Unequal Access to Mediation in Cross-Regional Environmental Permit Disputes involving Mega Infrastructure Projects in Belgium

Abstract

In Belgium, the restructuring of the Federal State has introduced new regional competencies, prompting regions to optimize their jurisdictional competences. However, disparities have emerged regarding the availability of mediation as a conflict resolution mechanism, particularly in environmental permit disputes surrounding mega infrastructure projects with cross-regional impacts. A notable example is the establishment of the Council for Permit Disputes (Raad voor Vergunningsbetwistingen) in Flanders, which allows for mediation as part of its dispute resolution process. This regional judicial body provides an avenue for collaborative conflict resolution, recognizing the potential benefits of mediation in addressing environmental, social, and economic implications tied to large-scale infrastructure developments in Flanders. In contrast, in other Belgian regions, i.e. Brussels and Wallonia, the Council of State remains the highest administrative court to address disputes around environmental permits in particular involving mega infrastructure projects. In this respect, the Council of State does not offer mediation as a mechanism for resolving permit disputes, potentially compromising equal access to mediation and, thus infringing upon the principle of equality before the law. The absence of mediation options in these regions not only limits the procedural avenues available for conflict resolution but also raises concerns about the efficacy and inclusivity of existing legal frameworks in addressing the complex, multi-stakeholder nature of mega infrastructure projects which are envisaged beyond one region's territory. This paper highlights the need for harmonized mediation access across the three regions, particularly as Belgium and Europe at large pursue green transition agendas that depend on large-scale, sustainable infrastructure development which does not stop at the border of one region alone. Equal access to mediation could foster more balanced stakeholder involvement, facilitate consensus-building, and reduce litigation, ultimately supporting more cohesive and equitable cross-regional development in the long run, on the one hand, and uphold respect for the principle of equality, on the other hand.

In Belgium, the restructuring of the Federal State has introduced new regional competencies, prompting regions to optimize their jurisdictional competences. However, disparities have emerged regarding the availability of mediation as a conflict resolution mechanism, particularly in environmental permit disputes surrounding mega infrastructure projects with cross-regional impacts. A notable example is the establishment of the Council for Permit Disputes (Raad voor Vergunningsbetwistingen) in Flanders, which allows for mediation as part of its dispute resolution process. This regional judicial body provides an avenue for collaborative conflict resolution, recognizing the potential benefits of mediation in addressing environmental, social, and economic implications tied to large-scale infrastructure developments in Flanders. In contrast, in other Belgian regions, i.e. Brussels and Wallonia, the Council of State remains the highest administrative court to address disputes around environmental permits in particular involving mega infrastructure projects. In this respect, the Council of State does not offer mediation as a mechanism for resolving permit disputes, potentially compromising equal access to mediation and, thus infringing upon the principle of equality before the law. The absence of mediation options in these regions not only limits the procedural avenues available for conflict resolution but also raises concerns about the efficacy and inclusivity of existing legal frameworks in addressing the complex, multi-stakeholder nature of mega infrastructure projects which are envisaged beyond one region’s territory. This paper highlights the need for harmonized mediation access across the three regions, particularly as Belgium and Europe at large pursue green transition agendas that depend on large-scale, sustainable infrastructure development which does not stop at the border of one region alone. Equal access to mediation could foster more balanced stakeholder involvement, facilitate consensus-building, and reduce litigation, ultimately supporting more cohesive and equitable cross-regional development in the long run, on the one hand, and uphold respect for the principle of equality, on the other hand.