Responding to the COVID-19 pandemic demanded unprecedented efforts by countries across the Organisation for Economic Co‑operation and Development (OECD) and the world. The crisis necessitated action from all levels of government and society to alleviate the impact of the pandemic on citizens’ lives and livelihoods. It also shed light on structural issues, such as the erosion of public trust in government and expert opinions, as well as persistent social challenges from the disproportionate impact on women, low-income households, children and young people, as well as low-skilled, part-time, temporary and self-employed workers.

Belgian federal and federated entities worked together to mitigate most of the direct impacts of the pandemic. Nevertheless, ensuring the country’s preparedness for and resilience to future crises will require strengthening trust in government and in expert advice, reducing inequality, and maintaining the fiscal balance. This report provides a multidisciplinary and cross-government assessment of Belgium’s response to COVID‑19 to draw shared lessons from this experience, improve transparency towards citizens and, ultimately, strengthen trust for a more resilient society.

The response to the COVID-19 pandemic posed an unprecedent challenge to countries across the OECD, not least because it required concerted action from all parts of government and sectors of society. Belgium’s federal and federated governments adopted a wide range of measures and worked together to mitigate the consequences of the crisis on citizens’ lives and livelihoods. This report, which is part of the OECD’s work on evaluating government responses to the COVID-19 crisis, seeks to understand which measures worked and which did not, for whom and why, to draw shared lessons from this experience and, ultimately, strengthen trust for a more resilient society.

Evaluations allow countries to draw lessons from the COVID-19 crisis in order to strengthen their future resilience. This chapter presents the analytical and methodological framework for the evaluation that forms the basis of this report. It also sets the context by presenting the structural strengths and weaknesses of Belgium that may have impacted the country’s capacity to tackle the crisis. It ends with a brief overview of the crisis timeline and a synthesis of the evaluation’s main findings.

Risk anticipation capabilities and preparedness are essential to allow governments to manage critical risks. This chapter examines the extent to which Belgium's risk anticipation capabilities and the initial emergency procedures enabled the country to effectively combat the COVID-19 pandemic prior to the start of the Federal Phase on 12 March 2020. The chapter also looks at the wider preparedness arrangements for pandemics present in Belgium at the start of COVID-19, including the efforts by critical infrastructure operators and essential service providers in Belgium to prepare for a pandemic. It then draws lessons to improve the country’s preparedness to future threats.

Managing a complex multidisciplinary crisis of the likes of the COVID-19 pandemic calls for a whole-of-government and whole-of-society response, maintaining trust in public action and preserving democratic continuity. This chapter assesses the extent to which crisis governance structures and mechanisms enabled Belgium to develop a co-ordinated and agile response to the pandemic. It also looks at the effectiveness of crisis communication. Finally, the chapter examines the extent to which the government was able to foster a whole-of-society response to the crisis and maintain democratic accountability channels.

The COVID-19 pandemic put enormous stress on health systems, forcing them to cope with an unknown pathogen while also continuing to deliver routine care and respond to acute care needs unrelated to the pandemic. This chapter assesses the impact of the COVID-19 crisis on health and on the health system in Belgium. It looks at the direct and indirect health impacts of the pandemic and the effectiveness of the health system’s response, with a particular focus on the impact of the pandemic on vulnerable groups.

This chapter examines how the government of Belgium managed the COVID-19 crisis in education, with a particular focus on formal school education. The study is structured around two main areas of analysis: educational continuity during the various stages of the health crisis and the processes of engaging, co-ordinating and communicating with stakeholders. The OECD proposes recommendations to support actions taken by Belgium’s education systems in the future, both in the context of the pandemic and for other similar crises, considering the broader needs of the country’s education systems.

This chapter describes the economic and fiscal measures implemented by Belgium during the COVID-19 crisis, focusing on the main measures supporting businesses at the federal and federated levels. The chapter includes a set of recommendations aimed at helping Belgium strengthen the design and implementation of emergency economic and fiscal measures.

Belgium was able to build on pre-existing institutional structures to protect lives and livelihoods during the COVID-19 crisis. Like many other OECD countries, Belgium made heavy use of its job retention scheme, rapidly expanding access to temporary unemployment benefits. The labour market shock was consequently absorbed mostly by working-time reductions, while unemployment increased only slightly. A second pillar of Belgium’s policy response was the extension of the bridging right scheme, a unique income support programme for self-employed workers. Lower-tier income support programmes, including unemployment and social assistance benefits, in contrast, were only slightly extended. Income inequality and poverty declined in the initial phase of the crisis due to government support, and the labour market swiftly recovered. Coverage gaps likely existed for workers on short contracts, including many young people, who qualified for neither job retention support nor unemployment benefits, and in many cases do not appear to have received minimum-income support.