EUROPEAN COMMISSION Brussels, 8.9.2022 SWD(2022) 261 final COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT Environmental Implementation Review 2022













Country Report - BELGIUM



























Accompanying the document Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions Environmental Implementation Review 2022: Turning the tide through environmental compliance {COM(2022) 438 final} - {SWD(2022) 252 final} - {SWD(2022) 253 final} - {SWD(2022) 254 final} - {SWD(2022) 255 final} - {SWD(2022) 256 final} - {SWD(2022) 257 final} - {SWD(2022) 258 final} - {SWD(2022) 259 final} - {SWD(2022) 260 final} - {SWD(2022) 262 final} - {SWD(2022) 263 final} - {SWD(2022) 264 final} - {SWD(2022) 265 final} - {SWD(2022) 266 final} - {SWD(2022) 267 final} - {SWD(2022) 268 final} - {SWD(2022) 269 final} - {SWD(2022) 270 final} - {SWD(2022) 271 final} - {SWD(2022) 272 final} - {SWD(2022) 273 final} - {SWD(2022) 274 final} - {SWD(2022) 275 final} - {SWD(2022) 276 final} - {SWD(2022) 277 final} - {SWD(2022) 278 final}



This report has been written by the staff of the Directorate-General for Environment, European Commission. Comments are welcome. Please send them to: ENV-EIR@ec.europa.eu More information on the European Union is available at: http://europa.eu . Photographs: For reproduction or use of these photos, permission must be sought directly from the copyright holder. ©European Union, 2022 Reproduction is authorised provided the source is acknowledged.

Table of Contents Executive summary Part I: Thematic areas 1. Circular economy and waste management Measures towards a circular economy Waste management 2. Biodiversity and natural capital Nature protection and restoration

Marine ecosystems Ecosystem assessment and accounting 3. Zero pollution Clean air Industrial emissions Preventing major industrial accidents – SEVESO Noise Water quality and management Chemicals 4. Climate action Key national climate policies and strategies Effort-sharing target Key sectoral developments Use of revenues from the auctioning of EU ETS allowances Part II: Enabling framework: Implementation tools 5. Financing Environmental investment needs in the European Union EU environmental funding 2014-2020 EU environmental funding 2021-2027 National expenditure on environmental protection

Green budget tools Overall financing compared to the needs 6. Environmental Governance Information, public participation and access to justice Compliance assurance Effectiveness of environmental administrations Reforms through the Commission’s Technical Support Instrument (TSI) TAIEX peer-to-peer Projects



Executive summary In previous environmental implementation reviews (EIRs), the Commission identified three main challenges for Belgium’s implementation of EU environmental policy and law. These three challenges were: ·managing the Natura 2000 network towards favourable conservation status for all species and habitats, taking into due account external pressures and threats (such as atmospheric nitrogen emissions), as well as investing in further nature-restoration measures on the basis of the site-level objectives for species and habitats; ·improving air quality, in particular nitrogen oxide levels (NO and NO2) in urban areas and the transport sector, by both reducing traffic congestion and improving the monitoring of air quality; ·addressing water pollution from urban waste water and from nitrates (i.e. manure and fertilisers in Wallonia and nutrient pollution in Flanders) and tackling chemical pollution. On the Natura 2000 network, Belgium has made significant progress in recent years with 38 Natura 2000 sites designated as special areas of conservation (SACs). The main challenge in Belgium is now to ensure favourable conservation status for habitats and species, since 74% and 49% of the assessments for respectively habitats and species indicate an “unfavourable-bad” status during the last reporting period under the Habitats Directive, The situation with the EU-protected habitats is the worst in the EU with more than 95 % of habitats in unfavourable conservation status. Furthermore, the situation for Belgian forested areas protected under the Nature Directives is worrisome, as more than half of assessments for these areas show a bad conservation status. Moreover, adoption of conservation measures in marine sites remains challenging, as these measures often imply restrictions to fishing methods (beam trawling) which can only be adopted under the common fisheries policy. There has been limited progress on air quality, with measures taken to reduce NO2 concentrations. Belgium still fails to ensure compliance with the limit values for NO2 in one main urban zone, Antwerp. To tackle NO2 pollution, Belgium has taken further action to reduce air pollution and also decided to set up new air quality monitoring stations. Moreover, Belgium has an average risk of non-compliance with its national ammonia reduction commitment, both for the period 2020-2029 and for 2030 and beyond. This is because agriculture is the main source of ammonia. Strong pressures are being exerted on ecosystems and biodiversity by: (I) intensive agriculture in Flanders; (ii) growing transport activity, notably to/from Antwerp port; and (iii) relatively high population density in the Flanders and Brussels regions. Actions under the national air pollution control programme (NAPCP) to reduce the main emission sources are needed. On water management, there has been limited and slow progress in reducing the number of non-compliant agglomerations under the Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive in Wallonia. On nitrates, available reports show increasingly worrying water quality trends in Flanders, so additional measures and stronger actions are urgently needed. For Wallonia, the review of nitrates action programmes has fallen behind.

Widespread flooding recently devastated the southern part of Belgium, killing many people and causing significant economic damage. These floods suggest that Belgium - and Wallonia in particular - should implement up-to-date preliminary flood-risk assessments and identify areas of significant flood risk. Belgium continues to make efficient use of EU funds and loan opportunities in particular to support the circular economy, especially through its recovery and resilience plan (RRP). Belgium is one of the EU’s best performers on resource productivity, the use of secondary materials and waste management. However, there are differences in the rates of separate collection of waste between the regions. Further progress could be made by introducing new economic instruments to prevent waste by avoiding the incineration of reusable or recyclable waste — especially in the Brussels region — and by making the reuse and recycling of waste more economically attractive. Belgium’s environmental financing for investments came to 0.71% of GDP in 2014-2020, mostly based on national sources. In 2021-2027, the country’s environmental investment needs are estimated to be at least 0.85% of GDP, suggesting an environmental financing gap of at least 0.14% of GDP (above baseline financing level). This gap will need to be addressed by mobilising further financial resources to back environmental implementation priorities.



Part I: Thematic areas 1.Circular economy and waste management Measures towards a circular economy The new circular economy action plan adopted in March 2020 is one of the main building blocks of the European Green Deal. The EU’s transition to a circular economy will reduce pressure on natural resources and will create sustainable growth and jobs. It is also a prerequisite to achieve the EU’s 2050 climate neutrality target and to halt biodiversity loss. The action plan announces initiatives along the entire life cycle of products, aiming to reduce the EU's consumption footprint and to double the EU's circular material use rate by 2030. It targets how products are designed, promotes circular economy processes, encourages sustainable consumption, and aims to ensure that waste is prevented and the resources used are kept in the EU economy for as long as possible. The circular-material-use rate is a good indicator of an economy’s circularity, as it includes all the materials that are fed back into our economy. Large differences in the circularity rate exist between countries. To help achieve the goal in the EU’s circular economy action plan of doubling the EU’s circular material-use rate by 2030, ambitious measures targeting the whole product life cycle are needed at Member States’ level. Such measures range from sustainable product designthat makes it possible to increase the durability, reparability, upgradability and recyclability of products, to other measures like: (I) “remanufacturing”; (ii) increasing circularity in production processes; (iii) recycling; (iv) boosting eco-innovation; and (v) increasing the uptake of green public procurement. Figure 1 shows that the circular (secondary) use of material in Belgium was 18.9% in 2016 and 23% in 2020, well above the EU average of 12.8%.. Belgium has also made good progress in improving its circular secondary-material usage in recent years, such that it is now the EU’s second most advanced country for circular secondary material usage, just behind the Netherlands (30.9 %) and slightly ahead of France (22.2%). Figure 1– Circular material use rate (%), 2010-2020 Resource productivity expresses how efficiently the economy uses material resources to produce wealth. Improving resource productivity can help to minimise negative impacts on the environment and reduce dependency on volatile raw material markets. As shown in Figure 2, Belgium generated EUR 3.06 per kg of material consumed in 2020, putting Belgium well above the EU’s average for resource productivity of EUR 2.09 per kg. However, the latest figures show there has recently been a decline in Belgian resource productivity. Figure 2: Resource productivity 2010-2020

