Project developers of onshore wind installations face significant opposition from local environmental groups. The biggest concerns of these groups are disturbances for birds and bats who both are, arguably, affected by the turbines. As these groups challenge the installations in court, the realisation of the projects is delayed which causes financial losses for the developers in terms of longer project lead times. Although, the courts most often rule in favour of the project developers, they are often still required to consider the impact on birds and bats which effectively leads to the installations needing to be turned off for certain periods of times (e.g. during the breeding period of birds). This also leads to financial losses for owner of the installation, as they cannot produce any electricity during this time period.

More stakeholder engagement on a local level is needed, to ensure that environmental organisations do not challenge permits or lead to other problems for developers. This means that citizens, municipalities and local environmental need to be included in the entire process of the installations of wind turbines. The inclusion of national environmental groups has proven to not be enough as they might agree with something that their local groups do not, which then still causes a problem for developers.

The rotating blades of wind turbines make it difficult to correctly locate flying object using radars. Currently, there are a significant number of zones in which the development of wind installations is no longer permitted. These are so-called “blind-zones” in which no flying objects can be identified. These zones are generally found in a circumference of 50km from a radar.

This limits the potential of wind energy in general. In neighbouring countries, it was tried to meet the military concerns through a revision of rules, for instance through new calculation methods. However, this solved the issue only partially; eventually leaving more problems than expected. Another solution would be the installation of additional radar ports to minimise “blind zones”. Still, this solution requires substantial financial investment and sufficient realisation time. There are debates about whom should bear the costs of these additional radars, but as of May 2019, it seems unlikely the problem will be solved any time soon. Belgium is also known for its high aeronautical constraints compared to neighbouring countries. This is also clear in urban areas where buildings may not exceed a maximum height of 100 meters.

As the solutions to the problems can be manifold, ranging from a software update for the radars to very brief curtailment of the turbines when aircrafts approach, a first step to finding these solutions could be the setting up of a working group. This group would consist of representatives from the civil and military aviation sectors as well as wind turbine operators. Together they could map the affected turbines and find solutions for them. Most importantly, their discussions should include the financial aspect of the solutions. The question of burden sharing of the costs for the solutions will be crucial.

In Flanders, the Minister of Environment, Nature and Energy would like to quickly move forward with the energy transition but she faces a lot of objections from other cabinet members and policy makers in lower levels of government. Many policy-makers see renewables as cost-inducing technologies instead of necessary environment technologies that prevent costs and have significant positive socio-economic impacts. Other policy makers have no confidence in the RES potential and focus their advices on some local incidences without taking into account the numerous positive externalities of RES production. Consequently, different policy makers negatively communicate on RES, affecting the general social acceptance. Another problem is that policy makers are generally focused on the short-term and their own political positions.

In addition, there is often a lack of business understanding and technology understanding at both ministries and administrations levels leading administrations and ministries to take detrimental or excessive measures. During the past months, the awareness of the climate problem among the population has increased. This has been set in motion by various climate marches, after which the media have also strongly adopted the theme. Various parties have since moved the theme forward in their strategy to the upcoming elections. The focus is therefore more and more on green developments and renewable energy. However, NIMBY resistance stays very actual.

In the last years, some RES technologies have been frequently and negatively presented in the media and have contributed to the negative image of all renewable energy sectors. Although some opinion polls show that RES projects are massively supported by the local communities, the anti-RES (especially anti-wind energy) groups are more and more vocal and organised disseminating factually wrong information and stimulating a NIMBY attitude. As an example, the public consultation on the wind energy spatial planning in Wallonia has allowed anti-wind groups to increase their media presence. These groups also use public information forums to try to convince the local population that they should support NIMBY campaigns. These organizations work with juridical experts and succeed in systematically sending delivered permits to appeals procedures, as discussed in the barrier on ‘juridical uncertainty’. Nowadays, a collective is started in every municipality that is opposed to the arrival of a project such as windmills and biomass. Despite the burning theme of climate issues, the NIMBY attitude is still very largely spread.

Despite the increasing awareness of climate issues, the resistance to RES is still very high and, in particular, due to the NIMBY attitude. It is therefore important to increase the acceptance of RES projects among the population, this can be done through information campaigns, compensation mechanisms and other initiatives that are not in place today.

