Response to the “Action Plan for the Flemish Museum Landscape and the Visual Arts”

2 February 2026 - 5:03 pm – Mission

On Friday 30 January, Minister of Culture Caroline Gennez presented the “Action Plan for the Flemish Museum Landscape and the Visual Arts” to the Flemish Government. In recent months, some small positive moves have been made, motivated by concerns from the arts field and various involved organisations (but without engaging in a dialogue with them). An opening has been created for maintaining the museum status of M HKA, and the new “Action Plan” refers to the creation of a general assembly for the visual arts and the museum sector, with representatives from the field. While we acknowledge these positive steps, we are left with a number of critical concerns regarding this new “Action Plan”, which is marked by a high degree of vagueness:

• Why is M HKA isolated as the only museum on a separate track, with the responsibility of proving itself?

• What is M HKA’s trajectory meant to lead to? What guarantees are given that the museum function will be preserved, even after the promised temporary cooperation agreement for 2026–2027 (which is, as of now, non-existent)?

• If the museum function is preserved, what formal agreements exist regarding funding, infrastructure and the decree under which this would take place?

• Why do policy makers choose not to align in advance with relevant stakeholders and support organisations?

• Why does the new action plan not respond to the two notices of default of 14 January, nor to the negative reports of the Financial Inspection of 9 October and 12 December?

After three stakeholders (Museum at Risk & NICC, and Team Zuid) submitted a notice of default to the Flemish Government, the contested museum plan of Minister Gennez was put “on hold”. According to the press, the minister would start over.

The minister and her cabinet met with the directors of the eight museums involved in its “Concept Note on the Redesign of the Landscape of Its Own Museum Institutions and the Visual Arts” on 21 and 29 January. The continued existence of several of these museums is closely linked to the implementation of the reforms. Friday, 30 January, a new “Action Plan for the Flemish Museum Landscape and the Visual Arts” was already communicated to the Flemish Government. As in all previous communications, this plan is characterised by vagueness.

The plan abstracts from the “Concept Note” of 3 October 2025 and the “Project Plan” of 16 January 2026 into four “trajectories”: in Trajectory 1, the involved institutions work together on a vision paper, which will form the basis for Trajectory 2, a “General Assembly for the Visual Arts and the Museum Landscape”, and Trajectory 3, in which collaborations between the museums and policy take shape through cooperation agreements. Remarkably, M HKA is not included in this trajectory.

It is also striking that M HKA is isolated in a “Trajectory 4”. M HKA is asked to follow its own trajectory: “a conceptual exercise starting from the status as a museum”, but in no way guaranteeing its preservation, and to “(re)position itself as an organisation that fully commits to stakeholder participation and collaboration with the heritage and arts field.” In other words, M HKA is the only museum given the responsibility to prove itself. This occurs in the absence of a clear framework, a clearly defined question, clear criteria, and insight into how this trajectory will be evaluated and by whom.

The notices of default of 14 January 2026 demonstrate legal objections concerning the lack of participation and breaches of good governance in the way the minister shapes and communicates her plans. These objections still stand.

It is striking that concerned stakeholders, who have been requesting dialogue for months and felt compelled to resort to notices of default, are still not being consulted in the run-up to new versions of the contested reforms. Even recognised support organisations, which are named in the plan as crucial players in the future trajectories, were not informed in advance and learned of the role the cabinet assigns to them through the press.

Neither the board of M HKA nor the arts field were given access to the “Action Plan” before it was submitted to the government. No written agreement whatsoever was made prior to the trajectory that M HKA is expected to undertake. There is no formal guarantee of the sustainable preservation of its status as a Flemish institution under the Cultural Heritage Decree beyond the promised temporary cooperation agreement of 2026–2027.

In the press, Minister Gennez speaks of great international ambition and of showing more visual art to more people. One of the absolute basic conditions for realising this ambition for contemporary art is solid infrastructure. The dossier for the new building of M HKA, which had been prepared for ten years, was defined as established policy and was ready for implementation. Yet it is no longer mentioned at all. Today, neither S.M.A.K., nor M HKA, nor any of the other museums, can deploy the urgently needed infrastructure required for a contemporary art museum with international stature.

The concise “Action Plan” also lacks a clear financial framework. In only one sentence, the possibility is left open to “redistribute credits between the various impacted budget articles.” There is no mention whatsoever of the two negative reports by the Interfederal Corps of the Financial Inspection (dated 9 October and 12 December 2025), which point to the illegality of the “Concept Note” and the “Project Plan” from a financial perspective.

In order to work seriously and with broad support towards a “M HKA+” or a new, different and better M HKA, a sharp vision, adequate resources, appropriate infrastructure and a guarantee of sustainable continuity are essential. The new “Action Plan” makes no commitment in this regard. There is justified concern that carefully chosen one-liners and euphoric newspaper headlines are once again masking empty promises.