Circular economy strategies The Commission encourages Member States to adopt and implement national/regional circular-economy strategies covering the whole life cycle of products. This is because, such strategies are one of the most effective ways to progress towards a more circular economy. Since the launch of the European Circular Economy Stakeholder Platform in 2017, national, regional or local authorities have used the platform to share their strategies and roadmaps. Belgium adopted in December 2021 a new full-fledged action plan for the circular economy 2021-2024 at the federal level. This plan aims to seize the opportunities related to the circular economy in terms of innovation, job creation and competitiveness in Belgium. This plan, and the transition to a circular economy in general, also aims to combat climate change, biodiversity loss and environmental degradation. Through this plan, the federal state will activate the levers and competences at its disposal, in particular product policy, consumer protection policy, public procurement, tax policy, and the National Recovery and Resilience Plan. In addition, regional plans are the driving force behind Belgium's transition at the policy level. In the Brussels Capital Region, the regional government adopted a circular-economy regional plan (BRPCE) in 2016 with 111 measures laying out a strategy to transition from a linear to a circular economy by 2025. The BRPCE sets a ten-year implementation framework to move Brussels' economy towards a circular model. To ensure the BRPCE is kept up-to-date and remains relevant, it is revised every 18 months. From April 2022, the BRPCE will be included in the regional strategy for the economic transition The enclosed action plan will be revised and adapted every 2 years. The Renolution Strategy aims as a complement to transform the Brussels construction model into a circular model. In Wallonia, building on the Plan wallon des déchets-ressources adopted in 2018, a regional circular economy strategy, 'Circular Wallonia', was launched on 21 January 2020. This strategy used a participatory process to take a systemic approach to the transition towards a circular economy. The “Circular Wallonia” strategy was adopted on 4 February 2021 and is guided by 10 ambitions. It identifies six priority value chains: construction and buildings; plastics; metallurgy (including rare/critical metals and batteries); water; textiles; and food industry and food systems. In 2022, Wallonia has begun the implementation phase of its Circular Wallonia strategy by prioritizing actions and measures within the 6 priority value chains. In Flanders, the ‘Vision 2050’ strategy was approved in 2016. Vision 2050 highlights seven transitions that Flanders must make by 2050, with the circular economy being one of these seven transitions. To develop the circular economy, the Flemish government approved a starting paper, Transitie Circulaire Economie, at the end of February 2017. This starting paper, focused on the circular city, circular purchasing and circular enterprises. To promote circular public procurement, the Flemish government has also launched a “green deal”.. The Flemish Regeer Agreement 2019-2024 and several policy papers confirm the importance of the transition to a circular economy to: (i) futur-proof the Flemish economy; (ii) better meet the needs for raw materials and water; and (iii) maximise social well-being while reducing society’s environmental footprint. Flanders has the ambition to move towards a circular economy. The Flemish Energy and Climate Plan sets an ambition to reduce Flanders’ material footprint by 30 % by 2030 and to drastically reduce greenhouse-gas emissions by 2030. To accelerate the transition to a circular economy the public-private partnership Circular Flanders was established in 2017, in co creation with industrial partners, knowledge institutions, public administrations, finnacial institutions, local authorities and civil society . Another Flemish policy initiative to address waste and the circular economy is the 2016-2022 implementation plan for household waste and comparable industrial waste, which contains waste-reduction targets for different waste streams as well as targets for the reuse of certain materials. Actions on textiles (separate collection and reducing landfill waste) are also included in the Implementation plan. A new plan is currently developed. Also the Action Plan Circular Food Loss and Biomass (Residual) Flows 2021-2025 was approved in April 2021. This action plan will encourage the prevention, the separate collection and recycling of food loss and biomass residues in order to reduce costs and resource use. This plan offers a framework for the government and stakeholders to close the loop of food loss and biomass (residual) flows and to reach the Flemish and European targets in the period 2021-2025. In addition, a new Action Plan on Plastics 2020-2025 includes 33 actions to increase circularity in the plastics economy spread across 4 areas: (i) the prevention of plastic litter, which includes an integrated action plan on marine litter; (ii) the reduction and efficient use of plastics, focusing on eco-design; (iii) the creation of a sustainable recycling market; (iv) promoting plastics as a fully-fledged secondary raw material. Flanders has also set up a programme called Materials Management in Circular Building Policy. This program encourages cooperation between government and the construction sector to ensure the sustainable management of materials in the construction sector. It addresses five themes, and efforts are bundled into action programmes that run for 2 years, the first of which was concluded in 2016. The third action programme is now ongoing. On reforms related to Belgium’s recovery and resilience plan (RRP), the Flemish Government’s relance plan for Flemish Resilience aims to support an accelerated shift towards a maximum circular economy. On the basis of this relaunch plan, resources will be made available at European level to support the circular transition. The Belgium Builds Back Circular federal investment plan will invest EUR 28.97 million from 2022 to 2026 in order to stimulate research and development in companies and research institutions on the following three pillars: eco-design, substitution of substances of concern and raising awareness and informing SMEs about circular economy. Overall, Belgium has made progress in strengthening its circular-economy policy framework. Many LIFE projects in Belgium promote the circular economy. For example, the LIFE project FARBioTY supports the circular economy in the transportation industry, while the LIFE project Green Valleys connects the circular economy with the conservation of natural habitats and biodiversity. The integrated LIFE project Cmartlife commits to closing material loops, with a strong focus on plastics, in order to further reduce residual waste and create a litter free environment . Eco-innovation A successful transition to a circular economy requires social and technological innovation. This is because the full potential of the circular economy can only be reached when it is implemented across all value chains. Eco-innovation is an important enabling factor for the circular economy. New approaches to product design and new business models can help to produce systemic circularity innovations, creating new business opportunities. Following its steep decline in eco-innovation performance between 2013 and 2015, Belgium has not been able to recover its previous levels of performance. It is now ranked 16th in the EU countries on the 2021 Eco-Innovation Scoreboard, with only average eco-innovation performance. Belgium scores close to the EU average for eco-innovation inputs, activities, outputs and resource efficiency outcomes . However, the country’s socioeconomic indicators show that Belgium has one of the lowest scores among all Member States for socioeconomic outcomes from eco-innovation. With an average score of 36, Belgium lagged behind other EU countries for socioeconomic outcomes in 2019 (e.g exports of products from eco-industries, employment in the circular economy), and was relatively far from the EU’s average score of 100. . There are notable regional initiatives on the circular economy in Belgium . Belgium is ranked 19th in the EU-27 for revenues generated in eco-industries. These revenues represent 1.87% of total revenue across all companies (the EU average is 2.22%). Of the main drivers of eco-innovation in Belgium, the most significant include: (I) the integration of eco-innovation and sustainability goals into industrial and economic policies; (ii) the growing demand for green technology, products and local markets for recycling; (iii) the country’s highly performing education system and (iv) the existence of supporting institutions. Nevertheless, eco-innovation in Belgium is hindered by: (I) difficulties imposed by inter-regional coordination; (ii) a lack of eco-innovation and circular economy related skills in SMEs and (iii) a limited control over product design for most products entering the market. Figure 3: Eco-innovation performance, 2010-2019



Green public procurement (GPP) Public procurement accounts for a large proportion of European consumption, with public authorities’ purchasing power representing around 14% of EU GDP. Public procurement can help drive the demand for sustainable products that meet reparability and recyclability standards. At present, reporting to monitor the uptake of green public procurement (GPP) is voluntary.

In Belgium, a detailed strategy on sustainable public procurement (SPP) has been in place for the federal government departments since 2014, combining the green and social aspects of public procurement. A revision of this strategy is announced by 2022. Specific regulations in the context of SPP were adopted for wood (2005), vehicles (2009 & 2010 & 2022) and energy efficiency (2013), with specific legislative and policy documents in the country’s three regions and at federal level. GPP criteria have been developed by Flanders and at federal level thanks to initiatives by several departments. In most cases, the EU GPP criteria are the basis for national-level discussions with stakeholders. To date, federal GPP/sustainable criteria have been developed for about 70 product and service groups. The Flemish region integrated responsible public procurement in the overall strategy on procurement of the Government of Flanders. The strategy urges procurers to evaluate opportunities for sustainability in every contract. The Brussels Capital Region has a framework with three levels: development of references e.g. for clean vehicles and sustainable buildings construction and renovation; providing information, training sessions and helpdesk advice; establishing a mandatory framework for the public authorities dependent on the Brussels region. On 4 February 2021, Wallonia adopted his first strategy for the Circular Economy. Public procurement is here identified as a lever to initiate Wallonia's transition to a circular economy. Wallonia displays different ambitions by 2025 such as: - 50% of relevant public procurement contracts will integrate circular economy principles or circular criteria. - 75% of public information and communications technology (ICT) contracts will be circular and ethical. - All public demolition/deconstruction contracts and subsidized contracts will include a materials inventory and selective deconstruction. - Reuse materials will be used in all public works contracts and progressively in works subsidized by the Walloon Region. EU Ecolabel and the eco-management and audit scheme (EMAS) The number of EU ecolabel products and EMAS-registeredorganisations in a given country provides some indication of the extent to which the private sector and national stakeholders in that country are actively engaged in the transition to a circular economy. It also shows how committed public authorities are to supporting instruments designed to promote the circular economy. As of September 2021, Belgium had 5582 products out of 83 590, and 54 licenses out of 2 057, registered in the EU ecolabel scheme, showing a good take-up of the products and licences. Moreover, 55 organisations,, amounting to 744 sites from Belgium are currently registered in EMAS, the European Commission's eco-management and audit scheme. Since the last report in 2019, there have been 3 525 new registrations of EU ecolabel products from Belgium, and 5 new licences. For EMAS, there were 5 fewer registrations in Belgium in 2020 than in 2019. Waste management Turning waste into a resource requires: (I) full implementation of EU waste legislation, which includes the waste hierarchy, the need to ensure separate collection of waste, the landfill diversion targets etc; (ii) reducing waste generation per capita in absolute terms; (iii) limiting energy recovery to non-recyclable materials and phasing out the landfilling of resyclable or recoverable waste. This section focuses on the management of municipal waste for which EU law sets mandatory recycling targets. Preventing products and materials from becoming waste for as long as possible is the most efficient way to improve resource efficiency and to reduce the environmental impact of waste. Waste prevention and reuse are the most preferred options and are therefore at the top of the waste hierarchy. The amount of municipal waste generated is a good indicator of the effectiveness of waste prevention measures. After a downward trend, municipal waste generation in Belgium started to increase again in recent years (Figure 4). It came to 416 kg/year/inhabitant in 2020 . However, this was still below the EU average (505 kg/year/inhabitant).. In 2020, waste generation was around 476 kg/year around 448 kg/year/inhabitant in Wallonia (2020 and around 700 kg/year in the Brussels Capital Region.