Almost all renewable energy projects are challenged in court by those opposing their installation. Most projects are allowed to continue after the court case, but the fact alone that they are challenged leads to financial losses and is causing delays. It specifically affects on-shore wind energy projects, but is certainly not limited to this technology only. The reason for the challenges of wind parks is often noise disturbance, but can also be environmental reasons (e.g. the impact of a wind turbine on the bat and bird population). Those challenging the projects have a significant amount of resources which means that they are likely to continue the court cases for the next few years and thus the impacts for project developers are likely going to continue for the years to come. This also has to do with the possibility of appeal procedures in the regulations. These are very accessible and open to everyone. The problem is also that RES development has to tackle resistance throughout the entire country, which makes it very hard to deal with lawsuits. Concentration of projects, based on receiving capacity of the grid, would make this continuous fight against resistance and lawsuits much more feasible.

The generous support system for domestic PV leading to green certificates (GC) overstock was reviewed in 2013 with retroactive effects, thus decreasing the confidence of the population in PV investments. In Wallonia, the subsidies for PV installations also decreased substantially, because of the market bubble that was created. For example, since 30 June 2018 the 'Qualiwatt' subsidy for solar panels has also been abolished. It was announced that solar panels per se are more than profitable enough, although it was probably canceled because of the deficit created because of the green energy certificate bubble in Wallonia years ago. As far as wind energy is concerned, new and small developers have the feeling that the best future development places for wind energy are already booked (contracts signed with land owners) and that important connexion capacities are already booked at the TSO level, leading to scarce possibilities for new connexion demands. This significantly impacts their development.

In addition, one observes a lack of political willingness to establish a real energy strategy. The increase in development and operation costs, combined with the uncertainty regarding the future support system and the GC price collapse, block most of current investments and jeopardise the realisation of projects for which a permit has already been delivered.

In 2014, the situation was even worse than the years before. The renewables were still considered as cost inducing technologies because they had to compete with depreciated power plants. The federal government decision to revise the nuclear phase-out law by keeping open some reactors 10 years longer without preparing any nuclear substitution strategy was seen as an anti-renewables decision. The only communication from the Belgian governments relates with a decrease in the middle term renewable target (without any strategy) and a watered down position regarding 2030 at the EU level.

In Wallonia, the government also specifically announced that it would be very difficult to install new wind turbines in the future.

Although Belgium decided the closure of 3 out of the 7 nuclear reactors (for security reasons), thus increasing the risk of black-outs, some policy makers mentionned RES as the cause of this situation. In fact, they argued that if the country had invested in the construction of new nuclear plants instead of developing renewable energies, Belgium would not be in this situation today. In 2018 this barrier has however improved. Belgium has agreed upon a nuclear exit by 2025 in the Energy Pact of 2018. The country therefore pledges to raise its efforts on RES development, which makes the investment climate much more positive and less risky.

In some parts of Belgium, projects connecting to the medium voltage grid have to wait long before being connected to the grid - times of at least half a year to two years are experienced. However, experts underline that this barrier is not the most damaging barrier. The grid connection procedures are slower for smaller installations than for big ones. The perception of the constraint is quite different among the renewable energy technologies. However, since one year now DSO's in Belgium have the continual permission to expand the medium voltage grid, which accelerates these procedures. What often causes problems is the 15-20 MW limit (depending on the region) where the project must be connected to the TSO grid (above the limit) or the DSO grid (below the limit). Connection to TSO grid is much more expensive, so many project developers split the project into several 'projects' of 4-5 MW. The problem that arises is that the grid operators do not get a complete picture of the network capacity and infrastructure that must be installed. That is why connection of a complete project often takes much longer than expected.

DSOs often condition the connection to a curtailment without any compensation. As this is decided at the end of the permit delivering process, the developer has no choice and must accept the conditions at the cost of all the project. This barrier affects all renewable energy installations and more specifically wind farms. As mentioned in the barrier on insufficient grid capacity, this has a negative influence on the riskyness of wind farm business models in particular.

In order to safely exploit the grid and to reduce costs associated to grid congestion, TSOs and DSOs are asking more flexibility from renewable energy installations. Due to the simultaneity of wind or PV production, congestion is likely to occur when they are both producing at full or high capacity. Those technologies are therefore often affected by curtailment.

Renewable energy installations connected to the distribution grid have to pay an injection tariff that varies between different DSO's. Moreover, production units connected to the transmission grid are exempted from these tariffs. This means that most of the conventional production units are exempted from injection tariffs while most of the renewables are not because they are connected to the distribution grid. This undermines the level playing field between conventional and renewable technologies. It further is problematic that imported renewable electricity is exempt from paying injection tariffs, which, again, undermines the level playing field between imported renewable electricity and electricity generated in Belgium. Finally, there has been some controversy around the way the injection tariffs are build up. At a certain point is was reported that pension contributions were directly included in injection tariffs, which project developers reacted very badly to as they do not see it as their job to pay for pensions. With transmission grid connection, the initial costs for project developers are very high, because new electricity line have often to be built. In return these project do not pay injection tariffs, bearing high initial costs. With distribution grid connection, existing grid lines are used and therefore injection tariffs are applied for compensating the maintenance costs. However, no initial costs exist here.

