Proposition 53K3234

Projet de loi complétant la loi du 21 décembre 1994 portant des dispositions sociales et diverses par une série d'indicateurs complémentaires en vue de mesurer la qualité de vie, le développement humain, le progrès social et la durabilité de notre économie.

General information ¶

Submitted by

The Senate

Submission date

July 17, 2013

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

sustainable development quality of life social well-being social indicator

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

Groen CD&V Vooruit Ecolo LE PS | SP Open Vld MR

Abstained from voting

∉ N-VA LDD VB

Party dissidents ¶

• Peter Luykx (CD&V) 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 ¶

Jan. 23, 2014 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

This bill has come to us from the Senate. We have made some improvements in the Chamber Committee. With this bill, we are paving the way for the future. For years, gross domestic product has been the only indicator and measure of wealth in our country. However, it won’t surprise you that prosperity doesn’t have to be the same as well-being.

At first, the Senate Committee was quite skeptical of this proposal, but gradually the support has grown and it has gone out, partly on the instruction of our colleague Senator Daems. The idea dates back to more than ten years ago. At that time, former senator Roland Duchâtelet also advocated for paving the way for more net domestic “happiness”, rather than “product”. I am therefore pleased that the Chamber Committee has approved this proposal with a broad majority, across party boundaries.

Ladies and gentlemen, I would like to add the following briefly. You know it or you do not know it, but with this, the government resolves another point of its administrative agreement. In fact, we had also included the firm will to work on this very beautiful project. The planning agency will be instructed to draw up a number of indicators. Of course, as a good legislator, we have given the Plan Bureau an indication in which direction it can go. I refer to the work already done by the United Nations and the Better Life Index, which the OECD has launched.

Colleagues, if we approve this bill today, then the future governments will be able to present their policies to the citizen on the basis of a rich set of indicators and hopefully in this way can improve not only the economic but also the general level of well-being of our society and our policies.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, dear colleagues, let us agree, this Senate bill is not a model of legal exercise!

If it gives a direction to follow, the path of its execution is vaguely marked and should not result in the creation of new revolutionary indicators. In this regard, the Plan Office lists a lot of them on its website.

But let us not ruin our pleasure. By incorporating social indicators into the National Bank’s annual report, one inserts a little human into the cold statistics of the economy. Moreover, the reluctance against this project, expressed by the President of the National Bank, comforts me and my group in the idea that growth specialists tend to forget that the economy is not the end but a means. A growth in gross domestic product that increases the gap between rich and poor is not virtuous growth.

This text therefore participates in a global reflection that the evolution of a society is measured not only by the size of its GDP but also by the quality of life it provides sustainably to all its citizens.

For all these reasons, the Socialist Group and I will vote in favour of this project.

This bill is very important for the Ecolo-Groen Group. It also echoes a proposal that we had submitted to the House and an identical proposal that we submitted to the Senate, but it was covered by this proposal of the majority.

Why is this bill so important to us? In a way, it offers us a potential or, at least, other glasses to look at our societal goals, to look at our development and to define the progress we want to provide our society.

In fact, I will first cite Mrs Isabelle Cassiers, a professor of economics at UCL, who has worked a lot on the emergence of these alternative indicators in Belgium and Europe. She says: “Our civilization is exhausted by a materialist race that does not keep its promises and leaves us as hungry.” Furthermore, she renews her interest in happiness and manifests it in various ways.

In this sense it is appropriate to understand the resolution of the United Nations Assembly of 28 June 2012, proclaiming that an International Day of Happiness would be celebrated on 20 March.

“Knowing that the pursuit of happiness is a fundamental goal of the human being, conscious of the importance of happiness and well-being, objectives and aspirations of a universal character in the life of human beings, everywhere in the world, and conscious of the importance of taking them into account in the programme of public action; also conscious of the need to consider economic growth in a broader, more equitable, more balanced perspective, which promotes sustainable development, the elimination of poverty, as well as the happiness and well-being of all peoples, the General Assembly of the United Nations decides to declare March 20 the International Day of Happiness.”

A few months earlier, 68 countries, including Belgium, joined a Bhutan initiative to present to the United Nations a resolution entitled “Happiness: Towards a Global Approach to Development”. This resolution was adopted by consensus in July 2011.

Gross National Happiness (GNP) is not transposable. However, it is interesting and even fun to know that next week the Prime Minister of Bhutan will be awarded the title of Doctor Honoris Causa by the UCL. At this occasion, he will come to expose this concept of BNB in Bhutan and how this indicator was developed, a guide to Bhutan’s national policy, in which the economic aspect is only one factor among others.