Figure 4: Municipal waste by treatment in Belgium, 2010-2020 Figure 4 also shows municipal waste by treatment type, in kg per capita. The situation varies by region, but managing waste efficiently remains a significant challenge for Belgium, and especially for the region of Brussels. All three Belgian regions already have a system in place that taxes incinerated waste and they all encourage heat recovery from waste incineration. Further progress could be made by introducing new economic instruments to prevent waste by: (i) avoiding the incineration of reusable or recyclable waste — especially in the Brussels Capital Region; and (ii) making the reuse and recycling of waste more economically attractive. However, Belgium’s overall performance in waste generation and management, is good. This can be seen by taking into account the indicator for the recycling and circular material use combined with the country’s production of waste per capita, which is below the EU average. Figure 5: Recycling rate of municipal waste, 2010-2020 Belgium is one of the EU’s top performers in waste management, with a recycling rate for municipal waste of 54.7% in 2019 (EU average 47.7%), of which 21% is composting waste. This means that Belgium has already met the EU’s 2020 target to recycle 50% of municipal waste. However, there are differences in separate-collection rates (i.e. the percentage of waste streams that are collected separately to facilitate recycling) between the regions. The Brussels Capital Region only had a separate-collection rate of 37% in 2017, much worse than Flanders and Wallonia, both of which had separate-collection rates of 70%). This can be attributed to the particularity of the Region, which is only an urban area where sorting is often more complex than in rural areas. The Resource and Waste Management Plan provides measures to improve the performances despite the complex situation. . Belgium and especially Flanders have focused on collecting waste separately and on recycling waste over the past ten to fifteen years. However, the market for recycled products is still limited and needs to grow to provide economic opportunities for the separate-collected and recycled products. In addition, recycled products and secondary recycled materials have to compete with non-recycled and primary raw materials. A recent trend has been that more complex products are being placed on the market, making it more challenging to repair, dismantle or recycle them. There is also a lack of transparency about the contents of products, making recycling more difficult. Belgium will need to make further efforts will be needed to meet the more ambitious recycling targets for the period up to 2035 , in particular the related target to reduce the incineration of municipal waste, which has remained at the same level since 2017 (42.8 %). Belgium has only one mechanical biological treatment plant in operation due to its low levels of separate collection of waste. Both Flanders and Wallonia report that around 70% of their municipal waste is collected separately , whereas the Brussels Capital Region reports that only around 37% is collected separately . In 2017, the Brussels region extended separate collection to include voluntary separate collection of kitchen waste in an attempt to improve its recycling rate. Furthermore, all three regions have banned the use of lightweight plastic bags. In 2019, Belgium had the highest recycling rate for packaging in Europe (84.2% according to Eurostat), well above the EU average (64.8%) .



Implementation of the 2018 waste legislative package By 5 July 2020, EU Member States were required to bring their national laws into line with changes included in the revised Waste Framework Directive, the Packaging and Packaging Waste Directive and the Landfill Directive . By July 2021 Belgium had still not done this for the Landfill Directive and the Waste Framework Directive. For this reason, the Commission sent a reasoned opinion urging Belgium to fully transpose the new EU rules on waste into national legislation. Belgium eventually notified its transposition of the Packaging and Packaging Waste Directive to the Commission. The Commission is now conducting conformity assessment of this transposition. Waste management plans and waste prevention programmes are instrumental for the full implementation of EU waste legislation. These plans and programmes set out key provisions and investments to ensure compliance with existing and new legal requirements (e.g. on waste prevention; on separate collection for a number of specific waste streams; on recycling targets; and on landfill targets). Belgium was due to submit revised waste-management plans and waste-prevention programmes by 5 July 2020. The most recent resource and waste management plan (Plan de Gestion des Resources et des Déchets - RWMP) was adopted by the Government of the Brussels Capital Region on 15 November 2018. The RWMP addresses the issue of sober and responsible consumption upstream, as well as traditional waste management downstream, including new practices of a collaborative economy and sharing at intermediate levels. The general objectives of the RWMP are threefold: -anchoring a transformation to more sustainable and circular consumption practices; -maximising the preservation and recovery of materials, if possible locally; -training the supply side of the economy to become circular. . It is under assessment by the Commission services. The revision for waste management plans for Flanders is still ongoing. Belgium has not notified with the Commission its updated Waste Management Plan for Wallonia. 2022 priority actions

·Shift reusable and recyclable waste away from incineration, including through economic instruments. ·Ensure that regional waste management plans in line with the revised Waste Framework Directive are in place. 2.Biodiversity and natural capital The 2030 EU biodiversity strategy adopted in May 2020 aims to put the EU’s biodiversity on a path to recovery and sets out new targets and governance mechanisms to achieve healthy and resilient ecosystems. In particular, the strategy sets out ambitious targets to: (i) protect a minimum of 30% of the EU’s land area and 30% of its sea area and integrate ecological corridors, as part of a true trans-European nature network; (ii) strictly protect at least a third of the EU’s protected areas, including all remaining EU primary and old-growth forests; (iii) effectively manage all protected areas, defining clear conservation objectives and measures, and monitoring them appropriately. The strategy also sets out an EU nature restoration plan – a series of concrete commitments and actions to restore degraded ecosystems across the EU by 2030, and manage them sustainably, addressing the key drivers of biodiversity loss. The Habitats and Birds Directives are key legislative tools to deliver on the strategy’s targets and are the cornerstone of the European legislation aimed at conserving the EU's wildlife. The Interministerial Conference of the Environment is made up of the environment ministers of: (I) the federal government; (ii) the three regions (Flanders, the Brussels Capital Region and Wallonia); and (iii) the three language communities (Flemish-speaking, French-speaking and German-speaking). In November 2013, the Interministerial Conference updated the national strategy for biodiversity (initially adopted in 2006). This national strategy summarises the responsibilities of different governments in Belgium with a view to meeting the commitments made at European and international levels. The national strategy also aims to identify priority environmental policy areas, long-term objectives until 2020 and Belgium’s vision for the environment by 2050. The strategy has a vision and a general objective that are in line with the EU’s strategic plan for the Convention on Biological Diversity and the EU’s own biodiversity strategy to 2020. The long-term objective for nature and biodiversity referred to in Belgium’s national strategy relates to the establishment of protected areas: the aim is for national protected areas and Natura 2000 sites to make up 17% of Belgium’s land area and 10% of the country’s marine area. The national strategy also aims to restore at least 15% of degraded ecosystems. Nature protection and restoration Natura 2000, the largest coordinated network of protected areas in the world, is the key instrument to achieve the objectives in the Birds and Habitats Directives. These objectives are: (i) to ensure the long-term protection, conservation and survival of Europe's most valuable and threatened species and habitats; and (ii) to maintain or restore the favourable conservation status of these species and habitats. Key milestones towards meeting the objectives of the Birds and Habitats Directives are: (i) the setting up of a coherent Natura 2000 network; (ii) the designation of sites of community importance (SCIs) as special areas of conservation (SACs) and (iii) the setting of site-specific conservation objectives and measures for all Natura 2000 sites. Setting up a coherent network of Natura 2000 sites The implementation of the EU Birds and Habitats Directives and the setting up of the Natura 2000 network are regional responsibilities in Belgium, shared between the Flanders, the Wallonia and the Brussels-Capital Region. The Natura 2000 network in Belgian marine waters is a federal competence. Belgium is home to 59 habitat types and 86 species covered by the Habitats Directive. The country also hosts breeding populations of 188 bird taxa, 83 of which are listed in Annex I of the Birds Directive . By January 2022, 12.7% of the national land territory of Belgium was covered by Natura 2000 sites (EU average 18.5%), with special protection areas (SPAs) classified under the Birds Directive covering 10.4% (EU average 12.8%) and special areas of conservation (SACs) under the Habitats Directive covering 10.7% (EU average 14.2%) of the territory. The coverage of the Belgian marine part of the North sea by Natura 2000 sites is 1 317 km 2 (38% of the Belgian marine area), combining 2 SACs (covering 1 178 km2 or 34% of the marine area) and 3 SPAs (covering 316 km 2 or 9% of the marine area). Considering both Natura 2000 and other nationally designated protected areas, Belgium legally protects 14,60% of its terrestrial areas (EU 27 coverage 26,4%) and 36,80% of marine areas (EU 27 coverage 10,7%) .

The EU’s assessment of the sufficiency of the SAC network has not been updated for the last 5 years. For this reason, published EU-level data on the sufficiency of the network are not up-to-date. Given the significant updates of the Natura 2000 Standard Data forms that the Belgian authorities have undertaken during this period, it is likely that the remaining insufficiencies of the Belgian Natura 2000 network have mostly been resolved by now. Since the re-designation of the “Vlakte van de Raan” SCI, network sufficiency can also be assumed for the marine part of the network of sites under the Habitats Directive. The contribution of Belgium on the territorial protected area target is less than the EU average. However, for marine protected area, Belgium ranks above the 30% EU target. Therefore, efforts are still to be made regarding terrestrial protected areas. Figure 6: EU-27 marine & terrestrial protected area coverage, 2021



