Belgium, Flanders, and Brussels must reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 55% by 2030 (compared to 1990). According to the Brussels Court of Appeal, these three governments have so far not done enough to protect citizens’ human rights.

The Belgian climate policy violates two articles of the European Convention on Human Rights, which guarantee the ‘right to life’ and the ‘right to respect for private and family life’. Moreover, two articles from the Civil Code were also violated because “greenhouse gas emissions were insufficiently reduced in 2020,” the court stated.

Binding targets

Exactly nine years after the Climate Case (Klimaatzaak) on December 1st, 2014, the Brussels Court of Appeal now convicts the Belgian state, Flanders, and Brussels for negligent climate policy. The non-profit organization Klimaatzaak vzw, a citizen collective of 58 000 co-plaintiffs that had filed the case, was already proven right in 2021.

However, unlike two years ago, the judge has imposed binding targets this time. After the Netherlands, Belgium is the second country where a judge sets binding climate targets on the government. But contrary to what Climate Case had hoped, the court of appeal will not impose any penalty payments on the authorities for the time being. The judge requests additional information to decide on this.

Emission rights

Reducing emissions by 55% by 2030 is a tall order (Climate Case demanded a 61% reduction of greenhouse gas emissions; Europe imposes 47%, e.n.). Since 1990, emissions have fallen by almost a quarter (23%). That result must now be doubled in seven years. According to the most recent calculations, in 2021, Belgium achieved a reduction of 24% compared to 1990.

The most energy-consuming installations – about 200 – represent approximately 40% of Belgian and Flemish emissions. The most prominent players are BASF, ArcelorMittal, TotalEnergies, ExxonMobil, and Engie Electrabel. These companies receive a limited number of emission rights from Europe. If they emit more, they must buy (expensive) additional allowances.

Carbon footprint

When it comes to households, Flemish families tend to have a larger carbon footprint than their Walloon or Brussels counterparts. According to the Federal Plan Bureau, housing accounts for more than 40 percent of CO2 emissions, transportation for about 15 percent, and food for just over 10 percent.

Although this distribution is similar in the three regions, the carbon footprint of Flemish households is higher (7,3 tons of CO2) than in Wallonia (6,4 tons) and Brussels (5,3 tons). Some possible explanations are expenses, energy mix, and transport differences.

Demir considers Cassation

The climate ministers are now analyzing the impact of the recent judgment on their region and policy. Flemish Minister for the Environment, Zuhal Demir (N-VA), is considering challenging the decision in Cassation.

In the meantime, we see a similar scenario in Germany. The German environmental organizations DUH and BUND had started a climate case to denounce the ‘passivity’ of Olaf Scholz’s government. Now, the court has decided that the German government has to take measures as soon as possible to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in the transport and construction sectors.

The environmental organizations emphasize that the permitted emission levels for the transport sector were exceeded by 3,1 million tons in 2021. In the construction sector, this amounts to 2,5 million tons. They have now been vindicated.