Proposition 54K3047

Projet de loi portant autorisation de la création d'une association internationale sans but lucratif pour la gestion de la Station polaire "Princess Elisabeth" et abrogation du chapitre I du titre V de la loi du 24 juillet 2008 portant des dispositions diverses (I).

General information ¶

Submitted by

MR Swedish coalition

Submission date

May 18, 2018

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

Antarctica international organisation non-profit organisation public authorities scientific research

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

Groen CD&V Vooruit Ecolo Open Vld N-VA LDD MR

Voted to reject

PVDA | PTB

Abstained from voting

LE PS | SP ∉ 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 ¶

June 27, 2018 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

Youro Casier, the rapporteur, refers to the written report.

Mr. Speaker, dear colleagues, Mrs. Secretary of State, I do not intend to repeat all that was said on this project in committee by my colleague Mr. Delizée, but I would like to recall the reasons that force my group to abstain on this bill.

First of all, we recognize the good intentions of the Secretary of State. Since his entry into office, it is clear that his priority has been to end the judicial conflict, lost in advance, and to ensure the resumption of scientific missions in Antarctica. Never enough will be recalled: the absence of scientific missions during the winter 2016-2017 was a terrifying failure of the government for the research and image of Belgium.

Let us also acknowledge that the Polar Secretariat set up by Sabine Laruelle, a long time ago, was bald from the beginning. Despite the goodwill and good intentions of those who animated it – we think here of the work of its former director, to which we must pay tribute today – the double hat of the Polar Foundation, both operator and administrator, was a source of potential conflict and therefore suspicion, whether founded or not.

If I recall this, it is not for pleasure to move the knife into a wound that is closed today, but rather because we must retain the lessons of the past, otherwise we are condemned to repeat the same mistakes again and again. It is therefore from this perspective that the PS group has analyzed this bill, and it is imperative to see that it does not offer sufficient guarantees for us to support it.

Certainly, the presence of a government commissioner within the board of directors where the operator will only have a consultative voice is a good thing. But for the rest, the government asks us to sign a “white cheque”, because the most – if not all – of the conditions to be met by the operator are not written in the draft text. They are in a document signed under private seing, which has not been submitted to the State Council and has not been made public.

Who will control compliance with the agreement and what role will the future board of directors play in this context? We fear that this board of directors is merely a façade organ responsible for automatically transferring funds from the state to the operator. And, which is probably even more problematic, state funds will be able to be spent by the operator without passing public market. Without state control.

When you know the history of this case, it seems that the government has not made the effort to retain the lessons of the past. Here are the reasons why my group will abstain from this bill. I thank you.

Only a few countries on this globe have the right to a South Pole base and Belgium is one of them. In 2007, it was decided to establish a permanent South Pole base through public-private cooperation. However, it soon came to clashes with the International Polar Foundation of Alain Hubert. The result was more than thirty legal proceedings.

Solving those problems and legal procedures was one of your priorities when you became secretary of state in the government. On 30 June 2017, the IPF concluded an agreement with the Belgian State ending the conflict. It is a good thing that after dozens of disputes arising after an unclear legal arrangement with the IPF, the South Pole Base and the scientific research that can be carried out there will again be central. Thanks to the new structure, this should also be simpler. The South Pole is interesting from a scientific point of view, including for the climatological data stored in the ice. From now on, the South Pole Base will take the form of an international Pole Institute. That institute will be responsible for the management, maintenance and maintenance of the South Pole Base.

Our group is only looking forward and hopes that the South Pole Base will only bring positive news to the media. We will ⁇ support the bill.

Mrs. Secretary of State, I have already said in the committee that it is a good thing that we have found a solution for the South Pole Base. As Mr Janssen has already said, the South Pole Base has a lot of scientific potential: there is a lot of knowledge there. Belgium has an important role to play there, as it is one of the few countries with voting rights under the Antarctic Treaty.

