Proposition 54K1534

Proposition de résolution visant à créer un groupe de travail chargé d'examiner des alternatives durables au désherbage du réseau ferroviaire.

General information ¶

Authors

N-VA Inez De Coninck, Wouter Raskin, Yoleen Van Camp

Submission date

Dec. 17, 2015

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

environmental protection resolution of parliament pesticide

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

Groen CD&V Vooruit Ecolo LE PS | SP DéFI ∉ Open Vld N-VA LDD MR PVDA | PTB PP 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 7, 2016 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

The rapporteur, Ms Grovonius, refers to her written report.

Mr. Speaker, colleagues, every year the Infrabel spray train runs approximately 10 000 km to combat the weeds on the railway bed and in the berms. This is an important task in the context of railway safety and therefore also for the accuracy of the trains. Without this command, seams and gearboxes can be disrupted, the braking and acceleration process can be hindered, technical installations can be overwhelmed and stability problems can occur.

Today, control is done almost entirely using chemical pesticides, pesticides and herbicides. Alternative combat techniques are very labor-intensive and therefore a suit more expensive. Each year, this spray train emits approximately 6 000 l of pesticides.

In 2009, a European Directive was adopted to establish a common regulatory framework for the sustainable use of pesticides and herbicides. In recent years, federal and state governments have also taken measures to reduce the use of chemical destruction agents. Its purpose is clear and logical: protecting human health and the environment from the risks associated with the use of this type of products. Scientific studies indicate the use of chemical destruction agents as a possible cause of cancers, nerve diseases, fertility problems and other diseases.

Derogations from the prohibition on the use of pesticides are possible, for example, when there are no adequate non-chemical agents or when alternatives involve disproportionate costs. On this basis, Infrabel has an exception.

However, I can hardly say that the company has done nothing, has not taken any measures to reduce the impact of those pesticides. We have selectively acted around these destructive agents. In recent years, less harmful products have been used and camera detection has been installed, allowing targeted spraying rather than across entire surfaces. In the construction of new tracks, other materials and techniques are used, which can make weeds thrive less well, and sensitive areas, such as drinking water protection zones or other protected areas, are also taken into account. They are mechanically ⁇ ined.

Despite all these efforts, the amount of sprayed zones does not decrease significantly. This is due to repeated exercises, as a result of the weather conditions and as a result of additional zones. In the long term, replacing chemical destroyers is the only sustainable solution. That is why this initiative is here today.

We intend to support Infrabel by bringing all the available expertise around the table. It is also intended to put a sustainable but financially feasible alternative on paper and conduct research into the feasibility of the complete transition to mechanical vegetation control or other techniques. The findings of the working group should lead to an approach plan and a maximum and financially viable substitution of chemical pesticides. If substitution at acceptable costs turns out to be impossible, the aim should be to limit the sprinkled quantities, for example by a broader definition of “sensitive areas”.

Therefore, we have received five concrete requests to the government.

First, the establishment of a working group to invite Infrabel, and possibly the relevant subsidiaries, as well as partners from the public and private sectors and civil society actors.

Second, that working group is commissioned to develop an approach plan containing binding obligations for subcontractors for a sustainable and financially viable control of vegetation on and along the railway beams, as well as a way of work that minimizes the use of chemical destruction agents.

Third, the Government must ensure that the Working Group meets regularly and request that a final report be submitted by spring 2018 at the latest.

Fourth, the Government is asked to regularly consult with the members of the Working Group on the progress of the work and to link back to the House of Representatives.

Finally, the government is asked, in consultation with Infrabel, to implement the eventually proposed approach plan.

We have said in the committee that we will support this resolution. However, we do not understand and we regret that here in the plenary session last week, including by the N-VA, a motion by our colleague Jiroflée on the protection of public health and the use of glyphosate was voted down. There are two sizes and two weights.

I understand that there is still a debate pending in the Public Health Committee. We hope that there is some continuity from this majority, otherwise I can only conclude that adopting this resolution would lead to hypocrisy.

by mr. Cheron was registered, but he is not present.