Environmental law: wrap-up 2025 and preview 2026

The end of the year is an excellent time to reflect on the most important developments in environmental law. In this article, we provide an overview of the most notable topics that played an important role in 2025 and will remain relevant to your practice in Flanders, Brussels, and Wallonia in 2026. This overview will help you prepare for the challenges and opportunities that the new year will bring

Wrap-up 2025

First applications of the urban development charges

In 2023, Flanders reformed its “urban development charges” (“stedenbouwkundige lasten”). These are additional obligations imposed on an environmental permit. They compensate for the additional tasks that the government undertakes in implementing the permit. Since the reform, the imposition of financial charges is only permissible if the licensing authority (municipality, province or Region) provides for this in a specific urban development regulation. 

Two years later, it appears that local authorities are being creative with this new rule. An initial analysis of the available municipal regulations leads us to the following conclusions:

• Slow implementation: by the end of 2025, only 39 municipalities have a firmly established regulation for financial charges. In 11 municipalities, the procedure is still ongoing. In the other 235 Flemish municipalities, it is therefore not yet possible to impose a financial charge.
   
• Financial charges are preferred to charges in kind: according to the model regulation produced by the Department of the Environment, financial charges should only be imposed when a charge in kind is impossible, undesirable or insufficient. They are therefore of a subordinate or subsidiary nature. Nevertheless, several municipalities still impose financial charges instead of charges in kind (e.g. Berlaar, Duffel, Geraardsbergen and Halle).
   
• Payment terms are unclear: most municipalities opt for a payment term of three or six months after the permit is issued. However, they do not provide for what should happen if the permit is not implemented. According to the Department of the Environment, a refund is required. Other municipalities link the payment to the start of the works (e.g. Antwerp, Halle and Herentals).
   
• Each regulation is different: although the Department of the Environment provides a model regulation, municipalities apparently like to deviate from it. For example, some regulations only apply to structures that are not in keeping with the zoning plan (e.g. Kortrijk, Gavere, Kortemark and Kruibeke), while others also cover paving (e.g. Bredene), changes to the relief aspect and advertising panels (e.g. Herzele). Exemptions and exceptions also vary from one municipality to another. Finally, the same applies to the amount of the financial charge. Some municipalities calculate this per square metre (e.g. Lier and Kortrijk), while others calculate it per additional plot or residential unit (e.g. Heusden-Zolder and Lint).

The new system is not, therefore, particularly straightforward. Consequently, developers are always advised to check in advance what rules apply to their chosen project location.

Unlawful environmental impact assessment screenings for public projects

In 2025, the issue surrounding what is known as the “no conflict of interest” rule in environmental impact assessment (EIA) screenings for public projects reached a new peak, with rulings from both the Court of Justice and the Constitutional Court, as well as a new decree.

The “no conflict of interest” rule comes from the European Project EIA Directive. In essence, it requires authorities evaluating EIAs to perform their tasks objectively and not to put themselves in situations giving rise to a conflict of interests. If that authority is also the permit applicant, this requires appropriate separation.

However, translating this European rule to the Flemish level has proved difficult. The Environmental Permit Decree only provided for what it called an escalation of competence to the higher permit level for projects subject to an EIA that were applied for by a municipality or province. For example, the provincial executive deals with applications from municipalities, and the Flemish Government deals with those from provinces. Projects that only require a lighter “EIA screening”, on the other hand, do not escalate to a higher level. In such cases, the applicant continues to be the relevant licensing authority. 

In 2022, however, the Council for Permit Disputes ruled that EIA screenings also fell under the “no conflict of interest” rule. An appeal against this “wasserijsite” judgment was lodged with the Council of State, which referred the case to the European Court of Justice. On 8 May 2025, the court confirmed that the rule also applies to authorities that assess EIA screenings. After all, assessment of the EIA screening also has to indicate whether a project EIA needs to be drawn up. According to the Court of Justice, an appropriate separation is also required in that case. However, it remains unclear what exactly this entails.

