the European Parliament. It was very clearly stated and adopted that a balance sheet would be made in 2014 to determine whether this 10% target was valid and sustainable. The Commission is currently preparing, with the participation of Belgium, a review, a questioning of this objective.

What I know about these negotiations at European level is that the European Commission is now calling for Member States to freeze their current use, just to be able to subsequently confirm this position of not exceeding 5% of first-generation agrofuels.

I still do not understand how you can justify that we go beyond – because you are still beyond. According to the technical relationship between volume and energy content (I have the figures here), to reach 10% of energy content in gasoline, it takes 14.6% in volume. For diesel, the ratio is 10.9% in volume. This is difficult to explain orally, but the fact is that with your 6 and 9%, you are above 5%, and in addition you increase the Belgian ceiling that was 4%. I do not see how you justify this.

You say that we should not break the Belgian industrial tool today. OK to OK! This is why our very reasonable proposal is to extend the current situation for another year. We know that we are not going to bring BioWanze into bankruptcy. We also accepted that they have tax reliefs, which are still very expensive.

Nor should we go in the opposite direction, namely increase the percentages and then increase the amount of tax relief, because this type of fuel is more expensive to produce than fossil fuel. This is a bad pretext. The European requirement lies in the horizon of 2020 and is clearly challenged. In this regard, we have a freedom and, on the contrary, the Commission now calls for a freeze in this matter.

Compared to second-generation fuels, I still do not understand why you impose a maximum, while the European Commission aims at a minimum. I agree with you, we need to work on the criteria. However, this bill is not very clear on how these criteria will be defined. You should read between the lines, which are not very explicit. If we are in favor of research on second-generation fuels, they do not go without demands; we know very well that by using, for example, biomass waste, we can also deprive the environment of humus, organic material that would be very useful for fertility and soil quality. We cannot play any way with these second-generation resources.

I think you remain undoubtedly in a contradiction, which I still do not explain to myself. Our proposal, which is to extend the situation by one year in anticipation of future European decisions, is a reasonable proposal. It does not increase the use of raw materials that will inevitably come from abroad. And even if they don’t come from abroad, our raw materials will induce an air call abroad. That’s what happened and that’s what nobody had planned. We neglected this call. Personally, I realized this during a mission in Colombia, where we realized that the Colombians were expecting to know the percentage to be incorporated into Europe to produce and buy massive land in Colombia. Even if you buy wheat here, a transfer will be made there in terms of land purchase. We remain in our position.

Were there any discussions in the committee?

and : mr . Wathelet was not there.

That is the problem.