2 March 2026

Question posed by François Benoy

In December 2021, the Ministry of Spatial Planning (<em>Ministère de l'Aménagement du territoire</em>) published the final report on Phase 3 of the "Luxembourg in Transition" study, drawn up by AREP. This strategic study provides an analysis of the land-use measures required to achieve carbon neutrality by 2050, and identifies, through several zoom-in sections, a number of sites with a high potential for transformation, most notably within Luxembourg City.

In that regard, and in compliance with municipal law and the Municipal Council's internal rules and regulations, I would like to put the following questions to the College of Aldermen:

• Is the College of Aldermen familiar with the "Luxembourg in Transition" study and, more specifically, the proposals submitted for Luxembourg City?
• What is its overall assessment of this study, and does it acknowledge the importance of the ecological and territorial transition for the future of Luxembourg City, as described in the study?

Significant investments in green spaces, active-mobility infrastructure, public transport (tram), and public amenities have already been made in the new Ban de Gasperich district. Nevertheless, motorised transport is still highly predominant in the district, and its potential in terms of quality of life, public gathering spaces, and local services could be further exploited.

In that respect, the study proposes reallocating public space to prioritise pedestrians, gathering spaces, higher-quality cycling infrastructure, playgrounds, sports facilities, more green spaces and greater integration of energy generation (see pages 108 and following).

• What is the College of Aldermen's position on these proposals?
• Have there been any deliberations on, or are there any projects for the development of the Ban de Gasperich district along those lines, with a view to improving quality of life and climate resilience?

The study pinpointed the former Cloche d'Or business park as a highly developed, highly monofunctional and highly space-intensive area, yet with a high potential for transformation. In particular, it mentions more efficient land use – for example, through the development of shared parking facilities – and a transition to a denser, more mixed-use district that is greener and more resilient, emitting less CO₂, and featuring a more diverse range of services, and a different approach to mobility (see pages 117 and following).

• What is the College of Aldermen's assessment of this potential for transformation of the Cloche d'Or business park?
• Is the College of Aldermen considering transforming this area into a more sustainable district with more mixed-use features?
• Would it not be appropriate to extend this study to cover the entire municipality so that this transformation can be planned in more concrete terms since, in my view, the area in question could serve as an exemplary pilot project for the urban transition of Luxembourg City as a whole?

Response provided by Mayor Lydie Polfer

The study in question was conducted in 2021 at the request of the Ministry of Spatial Planning. The City of Luxembourg's Environmental Officer informed the College of Aldermen that they had not been involved in the study, and that the figures that are mentioned in it are difficult to verify. The various municipal departments with expertise in such matters view this study as an interesting, but highly theoretical intellectual exercise. The attractive images presented in the study must be weighed against the reality on the ground, which is informed by economic and demographic constraints, the existing legal framework, private property owners' property rights and existing development procedures and plans.

The City of Luxembourg did not need to wait for the study in question to come up with many of its own ideas and incorporate them into its projects. The City has been working on designing the new Cloche d'Or district to be as sustainable and accessible as possible since 2010. At the time, the plans had already obtained DGNB (Deutsche Gesellschaft für nachhaltiges Bauen) "Gold" pre-certification. They even obtained "Platinum" certification in 2018.

The City must, of course, take the reality on the ground into account. This applies to both housing and the space required to create jobs, which are still being filled, in part, by people from other parts of the country and from the Greater Region, and one of the conditions for this is that the capital be easily accessible. As such, private motorised transport also has a place in the City's Mobility Plan, since we need people to staff our businesses, hospitals and schools. And since public transport is not as convenient everywhere as it is here, many people rely on other means of transport. This does not prevent us from continuing to improve the network of pedestrian and cycling routes, and from making these routes safer. In the coming months, we will be submitting further measures along these lines to the Municipal Council. The study in question does indeed contain a number of suggestions, for instance, on how to keep districts free of through-traffic. The City is actively engaged in addressing this issue. We are also willing to make adjustments when certain measures fail to produce the expected results.

As regards greening, one of the study's key topics is the conversion of roads into green spaces or cycle paths. We want keep improving our city, especially in terms of its environmental impact. However, it is also our duty to ensure that doing so is consistent with the goals that have been set in areas such as housing, mobility, education and social services. The question is not whether we have enough money, but rather whether we will continue to find enough people to carry out all our projects. Many of our structures, especially those involved in social matters, are no longer able to find the staff they need. Yes, we want to move forward with everything that has been mentioned in order to make our city more resilient and preserve social diversity in all city districts. Fortunately, there are no ghettoised districts in Luxembourg, as our social housing is distributed across all city districts.