Harmonisation is needed on two different levels to ensure that renewable electricity generated on Belgian soil in Belgium can compete with both conventionally generated electricity in Belgium and imported electricity. Further, it needs to be clarified what is included in the injection tariffs and what not to prevent controversies, like pensions being paid for directly from the tariffs, to arise in the future.

Security of supply is currently a federal competence. Since 65% of the energy is supplied through nuclear power stations, which are also under federal competence, this makes sense. However, Belgium recently decided to close all its nuclear power plants by 2025. Renewable energy is envisaged to take over the role of nuclear energy and to provide the majority of the energy to Belgian households. In contrast to nuclear energy, however, renewable technologies are within the competences of the respective regional governments.

As there is no plan to hand over the security of supply to the regional governments, Belgium will end up with a situation where the security of energy supply is in the hands of the federal government, whilst the technologies that need to provide this supply are in the hands of the regional government. This causes uncertainty amongst project developers and investors.

On a short term, there is a need for more political unity. The complexity of the Belgian state and its division of powers reduces overall efficiency. Consultation bodies have been set up to encourage cooperation between the federal and the regional levels. To achieve the objectives, however, it is important that Belgium consolidates and refines its long-term energy policy quickly. The Energy Pact, signed by the four Ministers of Energy in December 2017, should serve as a basis for more political unity.

Currently, the collaboration between the regional and federal governments does not work for all Parties. Therefore, all Parties need to find their way to the negotiating table again to renegotiate a burden-sharing agreement that works for all Parties and that will include all these Parties in an equal manner. That will allow the burden of the energy transition in Belgium to genuinely be shared among the Parties.

Further, the regional governments need to be included in the security of supply discussion and planning for post 2025, when the nuclear power stations are due to shut down. Including them will allow that the preparation work for post 2025 can be started as soon as possible, which will prevent problems from arising in the future and give project developers certainty to do long-term planning.

The costs of solar and wind energy are declining rapidly (e.g. within a few years offshore wind parks may be built without direct subsidies). This hinders the development of biomass energy. The business model of solar and wind energy is of course different from biomass and is more interesting for many investors. There is a high initial cost and negligible operational costs. With biomass, there are real, permanent operational costs. Moreover, solar and wind are portrayed more positively than they are in reality in the media. With regards to the offshore wind parks, for instance, the Belgian government still needs to pay for grid infrastructure, but this is not communicated clearly to the public.

As a region Flanders is recognised by its linear settlements, which are a group of buildings forming a long and narrow line. These linear settlements pose a barrier to wind parks, as there must be a certain distance between the wind turbines and settlements.

A clear wind plan would again bring relief. This plan based on receiving capacity has already been drawn up by the DSOs, but has not yet been implemented in a binding law.

The prices of electricity are falling and due to too low network capacity, a project developer of offshore wind energy cannot achieve enough returns. Both the electricity price and the available grid capacity are limited. This can seriously hinder the attractiveness of such projects.

An important problem in the coming years is the lack of network capacity, which must be tackled urgently. This is, of course, a long-term process and clashes with a lot of resistance, so further relaxation of the procedures and reduction of the possibility of resistance is certainly welcome. More specifically for wind energy, it is recommended that the government agree on a framework within which the price of wind fluctuates to offer a certain price certainty. This lowers the risks involved in a long-term project such as wind energy.

The biggest barrier to offshore wind and onshore wind is the connection to the grid. Obtaining permits takes a lot of time, due to the strong resistance to grid expansion. This is also noticeable for larger PV plants, that have problems connecting to the grid. The problem is that new grids must be built underground. Every meter that is built above ground must be removed elsewhere, because the maximum has been reached according to legislation. Elia has just received € 5 billion from the federal government to further expand the grid. However, this development will have a time horizon of approximately 7 years.

A great deal is expected from the new regulations regarding collective self-consumption and renewable energy communities. It is generally expected in the sector that this will lead to cost reductions and further development of the market. For some, however, there is a fear that too much is expected of this and that people from the sector focus less on other things that might stimulate the renewable energy market, such as R&D and marketing.

The Energy Pact of 2017 prescribes the nuclear exit planned for 2025 in Belgium. The largest party in Belgium 'NVA', however, is in favour of nuclear energy, and although it co-signed the Energy Pact, they have since caused confusion on this topic. At several moments in the last year they have stated that they will hinder the nuclear exit. As they remain by far the largest party within Flanders, this has a negative impact on the renewable energy investment landscape in Belgium.