Figure 7: Natura 2000 terrestrial protected area coverage, 2021 Designating SACs and setting conservation objectives and measures All Belgian Natura 2000 sites proposed under the EU Habitats Directive have been designated as SACs. Both Wallonia and Flanders have regional conservation objectives for their network of sites. For Flanders, these objectives have been broken down into site-specific conservation objectives for all SACs and SPAs. The remaining SPA areas are thus not yet currently covered by site-specific conservation objectives. Furthermore, it seems that Flanders has not set any regional or site-specific objectives for any migratory bird species not listed in Annex I of the Birds Directive, despite the EU significance of certain migratory breeding bird populations in the region. In 2020 a species protection program for meadow birds with focus on the black-tailed Godwit and the Eurasian Curlew (Numenius arquata) was adopted in order to improve the conservation status of this species group. Specific conservation objectives and measures for both focus species have been put forward in this program. At the Walloon level, work is still in progress to break down regional conservation objectives for habitats and species into site-specific conservation objectives. In the meantime, the minimum conservation objectives per site are to maintain what is included in the SACs in terms of habitats and species of community interest. The setting of conservation measures for the Natura 2000 sites in Flanders and Wallonia is a work in progress. Although Flanders has general management plans at site level, that identify the priority measures necessary for the improvement of the conservation status, more specific management actions have only been drawn up so far for those parts of the network under public or NGO ownership. Although several projects are running or being set up in order to implement the identified priority measures in the field, the remaining work is mostly related to the setting of conservation measures for private lands in Natura 2000. Although it is expected that specific management actions for private land where a nature management plan has been approved in the past will be completed by the end of 2023, this delay is legally problematic insofar as Flanders is currently lacking effective legal provisions to prevent deterioration at site level, except for the effective implementation of Habitats Directive art. 6.3 which is supported by specific guidance and tools (partly available, partly under development). The problem of nitrogen deposition which affects natural areas and ecosystems is tackled by a tightened permit policy and the enhancement of nature restoration projects within a broad programmatic approach (to be fully developed and formally adopted in the near future). Wallonia, on the other hand, has a highly effective scheme to prevent site-level deterioration that applies to all individual land sections within the Nature 2000 network, irrespective of their ownership status. This scheme is based on a combination of: (I) a legal regime of general restrictions; and (ii) land-parcel-specific restrictions based on the current land-use and restoration potential of individual land parcels (the so-called “management units”). In addition, site-specific management plans are currently being drawn up as part of the ongoing LIFE integrated project (BNIP) . There are currently no identified deficiencies in the Brussels Capital Region for the designation of SACs or for conservation objectives and measures. The Brussels Capital Region has set site specific conservation objectives for all SACs, including the description of general conservation measures for the target habitats and ecological demands for the target species. These objectives, measures and ecological demands are further being developed in more detailed management plans for specific sub-sites within the network. The most worrying deficiency in the management of the Belgian Natura 2000 network is the lack of effective management of the marine Natura 2000 sites. The marine site Vlakte van de Raan has been designated and is already protected, but no conservation objectives and measures have yet been adopted for it. Site specific conservation objectives are set for the Vlaamse Banken. Based on the current scientific knowledge conservation objectives are formulated for all protected species incl. seabirds; at the moment it is, however, not possible to formulate site specific objectives for the 3 SPA’s. In these areas the overall objective is to maintain the current status and their function as foraging area. For the Vlaamse Banken and the 3 SPA’s management plans including a variety or measures are adopted. The existing sites are currently being deteriorated in an almost systematic way, through regular bottom trawling (including from non-Belgian vessels which are allowed to fish in Belgian waters according to the EU’s common fisheries policy). A first proposal for measures to restrict bottom disturbing fisheries via a Joint recommendation under the Common Fisheries Policy was rejected by the European Parliament in 2018. In 2019 the federal government started a new process in order to come to a new, scientifically underpinned, proposal for measures restricting bottom disturbing fisheries. Given their extremely damaging nature, Belgium should ensure that these practices are not carried out in violation of both Articles 6(2) and 6(3) of the Habitats Directive. The adoption in 2016 of the Royal Decree clarifying the procedures for the implementation of Natura 2000 improved the implementation of these articles as the appropriate assessment is now mandatory for many activities including sand extraction. At the moment a revision of the Marine Environment Act is conducted which should further improve the compliance. Progress in maintaining or restoring favourable conservation status of species and habitats To measure the performance of Member States, Article 17 of the Habitats Directive and Article 12 of the Birds Directive require reportings on the progress made towards maintaining or restoring the favourable conservation status of species and habitats. According to the report submitted by Belgium on the conservation status of habitats and species covered by Article 17 of the Habitats Directive for 2013-2018, the share of assessments for habitats in good conservation status in 2018 is 4.3%. This is lower than the 8,6% reported under the previous reporting period (2007-2012), but this difference might be a result of better data quality in the more recent report.

Figure 8: Assessments on conservation status for habitats for the 2007-2012 and 2013-2018 reporting periods For protected species, the share of assessments in good conservation status in 2018 was 25,4%, which was higher than the 19,4% reported under the previous reporting period (2007-2012) . Again, this difference might be due to a difference in data quality between the two periods. Figure 9: Assessments on conservation status for species for the 2007-2012 and 2013-2018 reporting periods On birds, 56% of the breeding species in Belgium showed short-term increasing or stable population trends in 2013-2018 compared to 66% for the previous reporting period (2007-2012). For wintering species requiring the designation of Special Protection Areas, the corresponding figure is 7.6% for 2013-2018, but there is a large proportion (69%) of bird species with unknown short-term trends ).



Bringing nature back to agricultural land and restoring soil ecosystems Agricultural land The biodiversity strategy works alongside the new farm to fork strategy and the new common agricultural policy (CAP) to support and achieve the transition to fully sustainable agriculture. The biodiversity and farm to fork strategies have set four important targets for 2030: - a 50% reduction in the overall use of – and risk from – chemical pesticides; - a 50% reduction in the use of more hazardous pesticides; - a 50% reduction in losses of nutrients from fertilisers while ensuring there is no deterioration of soil fertility (which will result in a 20% reduction in the use of fertilisers); - bring back at least 10% of agricultural area under high-diversity landscape features and increase areas under organic farming to at least 25%. Belgium has an estimated 7.25% of its land area under organic farming. This is below the EU average of 9% (2020 data, Eurostat) . Figure 10: Share of total utilised agricultural area occupied by organic farming per MS, 2020 As result of the high agricultural production in Belgium, the sector is characterised by high livestock density and the use of fertilisers. This impacts Belgium’s environmental and climate footprint.Greenhouse-gas emissions from croplands remain much higher than the EU average, and increased by 9% between 2013 and 2018 due to increased fertiliser use. Belgium could promote on-farm carbon assessment tools to help farmers identify the most appropriate measures to improve their climate performance. Wetlands and peatlands can be large sources or wells of atmospheric CO2 and are ideal tools for mitigating climate change.

Farmland bird indices point to significant decreases in the population of farmland bird species in Flanders, and especially in Wallonia (farmland bird species fell by 40% in Wallonia in 2010-2018). Data on the farmland bird index show a declining trend since 2015 (the index for Belgium was 64 in 2015 and fell to 53 in 2019, whereas the index value for EU-27 in 2019 was 70)￼ ￼ On organic farming, the share of the agricultural area in Wallonia that is farmed organically is well developed (11%) but this share remains very low in Flanders (1.3%). At national level, 66% of Belgium’s total organic area is permanent pasture, 34% is under arable crops and only 1% is under permanent crops. A shift to a larger organic area should be encouraged - in particular for permanent crops . Soil ecosystems Soil is a finite and extremely fragile resource. It is increasingly degrading in the EU. The new EU soil strategy, adopted on 17 November 2021, stresses the importance of soil protection, of sustainable soil management and of restoring degraded soils to achieve the Green Deal objectives as well as land-degradation neutrality by 2030. This entails: (i) preventing further soil degradation; (ii) making sustainable soil management the new normal; (iii) taking action for ecosystem restoration. One factor in the degradation is the area of soil ecosystems that is sealed or artificialised: The net land taken (land ‘taken’ means land that is sealed or artificialised) per year in 2012-2018 can be seen as a measure of one significant pressure on nature and biodiversity - land-use change constitutes an environmental pressure on people living in urbanised areas. Despite a reduction in the last decade (land take was over 1000 km2/year in the EU-28 between 2000 and 2006), land take in the EU28 still amounted to 539km2/year in 2012-2018 . The concept of ”net land take“ combines land take with the return of land to non-artificial land categories (re-cultivation). While some land was re-cultivated in the EU-28 in 2000-2018, 11 times more land was taken than returned. As shown in Figure 11, Belgium, has a net land take of 129.2 m2/km2 . This means that the country ranks above the EU-27 average for land take of 83.8 m2/km2. However, Belgium was one of the three Member States that led the re-cultivation of land during the last 6 years. In 2018, Belgium updated its reporting on land degradation according to the Performance Review and Implementation System (PRAIS3) reporting platform with actions intended to remedy the degradation identified. However, Belgium has not yet committed to set targets for land degradation neutrality under the United Nations Convention to Combat DesertificationUNCCD. The Brussels region should set an intermediate target for soil demineralization by 2030. For example, reduce the rate of soil sealing by half by 2030. The Brussels region is good at dealing with soil pollution but should also deal with other soil damage such as compaction, loss of organic matter, biodiversity and nutrients. Brussels should set a target for 2030 which could be to have at least 50% healthy soils. Figure 11: Land take and re-cultivation in the EU-27 (m2/km2), 2012-2018 Forests and timber The EU forest strategy for 2030, adopted in July 2021, is part of the Fit for 55 package. The strategy promotes the many services that forests provide. Its key objective is to ensure healthy, diverse and resilient EU forests that contribute significantly to the strengthened biodiversity and climate ambitions.