As I said, the study contains some interesting, albeit theoretical, ideas, and many of them are reflected in our projects and in the measures we are taking.

As for gathering spaces, these are mentioned in the College of Aldermen's mission statement.

The new district in Gasperich is not monofunctional: 1,636 housing units have been authorised in that district, and 2,743 people already live there. From the outset, we sought to create a multifunctional space, and we will continue in that vein.

I am surprised that no one has mentioned the large, 16-hectare park that has been built in Ban de Gasperich. This park is an integral part of the overall project.

The 155-page "Luxembourg in Transition" study presents a number of ideas that can be taken into account when planning new districts, and that is exactly what we will do. There will be many more opportunities for us to discuss this. I simply regret is that the City of Luxembourg personnel who work daily on these matters were not involved in this study.

François Benoy (déi gréng)

The term "monofunctional" was used to refer to the Cloche d'Or industrial zone, not to the new district in Ban de Gasperich.

Mayor Lydie Polfer

That is correct. And in that regard, a series of projects will be implemented in the coming months and years, in line with what was mentioned in the "Luxembourg in Transition" study. These projects will be presented to the Municipal Council in due course.

Question posed by Antónia Afonso

"Community refrigerators" are an initiative that was launched to help the most disadvantaged to eat better diets, and to allow everyone to contribute to combating food waste. But this initiative could also help to develop a project aimed at fostering a spirit of sharing, solidarity and community within the neighbourhood, at a time when neighbourhoods are in need of simple, modern and accessible projects that bring people together.

For example: someone goes on holiday and leaves dairy products that have not yet reached their expiry date – as shown on the packaging – in their refrigerator. When the person returns, they will find that the food items have reached or passed their expiry date, and will throw them away. But why throw them away? If you can't give them to someone you know, why not put them in a "community refrigerator"? Here's another example: one of your neighbours has too much fruit or vegetable in their garden and prefers to share them instead of throwing them away. A "community refrigerator" would be a good solution.

Eventually, various types of businesses, such as stores, restaurants and cafeterias, could also be involved in this community initiative.

Luxembourg City's districts are ideally suited for such a project. Given that initiatives like this take a little time to get up and running, local authorities could/should step in to actively promote them.

We would like to put the following questions to the members of the College of Aldermen:

1. Would the College of Aldermen be inclined to consider implementing such a project, near either districts' youth centres or third places? Could we, for example, take advantage of the current development of third places to trial such a project with the help of volunteers and third-place managers, or even with youth centres?
2. It goes without saying that hygiene would be crucial in a project like this. It is therefore important to treat this aspect as a priority, and to adapt the project accordingly, be it by choosing the type of products that are accepted – for example, only fruit and vegetables or, at least initially, only sealed products, in packaging, with an expiry date – or by providing suitable equipment, such as a large refrigerated cabinet, or several small, individual, refrigerated cabinets. Doesn't the College of Aldermen think that the City, through its departments, could provide support for the specific issue of hygiene?
3. A project like this requires time, and cannot be implemented without the help of various stakeholders. This is why it might be worth trialling the concept this year, and presenting and explaining it to the members of the Commission for Social Action, for example, to get their feedback and their support for the project. Can the College of Aldermen support and follow through on this idea by involving the members of the Commission for Social Action, with a view to structuring the project? Couldn't involving the members of the Advisory Committee on Intercultural Living Together also be considered?

Other municipalities have already implemented similar projects. Would the College of Aldermen be willing to run a pilot project in one or two districts, for example in districts where third places are beginning to emerge?

Response provided by Alderwoman Corinne Cahen

The idea of donating leftover food from your refrigerator – for example, when you go on holiday – is a good idea, and a pilot project has actually already been run. A private company ran a project like this by installing a "community" refrigerator in Bonnevoie, but the project did not work. On the one hand, there were sizeable gatherings of people, and on the other, there was the issue of not being able to check whether hygiene requirements were being complied with. At the time, the termination of the project left both the beneficiaries of the food and the donors with a sense of regret.

It is indeed a good idea to avoid wasting food. But it is not always that simple. A few years ago, some scouts had cooked too much spaghetti and came up with the idea of taking it to the Ulysse shelter in a large pot. Unfortunately, the facility had to refuse it, as a number of requirements – most notably regarding cold-chain monitoring – had not been met. This incident, which dates back several years, apparently caused quite a stir.