Meanwhile, Flemish lawmakers have not sat idly by. As early as 2024, they confirmed that the transfer to a higher authority did not apply to EIA screenings. A new decree even explicitly established the independence of municipal and provincial environmental officials. On 18 September 2025, the decree was also set aside by the Constitutional Court, with reference to European case law from a few months earlier. Moreover, the Constitutional Court took the view that there were insufficient guarantees ensuring the objectivity of environmental officials. 

On 21 November 2025, the Flemish Government rapidly ratified a new decree. This has since been published in the Belgian Official Gazette and come into force. The escalation of powers now also applies to municipal and provincial projects subject to EIA screening. 

A framework for “the Building Shift”: the Flanders Spatial Policy Plan and the Provincial Spatial Policy Plans

The Flanders Spatial Policy Plan – a breakthrough

The Flanders Spatial Policy Plan (“BRV”) is the long-awaited successor to the Flanders Spatial Structure Plan (“RSV”) and sets out the broad outlines of spatial policy in Flanders for the coming decades. In July 2025, after the process had been virtually at a standstill since 2018, the Flemish Government took an important step forward with the approval of a draft memorandum outlining the strategic vision and policy frameworks of the BRV. The core ambition was to outline the policy guidelines for the so-called Building Shift (“Bouwshift”) and for local authorities that are also starting their own policy planning process.

The draft memorandum now shows that the BRV is based on six principles: (1) efficient and sustainable use of space, (2) emphasis on hub value and level of facilities, (3) attention to the physical system, (4) interweaving where possible, (5) the quality leap, and (6) an integrated approach across sectors. In addition, six thematic policy frameworks are proposed: space for housing, water, economy, energy, biodiversity, and agriculture. These frameworks form the basis for further operationalisation, with an emphasis on the division of tasks between the authorities and (new) instruments.

The draft memorandum was submitted for consultation as a “dialogue instrument” from the beginning of September to mid-November. Based on the responses, the Flemish Government is continuing to work on a preliminary draft in broad consultation with stakeholders. Once it has been formally submitted to the Flemish advisory councils and local authorities, this preliminary draft should lead to a draft BRV, on which the general public will once again be consulted. Final adoption is expected in the course of 2027. 

The Flemish provinces take the lead 

By contrast, the five Flemish provinces have all already started their spatial policy planning process. Three of the five provinces now have a definitively adopted Provincial Spatial Policy Plan:

• Flemish Brabant was the first province to finalise its policy plan, in September 2023. Flemish Brabant opted for six policy frameworks (mobility, housing, open space, energy, economy and facilities, “selections and development perspectives”).
• Shortly afterwards, Antwerp followed suit in October 2023, with three policy frameworks: “strong networks: space and mobility”, “lively centres” and “densification and de-densification of space”. 
   
• Limburg, as the third province, finalised its policy plan “Ruimtepact 2040” (Space Pact 2040) in February 2024, with three clear policy frameworks: living in urban and village centres, open space links and economic space.

Both Antwerp and Limburg faced several appeals for annulment before the Council of State, but these were all rejected in October 2025

On 20 June 2024, West Flanders also provisionally adopted the draft of its spatial policy plan and is aiming for final adoption by the end of this year. East Flanders took its first steps back in 2016, but the draft of its policy plan “Make Room for East Flanders 2050” was withdrawn during the previous legislative period after a flood of objections during public consultation. The plan is currently back in the preliminary draft phase, so final adoption is not expected before early 2029.

By September 2025, 18 Flemish cities and municipalities already had a finalised spatial policy plan: Antwerp, Bornem, Bruges, Buggenhout, Essen, Geel, Herentals, Kasterlee, Lier, Lievegem, Lochristi, Malle, Mechelen, Nazareth, Pelt, Puurs-Sint-Amands, Tremelo and Zwijndrecht. The remaining municipalities are expected to follow. The year 2026 may provide an opportunity to conduct a more detailed evaluation of the initial outcomes of, and practical experience with, these policy plans.