Compared to the RES electricity approach, a coherent and integrated strategy for RES technology development in the heating sector is lacking. This is part of a more global lack of energy strategy. No clear middle term target for heating sector and sub-sectors has been adopted to support such a strategy. This would be particularly important to support RES integration in the building sector.

The administrative framework also remains largely unclear or inappropriate. For instance, the environment criteria for bio-energies are based on the worst case scenario, are not adapted to the majority of cases and lead to excessive costs. Regarding the building sector, the calculation of RES in EPB is inappropriate and not in line with the real life methodology (e.g. for heat pumps).

There is also a lack of understanding of the interest in renewable gas solutions (biogas & syngas). RES-H should be more and more considered as an integrated strategy for example in the building and industrial sector.

The H&C sector will significantly benefit from the regions and the federal government sitting at one table and coming up with a broad strategy that they are working towards together. As H&C is a regional competence, that will also give the regions something to work towards individually.

The main support scheme deals with green certificates for electricity and with certificates for CHP.

In addition, in Flanders individuals with a PV installation < 10 kW are eligible for a bidirectional metre. With regards to the CHP certificates, a new problem arises in Flanders: the existing biomass plants are almost ten years old, which means the financial support they receive will end. Without support, the biomass plants cannot continue the production of renewable energy. There are currently discussions on the continuation of support for these plants.

In Flanders, new buildings must meet a certain energy level (the so-called E-peil). This regulation is an important incentive for individuals to invest in renewable energy. Solar energy in particular is popular, but biomass boilers are also an option. Individuals receive no subsidies, but they are allowed to install a bidirectional metre (“terugdraaiende meter”). This metre allows them to deduct energy injected into the grid from the energy consumed from the grid (and hence benefit from a lower electricity bill). Only individuals with a PV installation up to 10 kW are allowed to install a bidirectional metre. Producers with larger PV installations (e.g. farmers can sell excess energy on the electricity market. However, the rules are quite complicated, so many PV installations are limited to 10 kW. The bidirectional metre does not stimulate production if more is produced than consumed annually. However, digital meters will be installed from July 2019 and it is expected that by 2022 bidirectional meters will be removed everywhere.

The district heating network is currently poorly developed in Belgium, which makes an enhanced production of heat through CHP and biomass rather uncertain. The development of district heating is all the more difficult, given that the costs of infrastructure are not supported by the investment subsidies for companies. Further, district heating is currently not part of the spatial planning, which makes it difficult for project developers to even start a project. However, there are initiatives at local scale and governmental bodies start to pay attention to district heating. An additional problem is that Belgium is already very overgrown and that new construction is therefore hardly possible. This is already apparent from political initiatives such as the 'concrete stop' foreseen in the near future. Connection of district heating is much more difficult with existing homes than with new buildings. Another major problem is that of profitability. As long as natural gas remains so cheap, the projects concerning heat networks and residual heat will be put on the market less quickly.

District heating needs to be addressed separately in the support systems for the H&C sector. This will allow developers to get financial support for the setting up of the infrastructure, after which they can move on to develop projects. Further, inclusion in spatial planning will make it easier to develop projects.

The Walloon Energy Minister has introduced a moratorium during the first quarter of 2015 for almost all energy subsidies for individuals. In a context of budgetary consolidation, this decision was justified by the will of the Walloon government to elaborate a new subsidy mechanism in order to replace the current one, deemed too costly and encouraging the threat of a market bubble. Although stakeholders largely approve the need of a support scheme reform, they unanimously condemn the introduction of the moratorium, which jeopardises the development of the RES-H&C sector. This decision thus adds more to the general confusion regarding the Walloon support policy for the promotion of renewable energy.

The Belgian public, partially fuelled by environmental groups as well as some policy makers, does not consider forest by-products to be a sustainable solution. This leads to public resistance against these projects. An example is the imported forest by products from Canada, which environmental groups have focused on. As it is imported it is very difficult to regulate the sustainability of the said forest by-products. It should be recognised however that this is only a minor issue for the H&C sector, as the share of forest by-products in the energy mix is relatively small.

The industry will have to address the concerns of the public. If indeed, importing forest by-products from Canada is the most sustainable, or most feasible, solution at this stage, they will need to communicate this with the public and explain why this is the case. If more sustainable solutions are available, like importing from Scandinavia or even using Belgian forest by-products, they will have to consider moving to these solutions. After all, if the public adopts the technology, a boost is predicted.

The public perceives wood as a pollutant. This is mainly due to the misuse of low-combustion equipment as open fires. The use of wet logs, combined with bad combustion conditions, can indeed lead to air quality problems. Because of the emission of particulate dust, certainly on an industrial level, the resistance to this has become even greater.