I would not rule out the option of a new pilot project being launched in a district by private citizens, for example through an association. A third place, for example, could be a suitable location. However, it would be important to ensure that the project receives adequate day-to-day support – such as from residents of the street in question – so that those involved in running the project know at all times what is in the refrigerator and where it came from. As regards low-income individuals' access to food, I would like to remind you that social supermarkets exist, and receive financial support from the City.

Question posed by Fabricio Costa

The non-profit organisation Kolping Lëtzebuerg has been collecting used clothing, textile products and shoes for over 50 years now, most notably through 366 collection bins placed at various locations throughout the Grand Duchy. The organisation discontinued this service on 31 January 2026. According to reports in the press, the bins will not be removed, as a new provider is currently being sought to continue the service.

Currently, there are 56 public bins in Luxembourg City, and collections are handled by Kolping Lëtzebuerg asbl or Aide aux Enfants Handicapés et Défavorisés de Luxembourg asbl.

• How many containers are affected by the discontinuation of the collection service provided by <em>Kolping Lëtzebuerg</em>? Moreover, it would be worth knowing how many kilograms of clothing are collected in the capital over the course of a year.
• What solutions are being considered to provide an ongoing service at the affected public collection points? How long would it take to implement them?
• According to the law on the management of waste, municipal authorities are required to manage municipal household waste, which includes textile products. Furthermore, municipalities are required to regularly provide advice and information on options for the prevention, reuse, preparation for reuse, recycling and recovery of municipal waste. What measures have already been taken in this regard? Are there any ideas for clothing swaps, for example?

Response provided by Alderman Patrick Goldschmidt

The clothing collection bins are still there. Kolping Lëtzebuerg has been collecting used clothing in Luxembourg City since 1991. According to its own figures, more than 54,354 tonnes of clothing have been collected nationwide through their collection bins. For several years, the collections have been handled by Co-labor and Forum pour l'emploi.

Kolping Lëtzebuerg's management decided to discontinue their activities, owing, in part, to their age.

The City of Luxembourg has 70 containers in the capital, 40 of which were used by Kolping Lëtzebuerg. Residents can also drop off their used clothing at the Resource Centre, where there are an additional six containers. Overall, the volume of clothing collected by Kolping Lëtzebuerg amounts to 46 containers.

The service will continue to be provided by Co-labor and Forum pour l'emploi, but under slightly different conditions. Co-labor needs a small financial contribution, without which its books would not balance. The College of Aldermen voted in favour of this collaboration and, in fact, there was never any question of doing otherwise.

It is clear, though, that a national solution must be found in collaboration with all the stakeholders concerned. Nor should we forget the EU's Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) Directive, which has yet to be transposed into national law. This directive stipulates that producers must also assume their responsibilities. This is not going to happen today or tomorrow, but we will explore the options that are available to us in terms of "reuse", including where the collection of clothing is concerned. The fact that the City has entered into agreements with various partners that collect clothing must also be taken into account. Between the first and tenth of every month, residents can sign up for flea markets, where they can also sell clothing they no longer need. If we come up with a better solution at the new Resource Centre, we will, of course, implement it.

Question posed by Christa Brömmel

The report entitled "Pesticide cocktails, PFAS and neurotoxins in most European apples", published by Pesticide Action Network Europe (PAN-Europe), reveals that apples grown in Luxembourg using conventional methods contain concerning levels of pesticides, which pose a health risk to young children.

One of the recommendations in the report calls on public authorities to inform parents of young children that they should only give their children organically grown apples, as pesticides can have adverse effects on children's neurological development.

Since children attending the City's crèches and daycare centres are offered fruit, I would like to ask the following questions:

• Can the College of Aldermen provide specific information on the origin of the fruit (and vegetables) that are offered and eaten in the City's crèches and <em>foyers scolaires</em>? What percentage of the fruit and vegetables are conventionally grown, and what percentage are organically grown?
• Can the College of Aldermen guarantee that the children are not exposed to health risks as a result of eating conventionally grown fruit and vegetables?
• Doesn't the College of Aldermen agree that only organically grown products should be used for meals and snacks served to children attending childcare facilities?

Response provided by Alderman Paul Galles

This question is about an issue that has already been discussed on several occasions within the Chamber of Deputies' Environmental Committee. Generally speaking, it is worth pointing out that in Luxembourg, many inspections are carried out on food in general, and on fruit and vegetables in particular. Maximum pesticide residue thresholds have been set, and as long as these thresholds are not exceeded, there are no risks to health. Of course, we should not downplay the importance of this issue. I am aware that "pesticide cocktails" exist, but the real question is whether the interaction between several pesticides poses a health risk. The maximum thresholds have been set at low levels in Luxembourg, so it can be assumed that there is no risk.

