EIR Country dialogue Belgium (Brussels, 29/03/2017)
This very fruitful dialogue brought together over 100 participants from public authorities, private
sector, NGOs and the civil society. Representatives from the Czech Republic, France, Italy,
Luxembourg and Netherlands also participated. The presentations have been uploaded on the
Commission EIR webpage. Two interviews with Daniel Calleja were published in De Morgen and Le
Soir the same morning. During this dialogue it was striking that very different parties often agreed
on substance while several of them recognised that Belgium may have gone too far in the
fragmentation of competences, which makes coordination slow despite a strong will to do so (this
was particularly the case for transport policy). It is also worth noting that throughout the whole
dialogue, there was a call for more Europe to ensure a level playing field for economic actors and
civil society as well as for more cohesion within EU policies, in particular for and air/water pollution
and freedom of movement for goods.
In her speech Marie Christine Marghem (Federal Minister of Energy, Environment and Sustainable
Development) highlighted that environmental protection and social-economic development are not
contradictory. She praised the EIR report as an example of good governance, and good collaboration
with the Commission. A change in mentality is needed, and citizens' motivation is crucial. Belgium is
making big efforts to promote the circular economy with 21 actions proposed in 2016. Stakeholders
must be involved. This includes collaboration with other countries such as within BENELUX on the
circular economy. This must be seen in the perspective of the 8th EAP which could provide the
framework for the next edition of the EIR. She regretted that the costs of inaction on climate change
were not covered in the report, and mentioned that Belgium had reduced its emission of
greenhouse gases by 19,000 tonnes. She emphasized that the three elements of her portfolio
(Energy, Environment and Sustainable Development) are mutually supportive and only together can
be successful.
Daniel Calleja (Director-General of Environment, European Commission), emphasized the three
main underlying drivers of the initiative: the great importance EU citizens attach to the environment;
the economic losses due weak implementation; that the problem is not the EU legislation but its
implementation. He pointed to the three major challenges for Belgium: air quality (traffic, car use);
water pollution (urban wastewater treatment, agriculture); Natura 2000 conservation status. He also
addressed waste and circular economy where Belgian is doing well, and invited the Belgium
authorities to fully use the financial opportunities provided through European funds (the European
Investment Bank, the Juncker Plan and the European Structural and Investment Funds). He
underlined the importance of effective governance and the capacity to implement rules and that
fragmentation of administrative responsibilities is not helping Belgium deal with the main
environmental issues, for example on air quality. He concluded by stressing that the EIR does not
replace, but complements infringements, one of its main purposes being a better understanding of
root causes to weak implementation. Other initiatives to improve implementation include: access to
justice, environmental compliance assurance and the fitness check on monitoring/reporting.
Questions & Answers dealt inter alia with monitoring nitrogen in water, the implementation of the
Nitrates Directive in Flanders and Wallonia and the reform of the CAP (structural solutions). Other
questions concerned the interpretation of the EIA and SEA Directives, public participation in
environmental decision making in Belgium, why climate change and chemicals were excluded from
the first edition of the EIR, linking with the work of the European Environment Agency on scenarios
and environmental reporting; accountancy rules preventing authorities from proposing projects
beneficial to the environment under the EU funds ; governance arrangements in Belgium
(involvement of stakeholders in consultative councils). Both Minister Marghem and Daniel Calleja
concluded on stressing the importance of the European project on its 60th anniversary.