Forests are important carbon sinks, and conserving them is vital if the EU is to achieve climate neutrality by 2050. Of the 27% of EU forest area protected under the Habitats Directive, less than 15% of assessments show a favourable conservation status. Bad conservation status increased from 27% to 31% in the EU compared to 2015. Forests cover 44.73% of Belgium and the situation of forest habitats protected under the Habitats Directive is particularly worrying as more than half of the assessed protected forests show a bad status . Figure 12: Conservation status of forests protected under the Habitats Directive in the EU Member States, 2013-2018 (% assessments) The European Union Timber Regulation (EUTR)prohibits the placing on the EU market of illegally harvested timber. In accordance with the EUTR, EU Member States‘ competent authorities must conduct regular checks on operators and traders, and apply penalties for non-compliance. With the amendment of Article 20 of the EUTR, reporting every 2 years has been changed to annual reporting, and covers the calendar year as of 2019. In the period frm March 2017 to February 2019 , Belgium carried out 21 checks on operators importing timber. Over the reporting period, it is estimated that Belgium had 2 340 operators placing domestic timber types onto the internal market and 4 800 operators placing imported timber types onto the internal market. In 2019 and 2020 , Belgium carried out respectively 27 and 30 checks on operators importing timber. The European Commission proposed with the new Deforestation Regulation51 to repeal and replace the EU Timber Regulation, essentially integrating and improving the existing system to check the legality of timber. A TAIEX-EIR peer to peer study visit on the implementation of the EUTR was carried out from 29 to –31 October 2018 in Belgium with Denmark. In the middle of 2020, The Belgian competent authority conducted an extensive information campaign aimed at all Belgian companies importing wood and wood products covered by the EUTR regulation in 2019. The letter with several annexes recalled the EUTR requirements, with particular attention to the scope of the Regulation, the types of timber and products concerned, the legal obligations of operators, the guidelines and recommendations for the establishment of a due diligence system and links to assist with the implementation of such system. Belgium is also partner in the EU LIFE II (2019-2022) programme project ’Enabling Effective Implementation and Enforcement of the EU Timber Regulation in 6 Key Timber Importing Countries , implemented by Preferred by Nature (previously: NEPCon) and intent on strengthening the implementation of EUTR by providing stakeholder formation (workshops for market participants), tools and detailed risk analyses. The project complements the previous NEPCon LIFE I (2016-2018) project ’Increasing Awareness and Capacity to Support Effective Implementation of the EU Timber Regulation’, of which the Belgian CA was also partner, by closing remaining gaps in the EUTR implementation, strengthening capacities where duty holders are still struggling to achieve effective compliance. Invasive alien species (IAS) IAS are a key cause of biodiversity loss in the EU (alongside changes in land and sea use, overexploitation, climate change and pollution). Besides inflicting major damage on nature and the economy, many IAS also facilitate the outbreak and spread of infectious diseases, posing a threat to humans and wildlife. The implementation of the EU Invasive Alien Species Regulation and other relevant legislation must be stepped up. The biodiversity strategy for 2030 aims to manage recognised IAS and decrease the number of ‘red list’ species they threaten by 50%. The core of Regulation (EU) 1143/2014 on Invasive Alien Species (the IAS Regulation) is the list of invasive alien species of Union concern. The total number of IAS of Union concern is currently 66, of which: 30 are animal species; 36 are plant species; 41 are primarily terrestrial species; 23 are primarily freshwater species; 1 is a brackish-water species; and 1 is a marine species. According to a 2021 reporton the review of the application of the IAS Regulation, the implementation of the IAS Regulation is already starting to deliver on its objectives such as a coherent framework for addressing IAS at EU level and increased awareness of the problem of invasive alien species. At the same time, the above report identified some challenges and areas for improvement. Given that the deadlines for implementing the various obligations of the IAS Regulation applied gradually between July 2016 and July 2019, it is premature to draw conclusions on several aspects of the implementation of the IAS Regulation.A 2021￼on the baseline distribution (Figure 13), shows that of the 40 species on the Union list, 40 have been observed in the environment in Belgium. Belgium is finalizing its national action plan. This national plan will cover three thematic action plans in order to prevent the non-intentional introduction of IAS in Belgium : 1) Thematic Action plan on the introduction and spread of invasive alien species through public or private possession;

2) Thematic Action plan on the introduction and spread of invasive alien species through recreational and commercial/professional use of freshwater; 3) Thematic Action plan on the introduction and spread of invasive alien species through transportation of habitat and nursery material and machinery Figure 13: Number of IAS of EU concern, based on available georeferenced information for Belgium, 2021 2022 priority actions ·Increase the share of protected and strictly protected areas, as a contribution to the EU Biodiversity Strategy for protected areas ·In the Flemish Region, step up the work in the Flemish region in terms of establishing conservation measures on private lands in Natura 2000, and complete the set-up of conservation objectives of extending the conservation objective setting to migratory bird species ·In the Walloon Region, establish site-specific conservation objectives for all Natura 2000 sites, covering all relevant habitats and species per site, also including Annex I bird species and migratory species; and ensure that the ambition level of management plans and action plans, which are currently being developed, is in line with the conservation objectives at site level. ·In the Natura 2000 sites of the Belgian marine part of the North Sea, ensure the full implementation of Article 6(2) and 6(3) of the Habitats Directive regarding sand extraction; and propose (via a Joint Recommendation under the Common Fisheries Policy) fisheries measures that are suitable to allow the sea-bottom habitats in the marine Natura 2000 sites to recover. ·Reduce non-CO2 emissions from the livestock sector and soil fertilisation. It should maintain and improve carbon-storage capacity by supporting grassland maintenance and conservation/zero-tillage via carbon-farming approaches and the shift to a bio-based and circular economy. ·Support the adaptation of agriculture to future climate changes by promoting adaptive farming practices, landscape-level solutions and investments. ·Contribute to the EU Green Deal target to reduce nutrient losses (of both nitrates and phosphorus). ·Better protect biodiversity by: (I) ensuring that protected habitats and species return to favourable conservation status; (ii) improving habitats on grassland, on cropland and even in forests; (iii) increasing the share of land under contracts supporting biodiversity and/or landscape management; and (iv) strengthening the protection of nature reserves and the expansion of Natura 2000 areas in line with the priorities identified in the priority action framework. ·Contribute to the EU Green Deal target by promoting organic farming more strongly, especially in Flanders by accelerating the current trend for increasing areas of land to be brought under organic farming. ·Keep promoting sustainable forest management and afforestation; improve multifunctionality, forest protection and restoration of forest ecosystems; increase carbon sinks in forests, their soils and harvested wood products; support the bioeconomy via forestry; build resilience in its forests to threats such as the effects of climate change. Marine ecosystems The EU biodiversity strategy 2030 aims to: (I) substantially reduce the negative impacts on sensitive species and habitats in marine ecosystems; (ii) achieve good environmental status; and (iii) eliminate or reduce the incidental catches of protected, endangered, threatened and sensitive species to a level that allows species recovery and conservation. The Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD) requires Member States to achieve good environmental status (GES) for their marine waters. To that end, Member States must draw up marine strategies for their marine waters, and cooperate with Member States sharing the same marine region or sub-region. These marine strategies comprise different steps to be developed and implemented over six-year cycles.

The MSFD also requires Member States by 15 October 2018 to draw up a set of GES characteristics for each descriptor (Article 9), and to provide an initial assessment of their marine waters (Article 8). The Commission then assesses whether this constitutes an appropriate framework to meet the requirements of the Directive. The Commission assessed Belgium’s 2018 determinations of GES for each of the MSFD’s 11 descriptors and determined their level of adequacy in relation to the Commission Decision on criteria and methodological standards for Good Envrionmental Status in marine waters. A good or very good score in the Commission assessment indicates that the national determinations of GES are well aligned with the requirements of the Commission GES Decision, provide qualitative and quantitative national environmental objectives to be achieved for their marine waters. Figure 14: Level of adequacy of GES determination by Belgium (ANS region) with criteria set under the Commission GES Decision – Article 9 (2018 reporting exercise) Belgium has one marine sub-region, ANS-NE Atlantic: Greater North Sea. In this marine sub-region, 9 out of 11 determinations of GES were assessed as good or very good. The national determination of GES by Belgium is coherent for 9 out of 11 descriptors. The MSFD also requires Member States to make an assessment of the current environmental status of their marine waters in relation to the determination of GES. A good or very good score indicates that the Member State has good capabilities to assess their marine environment in accordance with the requirements set out in the Commission GES Decision. Figure 15: Level of adequacy of national assessment of Belgium’s marine environment (ANS region) with criteria set under the Commission GES Decision – Article 8 (2018 reporting exercise) Belgium is missing data for one descriptor, D4 Food webs. In the 2019 EIR, the Commission suggested that Belgium: (I) provide more information about measures to achieve GES; (ii) draw up more measures that have a direct impact on pressures and quantify the expected reduction of pressure as a result; and (iii) ensure regional cooperation with Member States sharing the same marine sub-region to address predominant pressures. Furthermore, in March 2022, the European Commission published a Communication with recommendations for Member States. The Commission assessment highlights that Member States need to step up their efforts to determine the good environmental status and the use of the criteria and methodological standards according to the Commission GES Decision. The above considerations form the basis for the 2022 priority actions. 2022 priority actions ·Implement the Commission’s recommendations outlined in the staff working document accompanying the Communication on recommendations per Member State and region on the 2018 updated reports for Articles 8, 9 and 10 of the MSFD. ·Ensure regional cooperation with Member States sharing the same marine sub-region to address predominant pressures. Ecosystem assessment and accounting The EU biodiversity strategy for 2030 calls on Member States to better integrate biodiversity considerations into public and business decision-making at all levels and to develop natural-capital accounting. The EU needs a better performing biodiversity observation network and more consistent reporting on the condition of ecosystems. In Belgium, environmental policy related to land-use planning is regionalised. The status of activities differs between the three regions: Flanders has finished the mapping and assessment of ecosystems and ecosystem services, while Wallonia has started this process but not finished it, and Brussels Capital Region has taken no initiative so far. There are no initiativesto harmonisate ecosystem mapping and assessment at national level. The Belgium Ecosystem Services (BEES) community of practice is a national platform to connect different actors involved in research, practice and policy-making on ecosystem-services. In Flanders the mapping and assessment of ecosystems and ecosystem services is carried out as part of the reporting on the state of nature in Flanders. The Research Institute for Nature and Forest (INBO) is mandated to report every two years on the state of nature in Flanders. In Wallonia, an ecosystem-services platform (WalES) was set up by the former regional government to put into practice the ecosystem-services concept across the administration of the Wallonia region. For the last two years, the Walloon Region has increased the resources dedicated to mapping and assessing ecosystems and their services For example, the map of ecological contexts has been produced.