What is especially good about the bill is that there will finally be some rest. There was under your predecessor a real legal battle going on between the Belgian State, on the one hand, and the International Polar Foundation, on the other, with a lot of legal procedures and costs resulting. I don’t like to repeat it, but I have the sum of 674 130 euros here. That is irresponsible and it is very good that this can be stopped thanks to the punishment and the present bill, because, among other things, last winter there was not even a single scientist present at the base and yet the cost continued to rise. So it is good that we can look forward again.

In the committee, I have already highlighted some elements that still require some attention. I will repeat three of them briefly.

First, it is important that it is an international vzw.

If we look at the present draft, it is actually a national vzw, because only the Belgian State is a 100% driver of that vzw. It would be good to be able to expand this business with a number of foreign partners in the short term, so that this really becomes an international story, in which we can take steps. This is also stated in the Government Agreement.

A second point of attention is that the bill contains a lot of matters that still need to be fixed in a royal decree, though after submission to the Council of Ministers. I hope that this will also be in line with the agreement concluded with the International Polar Foundation. It would not be good if we submitted a KB that goes against the offence that we have concluded with the organization in question.

The last point is a rather limited point of attention. Article 7 states that the Pool Institute is transferred to the new ivzw. It is important that the assets and funds transferred to the new joint venture are effectively used for investments, not for the payment of wages. It is necessary to take care of the investments necessary for the pool base.

Mr. Speaker, dear colleagues, the record of the polar station in Antarctica has made a lot of ink flow. This has been discussed several times here. It was not with you, Mrs. Secretary of State. It was with Mrs. Sleurs. I refer here to the saga in which much more was spoken about this subject in the media through appeals and justice cases rather than scientific cases.

It was time to get out of this situation which, in addition, dear colleagues, has ensured that the Belgian state has spent money not on doing scientific research but on financing legal actions: more than 600,000 euros. Colleague Van Peteghem is well aware of these figures, since he has regularly questioned the authorities on the issue.

Pacta sunt servanda to please those who still love Latin and who, in addition, understand it, Mr. Miller. But, the Pax Antarctica, Mrs. Demir, – I was going to say “Madame Sleurs” – it wasn’t voluntary, for once! The Pax Antarctica is important. That is why the Ecolo-Groen group will support your text, for the time being, as there will be other steps. It was necessary to give a clear signal, namely, that a good deal is better than a very bad trial. And I hope that bad trials are part of the past. It is important now to move forward. Scientific teams from around the world should be able to use this zero-emission polar station, the only of its kind in Antarctica, which allows for fundamental studies for the future of our planet, in particular.

We will look forward to the future, Mr. Secretary of State. You will take an important first step. I think this is the 2008 law. This allows you to start the process, but you will still have to overcome a few other obstacles. The first is the consultation with the federated entities because, as we know, the scientific policy is ... It would also be ⁇ useful to think, like what my group leader Calvo proposed, about a refederalization of certain skills. Mr. Van Rompuy, I am a fan of the “Calvo” model. Therefore, you will need to consider cooperation agreements, Mrs. Secretary of State. We are there! A cooperation agreement with the Communities will be required to complete the work, but it is also important to interest the international.

You want an A.I.S.B.L. (the “i” is the initial of international). But for now, unless we consider that Flanders, Wallonia and Brussels belong to the international (which is not my point of view), it seems to me that we remain within the Belgian federal framework. It would be welcome that the contacts continue. At one time, it was about Switzerland, in particular, but also other states, also interested in the model. Belgium, which is a participating party to the International Agreement for the Protection of Antarctica, could continue with the English, whether they are members of the European Union or not. In any case, they could join us on this issue. This was a second element.

The third element, Ms. Secretary of State, concerns financing; sustainable financing. We do not yet know what is clearly about it today. It is a royal arrest. In the committee, I read it in the report, you stated that you would forward the documents to us. It must be acknowledged that we have been entitled to the documents, including those you have concluded with the International Polar Foundation (IPF), so that we can have clear objectives in terms of funding. That is why we will support this text today. We look forward to the follow-up with impatience. The next step, dear colleagues, will come when Belgium can once again be proud of being a pioneer and that scientific research can once again grow and thrive in Antarctica.

I look forward to the progress made in the case of the Polar Foundation. An important step has been made for many scientists who will be able to conduct their research in Antarctica under better conditions.