European Soil Monitoring Law

On 12 November 2025, the European Soil Monitoring Law was approved. This directive implements the EU Soil Strategy for 2030, which sets out a long-term vision. According to this vision, all soil ecosystems in the Union must be in a healthy state by 2050 at the latest.

As is often the case, the terminology used in the directive is not always clear and does not correspond to the existing soil regulations in Flanders, Brussels and Wallonia. 

First and foremost, the directive imposes a monitoring obligation on Member States. They are required to establish a soil monitoring framework, which includes monitoring soil health, soil cover and soil removal. A system of soil descriptors, indicators, target values and trigger values will be set up for this monitoring. Data must therefore be collected on the presence of soil contaminants that may pose a risk to human health and the environment, including per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) and other emerging soil contaminants. 

Based on this soil monitoring, Member States must assess soil health every six years, and for the first time by 17 December 2031 at the latest. 

The directive also introduces an obligation to avoid and compensate for loss of the soil's ability to provide ecosystem services as much as possible when new soil coverings or soil removals are carried out. This is done primarily through the reuse and repurposing of covered soils. It is also done by designating areas where the loss of ecosystem services would be minimal, such as brownfields, and by limiting the negative effects of soil sealing and removal as much as possible.

Finally, the directive contains obligations relating to the management of contaminated sites. It is mainly on this point that the current soil regulations in Flanders, Brussels and Wallonia already provide for detailed regulations. According to the directive, contaminated soils must, of course, be identified and then investigated. If a site-specific risk assessment shows that the soil contamination found poses an unacceptable risk to human health or the environment, then, in the terminology of the directive, “the appropriate risk reduction measures” must be taken to restore an acceptable level of risk. It is also important that the site-specific risk assessment consider current and future land use. According to the directive, it is up to Member States to

determine what they consider to be an unacceptable risk from a contaminated site, taking into account scientific knowledge, the precautionary principle, the specific characteristics of the site, and current and planned land use. No “safe” guideline values are therefore set at the European level. 

The specific measures are listed in annex IV to the directive and include various remediation techniques as well as other risk reduction measures, such as restrictions on the cultivation and consumption of crops. When determining the specific risk mitigation measure, the Member State must take into account the costs, benefits, effectiveness, sustainability and long-term technical feasibility of the measures and weigh these against the cost of soil remediation. In this context, the recitals to the directive state that the results of the cost-benefit analysis of a site-specific risk assessment or soil remediation must be positive. 

The Flemish, Brussels and Walloon legislatures will have to bring their respective soil regulations into line with this directive in the near future. 

Judicial freeze on construction in Brussels

Project developers looking back on 2025 will undoubtedly have heard about this controversial ruling. On 29 October 2025, the French-speaking Court of First Instance ruled that the Brussels-Capital Region must suspend the development of undeveloped sites. 

The judge imposed a provisional ban on the construction or paving of undeveloped sites larger than 0.5 ha. However, the judge did not clarify the specific impact of this ban on, for example, the practice for obtaining permits. Ultimately, it is up to the Region itself to take “the necessary measures” to implement the ruling.

The ban was imposed because the Region is not sufficiently complying with its own climate policy. According to the judge, there is a scientific consensus on climate change. The Region wants to combat this, inter alia by developing green spaces.

Nevertheless, the court found that urbanisation in the Region is continuing apace. The court also found that regional regulations on spatial planning are unable to stem this evolution. For example, the Regional Zoning Plan (“GBP” or “PRAS”), which determines the building possibilities for each plot of land, is, according to the court, largely outdated. An update was announced for 2021 but has not yet been implemented.

Consequently, according to the judge, the Region is not acting with due care: despite its knowledge of climate change and the corresponding policy objectives, the Region is not taking the necessary measures to actually implement that policy. Until that happens, it is irresponsible to reduce even further the amount of available green space.