In Brussels, in 2020 a first comparative study was finalized to measure different ecosystems services delivered by green infrastructure. This first study has delivered recommendations allowing the region to develop in a near future a regional tool for measuring ES delivered by all GI. Belgium has not provided updated information and therefore no progress has been recorded since January 2016 (Figure 16). This assessment is based on 27 implementation questions and updated every six months. Figure 16:ESMERALDA MAES Barometer, January 2016 - March 2021 Progress on ecosystem accounting implementation is assessed at national scale based on 13 questions (see figure 17). Figure 17: Ecosystem accounting Barometer, September 2021 In Belgium, environmental policy related to land-use planning is regionalised. Therefore the priorities, knowledge gaps, support needed, and state of research depends on the region. The Brussels region has not taken any initiatives yet in developing Natural Capital accounts. Wallonia has just started implementing Nature Value Explorer tool . Therefore the information provided mainly focuses on Flanders. A key motivation for developing natural capital accounting for Flanders relates to the ambition to bring together and structure data in support of better policy and public debate. Thematic policy prioritizes four research subjects: climate, health, monitoring of sustainable development goals and development of beyond-GDP indicators, monitoring of land-use change. In Flanders, both the extent account and ecosystem supply and use accounts are published (physical and monetary terms). Identified challenges with the data in Flanders concern carbon storage in biomass; the health effects of green space; functional biodiversity and its contribution to the supply of ecosystem services as well as the accuracy of the base layers of the land use/land cover map. Moreover the relevant data, knowledge, skills, resources are scattered across different entities, this impedes building appropriate ecosystem models. 2022 priority actions ·Continue supporting the mapping and assessment of ecosystems and their services, and the development of ecosystem-accounting. It should do this through appropriate indicators for integrating ecosystem extent, condition and services into national accounts. ·Continue supporting the development of national business and biodiversity platforms, including natural-capital accounting systems to monitor and value the impact of business on biodiversity.



3.Zero pollution Clean air EU clean-air policies and legislation need to significantly improve air quality in the EU, moving the EU closer to the quality recommended by the WHO and curbing emissions of key air pollutants. Air pollution and its impacts on ecosystems and biodiversity should be further reduced with the long-term aim of not exceeding critical loads and levels. This requires strengthening efforts to reach full compliance with EU clean-air legislation and defining strategic targets and actions for 2030 and beyond.

The 2030 zero pollution action plan targets are to reduce the health impacts of air pollution by 55% and to reduce the EU ecosystems threatened by air pollution by 25%. The EU has developed a comprehensive suite of clean-air legislation, which sets health-based air-quality standards and emissions-reduction commitments by Member State for a number of air pollutants. At the same time, air quality in Belgium continues to give cause for concern. The latest available annual estimates (for 2019) by the European Environment Agency point to Belgium suffering about 6 500 premature deaths each year (or 69 300 years of life lost (YLL)) attributable to fine particulate matter concentrations ; 270 premature deaths each year (3 000 YLL) attributable to excessive ozone concentration ￼; and 750 premature deaths a year (7 900 YLL) attributable to excessive ￼ The emissions of key air pollutants have decreased significantly in Belgium in recent years, while GDP growth has continued (see graph). According to the projections as submitted under Article10(2) of the National Emission Reduction Commitments Directive (NECD) , Belgium projects that it will reach emissions reduction commitments for all air pollutants covered by the Directive for the period 2020 to 2029 and for 2030 onwards. Latest inventory data submitted by Belgium, prior to review by the Commission, indicate that Belgium is in compliance with the emission reduction commitments for all pollutants in 2020. Belgium submitted its national air pollution control programme on 1 April 2019. Figure 18: Emission trends of main pollutants/ GDP in Belgium, 2005-2019



Figure 19: PM2.5 and NOx emissions by sector in Belgium, 2019 In 2020, exceedances above the EU limit values set by the Ambient Air Quality Directive (AAQD) were registered for nitrogen dioxide (NO2) in four air-quality zones in Belgium. Furthermore, for several air-quality zones, the target values for ozone concentration have also not been met. Belgium has not yet ratified the amended Gothenburg Protocol, Heavy Metals Protocol and POPs Protocol under the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE) Air Convention. Persistent breaches of air quality requirements, which have severe negative effects on health and environment, are being followed up by the European Commission through infringement procedures (mainly for PM10 and NO2 exceedances) covering all Member States concerned, including Belgium for exceedances of NO2 limit values in several air quality zones. The aim is for appropriate measures to be put in place to bring all air-quality zones permanently into compliance. Of the different sources of air pollutants other than CO2, agriculture is the main source of ammonia emissions (93 %). Belgium has an average risk of non-compliance with its national ammonia reduction commitment, both for the period 2020-2029 and for 2030 and beyond . In the 2019 EIR, Belgium received three priority actions from the Commission: The first was to take specific actions under the national air-pollution control programme and the national energy and climate plan. There has been limited progress on this first priority action. The second and third priority actions were to reduce concentrations of nitrogen oxides (NOx – NO2), particularly in urban areas and the transport sector, and to also upgrade and improve air quality monitoring. Despite measures taken for NO2, Flanders still fails to ensure in one main urban zone, Antwerp, compliance with the limit values for NO2 set under Directive 2008/50/EC. A Reasoned Opinion was adopted in 18 February 2021, in response to it. Belgium has taken further relevant action on air pollution abatement and also decided to set up new monitoring stations in Brussels, Charleroi and Liège. However, the annual air quality report for 2020 (received in September 2021) still indicates exceedances in concentrations of harmful pollutants.based on high spatial resolution modelling. And Belgium also received a general priority action from the Commission in 2019 to sign and ratify outstanding international agreements. 2022 priority actions ·As part of its national air pollution control programme (NAPCP), take actions towards reducing emissions of air pollutants from the main sources mentioned above. ·Ensure full compliance with the EU air quality standards and maintain downward emissions trends of air pollutants, to reduce adverse air pollution impacts on health and economy with a view to reaching WHO guideline values in the future. ·Belgium is strongly encouraged to accelerate the ratification the amended Gothenburg Protocol, Heavy Metals Protocol and POPs Protocol under the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe Air Convention. , energy and circular economy policies. Industrial emissions The main objectives of EU policy on industrial emissions are to:

(i) protect air, water and soil; (ii) prevent and manage waste; (iii) improve energy and resource efficiency; (iv) clean up contaminated sites. To achieve this, the EU takes an integrated approach to the prevention and control of routine and accidental industrial emissions. The cornerstone of the policy is the Industrial Emissions Directive (IED) . The Commission tabled a proposal in April 2022 . The revision seeks to improve the Directive’s contribution to the zero-pollution objective, as well as its consistency with climate, energy and circular economy policies. The overview of industrial activities regulated by the IED below is based on data reported to the EU registry (2018). In Belgium, around 2 340 industrial installations are required to have a permit based on the IED. This is an increase of almost 600 installations since 2015, largely due to a sharp increase in both the waste-management sector and in the intensive rearing of poultry or pigs. The distribution of installations is shown in Figure 20 below. The industrial sectors in Belgium with the most IED installations in 2018 were: (I) intensive rearing of poultry or pigs (44%); (ii) the waste-management sector (19%); (iii) the production of chemicals (11%); (iv) food and drink production (7%); (v) surface treatment of metals (5%); and (vi) the power production sector (3%). Figure 20: Number of IED industrial installations per sector in Belgium, 2018 The industrial sectors identified as contributing the largest burden to the environment for emissions to air were: ·“Other activities” (mostly the surface treatment of metals, the intensive rearing of poultry or pigs and the production of pulp paper) for non methane volatile organic compounds (NMVOCs), ammonia (NH3), copper (Cu), zinc (Zn), cadmium (Cd), nickel (Ni), particulate matter (PM2.5)); ·chemicals production for NMVOCs, Nitrogen Oxides (NOx), sulphur oxides (SOx), Ni, arsenic (As) and mercury (Hg); ·metal production for lead (Pb), As, SOx; ·the electricity-production sector for NOx, Zn, As,Hg, Ni, chromium (Cr), Cd, Pb and dioxins; ·the waste management sector for dioxins. Figure 21: Emissions to air from IED sectors and rest of national total air emissions in Belgium, 2018 The environmental burdens for industrial emissions to water mainly result from: (I) landfills for municipal waste; (ii) the production of pulp and paper and chemicals (nitrogen, phosphorous and total organic carbon); (iii) the metals industry; (iv) chemicals production and (v) landfills for heavy metals. The breakdown, based on E-PRTR data, is presented in Figure 22 below.

Figure 22: Relative releases to water from industry in Belgium, 2018 The EU approach to enforcement under the IED creates strong rights for the public to have access to relevant information and to participate in the permitting process for potentially polluting installations. This empowers the public and NGOs to ensure that permits are appropriately granted and that the conditions of these permits are complied with. As part of environmental inspection, competent authorities undertake site visits at IED installations to take samples and to gather necessary information. According to Article 23(4) of the IED, site visits must be carried out between once a year and once every 3 years, depending on the environmental risks posed by the installations. In 2018, Belgium undertook 4 553 site visits. The largest number of visits were at waste management facilities other than landfill sites (23% of visits), rearing of poultry or pigs (19% of visits), chemicals production sites (15% of visits) and sites for food and drink production (15% of visits) under other activites. Figure 23: Number of inspections of IED installations in Belgium, 2018 The development of best available technique (BAT) reference documents (BREFs) and BAT conclusions ensures good collaboration between stakeholders and enables better implementation of the IED Since the last EIR report, the Commission adopted BAT conclusions for: (i) waste Incineration; (ii) for the food, drink and milk industries; and (iii) for surface treatment using organic solvents including wood and wood products with chemicals. The Commission relies on the efforts of national competent authorities to implement the legally binding BAT conclusions and associated BAT emission levels in environmental permits. This should result in considerable and continuous reduction in pollution. In 2019, Belgium received priority actions to: (I) review permits to comply with newly adopted BAT conclusions and (ii) strengthen control and enforcement to ensure compliance with BAT conclusions. These actions have been followed up by the Commission through the reporting by Belgium to the EU registry. Belgium participated in the TAIEX-EIR peer to peer workshop on ammonia-reducing technology and measures, on 16 November 2021 and the TAIEX-EIR Flagship workshop towards zero pollution for air, water and soil, on 07 February 2022. Preventing major industrial accidents – SEVESO The main objectives of EU policy on the prevention of major industrial accidents are to: (i) control major accident hazards involving dangerous substances, especially chemicals; (ii) limit the consequences of such accidents for human health and the environment; (iii) continuously improve prevention, preparedness and response to major accidents. The cornerstone of the policy is Directive 2012/18/EU (the Seveso-III Directive). The below overview of industrial plants regulated by the Seveso-III Directive, (hereafter ‘Seveso establishments’), is based on data reported to the eSPIRS database (2018) and the Belgium report on the implementation of the Seveso-III Directive for the period 2015-2018 . In Belgium, of the 388 Seveso establishments, 172 are categorised as lower-tier establishments (LTE) and 216 as upper-tier establishments (UTE) – based on the quantity of hazardous substances likely to be present in them. The UTEs are subject to more stringent requirements. The change in of the number of Seveso establishments is presented in Figure 24. Figure 24: Number of Seveso establishments in Belgium, 2011, 2014 and 2018 Many Seveso establishments are required to draw up external emergency plans (EEPs). These EEPs are essential to allow proper preparation and effective implementation of the necessary actions to protect the environment and the population should a major industrial accident occur at them. According to Belgium, an EEP is required for 208 UTEs. In 2018, 215 UTEs had an EEP and 215 of these EEPs had been tested over the last 3 years. The summary of EEPs in Belgium is shown in Figure 25.