It is clear that the Polar Station Princess Elizabeth is a brand image of Belgium, but it is above all an action for the scientists of our country with, as a reminder, the pioneering spirit of Belgium on this continent. This element is important.

This bill is a follow-up to the Agreement with the Polar Foundation on the management of the Polar Station Princess Elizabeth, entitled Pax Antartica. Remember that this agreement was signed on 20 June 2017. This is now more than a year. It took you more than a year to present your project. Remember, on the other hand, that by proposing this text and signing this Pax Antartica, you had responded to the call to negotiate with the Polar Foundation, a call that we had already launched to you for many months.

The negotiation was the right path, Mrs. Minister. You also told us, less than a year ago, that it was thanks to the questions asked in the committee and in the plenary that the government had started the negotiations with the IPF. It is worth saying that the culture of negotiation was not in the DNA of the majority on this subject. This project gives us the opportunity, for one of the last times, if not the last before a long time, to speak about the conflict that has long undermined the relationship between the Belgian State and the Polar Foundation.

We start from the principle that everything will now go better or well and that we will not have to go back on the subject too often. Remember that this conflict started Belgium’s reputation abroad and diminished the scientific impact of the project.

Ms. Secretary of State, in your documents you use a formula well-suited to you: "Both the Belgian State and the IPF have, however, had to find in the following years that the operational framework was not satisfactory in practice."I must find that it is, indeed, not satisfactory and that what you said was an euphemism.

Since then, relations around this subject have warmed up; the Pax Antarctica and the Polar Station management mechanism are far broader, obviously, than the content of this law. This law only makes sense in the whole that it forms with the Pax Antarctica. Therefore, it is on the whole that the content of this law must be judged. You presented to us the main lines of this peace agreement. Like my colleagues, I was then able to consult the documents. I have asked you many questions for clarification. We must effectively evaluate the agreement that is presented to us by keeping in mind the problems that have arisen in the past, within the framework of the initial convention.

The current agreement and the way you operate is an improvement compared to the previous agreement. But, by careful reading of the documents that are provided to us, we find that all problems and risks are not addressed, Mrs. Secretary of State. It seems to me that this new agreement still has some weaknesses and that, according to the new system, the state has only limited means to control what is happening in Antarctica. The only possible sanction is the non-renewal of the concession.

How do you know if the human and material resources are well used for the scientific campaign and maintenance of the Princess Elizabeth station and not for any other station that the International Polar Foundation (IPF) would like to build? Many questions remain unanswered for scientists.

You specify in your text that the agreement provides for ten criteria on which the operator will be evaluated annually. However, these criteria are flawed or incomplete. The requirement of three out of ten criteria seems to me insufficient. This means automatically renewing the agreement after five years, for a period of three years. In the end, you will entrust the management of the station to the IPF until the polar station is completely devalued, has a residual value of zero euros, and the state recovers it free of charge.

The IPF is ⁇ competent, so I don’t see it bad as long as the state can keep some control over what is happening. However, there are very or too limited means of control. Those are the limits of the agreement, which could have provided for example the presence of a representative of the State on the spot. In the meantime, let us hope that despite this gap in the agreement, the State and the IPF will remain good friends.

But, let’s be honest, you made this agreement, you negotiated it, and it is your successors who will see if it is good or not.

Several remarks can be made about the structure and composition of the AISBL, I will not mention all of them. One of them points out that half of the members will be Belgian. So Belgium could lose its majority in the AISBL and be blocked on a vote by foreign directors, while its property and its budget are at stake. Shouldn't half plus one member of the directors be Belgian?

My second observation concerns the contractual and legal construction. You sink into the law that the polar foundation is an operator. This means that any change of operator must be done in a legislative manner. This was one of the problems of the previous situation. Why did you remain in this text of law?

The third questionable element is the financing. This issue of the financing of the AISBL remains subject to a subsequent royal decree. It is therefore important that the royal decree be promulgated quickly, since it is the adoption of it that will allow the transition from the regime of the polar secretariat to the polar institute.

Many questions remain suspended. The means of control are limited and fears are important in view of the known past that has caused the miswriting of a text to result in the torments that you have had to deal with.