The question raised by Counsellor Brömmel is a legitimate question. Nevertheless, there is no reason to be alarmist, as we have seen at the national level, as well as at the municipal level. The Ministry of Agriculture has issued a press release on this matter. The Luxembourg Veterinary and Food Administration (Administration luxembourgeoise vétérinaire et alimentaire – ALVA) also emphasised that there is no risk, that all the apples in Luxembourg comply with the provisions in force, and that in the last 16 years, no apples grown in Luxembourg have exceeded the threshold values.

As regards the City's crèches and <em>foyers scolaires</em>, the City works with an external provider (Signa), which develops the menus in collaboration with us. In particular, we determine the meals' vitamin and carbohydrate content to ensure that the meals served in crèches and <em>foyers scolaires</em> are as wholesome as possible. As for organically grown produce, we follow the recommendations set out in the national action plan for the promotion of organic farming (PAN-Bio 2025) in the guidelines given to Signa. These guidelines are compulsory.

We work with two catering providers: Sodexo and Dussmann. Sodexo operates a central kitchen for the City's six crèches. For the <em>foyers scolaires</em>, there are seven central kitchens, six of which are operated by Sodexo, and one by Dussmann. The catering providers are always selected through public tenders.

The specifications, which are identical for each provider, stipulate that organic products must account for 50% of the total purchase price for all products. How this is broken down is left to the providers' discretion. For example, if they purchase organic meat, which is quite expensive, they will reach the 50-percent threshold more quickly than if they purchased organic apples "only".

With regard to the <em>foyers scolaires</em>: according to data provided by Dussmann, covering the period from 1 September to 31 December 2025, 41% of the apples were organically grown, and 59% were conventionally grown (sourced from Belgium, Luxembourg, France and Germany). Overall, 42.7% of the fruit and vegetables used by Dussmann were organically grown.

With regard to the fruit provided by Sodexo in the City's <em>foyers scolaires</em>: in 2025, approximately 80% of the apples were organically grown, and 20% were conventionally grown (sourced from Belgium, France, Germany, Luxembourg and Italy). For other fruit, the share of organically grown products was 57.2%.

With regard to crèches: according to information provided by Sodexo, 95.7% of the apples eaten by the children are organically grown, and 4.3% are conventionally grown (sourced from Germany, Belgium and France), with the latter being used only when organic apples are not available (for example, in the event of a stockout).

These figures show that the specification requirements are being met. I personally have also found that everything is well managed: Signa, Dussmann and Sodexo all adhere to the specifications, and provide what we ask for.

Question posed by François Benoy

According to reports in the media, Luxexpo's board of directors, on which the City of Luxembourg is represented, has decided to terminate its CEO, who had held the position since 1 January 2018. This decision has come in the wake of several consecutive years of losses and a decline in the company's equity. The last capital increase, in the amount of €10 million, was completed in July 2025 to bolster the company's equity capital. At the same time, Luxexpo is facing significant investment needs related to the infrastructure at its Kirchberg site, and to changes in its positioning and its business model. Given the City's involvement in this company, as a shareholder, I would like to put the following urgent questions to the College of Aldermen:

• Why did the board of directors decide to terminate the CEO?
• Was the matter discussed beforehand with the individual in question, and to what extent was the City involved in those discussions in its capacity as a representative on the board of directors?
• What transitional measures have been put in place to ensure the continuity of the function?
• What kind of background is Luxexpo looking for to lead the company going forward, and how does it plan to recruit its new CEO?
• How has Luxexpo's financial position evolved in the months since the July 2025 capital increase, and what new information can the College of Aldermen provide in addition to the information presented to the Municipal Council at that time?
• Have the company's medium- and long-term strategies been updated or adjusted since the capital increase, especially as regards the Luxexpo's business model and development prospects?
• Have there been any new developments in recent months regarding the future of the Luxexpo site in Kirchberg, and what options are being considered for the site?

Response provided by Mayor Lydie Polfer

This question does not fall within the scope of the City of Luxembourg's remit. I will forward it to the chair of Luxexpo's board of directors and inform Counsellor Benoy of his reply.

François Benoy (déi gréng)

But the City is represented on Luxexpo's board of directors, is it not?

Mayor Lydie Polfer

As a municipal authority, we cannot get involved in a board of directors' decisions. What's more, legal proceedings could be brought against us if we did. As I said, I will forward the question to the chair of Luxexpo's board of directors.