Skip to main content Skip to page footer
elni logo elni logo

Belgian environmental impact assessment systems: Legal frameworks and beyond

Jan De Mulder

elni Review 2008, Issue 2,  pp. 60-69. https://doi.org/10.46850/elni.2008.009

As a result of a number of constitutional reforms in recent decades Belgium is now a federal state. The societal evolution and the historical devolution of competencies have resulted in a multi-actor policy approach at different policy levels: municipal, provincial, regional and national (federal). Competencies regarding particular policy fields like the environment are often not attributed to one policy level. The application of policy instruments in such a framework leads to complex processes and regulatory frameworks for decision-making within Belgium.  The transposition of the consecutive EU Directives has resulted in a growing environmental impact assessment practice. (E)IA approaches and requirements are found in horizontal as well as in specific legislation. 
The application of the impact assessment frameworks has raised questions about the coherence of both proponents and authorities have to deal with these institutional features. Institutions provide not only for frameworks; they are also stakeholders in decision-making and have an interest in impact assessment. 
Most EIA legislation is, however, to be found at the regional level, except for the projects in the Belgian marine environment and nuclear installations which have remained a federal issue. Yet, for certain projects and even plans – e.g. on the North Sea coastline in Flanders, the only coastal region in Belgium – the decision-making process requires the application of both the federal and regional legislations. 
Later on the transposition of the Strategic Environmental Assessment Directive of 2001 revealed a more profound “impact” on decision-making processes. The final adoption of federal and regional SEA legislation happened in the course of 2006-2008. 
This article briefly outlines EIA and SEA (and emerging IA) regulations at the Belgian federal and regional policy levels. Furthermore, some particular issues regarding the involvement of stakeholders and consultants as an element of impact assessment quality requirements are explored.

Access full article

References

  1. Council Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment, OJ 1985 L 175/40.
  2. Directive 2001/42/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 June 2001 on the assessment of the effects of certain plans and programmes on the environment, OJ 2001 L 197/30.
  3. S. Nooteboom, Impact assessment procedures for sustainable development: a complexity theory perspective, Environmental Impact Assessment Review, Vol. 27 (2007), 645-665. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2007.05.006.
  4. OSPAR Convention for the Protection of the Marine Environment of the North-East Atlantic (Paris, 1992).
  5. Bonn Agreement for cooperation in dealing with pollution of the North Sea by oil and other harmful substances (1983).
  6. De Mulder, J. (2008). The institutional context for transboundary environmental impact assessment in Belgium: multi level setting: a matter of smooth governance? Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, 26(4), 277–288. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3152/146155108X379622.
  7. J. Sambon, L’évaluation des incidences dans la délivrance des permis en Région wallonne, Aménagement-Environnement, 2 (2004), 77.
  8. L. Lavrysen, The integration principle – Belgian report, Avosetta Meeting, Budapest, 18-19 April 2008.
  9. Court cases Council of State No 183.356/183.357 (26 May 2008).
  10. H. Runhaar and P.J.P. Driesen, What makes strategic environmental assessment successful environmental assessment? The role of context in the contribution of SEA to decision making, Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, Vol. 25, (2007), 12. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3152/146155107X190613.
  11. Vlaams Parlement, Stuk 1629 (2007-2008), No. 3.
  12. K. Fuller, Quality and quality control in environmental impact assessment, in: Handbook of Environmental Impact Assessment, Vol. 2, (J. PETTS, ed., Blackwell Science, Oxford, 1999), 55-82.
  13. C. Wood, Environmental impact assessment, a comparative review, (Long- man, Harlow, 1995).
  14. B. Dalal-Clayton and B. Sadler, Strategic Environmental Assessment, A sourcebook and reference guide to international experience, (Earthscan, London, 2005). DOI: https://doi.org/10.4324/9781849772631.
  15. ECE/MP. EIA/8, Guidance on the practical application of the Espoo Convention, UN, Geneva, 2006.
  16. J. de Hemptinne, La négociation: outil d’aide à la prise de décision et de règlement des conflits environnementaux¸Revue Interdisciplinaire d’ Etudes juridiques (1994). DOI: https://doi.org/10.3917/riej.032.0129.
  17. R. Buckley, Improving the quality of Environmental Impact Statements (EISs), in: Environmental Methods Re-view: retooling impact assessment for the new century, (A.L. Porter & J.J. Fittipaldi, eds. AEPI-IAIA, Fargo, 1998), 42.
  18. M. Cashmore, R. Gwilliam, R. Morgan, D. Cobb & A. Bond, The interminable issue of effectiveness: substantive purposes, outcomes and research challenges in the advancement of environmental impact assessment theory, Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, Vol. 22, (2004), 297. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3152/147154604781765860.
  19. R. Beattie, Everything you already know about EIA (but don’t often admit), Environmental Impact Assessment Review, Vol. 15 (1995), 109. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/0195-9255(95)00001-U.
  20. A. Weaver, A., Pope, J., A. Morrison-Saunders, and P. Lochner, Contributing to sustainability as an environmental impact assessment practitioner, Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, Vol. 26, (2008), 97. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3152/146155108X316423.
  21. Court case, Council of State No 107.445 (6 June 2002).
  22. D. Deom, Le statut juridique de l’auteur de l’étude, in: L’evaluation des incidences sur l’environnement: un progrès juridique?, (X, CEDRE, FUSL, Bruxelles, 1991) 183. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4000/books.pusl.14039.
  23. J. Glasson, R. Therivel & A. Chadwick, Introduction to Environmental Impact Assessment, (2nd edition, UCL Press Lonon, 1999).
  24. R. Duncan, Problematic practice in integrated impact assessment: the role of consultants and predictive computer models in burying uncertainty, Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, Vol. 26, (2008), 63. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3152/146155108X303931.
  25.  J. Scholten, Reviewing EISs-EIA reports, in: Report of the EIA process Strengthening Workshop, Canberra 4-7 April, 1995, (IAIA – Environmental Protection Agency, Canberra, 1997).
  26. Court case, Council of State N° 137.954 (2 December 2004).
  27. D. French, Supporting the principle of integration in the furtherance of sustainable development: a sideways glance, Environmental Law & Management, Vol. 18 (2006), 103-117.