In principle, the injunction will remain in force until the Region amends the GBP, but it will in any case expire on 31 December 2026. Given the current impasse in the formation of a government in Brussels, it is highly unlikely that the GBP will actually be amended before that date. Furthermore, the Brussels Secretary of State for Urban Development has told the Brussels Parliament that the Region needs appeal the ruling.

The exact impact of the 25 October 2025 ruling will therefore become clear in 2026. The same applies to the following items. 

Preview 2026

Modernisation of the environmental impact assessment

Even before 2026 began, modernisation of the environmental impact assessment (EIA) came into effect on 1 December 2025. This modernisation applies to both plans and projects. We list the three most important changes below.

Exemptions are being abolished

Since 1 December 2025, it has no longer been possible to get an exemption from the EIA obligation. From now on, either projects will require a full project EIA or a project EIA screening will suffice. As a result, annex II to the EIA Decision of 10 December 2004, which lists the projects for which either a project EIA or an exemption from the EIA requirement is necessary, will disappear. The projects from the old annex II will be redistributed across the new annexes 1 and 2. Annex 1 lists the projects for which a project EIA is required in all cases. Annex 2, on the other hand, lists the projects for which a project EIA or a screening may suffice. The exemption will also disappear in the plan EIA procedure.

Team EIA becomes Flemish Expertise Centre EIA (“Vlaams Expertisecentrum MER” or VECM)

This expertise centre will take on an essentially supportive role. For example, it will no longer make decisions about the team of experts. In the case of plan EIAs, the VCEM will no longer make approval decisions, but will only provide quality advice. For project EIAs, approval by the VECM will remain relevant. In addition, guideline books will also cease to be compulsory.

Digital tools

A digital “EIA obligation tool” will be introduced for both plans and projects, making it possible to quickly determine whether an EIA or screening is required. A “project EIA screening tool” will also be offered. This tool will identify relevant effects. 

In addition, this modernisation includes many procedural changes. Files submitted before 1 December 2025 will still be subject to the old rules. If the start-up occurred later (e.g. submission on or after 1 December 2025), the new rules will apply.

Entry into force of the Enforcement Implementation Decree

The spring of 2026 will see the first entry into force of the new enforcement framework in environmental law. The law's intention to provide for streamlined enforcement rules will thus be realised, at least in part, in 2026. The Flemish Enforcement Framework Decree of 14 July 2023 (“Kaderdecreet”) provides for new, uniform enforcement rules. As the title itself indicates, the framework decree “only” provides a framework, which still needs to be applied to the various enforcement aspects of environmental law. Among other things, the framework decree provides for a standard arrangement for curative restoration and preventive security measures, and also focuses on the digitisation of enforcement. 

With the general Implementation Decree (“Implementatiedecreet”) of 26 April 2024, this framework will apply to the following decrees in the area of environmental law with effect from 1 April 2026: 

• the Decree on General Provisions for Environmental Policy (DABM), with the exception of certain regulations in Title XVI, such as enforcement of the Manure Decree and the Materials Decree,
• the Flemish Spatial Planning Code (VCRO),
• the Accommodation Decree,
• the Immovable Heritage Decree,
• the Maritime Heritage Decree,
• the Decree on Integrated Commercial Establishment Policy.

With a few limited exceptions, the entire Framework Decree applies to these regulations. A few matters that are not yet regulated by the Framework Decree (such as the specific powers of the supervisory authorities, the possibility for local authorities to enter into remedial settlements and the procedure for administrative appeals against administrative remedial decisions) are still being worked out in terms of sectoral enforcement decisions. 

On 23 May 2025, the Environmental Enforcement Decision was approved. This implements the Framework Decree and the Implementation Decree for environmental enforcement and spatial planning enforcement. This decree will also enter into force on 1 April 2026. 

This largely eliminates the differences between the enforcement rules in the environmental and spatial planning sectors. For example, the “supervisory authority responsible for environmental enforcement” will be able to monitor both environmental legislation (“DABM”) and the spatial planning legislation (“VCRO”). According to the regulator, the differences specific to the different matters will be “kept to a minimum”. 

