Water quality rising up the policy agenda

Belgium, and especially Flanders, is a small and densely populated region with a lot of agriculture and industry. Consequently, we consume a lot of water; this poses many challenges, including for the quality of our surface and groundwater.

Water quality has long been a priority for Europe. The Water Framework Directive (WFD) and the important principle it contains concerning preventing deterioration, reflected the decision taken 24 years ago that the quality of surface and groundwater needed to improve. Although the quality of our water has improved in recent decades, we still have a long way to go. To be compliant with the WFD, a 'water body' must meet all applicable quality standards (one-out all-out principle). According to this principle, one out of the 195 surface water bodies in Flanders meets the standard (0.5%); within the EU the figure is around 30%.

Time is pressing, because Belgium’s ground and surface waters must meet the standards set by the WFD by 22 December 2027 at the latest. That deadline, and recent rulings (Ineos Aromatics, Silvamo) by the Licensing Disputes Board (DBRC), underline the complex regulatory challenges for both companies and governments. They also underline the need to invest in innovative solutions.

The Water Framework Directive (WFD 2000) and the deterioration prevention requirement within it is intended to ensure that all water bodies in Europe achieve good ecological and chemical status by 2027. The deterioration prevention requirement is a crucial principle here: the quality of a water body must not deteriorate, even temporarily, unless there are exceptional circumstances which justify this. Specifically, every new discharge or change in existing discharges is critically assessed for its actual or potential impact on water quality. In Flanders, this is carried out using an 'industrial wastewater impact assessment'.
This provision, and the reference to ‘exceptional circumstances’, are set out in Article 4 of the European Water Framework Directive (WFD) and Article 1.7.2.1.1§4 of the Belgian Water Policy Decree of 18 July 2003 (the ‘Water Code’).

The deterioration prevention requirement will made it challenging for companies in Flanders to obtain, renew or modify permits. A number of recent rulings by the Flemish Licensing Disputes Board are given below as a reminder and an example.

These rulings make the strict requirements of the WFD very clear. In the Ineos Aromatics case, involving the relicensing of a petrochemical site, the impact of cobalt discharge into the Grote Nete river was examined in detail. A lower discharge rate and a lower discharge standard were proposed in the licence application, and the company made efforts to further reduce future discharges. Despite this, the downstream impact assessment identified a deterioration in status as regards cobalt both under worst-case conditions (based on a low water flow rate of the watercourse) and realistic conditions (based on an average flow rate of the watercourse). The Board accordingly ruled that the Flemish government had to take a new decision on the licence application within three months.

The same applied in the Silvamo case, where the permit for a landfill site in the Flemish municipality of Kortemark was scrutinised, with a particular focus on PFAS. According to stakeholders, expansion of the landfill facility would lead to a deterioration in local water quality, which is contrary to the provisions of the WFD and the Water Code.

However, the Board rulings demonstrate that more and more actors will inevitably become familiar with Articles 4 and 11.5 of the WFD. The latter article stipulates that where monitoring or other data show that the targets for a body of water as set out in Article 4 are unlikely to be met, Member States are required to investigate the reasons for this and to review and update the relevant permits.

How can companies prepare?
The examples above clearly illustrate the increasing impact of legal requirements around water management on whether or not a permit is granted. Given that a permit constitutes a company’s 'licence to operate', planning ahead is crucial.
Knowledge centres such as the Flemish Knowledge Centre Water (Vlakwa) therefore recommend that companies proactively carry out an impact assessment to determine the extent to which their current or future discharges pass the test. If they do not, it is essential to prepare and investigate. The central question here is therefore how a company can optimise its business processes, from procurement to production and discharge, in order to maintain and strengthen its competitive position within the framework of a sustainable water policy.

Read the articles in our News section.

Disclaimer:
Unless expressly provided otherwise, all information that you consult or obtain here has a non-binding and purely informational value. It is updated to the best of our ability and at regular intervals. However, KBC Bank NV gives no guarantees as to the topicality, accuracy, correctness, completeness or suitability for a particular purpose of this information. The information provided here does not constitute advice or an offer to sell products or services and is not intended for commercial use. You remain fully responsible for the consequences of the use you make of this information. The intellectual property rights to the information, publications and data provided here belong to KBC Bank NV or third parties and you must refrain from any infringement thereof. Except with the express prior and written consent of KBC Bank NV, any transfer, sale, distribution or reproduction of this information is prohibited.