While Belgium is fairly prepared to deal with smaller crises, the country is currently unable to cope with a large-scale disaster, according to a new report by Brussels-based independent think-tank Itinera published this week.
From the terrorist attacks in Brussels and the floods in Wallonia to the Covid-19 pandemic, researcher Julien De Wit examined previous crises and compared Belgium's approach to that of other countries.
He came to a worrying conclusion: despite all efforts, there is still no adequate response, he wrote in the new report entitled Crisis management in Belgium: how prepared is the country? Given current geopolitical tensions and hybrid threats, that is not a conclusion to be happy about.
"Crises are no longer exceptions, they are the new normal," said De Wit. "Belgium must fundamentally rethink its crisis management if it wants to maintain its resilience in an increasingly complex world."
Military personnel outside Brussels Airport a day after the terrorist attacks, Wednesday 23 March 2016. Credit: Belga/Yorick Janssens
Despite "a solid institutional basis" with a permanent crisis centre and a phased crisis structure, he found that Belgium is "a country of perpetual fragmentation" – with overlapping competences and ad hoc coordination. In particular, cooperation between the country's federal and regional levels is lacking.
During the Covid-19 pandemic, for example, these ad hoc structures became very clear. On top of that, there were also numerous advisory bodies, consultative committees and various councils.
"It can be rather bric-à-brac at times. If we were to suffer a cyberattack, we might have to hire a football pitch to bring all the experts and authorities together," De Wit said. "In practice, this leads to delays and uncertainty."
Vulnerable structure, complex country
Due to Belgium's high population density, dense infrastructure and open economy, the country is in a "unique but vulnerable" position, De Wit found.
Combined with a complex state structure (Belgium has six governments), this makes the country particularly susceptible to "administrative inertia" and a lack of unity of command in crises. To make the country more resilient, Itinera proposed a series of concrete policy recommendations, inspired by good practices from Germany, the Netherlands, Sweden and the United Kingdom.
The first one focuses on strengthening cooperation between federal and regional authorities. "Make inter-federal coordination structural, with uniform emergency planning standards and joint risk analyses."
Credit: National Crisis Centre
Additionally, decision-making in times of crisis should be quicker, which is possible by defining clear escalation thresholds. The National Crisis Centre (NCCN) should be designated as the central coordinator, and a single spokesperson should be appointed per crisis.
In theory, the NCCN indeed coordinates the response to large-scale disasters and crises, but there are several so-called "competing systems" operating in the country.
Brussels recently set up its own crisis centre (safe.brussels). In the case of a disaster, it must consult with the national version. However, in the event of a security incident – such as terrorism or a hybrid threat – other agencies, such as the Strategic Committee for Intelligence and Security, the Coordination Unit for Intelligence and Security and the National Security Council, also come into play.
While the latter three agencies fall under the authority of the Prime Minister, the NCCN is part of the Interior Minister's portfolio – which does not help matters when it comes to clarity, De Wit stressed.
Clear powers, structural cooperation
Therefore, he emphasised the importance of focusing on a single, clear communication strategy. "Invest in understandable communication and proactive awareness-raising among citizens."
Citizens need to be made more aware, he stressed. The BE-alert system notifies people by email and/or text message in the event of disasters, but there is no plan if the power goes out – such as the brochures that were distributed in Sweden several months ago.
Additionally, Belgium should build technological autonomy and a learning risk culture, reduce dependence on foreign technology and install an independent evaluation mechanism, following the example of the Dutch Safety Board.
Emergency workers in front of the damaged front of Brussels Airport, in Zaventem, Wednesday 23 March 2016. Credit: Belga/Geert Vanden Wijngaert
According to Itinera, the approval of the draft Emergency Planning and Crisis Management Code on 29 March 2024 was a positive step towards clarity and cooperation. However, for De Wit, the code remains "too limited for the time being to address the persistent fragmentation in Belgian crisis management structurally."
"An effective crisis management system requires clear powers, structural cooperation and a deeply rooted risk culture," he said. "Only then can Belgium sustainably strengthen its preparedness and effectiveness."
Related News
- Wartime mindset? Belgium advises population to prepare 'emergency kit'
- Belgium's emergency preparedness campaign is 'premature', says Justice Minister
- Everyone should have 72 hours worth of 'war supplies', EU warns citizens
- 'Forewarned is forearmed': Belgium urges universities to prepare medical students for war