What is interesting about Bhutan’s approach is that it uses a calculation mode that sets sufficiency thresholds and allows to focus on both the most vulnerable people and the most sensitive areas.

Through this introduction, I would like to remind you that today we aim, by taking the step to vote this law, much more than adding a few missions to the Institute of National Accounts and the Plan Bureau. It is about changing paradigms. This is the goal of our group. I confess to you that the word "complementary" is for us insufficient in so far as we would have preferred alternative indicators to GDP, indicators that can be considered at least as important as GDP and even more important. We want to turn toward a new vision of development that is more focused on the quality of life, on the aspiration to happiness and that fundamentally takes into account the limits of the planet.

The law says that the number of indicators must be limited. This aspect is quite important because we already have, since 1997, a law on sustainable development. The Bureau of the Plan has developed indicators and is working on their evolution. There are about forty-five. Despite the quality of the work of the Plan Bureau, we find that the tools it gives us are not enough to change our vision of politics. All the dominant discourses are still impregnated with the only reference to GDP.

The law, and I insist that it be applied voluntarily, specifies that the number of indicators must be reduced, that a set of flagship indicators must be made. We believe that it is necessary to refer as much as possible, in the interpretations given, to indicators that place the issues of well-being as independent of economic growth and a productivist view of this well-being. We also want indicators to place sustainability issues, ecological issues, as directly related to the physical limits of the planet.

Scoreboards that bring together dozens of indicators are useful, but are not likely to be as strong and alternative to GDP. It is therefore a question of looking for a very limited number of indices, which are very easy to understand, even though the calculation may be relatively complex, and which are preferably aggregated synthetic indices, i.e. with a common unit that allows to add to each other in a credible way components, whether social, economic or ecological, which cover most of the major issues considered as essential by citizens.

Hence the importance of consulting civil society in the development of these flagship indicators.

Finally, capital substitutability and poor sustainability must be avoided. These are complicated concepts. In other words, we cannot replace economic means at ecological limits. Even if indicators contradict each other, we must admit the contradiction and end up with the political choice of which goal to choose.

To illustrate what we want, I have mentioned two very close examples. The first example is the experience of the regions in France. They have selected indicators that they will all apply to be able to compare with each other. They selected three wealth indicators to illuminate their sustainable development.

The first is the ecological footprint, which measures the pressure that humans exert on nature, starting from the principle that most consumption can be derived from biologically productive land or sea surfaces.

The second indicator is the Human Development Indicator, which covers the three major dimensions of human development defined by the United Nations Development Programme: health, education and standard of living, along with other variables that allow them to be better adapted to territorial issues.

The third indicator selected is the Social Health Indicator, a composite indicator covering eight major dimensions: education, justice, housing, health, income, work, employment, as well as social and interpersonal ties.

It is interesting to observe how the experience of the French regions will evolve, but you will find that they focus on three indicators.

Another example I would like to point out is that of the Wallonia government. In May 2013, the Walloon government, based on the work of the Walloon Institute of Assessment, Prospects and Statistics (IWEPS) and on the reflections of a panel of experts, defined five new flagship indicators that could complement GDP to measure societal progress.

What is interesting about the process in Wallonia – I hope that the next government will inspire itself to implement this law – is that citizens were consulted via a playful and interactive website to choose from eighteen dimensions previously defined by IWEPS, those that they considered essential to take into account. As a result of this consultation process, 2,800 citizens were able to express their preferences.

Another interesting initiative that can be inspired is that of the CPAS Federation. It organized round tables that gathered 80 people in precarious situations. The aim was to ensure that the priorities of the most vulnerable people are taken into account.

Based on these elements and the consultation of experts, the Walloon government has defined five flagship indicators.

First, the social situation index, based on the social health index of the French, which will be adapted to the wallon context.

Second, the well-being index, which is based on a participatory methodology.

Third, ecological footprint and biocapacity. I would like to point out that Belgium has an extremely important footprint, the sixth world. It is 7.1 hectares per capita, while the average footprint of a European is 4.7 hectares, due to the high energy consumption and the lack of energy efficiency in Belgium.

Fourth, the environmental status index, which indicates the state of environmental capital.

Fifth, an indicator on economic capital, which is different from GDP because the latter does not measure the state of capital.

Five flagship indicators in Wallonia, three in the French regions, we have something to inspire. I don't know the Flemish experience but I know that there are also regional indicators complementary to GDP.

During the discussion of the bill, our Senate colleagues introduced an amendment to take these experiences into account and for the federal level to contact the federal entities in order to harmonize the methods. Indeed, if each level uses different methods, it will be impossible to make comparisons between the different indicators.