Transport/air quality: Inge Mayeres (University Leuven) presented a study on the environmental,
social and economic challenges of mobility in Belgium. The main issues to tackle are: congestion
1
costs and environmental costs; social costs with accidents; use of company cars; road pricing; tax
levels (to be adapted to marginal external costs, e.g. for diesel versus gasoline cars); need for
integrated policy packages; low emission zones. Pierre Courbe (Inter-Environnement Wallonie)
presented more drastically the urgent need to act to cut down on traffic emissions and also
presented a whole range of measures to address problems. The panel discussion was extensive and
involved Laurent Demilie (Federal Ministry of Mobility & Transport), Sébastien Storme (General
Federation of Belgian Labour), Olivier Van der Maren (Belgian Federation of Enterprises) and the
European Commission. The need to have an integrated vision for passenger and goods traffic, to
provide adequate alternatives to the motor car with strengthening public transport (security,
frequency, punctuality, investments), soft mobility and multimodality came through as a strong
conclusion. A fiscal policy that better integrate the external costs has been heard number of times
(notably for company cars). Fiscal instruments should be inspired by what happens in neighbouring
countries. Louis Meuleman (EIR and European Semester Coordinator, DG Environment, European
Commission) pointed at the good starting position for such a comprehensive approach because both
speakers, from a science angle and an NGO point of view, appeared to agree already on the
knowledge base and the type of measures that were needed, and that Belgium, while learning from
other countries' experience, mentioning the use of the Commission’s new Peer to Peer tool to allow
mutual learning, should do it 'à la Belge' to make it work. Collaboration across silos would be a key
challenge, but this challenge is also one the Commission has to deal with internally. The overall
conclusion was that all actors now agree on substance, i.e. that (i) there is a problem and (ii) that a
package of measures is needed to deal with all relevant issues related to transport and air pollution
and (iii) this package should be in place at very short notice. Following the previous intervention of
Daniel Calleja, the Commission is considering organising a Clean Air Dialogue with Belgium.
Environmental compliance: Patrick Van den Bossche (Agoria) presented the environmental
implementation and enforcement importance from an industry perspective, mentioning inter alia
record levels of recycling and resource efficiency in Belgium and pleading for a level playing field in
Belgium (differences in requirements for a similar activity due to different regional legislations) and
in the EU; he also mentioned the necessity of being pragmatic without harming the environment and
the danger of "goldplating" when transposing EU legislation. Christian Deladrière (Public Service of
the Walloon Region) presented some cornerstones for compliance assurance in environmental
inspections, mentioning sound science based regulation; EU influence and implementation of EU
regulation in Belgium; call to move more towards integrated EU enforcement; ensuring the level
playing field: go for more targeted for the non-compliant; mechanisms of constraints (polluter-pays
principle; warning, fines, penalties, reports, rehabilitation etc.). He referred to the triad of
promotion (awareness, Vademecum, website) – inspections (controls, rehabilitation, warnings, fines,
reports) – enforcement (penal decision, administrative decision). Measures of improvement in
Belgium should include: risk analysis; review of inspection plans (mapping, budget, staff); training
measures; better monitoring of controls, results; strengthen coordination between the three
Regions; remaining active in the four EU environmental networks. He extended the presentation by
showing the benefits of IMPEL work. Carole Billiet (University of Gent) spoke about the challenges to
efficiently tackle environmental crimes. She presented the developments in Belgium as regards the
establishment of a proportional system in sanctioning from administrative to criminal; mentioning
the key developments in civil society participatory rights (2000: more rights at pre-trial stage; 2013:
NGO standing according to Supreme Court decision; 2016: NGOs entitlement to moral damages
beyond 1€ according to the Constitutional Court decision). She emphasised the need to have a wellbalanced enforcement system (both via administrative and penal law) in place so that the authorities
can require effective and proportionate action by the offender (prevent, repair and/or punish). In
the panel discussion, on the question whether IMPEL participation should become mandatory, Aurel
Ciobanu-Dordea (Director Implementation and Support to Member States, DG Environment,
European Commission) recognised some advantages but recalled that this would require proposing
legislation which is not what the Commission is about to do – the EIR focuses on implementation,
2
and it is now important to put in place the necessary infrastructure to tackle it (professionalization,
networking etc.). He also responded to the issues that EU legislation was complex and how to ensure
coherence and consistency at EU level.
Joseph van der Stegen (Public Service of the Walloon Region) summed up the EIR event by
pinpointing to the needs for Belgium to improve the coherence of policies, of being more efficient
and of improving co-ordination. In answering the question "What next after the EIR?" he stated that
the problems are known, the concepts are known and solutions are at work. He proposed the
organisation of workshops and conferences and the collection of good practices throughout the EU
as well as to provide support to Member States. He suggested that the most important issues should
be identified suggesting that the three topics listed by the Commission in its 03.02.17 EIR
Communication (water-nature, air-mobility, rural landuse-urbanisation-nature), or subtopics of
these three provided an interesting “menu”, and to deal with one of them (where integration is key)
per year. This should be addressed at all levels (Council working parties, stakeholders, Member
States' national dialogues, etc.), on a voluntary basis. The conclusions might then be summarised by
each participating Member State and then by the Commission in an "issue paper" and submitted to
the Council level to identify and agree on political solutions and further spread good practices.
3