Photo: Eveline de Bruin, Pixabay
Authors: Karlijn Stenvers, Suzanna de Vries
Medium: Trouw
“The Netherlands truly is, as they say, at the bottom of the barrel,” says Peter Schipper, researcher on water quality at Wageningen Environmental Research. The Dutch water ranks at the bottom of the EU, with not even one percent of its surface water classified as ‘good’ in 2019. In stark contrast, Finland scores 73 percent. Ever since 2019, the situation has shown little improvement. Now, experts are saying that neighbouring countries have a more substantial influence than expected.
Schipper explains that a significant amount of nitrate and phosphate enters the Netherlands via cross-border rivers from Belgium and Germany. ‘’The Netherlands is a delta state. When the water enters the Netherlands with concentrations higher than stated in the objectives, it creates an additional issue for us. Moreover, the targets set for the Water Framework Directives in Belgium and Germany are not always as sharp as desired here in the Netherlands.’’
The Netherlands is burdened by this disadvantage. Schipper explains that even far from the borders, you can see the influence of nitrogen and phosphorus particles coming from abroad. ‘’You can still see it in the water that is very far downstream.’’ Schipper adds that Dutch water wastement treatment plants are more developed compared to water wastement treatment plants abroad.
Schipper explains how this contributes to various negative effects on the ecosystem, such as algae bloom and imbalance in species. ‘’Surface water with too many nutrients fails to support a favorable environment for underwater plants and the biodiversity.’’
With slow progress towards achieving the Water Framework Directive-targets, the Netherlands faces the risk of activity restrictions - in agriculture and the rest of the economy - and fines up to a million euros from Brussels. These are high costs that none of the neighboring countries will take a share of. Failure to meet the 2027-goal without implementing necessary measures to achieve the targets, may lead to potential legal actions from third parties because of the declining biodiversity.
The next nitrogen crisis
The state of water quality in the Netherlands raises building concerns and has been referred to as ‘the next nitrogen crisis’. The consequences of the nitrogen crisis were felt across various sectors, including agriculture. Strict regulations led to big scale protests that disrupted social order.
According to Frank van Gaalen from ‘Planbureau voor de Leefomgeving’ (National agency environment and living space), this comparison is partly justified, because poor water quality poses significant consequences as well. ‘’Natuurmonumenten (National Nature Conservation) has already indicated that they are prepared to go to court if the targets are not met in time.’’ This could mean bans on start-ups, expansion or continuation of activities involving industrial discharges in surface water.
Slow progress
In only four years' time all member states will have to comply with the standards of the WFD. The WFD came into force in the member states in 2000. Surprisingly, the Netherlands even played a large role in the formation of the policy. The goal is for all water in Europe to be chemically and ecologically healthy. While the clock is ticking, member states are pressed to intensify their efforts in pursuit of these targets.
According to the most recent analysis, published on the 11th of May 2023, the Netherlands is already too late. ‘’With the current policy it is no longer reasonably possible to achieve the WFD-targets by 2027. We observe that the implementation is hindered to such an extent that the targets are likely not achievable, even after 2027, without a more strict approach’’, as written in the report. The experts presented the advice to the government: stricter rules for fertilizers, pesticides and the discharge of industrial substances.
Arjan Budding, Programme Leader Sustainable Water Management at Wageningen University & Research, says: ‘’It becomes increasingly evident that the Netherlands is unlikely to achieve these goals. This is partly because we have set strict standards for ourselves. We do have to decide whether the limits are technically, socially and economically feasible.’’
The mentioned 0,3 percent is partly because of the "one out, all out principle" used in the water quality assessment. The final score is determined by the lowest score among the sub-categories. Van Gaalen explains: ‘’When it comes to biology, it's one-out-all-out. That makes sense, because you only have a well-functioning ecosystem if all species groups occur in the right amount.’’
Cross-border issues
The Netherlands is bottom ranking due to its unique population density, intensive agriculture, and other industries contributing to the current state of the surface water. The responsibility for all of these factors can only be appointed to the country itself. ‘’The Netherlands is a densely populated, intensively used country where we do a lot in a small area. Not everything we want can be done side by side’’, says van Gaalen.
However, there is one factor the country cannot solve on its own: the influence of its neighbors. Inadequate coordination between countries has contributed to the slow improvement of water quality in the Netherlands.
Van Gaalen notices that countries do not coordinate water quality goals properly. ‘’This means that water that crosses the border from Belgium or Germany can still cause a problem in the Netherlands, because the goals are different here.’’ Each country is now responsible for water quality within its own borders. According to Budding, it is time for water quality to be put high on the political agenda. "We have overloaded our environment for years. Now we are paying the price for that.’’
In addition, according to Van Gaalen there is a lack of sense of urgency within government, a lack of commitment to the agreements and inadequate policy implementation. Van Gaalen explains that the water quality in fact has improved since the last measurement moment, but that it is not enough to achieve the goals by 2027. ‘’Progress is being made, but not at a sufficient pace to meet the targets within the set timeframe.’’
According to Van Gaalen, one of the reasons the quality of surface water in the Netherlands is improving so slowly is because of other activities and policy fields. ‘’If you look at, for example, agricultural policy and permits for discharges from industries, insufficient attention is paid to the consequences for water quality. Because we do a lot in the Netherlands in a small area, the dependence on other activities is even greater.’’
He explains the current status of the water regarding the goals set for 2027: ‘’In comparison with the last moment of measurement, we would expect that the waters that comply will not exceed 20%. This means that 80% of the waters will not meet the targets in time.’’
Need for integrated approach and collaboration
According to Budding the solution for the looming water quality crisis in the Netherlands is to make integral decisions. ‘’We will have to make explicit choices and prioritize the water quality. If water quality is important to the Netherlands, we should impose restrictions elsewhere. As long as that does not happen, it will not be possible to achieve the goals.’’
Van Gaalen addresses the importance of water quality. ‘’These objectives are set for a reason. We need to return to the most natural state possible. We can’t pass the current problems to future generations.’’
Schipper agrees. ‘’In my opinion it’s a blessing the WFD exists. Without EU policy, we would be a much longer way from reaching current goals.’’
Paul Begijn from Natuurmonumenten, agrees that the water quality is indeed the next nature crisis. ‘’The Netherlands has a nitrogen problem, but we also have a water problem. We can’t solve all these problems separately. These problems have common ground.’’ He adds: ‘’We have to seek cooperation with farmers and water boards, and make it clear that we have a common interest instead of blaming each other. People think that nature organizations and farmers are miles apart, but we can be allies.’’
This article is part of “Crossborder Journalism Campus”, an Erasmus+ project of the University of Gothenburg, Leipzig University and Centre de Formation des Journalistes in Paris.