Flanders wants to move forward digitally. We want to become stronger in artificial intelligence, cloud, cybersecurity, digital services and digital sovereignty. We expect businesses, governments, hospitals, banks, telecom operators, industrial companies, logistics providers and utility companies to continue digitalising. We want more efficient processes, smarter applications, better security and greater control over our data.
That is a fundamental mistake.
In the public debate, data centers are still too often seen simply as major energy consumers. As if they existed separately from the rest of the economy. As if they were the endpoint of digitalisation, rather than the foundation beneath it.
But that picture is wrong.
Data centers are not a luxury. They are the physical infrastructure on which our digital society runs.
Every cloud environment, every AI application, every online payment, every logistics system, every digital public service, every cybersecurity environment and every business-critical application needs physical infrastructure. Servers do not run in the air. Data is not processed in an abstract “cloud”. Behind digital services are buildings, power, cooling, connectivity, security, monitoring and people working 24/7 to safeguard the continuity of critical systems.
Even the electricity grid itself is now digitally controlled, monitored and secured. The systems that help operate the grid, track disruptions and manage capacity have to run somewhere. Not on paper. Not in a drawer. But on digital infrastructure.
Treating data centers as an afterthought therefore means underestimating the role they play in almost every other critical sector.
The digital engine behind our economy
Most people never see a data center up close. That makes sense: strong infrastructure often remains invisible as long as it works reliably. But that invisibility does not make it any less important.
When digital infrastructure fails, the impact is rarely limited to IT. Payments can stop. Applications become unavailable. Logistics processes are disrupted. Healthcare organisations lose access to their systems. Public services can no longer properly support citizens. Businesses lose productivity, customer trust and sometimes revenue.
This debate therefore goes far beyond the data center sector itself. It is about the digital resilience of businesses, the continuity of public services, the protection of sensitive data, the reliability of payments, the functioning of healthcare systems and the autonomy of our economy.
Anyone who reduces data centers to an isolated energy issue overlooks their role in almost every critical digital chain.
We are having the wrong debate
Of course we need to take grid capacity seriously. Of course we need to consider energy efficiency, sustainability, location choices and societal priorities. No one is arguing that infrastructure should be built without conditions.
But the question should not be whether data centers are desirable or not. Data centers do not create digital demand; they enable the digital demand generated by our society itself.
Every cloud application, online payment, AI tool, digital public service, hospital application, logistics planning solution or security application needs physical infrastructure somewhere. That demand comes from businesses, governments and consumers who increasingly work, communicate, shop, produce and organise digitally.
The choice is therefore not between digitalisation with or without energy consumption. The real choice is where we accommodate that digital demand most efficiently, securely, locally and with the greatest degree of control.
If we restrict capacity in professional data centers, digital demand will not disappear. Businesses will continue to digitalise. Governments will continue to process data. Hospitals will remain dependent on digital systems. And AI and cloud will not disappear because Flanders decides to put data centers at the back of the queue.
The main consequence is that infrastructure risks becoming fragmented again: across local server rooms, technical spaces, office buildings or foreign environments where we have less visibility, less control and less proximity.
That is not necessarily more sustainable. And it is certainly not more strategic.
Professionally managed colocation data centers, when properly designed and operated, can provide a more efficient alternative to numerous distributed server rooms in office buildings. They are built around specialised cooling, redundant power supply, physical security, monitoring, emergency procedures and technical teams. They enable centralisation. They create economies of scale. And they help organisations manage infrastructure professionally rather than keeping it scattered and fragmented.
The debate should therefore not be framed as “data centers versus households” or “data centers versus the economy”. That is a false choice.
Households, businesses, healthcare organisations, governments and utility companies all rely on digital services. And those digital services need infrastructure.
Digital sovereignty requires physical infrastructure
In recent years, Europe has rightly placed greater emphasis on digital sovereignty. We want to be less dependent on technology from outside Europe. We want more control over critical data. And we want sensitive sectors such as government, healthcare, energy, telecom, defence and financial services to be able to rely on secure and resilient digital foundations.
But digital sovereignty does not begin with policy documents. It begins with infrastructure.
Where is the data located? Which legal framework applies to it? Who has physical access to the systems? Which parties manage the environment? How quickly can we intervene when incidents occur? And how do we avoid making our critical digital services dependent on decisions, infrastructure or legal frameworks outside our own region?
These are not theoretical questions. They are strategic questions for every modern economy.
At European level too, the development of cloud, AI and data center infrastructure is increasingly linked to competitiveness and technological autonomy. Europe wants to strengthen its digital capabilities. It is therefore strange for Flanders to treat the underlying infrastructure as something that can simply wait.
You cannot aspire to lead in AI, cloud and digital innovation while structurally weakening the physical capacity they require.
That is like expecting economic growth without roads, ports or railways. Like expecting healthcare to digitalise without reliable power. Or expecting cybersecurity without secure infrastructure.
Data centers are infrastructure, not a sectoral interest
The biggest mistake in this debate is to view data centers as a separate sector arguing in its own interest.
They are not.
Data centers provide infrastructure for other sectors. For hospitals. For banks. For logistics companies. For manufacturers. For telecom operators. For governments. For cybersecurity companies. For cloud platforms. For AI applications. For utility companies. For every organisation that depends on reliable digital services.
Putting data centers at the back of the queue therefore does not put one sector at the back. It puts an entire digital value chain under pressure.
That does not mean every data center project should automatically receive priority. It does mean that we urgently need a mature framework in which digital infrastructure is recognised as critical infrastructure. A framework that takes into account energy efficiency, grid impact, societal value, local presence, sustainability and strategic relevance.
Not every project is the same. Not every application has the same value. But placing data centers as a category at the back of the queue is too simplistic for an economy that calls itself digital.
Flanders faces a choice
We can treat digital infrastructure as a secondary requirement that only receives attention when capacity happens to remain available. Or we can recognise it as an essential foundation for innovation, security, sovereignty and economic growth.
That choice is not abstract.
AI runs somewhere. Cloud runs somewhere. Digital public services run somewhere. Cybersecurity runs somewhere. Tomorrow’s electricity grid runs on digital systems that also need to run somewhere.
The question is therefore not whether we need data centers. The question is where we want that infrastructure to grow: professionally, efficiently, locally and under our control, or fragmented, less visible and increasingly outside our own sphere of influence.
Anyone who takes digital sovereignty seriously must also take the physical infrastructure beneath it seriously.
Data centers are not a luxury problem or an isolated sectoral interest. They are the roads, ports and railways of the digital economy.
Flanders cannot express digital ambition while putting the infrastructure behind that ambition at the back of the queue. Anyone who does so must be honest about the consequences: less room for AI, less room for cloud, less cyber resilience, less digital autonomy and less appeal for tomorrow’s investments.
The digital economy does not emerge by itself. It requires choices, space, energy and infrastructure.
If Flanders wants to be digitally ambitious, it must also be willing to facilitate the infrastructure on which that ambition runs.