While I have insisted a lot on the need to have a small number of indicators, I also insist, on behalf of my group, on the fact that we must take inspiration from existing experiences.

Furthermore, in my opinion, the role assigned to civil society by law must be well defined and confirmed. It can be a consultation of organized civil society (social partners, NGOs, actors who are, for example, gathered within the Council for Sustainable Development), but also a less organized civil society that can be gathered through new participatory democracy methods such as the citizens’ panel or social media.

The role of civil society in the development of these flagship indicators seems to us essential. It is on the condition that this law is applied using all the possibilities it offers that we will support it.

I recall the weight of these new indicators that must be considered as equally important, if not more important than GDP. We are supporters of social well-being based on a prosperous economy respecting the limits of the planet. Maybe one day we will join Bhutan.

This bill is a step in the right direction. Why Why ? Because, indeed, beside indicators that only add quantitative standards, monetary values, it was time to add other indicators that rely on what, ultimately, constitutes the essential, that is, human, quality of life, the fight against inequalities, the level of education of citizens, the sense of well-being, justice, speed to obtain quality decisions.

This bill, which was initially a Senate proposal, was co-signed by the CDH. It is very positive because it was appropriate to be able to enlighten decision-makers, operators on how we will have to foster, tomorrow, social as well as economic and cultural progress, and ensure both qualitative and quantitative growth.

The relevant public services and civil society will be invited to actively participate in the development of these indicators, in consultation with the Eurostat services and the OECD.

I also recall that it is part of a approach that was already promoted, more than twenty years ago, in the academic circles. This approach was relayed by the UN, which published, many years ago, an index of human development, by the OECD, which recently developed an index of better living, as well as by the European Commission, which in 2009 had carried out a communication "GDP and beyond". Our neighboring countries, like France, have launched the same reflections on the matter.

It is therefore with great interest that we will follow what is, of course, the first steps, the bullshit but which should lead us to a better understanding of the social and qualitative reality of our civilizations.

Mr. Speaker, colleagues, in line with Mr. Snoy’s statement, I would like to express my satisfaction on the speaker’s seat with regard to the present bill.

Our group has long been asking party to be real active with alternative economic indicators. Important work has been done in the Senate. Resolutions were submitted and today the result comes to the House.

Colleague Schiltz, the draft is ⁇ relevant and also testifies to a broader societal, academic tendency to challenge the alpha and omega of social policy, namely gross domestic product, and to broaden the scope of policy and policy evaluation.

If one would make a ranking of the out-of-the-box proposals and designs submitted in this legislature, this draft provides a good chance to get into the top ten. This has to do not only with the design itself, but also with the lack of out-of-the-box wets designs and proposals from the traditional parties.

However, let’s name the right thing, and that’s what a interesting proposal is presenting here today.

Why should we turn away from the alpha and omega of socio-economic policies, from that scary focus on gross domestic product? I have made extensive reference to this in the committee.

The Gross Domestic Product does not account for many things. It does not map the social and environmental impacts of our economic activities. In that sense, it is only half the truth, not to say half a lie, about how our socio-economic tissue is really going on in the short and long term. A lot of damage remains from the field of view of that indicator.

I have referred to a spicy piece of the Dutch author Rutger Bregman in De Morgen, who rightly notes that many things that are socially and even stricto sensu economically useful are not counted in the gross domestic product.

Let’s get rid of that fetish and open up something in the coming years.

I want to say something about the National Bank. Colleague Emmery referred to it. We received an angry letter from Luc Coene. If Luc Coene is angry, it means that one is usually socially and ecologically engaged, and so it wasn’t immediately an alarm cry for our group.

Our group is sincerely convinced that it is just better that the reporting on the alternative economic indicators is part of the National Bank’s annual report. An integrated report is better – the National Bank’s annual reporting is very much awaited – than a separate report for “linkiewinkies” and NGOs. One must bring everything together, tell the full truth, and discuss that full truth together. That would be a big step forward.

Finally, it is an interesting and relevant design, which testifies to out-of-the-box thinking. It also testifies to the fact that in politics and society there is an increasing support for the ecological economy. The question, of course, will be how we will handle this in the coming years. Is it primarily a report that gets into our shuttle, ⁇ not even the offices of Members of Parliament and Cabinets, and very quickly disappears to the background? If so, then it is not a real step forward. The report will need to be used. Indicators will need to be used. We will have to get rid of the fetish of gross domestic product every day or we will continue to drive our planet into destruction and that can not, in my opinion, be the intention, neither for the Greens nor for other parties.

We will support the bill, but we look forward to the practice and daily political decision-making. However, the foundation has been laid, and please continue to work on it in the coming years.