Reform of the urban planning exemption and notification system

In 2023 and 2024, Flemish environmental law underwent a large number of regulatory interventions, the implementation and initial applications of which became apparent in 2025. These included the 2024 Environmental Omnibus Decree (“Verzameldecreet Omgeving”), which amended no fewer than 22 regulatory instruments. 

Among other things, it introduced the planning compensation obligation at the planning level, as well as the possibility of regularising a change of use that is inconsistent with zoning regulations, and also a new article 4.4.1/0 of the Flemish Spatial Planning Code (“VCRO”), which only allows application of the possibilities for deviation from urban planning regulations from that title upon a reasoned request from the permit applicant. 

Furthermore, the Decree also provided the basis for reform of the system of urban planning exemptions and notifications.

On 4 July 2025, three preliminary draft decisions on this last point were adopted by the Flemish Government. Their final adoption and entry into force was originally expected at the end of 2025 but may not take place until sometime in 2026. The decrees are currently with the Council of State for advice, after comments from SARO, VVSG and VVP led to a revised draft being approved on 28 November 2025. 

Exhaustive list of possible permit-requiring actions at municipal level

Whereas municipalities were previously authorised to introduce a permit requirement for (all) notifiable activities and a notification requirement for exempt activities, they will lose this option. Since the Decree, article 4.2.5 VCRO has stipulated that a local urban development regulation can now only introduce a permit requirement for those exempt or non-permit-required urban development actions that appear on an exhaustive list to be determined by the Flemish Government.

The exhaustive list on the table includes six possibilities: four provisions concerning the felling of trees and woody plants with heritage value and two provisions concerning actions relating to immovable heritage. The possibilities for municipalities are therefore quite limited. 

Municipalities must amend their existing regulations within two years of the exhaustive list being drawn up, otherwise conflicting provisions will be repealed by operation of law. To this end, the Flemish Department of the Environment will provide a model regulation.

Noteworthy: article 4.2.5 VCRO does offer the Flemish Government remarkably broad powers to introduce additional (potentially) permit-requiring actions. 

The present decision currently only affects the scope of the permit requirement to a limited extent, which means that little will change in practice. Only the felling of certain trees that are not subject to the permit requirement of article 4.2.1 VCRO may still be made subject to a permit by the municipalities.

Conceptually, however, this could lead to debate, as determining the scope of the permit requirement is, in principle, a task for the legislator. It therefore remains to be seen whether the Council of State will take up this point in its opinion on the draft decision. This is all the more relevant because the amended article 4.2.5 VCRO was introduced without the opinion of the Council of State, as the Decree was adopted under the urgent procedure.

Exemption and Notification Decrees 

The above is part of a broader overhaul of the system of urban planning exemptions and notifications: exempted activities will henceforth relate to occasional or very frequent activities with a limited impact, and notifications will be reoriented towards (only) temporary activities, in order to offer more opportunities for “temporary and reversible use of space”.

In line with this logic, the preliminary draft significantly expands the Exemption Decision to include, among other things, the installation of (plug-in) solar panels on facades of up to 4 m²

and on balconies, facade work without changing the physical building volume and without deteriorating the energy performance of the building, as well as the installation of insulation and certain interior renovations, the construction of certain above-ground infiltration facilities, and fibre optic networks. 

The Notification Decision has been significantly slimmed down. The report to the government provides an overview of the activities that are currently subject to notification, but which will be exempt or subject to permitting under the new decision. By way of illustration: the notification requirement for certain paved surfaces and buildings used for industrial purposes under article 5 will disappear, but the exemptions in industrial areas will be extended to a limited extent.

The rise of water case law

Flemish environmental law is, of course, also strongly influenced by the Council for Permit Disputes (“Raad voor Vergunningsbetwistingen”). This Council often rules on typical bottlenecks for permit applications, such as nature reserves and local roads. To that list of evergreens, we may soon be adding a new stumbling block: water. After all, the impact of a project on surrounding water bodies requires increasingly careful investigation, as recent case law from the Council shows.