Figure 25: Situation regarding EEPs in Belgium, 2018 The following types of information are permanently available for 100% of the Seveso establishments in Belgium: (i) information to the public referred to in Annex V of the Seveso-III Directive especially about how the public concerned will be warned if there is a major accident; (ii) information about appropriate behaviour in the event of a major accident; and (iii) information containing the date of the last site visit. This provision on knowledge is an important provision of the Seveso-III Directive, as knowledge of this information by the public may reduce the consequences of a major industrial accident. The share of UTEs for which information on safety measures and requisite behaviours were actively made available to the public in recent years are presented in Figure 26. Figure 26: Share of UTEs for which information on safety measures and requisite behaviours were actively made available to the public in Belgium, 2011, 2014 and 2018 Noise The Environmental Noise Directive provides for a common approach to avoid, prevent and reduce the harmful effects of exposure to environmental noise although it does not set noise limits as such. Its main instruments in this respect are noise mapping and planning. A key target under the 2030 zero-pollution action plan is to reduce by 30% the share of people disturbed by transport noise compared to 2017. Excessive noise from aircraft, railways and roads is one of the main causes of environmental health‐related issues in the EU. It can cause ischaemic heart disease, stroke, interrupted sleep, cognitive impairment and stress. In Belgium, based on a limited set of data , environmental noise is estimated to cause at least around 300 premature deaths and 1600 cases of ischaemic heart disease annually . Moreover, some 200 000 Belgians suffer from disturbed sleep. In Belgium, the overall noise exposure increased by 10% between 2012 and 2017 based on reported data. On the basis of the latest full set of information analysed, both strategic noise maps and action plans to manage noise issues and effects have been completed after public consultation. In the 2019 EIR, Belgium received two priority actions to complete noise maps and action plans. Therefore no priority actions are proposed for 2022. Water quality and management EU legislation and policy requires that the impact of pressures on transitional, coastal and fresh waters (including surface and ground waters) be significantly reduced. Achieving, maintaining or enhancing a good status of water bodies as defined by the Water Framework Directive will ensure that EU citizens benefit from good quality and safe drinking and bathing water. It will further ensure that the nutrient cycle (nitrogen and phosphorus) is managed in a more sustainable and resource-efficient way. Water Framework Directive The Water Framework Directive (WFD) is the cornerstone of EU water policy in the 21st century. The WFD along with other water-related legislation set the framework for sustainable and integrated water management, which aims at a high level of protection of water resources, prevention of further deterioration and restoration to good status. By March 2022, Member States have to report the third generation of River Basin Management Plans (RBMPs) under the WFD. The Commission will assess the reported status of river basins and progress made in these river basins, checking how the findings identified in the Commission’s assessment of the second round of RBMPs have been addressed. Belgium has not yet reported the 3rd RDMP . The Commission published in December 2021 the 6th Implementation Report, which assesses implementation of the WFD and the Floods Directive. This report includes an interim assessment of: (i) progress on the implementation of the programmes of measures; and (ii) on monitoring of the ”new” priority substances. The assessment report for Belgium that is part of the Implementation Report says that incomplete data mean it is not possible to fully assess progress made, in particular for the Brussels Capital Region and Wallonia. The level of information reported by the Flemish authorities showed that progress is being made in the implementation of measures for the second half of the water management cycle (2016-2021). However,the pace of progress in Flanders has not been great considering how much time has passed. In a nutshell, it seems that measures listed in the second round of Belgian RBMPs have not been implemented as planned, both in substance and timing. Efforts are still needed to reach the objectives of the WFD. Based on the reporting of the second round of RBMPs and data published in 2020 , 26.2% of all surface water bodies in Belgium have reached good ecological status (with only 2.7% of surface water bodies having unknown status) and only 2.2% having good chemical status (with 0.2% having unknown status). For groundwaters, 58.8% of groundwater bodies failed to achieve good chemical status and 10.0% are in poor quantitative status.

Figure 27 illustrates the proportion of surface water bodies in Belgium and other European countries that failed to achieve good ecological status. Figure 27. Proportion of surface water bodies (rivers, lakes, transitional waters and coastal waters) in less than good ecological status per river basin district Figure 28 presents the percentage of surface water bodies in Belgium and other European countries failing to achieve good chemical status. For Belgium, the percentage is 97.7%, if one includes water bodies failing due to substances behaving as ubiquitous PBTs (uPBTS – substances that are persistent, bio-accumulative and toxic). Without uPBTs, 25% of Belgian surface water bodies fail to achieve good chemical status. Figure 28. Percentage of surface water bodies not achieving good chemical status Under the IED framework, it should be stressed that Belgium showed a significant decrease the last decade (40.3%) in industrial releases of heavy metals like Cd, Hg, Ni, Pb and (4.4%) in Total Organic Carbon (TOC) to water . The total water abstracted annually (corresponding to 2019 baseline) from surface and groundwater sources in Belgium is 5846.07 hm3 (EEA, 2022). The percentage for water abstraction per sector is 0,05% for agriculture, 12.81% for public water supply, 58.43% for electricity cooling, 15.60% for manufacturing, 12.43% for manufacturing cooling and 0.68% for mining and quarrying (Figure 29). Belgium uses a register to monitor water abstractions. Each Region makes use of its own system . Small abstractions do not require permits in Belgium, but most small abstractions are nevertheless registered (at least in recent years). Figure 29: Water abstraction per sector in Belgium In Belgium, the water exploitation index plus (WEI+) was 7.31% (in 2017), which is less than the 20% that is generally considered to indicate water scarcity. Belgium is ranked 8th (with 1st indicating a country that has a high WEI+ and therefore a country with water-scarcity problems) in the EU. Figure 30. Water-exploitation index plus (WEI+) inside EU, 2017 As part of the Belgian RRP, Flanders aims to accelerate its water-retention actions because the region is becoming prone to water shortages due to droughts. Flanders aims to achieve this 'Blue Deal’ through: (i) the restoration and creation of wetlands; (ii) integrating waterbodies and other natural environments together into a broader network that spans both cities and rural areas; (iii) the installation of water buffers at large scale; (iv) the use of innovative water-saving technologies; and (v) investing in research on water conservation. . Floods Directive As mentioned earlier, the Commission published in December 2021 the 6th Implementation Report, which assesses the implementation of both the WFD and the Floods Directive. The report includes a review and update of the preliminary flood risk assessments drawn up by all Member States during the second cycle (2016-2021). Within the 6th Implementation Report, the assessment report showed that, all three Belgian regions provided an overview with the required information. However, Belgium’s decision todesignate the whole country as an area of potential significant flood risk is quite broad and could probably be refined. Yet, smaller-scale data is already used on regional and subregional level where it is more effective for flood risk actions and plans. However, both Wallonia and Flanders have developed practical computer-based map viewers to assess flood risk. These map viewers make it possible to visualise relevant information, and both regions provided good methodologies to assess future flood risks in their preliminary flood-risk assessments. Brussels and Wallonia should consider developing a quantitative methodology to assess the potential impact of future floods and their impact on human health, the environment, economic activity and cultural heritage. Belgium has not yet reported on the second generation of flood risk management plans (FRMPs) under the Floods Directive. The European Commission will assess progress made since the adoption of the first flood risk management plans and publish a report on this, as it did in 2019. Drinking Water Directive

