This week, Haemers Technologies won the Changemakers Award (L’Echo & De Tijd).
At the same time, L’Echo published an article about our journey — and more importantly, about the challenge ahead: Turning innovation into industrial reality.
Because the real issue is not whether solutions exist, they do, but it is that they are not becoming the standard.
For nearly 20 years, I have evaluated hundreds of EU-funded R&D projects. Europe invests massively in innovation, funds research and validates technologies.
And in many cases — they work, yet on the ground, across Europe, when it come to contaminated land management, we still excavate, we still transport and we still landfill. “Dig & dump” remains the dominant model.
At a recent NICOLE workshop, the remediation of the Bagnoli site in Naples was presented. One of Europe’s largest legacy sites. Hundreds of millions of euros of public investment. And yet — largely based on technologies developed in the 80s and 90s. Soil washing, where contaminants are concentrated and then landfilled, and then rotary kiln thermal desorption, a technology we patented in 1992 and divested in 2006 because of its high consumption and impact!
This is not a criticism of the project, it is a reflection of the system. How come that in 2026, the solutions applied are still those we applied in the early 90’s?
Europe does not lack regulation either.
The EU Waste Framework Directive is clear: Disposal (including landfill) is the last resort and Recycling and recovery should be prioritised whenever possible. And yet, in practice large volumes of contaminated soil — including PFAS — still end up in landfills, sometimes after partial treatment.
In Belgium, there is quite a lot of treatment of PFAS soil, mostly through soil washing. Where do the PFAS molecules end? Yes, in a landfill! Even when technologies exist to actually destroy the pollution, at reasonable cost.
And when I speak with many stakeholders, I often realise something striking: What is perceived as “remediation” is, in many cases, nothing more than transferring the problem to the next generation, but putting a green coat of paint on it. We remove soil, move it and store it elsewhere, with some soil recycled but without any serious destruction of the contamination.
And we call it solved.
The legal framework already exists:
Best Available Technologies Not Entailing Excessive Costs (BATNEEC).
But in practice, it is often interpreted as:
“Best available technology… at the lowest cost.”, i.e. the cheapest legal solution.
And that changes everything. Because the moment any additional euro is considered “excessive”, innovation disappears from the equation. We default to the cheapest known solution. Even if it is less sustainable or if it contradicts our own environmental objectives.
The consequence?
We reward inertia, we reward those who chose not to innovate.
I have heard it many times: “Why invest in innovation? You will not gain market share. You will always be more expensive.” And under the current system — they are often right.
In health care, where we have achieved tremendous success in the last 40 years, things work differently: If you prove that your treatment is better, safer, and economically acceptable, it becomes the new standard, and Older treatments progressively disappear. That creates clarity, confidence and attracts private investment.
That creates industrial leaders.
Environmental technologies deserve the same logic.
We need a system where:
- BATNEEC is applied as intended
- Innovation is not penalised by default
- Public procurement reflects atual political priorities (align what our elected officials say with what the publics authorities do)
- Outdated technologies are progressively phased out and no longer competing indefinitely with better solutions.
Because today, the paradox is simple: We fund innovation…but we do not structure markets to adopt it.
Winning Changemakers Award is encouraging, but the real objective is not recognition, it is transformation because innovation is not enough. It must become standard.