This case law is based on European law, transposed into the Water Code (“Waterwetboek” also known as "Decreet Integraal Waterbeleid”). We reiterate the most important principles of the decree:

• No damage to the water system: in order to avoid or minimise such damage, authorities impose conditions or refuse to grant a permit.
• Water assessment: authorities must always assess the impact of a project on the water system. This is done in the so-called “water assessment” (“watertoets”). This assessment must take into account, among other things, the improvement requirement and the prohibition against deterioration.
• Improvement requirement: Flemish water bodies must achieve “good” status. What constitutes “good status” is laid down in environmental quality standards.
• Prohibition against deterioration: the current status of water bodies must not deteriorate. There is also a gradual obligation to stop discharging pollutants.

According to European case law, this prohibition against deterioration applies directly to the assessment of permit applications. Furthermore, in its judgment of 28 May 2020, the Court of Justice gives a strict interpretation of the concept of “deterioration”. This is the case, for example, when the project leads to a quality standard being exceeded. If that standard has already been exceeded, there is even deterioration as soon as the concentrations of pollutants increase. In industrialised and urbanised Flanders, this is quickly the case.

Consequently, “water” becomes an important point of attention when assessing permit applications. As soon as the proposed project could have an impact on the water system (e.g. through drainage), permit issuers must investigate and justify this. If they fail to do so, the Council for Permit Disputes may revoke the permit. This has already happened, for example,

in the case of a permit for apartment construction in Niel (RvVb 9 October 2025, no. A/2526/0097).

In 2026, it will therefore be more crucial than ever for permitting authorities to provide sufficient justification for their water assessments. However, it will also be crucial for permit applicants to pay sufficient attention to the water impact of their projects. 

Expected rulings by the Constitutional Court

In addition to the rulings of the Council for Permit Disputes, the rulings of the Constitutional Court on environmental regulations remain particularly relevant. We expect the Court to issue rulings on three high-profile cases in the coming months. 

Nitrogen Decree 

After much discussion, the Flemish Government ratified the Nitrogen Decree on 26 January. This decree clarifies, through a number of assessment frameworks, when the nitrogen emissions of a project are acceptable. The decree covers not only agricultural businesses, but also traffic-generating projects and fossil fuel combustion plants. The Constitutional Court will determine whether these assessment frameworks are lawful.

Environmental Decree 

The decree of 17 May 2024 introduces a new instrument, the environmental decision. This allows zoning plans to be amended at the same time as the permit application. Once again, the aim is to speed up the implementation of certain projects. These are (1) works of general interest, (2) businesses and (3) spatial impulse projects (“ruimtelijke impulsprojecten”). In 2026, the Constitutional Court will assess whether the environmental decree can remain in force.

Walloon soil remediation obligation

According to the Walloon Soil Remediation Decree, operators subject to remediation obligations are exempted if a third party caused the pollution. However, this exemption does not apply if that third party was also the transferor of the permit. If a previous licence holder caused the pollution, the current operator remains liable for remediation. The Constitutional Court must now determine whether or not this constitutes discrimination.

European Nature Restoration Law: National restoration plans

The European Nature Restoration Regulation came into force on 18 August 2024. As discussed in our previous contribution, this Regulation provides for legally binding targets and restoration obligations for a long list of ecosystems. 

Although this Regulation is binding and directly applicable in all Member States, it still needs to be implemented. To achieve these objectives, each Member State will have to submit a “national restoration plan” to the European Commission by 18 August 2026 at the latest. This plan must specify, among other things, what restoration measures will be applied in which areas. Each Member State may take into account their own social, economic, regional and other requirements. In this way, this European “law” still allows for a certain degree of flexibility. 

In 2026, we will therefore be looking forward to seeing the draft restoration plan that Belgium is going to be submitting and what its further implications will be for spatial planning and the granting of permits.