On the Drinking Water Directive, no new assessment of the quality of drinking water is available since the 2019 EIR. The quality of drinking water in Belgium has not been indicated as an area of concern. The recast Directive entered into force on 12 January 2021, and Member States have until 12 January 2023 to transpose it into their national legal system. Belgium will have to comply with these revised quality standards. Bathing Water Directive On the Bathing Water Directive, Figure 32 shows that in 2020, out of the 118 Belgian bathing waters, 81.4% were of excellent quality . Detailed information on Belgian bathing waters is available from a national portal and via an interactive map viewer of the European Environment Agency . Figure 31: Bathing water quality in Europe in the 2020 season Figure 32: Belgium, Bathing water quality 2017-2020 Nitrates Directive According to the latest information available on the implementation of the Nitrates Directive, pollution by nitrates of ground water and surface water remains widespread in Flanders. Flanders has seen significant increases in certain areas and stable values in other areas, but at levels exceeding the threshold of 50 mg/l of nitrates or remaining very close to that threshold. Almost all (97%) surface waters in Flanders were reported to be in a eutrophic state by the end of 2019. Thus, what was indentified as a rather positive trend in the previous EIR reports has now turned into a clearly negative trend, with the pollution of water by nitrates in Flanders being among the highest in the EU. In Wallonia reporting shows that pollution levels are less worrisome overall, with concentrations in ground water generally showing a trend of reduction. However, for surface water, some monitoring stations in Wallonia are starting to show an upward trend. 15% of surface waters are eutrophic. Moreover, the Walloon authorities have fallen behind in carrying out the mandatory review of their nitrates-action plan (Programme de gestion durable de l'azote en agriculture), which is subject to a pending infringement procedure at the stage of reasoned opinion under Article 258 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive Belgium has, over the years, encountered difficulties in meeting its obligations under the Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive. Overall, in Belgium, the compliance rate is 95% which is higher than the EU average (76%) in 2018. 13.1% of urban wastewater in Belgium is not collected and/or does not meet the requirements for biological treatment. Figure 33: Proportion of urban waste water that meets all requirements of the Urban Wastewater Treatment Directive (collection, biological treatment, biological treatment with nitrogen and/or phosphorus removal) in compliant urban areas of the UWWTD (‘compliance rate’), 2018 In recent years, there have been improvements in compliance with the Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive, for which the use of EU funding has been fundamental. But despite these improvements, the incomplete implementation of the Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive has led to several rulings of the Court of Justice of the European Union against Belgium . Moreover, the Commission decided in June 2021 to issue a reasoned opinion to Belgium for its failure since 2005 to comply with Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive requirements in 11 agglomerations. 2022 priority actions ·Assess new physical modifications of water bodies in line with Article 4(7) of the WFD. In these assessments alternative options and appropriate mitigation measures have to be considered. ·Urgent action to improve water quality - both in surface water and ground water bodies, tackling pollution by nitrates in particular.

·Efforts should be made to improve the coordinated implementation of water, marine and nature policies. ·Complete implementation of the Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive for all remaining non-compliant agglomerations. Chemicals The EU seeks to ensure that chemicals are produced and used in a way that minimises any significant adverse effects on human health and the environment. In October 2020, the Commission published its chemicals strategy for sustainability - “Towards a Toxic-Free environment”, which led to some systemic changes in EU Chemicals legislation. The strategy is part of the EU’s zero pollution ambition - a key commitment of the European Green Deal. The EU’s chemicals legislation provides baseline protection for human health and the environment. It also ensures stability and predictability for businesses operating within the internal market. Since 2007, the Commission has gathered information on the enforcement of the Regulation on the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (“the REACH Regulation”) and the Regulation on Classification, Labelling and Packaging (“CLP Regulation). In December 2020, the Commission assessed the Member States’ reports on the implementation and enforcement of these Regulations , in line with Article 117(1) of the REACH Regulation and Article 46(2) of the CLP Regulation. According to the latest available data, national enforcement structures have not changed much in recent years since 2015. However, it is apparent from this report that there are still many disparities in the implementation of the REACH and CLP Regulations,and notably in the area of law enforcement. Recorded compliance levels in Member States seem to be quite stable over time, but with a slight worsening trend, which is likely due to: (i) enforcement authorities being more effective in detecting non-compliant products/companies; and (ii) more non-compliant products being put on the EU market. In August 2021, the Commission published a measurable assessment of the enforcement of the two main EU Regulations on chemicals (the REACH Regulation and the CLP Regulation) using a set of indicators on different aspects of enforcement. Responsibility for checking compliance with REACH in Belgium lies within the following authorities: ·Federal Public Service Health, Food Chain Safety and Environment, DG Environment, Environment Inspection Service (also responsible for checking compliance with the CLP Regulation); ·Federal Public Service Employment, Labour and Social Dialogue (also responsible for checking compliance with the CLP Regulation); ·The Flemish government - Environment Department - Enforcement Section; ·Brussels-Capital Region – Bruxelles Environnement; ·Wallonia - Directorate-General for Agriculture, Natural Resources and the Environment (DGARNE) Belgium has not yet devised a REACH enforcement strategy. It only has a CLP strategy, which is partly implemented . On enforcement, Belgium prioritises areas that are the most sensitive to consumers (children and the general public). In Belgium, 17.5 full time equivalent workers (FTEs) are allocated to REACH and CLP enforcement . There are 169 REACH controls in the reporting period and 199 CLP controls, well below average. Most of the REACH controls done are proactive, compared with reactive/non-routine CLP controls (i.e. investigations in response to complaints, accidents and referrals) . Although the level of expertise among the Belgian authorities has increased since the last reporting period, it is still not sufficient for some specific tasks under REACH, namely in relation to risk management and some specific areas of concern such as nanomaterials and endocrine disruptors. The high percentage of non-compliance cases out of the total number controls should be underlined ￼. Figure 34: Percentage of non-compliance cases out of the total number of REACH and CLP controls during 2019 per Member State and compared to the EU average 2022 priority actions

·Upgrade the administrative capacities in implementation and enforcement towards a policy of zero tolerance for non-compliance. ·Fully implement the enforcement strategy for the CLP Regulation and also devise and implement a strategy for the enforcement of the REACH Regulation. 4.Climate action In line with the Paris Agreement and as part of the European Green Deal, the European Climate Law sets the EU target of reaching climate neutrality by 2050 and reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by 55% by 2030 compared to 1990. The law also limits the contribution that carbon removals can make towards emission reductions in 2030, to ensure a sufficient mitigation effort. The EU and its Member States submitted updated Nationally Determined Contribution (NDC) to the UNFCCC in December 2020. The EU is working across all sectors and policies to cut GHG emissions and make the transition to a climate-neutral and sustainable economy, as well as addressing the unavoidable consequences of climate change. EU climate legislation incentivises emissions reductions from power generation, industry, transport, the maritime sector and fluorinated gases (F-gases) used in products. For road transport, EU legislation requires the GHG intensity of vehicle fuels to be cut by 6% by 2020 compared to 2010 and sets binding GHG emission standards for different vehicle categories. Under the F-gas Regulation, the EU’s F-gas emissions will be cut by two thirds by 2030 compared with 2014 levels. From 2021, emissions and removals of GHGs from land-use, land-use-change and forestry (LULUCF) have been included in the EU emission-reduction efforts. The EU adaptation policy is an integral part of the European Green Deal. From 2021, Member States are required to report on their national adaptation policies , as the EU Climate Law recognises adaptation as a key component of the long-term global response to climate change. Member States will be required to adopt national strategies, and the EU will regularly assess progress as part of its overall governance on climate action. The updated EU adaptation strategy, published in February 2021, sets out how the EU can adapt to the unavoidable impacts of climate change and become climate resilient by 2050. Key national climate policies and strategies Belgium has an integrated national energy and climate plan for years 2021-2030 that includes investments and reforms in line with its target under the Effort Sharing Regulation. The work under the national energy and climate plan is also consistent with Belgium’s long-term strategy to 2050. The long-term strategies of the regions envisage the following overall emissions reductions: • The long-term strategy of Wallonia aims to achieve carbon neutrality by 2050, through a reduction of greenhouse gas emissions by 95% compared to 1990, supplemented by measures regarding carbon capture and use, and negative emissions; • The long-term strategy of Flanders aims to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from the so-called non-ETS sectors by 85% by 2050 compared to 2005, with the ambition to move towards full climate neutrality. As regards the sectors covered by the ETS, Flanders subscribes to the context set out by the EU for these sectors with a decreasing emissions quota; • The long-term strategy of the Brussels-Capital Region sets the objective of moving closer to the European target of carbon neutrality by 2050, in the urbanised context of Brussels. The ambition of the Federal State is to achieve climate neutrality by 2050. Belgium is required to contribute to reaching EU climate neutrality by 2050 in line with the EU’s Climate Law.

In its RRP, Belgium allocates 50% of the funds to climate change policies and outlines crucial reforms and investments to further the transition to a more sustainable, low-carbon and climate-resilient economy (see Chapter 5). Belgium adopted its national climate change adaptation strategy in 2010 and its national adaptation plan in 2017. It has been evaluated in 2019 (at midterm) and in 2021. A new plan is foreseen by the end of 2022. Adaptation in Belgium is addressed at different levels: At the national level, adaptation is addressed within the national adaptation strategy and plan, which contains actions that are complementary to those contained in the regional plans (i.e. the plans for Flanders, Wallonia, Brussels Capital). Adaptation is addressed at local level with the municipalities that have signed the Covenant of Mayors on Urban Adaptation to Climate Change. To take national decisions there are commissions and coordination committees where governments (regional and federal) and ministries are represented. Between 1990 and 2020, economy-wide greenhouse gas emissions in Belgium decreased by 26%, less than the EU average. Figure 35: Total greenhouse-gas emissions (incl. international aviation) in Belgium 1990-2020 Effort-sharing target For emissions not covered by the EU’s emissions trading scheme (ETS), Member States have binding national targets under the Effort Sharing legislation Under EU legislation, Belgium has a target to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions in the non-ETS sectors (buildings, road and domestic maritime transport, agriculture, waste and small industries) by 15% by 2020 and by 35% by 2030. Belgium’s greenhouse gas emissions in these sectors in 2020 were 17% below 2005 levels (proxy data). The national energy and climate plan foresees the adoption of additional measures to achieve Belgium’s 2030 target of a -35% reduction in emissions for the non-ETS sectors. Figure 36: Emissions and targets under the Effort Sharing Decision/ Effort Sharing Regulation in Belgium, 2020 and 2030 as percentage change from 2005 Figure 37: Emissions, annual emission allocations (AEAs) and accumulated surplus/ deficit of AEAs under the Effort Sharing Decision in Belgium, 2013-2020 Key sectoral developments In road transport, the greenhousegas intensity of vehicle fuels in Belgium decreased by 3% from 2010 to 2019. It is therefore unlikely that the 2020 reduction target of 6% will be reached. There are several types of action that Member States can take in this regard, for example: (i) further expanding the use of electricity in road transport; (ii) supporting the use of biofuels, and advanced biofuels in particular; (iii) incenti