These past agreements have therefore not prevented a mountain of problems.

The details of the new agreement should have anticipated all the circumstances that led to the problems of the old agreement in order to predict potential future problems, Ms. Secretary of State. Unfortunately, even during the World Cup, the devil is in the details and it seems to me that the terms of the new agreement approved by this law leave a number of gaps. That is why we will abstain from the text you present to us.

Mr. Speaker, Mrs. Secretary of State, colleagues, we have sufficiently discussed the bill in the committee and will not repeat what we said then. I have a short follow-up question. I spoke about the fact that not only the federal government, but also the states were involved in this. You mentioned then that the talks were ongoing. I liked to have a state of affairs.

Mr. Speaker, dear colleagues, when I was appointed as Secretary of State more than a year ago, almost all the political groups asked me to resolve this case. This was urged, because scientific research is of great importance there. I took my responsibility immediately and came up with a solution fairly quickly. Hopefully, with the bill presented today, we will approve a new, transparent structure for the management of the South Pole Base and for the organization of scientific expeditions there.

The latter is of crucial importance. I have heard from several sides how sad it was that in 2016 and 2017 there were no expeditions. I also regret that, although there was an expedition last year. At that time, there were scientists present at the South Pole base and the evaluation showed that according to a large part of the researchers, everything was okay.

The solution could be found thanks to constructive negotiations with many parties. Thus, a line can be drawn under the past. Several colleagues referred to the ongoing procedures. I am really pleased that we can leave them behind us and that we now have a transparent, clear structure. The discussions in the past flowed mainly from the unclear structure. I will give an example. IPF was a co-owner; it had 1/1000th of the shares of the South Pole Base, the rest were in the hands of the Belgian State. As a result, it was not clear who made the decisions and who executed them. The bill has a very clear structure. The transfer of that one thousandth to the Belgian State makes the Belgian State the full owner of the South Pole Base.

The Board of Directors makes the decisions and the operator – currently appointed by IPF for five years – implements the decisions of the Board of Directors. This method is crucial. In addition to the Board of Directors, there is an advisory committee of industrials, which was also requested by the industry. It is good that they are involved in the management through the advisory committee. There are also scientists sitting. Thanks to the collaboration between scientists, industry and the South Pole Base Board of Directors, the base can look forward to a bright future.

I can also inform you that the directors in the Board of Directors will not receive any remuneration. This is important in light of the debates over the remuneration of drivers in recent years. Those who have a seat in the board of directors will really do so from a certain interest and idealism and based on some know-how. It’s not about the money, because there’s no money to earn in the board.

I have answered a lot of questions in the committee. I would like to come back to a few small points that were quoted by various groups.

First, national actors are currently represented in the IVZW. The question was whether it could be extended to international partners. At least that’s what we want, and that’s why we opted for an EVM. However, it is important that we first make sure that we can run the matter, so that the South Pole Base will regain positive recognition in the world. At least, my contacts show that there is interest from international partners.

It was also asked whether there are sufficient guarantees, as the cooperation agreement between the IPF and the Belgian State is not included in the legislation. You can easily view the agreement in the data room, but it is not in the text because it is a temporary agreement with an operator, while the law and the Pool Institute, which was included in the bill, are structural.

In principle, after five years, the Pool Institute can decide whether to renew the agreement or not. It can perform some of the tasks itself, but it can also look at other operators. That is why it is not stated in the law. If there is a new operator, a new cooperation agreement must be signed.

Research on the South Pole base for example on the climate is indeed a shared competence. This was also a comment from the State Council. That is why we have taken that aspect out of the text and we have talks with the Communities. The aim is to establish a cooperation agreement. I hope it will come during this legislature, but I know from experience, unfortunately, that things don’t always go fast enough. I would like everything to go faster and we are at least behind it.

This is the state of affairs regarding the cooperation agreement.

I give the floor to the Chairman of the Finance Committee who would like to communicate to you.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to inform you that the meeting will take place at 15:00 in the Brelzaal. Minister Van Overtveldt will accompany us. I ask the groups to be in number.

Thus will happen.