This article also appeared on Reuters The Great Debate UK, under the heading Why Pakistan deserves generosity on August 25th 2010. 

Muhammad Atiq Ur Rehman TARIQ, Ph.D. Student, Delft University of Technology (m.a.u.r.tariq@tudelft.nl)

Nick van de Giesen, Professor Water Resources Management, Delft University of Technology (n.c.vandegiesen@tudelft.nl)

 According to the latest official reports of the Federal Flood Commission of Pakistan, at least 1,556 people have died and more than 568,000 homes have been badly damaged or totally destroyed as a result of the recent floods in Pakistan. Almost 6.5 million people have been affected by this flooding and 3650 sq km of Pakistan’s most fertile crop land have been destroyed. The flooding hit 11,000 villages and cities. The situation is deteriorating in flooded areas, where waterborne diseases may increase the human death toll if measures are not taken in time.

The devastating flooding occurred at a moment at which Pakistan was still confronting the consequences of a severe drought. As such, the flood came as a complete surprise, especially in the province of Khyber Pakhtoonkhwa where flash flooding occurred. The country had suffered severe droughts from 2000 to 2005 and had not faced any major flooding since 1995. Historically, most occurrences of severe flooding had been caused by the Indus River, which were largely checked after the construction of the Terbela dam in 1974. The present floods are atypical and their severity of floods was not anticipated by the inhabitants of the floodplains. Current flooding can be described as the worst in this area in at least 80 years.

The flooding has disrupted electricity supply through inundation of the Jinnah Hydro power plant and some other minor power plants. The flood has also damaged transmission lines, transformers, feeders and power houses in different flood-affected areas. People suffering the load-shedding of electricity outside the inundated area are protesting on the roads in different parts of the country. Floods have damaged highways and railroads, causing disruption of transportation and communication. Relief operations are being rolled out at a slow pace, as many towns and villages are not accessible and communications have been disrupted. The flood has destroyed much of the healthcare-infrastructure in the worst-affected areas. Outbreaks of diseases, such as gastroenteritis, diarrhea, and cholera due to lack of clean drinking water and adequate sanitation can pose a serious new risk to victims of flood. Survivors of flooding are already blocking highways to protest the lack of support being provided.

Lack of information on flooding in Pakistan exacerbates the impact. During this flooding event, the flood forecasting division of the Pakistan Meteorological Department has uploaded some GIS maps showing the area to be evacuated on their official website. In fact, these maps are not based on the present flood. Instead, they were developed for simulated floods occurring with a return periods of 5 and 50 years, whereas present flooding is much more severe and is caused by different mechanisms than historical floods. Misrepresentation by these flood maps may hide or modify the actual information and can be extremely counter-productive.

Aid coming from the international community is not sufficient. As remarked by UK relief organisation Oxfam, the lukewarm response of the international community is inexplicable. Possible reasons for this lack of support include the low regard that the Pakistani Government is held in by local and international communities. Instead, most support is channeled through NGOs and other institutions.

This reason can only be a partial explanation as the cyclone Nargis that hit Myanmar in 2008 did trigger a large international response, while Myanmar’s government was internationally extremely unpopular and media coverage was scant at best.

While the national government has been slow to respond, banned militant groups and extremist organizations, such as the Taliban, are active with relief activities. This could have unwelcome implications in the medium to long-term. The flood will also divert Pakistani military forces from fighting the militants to help in the relief efforts. Clearly, this will allow militants to regroup and also help them secure more public support.

The flooding requires swift help and aid from national and international donors, otherwise it may produce large scale and lasting damage at national and international levels. The Taliban understand the strategy of ‘minds and hearts’ very well. This is the moment for the international community to show genuine compassion. In the process, it stands to win many hearts for generations to come.

This article by Julian Hunt first appeared on the site of The Guardian on 24th August 2010.  Lord Hunt is visiting professor at Delft University of Technology and a former director-general of the Met Office.

Deluges after the deluge: Catastrophic floods in Pakistan are likely to recur as global warming combines with El Niño

The Pakistani crisis is already one of the very first order. Some 20 million people have been left homeless, along a path of destruction of more than 600 miles. Prime Minister Yousaf Raza Gilani has even compared the challenges the country now faces to those during the 1947 partition of the subcontinent in which around half a million people were killed in mass violence.

It is small wonder that Pakistani president Asif Ali Zadari has said that it will take at least three years for the country to recover from the disaster, and that he is thinking ahead to "prepare the capabilities and capacity" for the "next monsoon". Zadari’s comments highlight the fact that one of the key questions arising from the crisis is whether the floods, the worst for at least 80 years (with one fifth of the country estimated to be under water), are linked to global warming and are thus likely to happen again.

The danger is that Pakistan, and the Indian subcontinent in general, will become the focus of much more regular catastrophic flooding with the problems this would bring for a state at the centre of the campaign against terrorism. This is not just therefore a question of better protecting against natural hazards, but also one with profound implications for geopolitics and international security.

Heavy monsoon precipitation has increased in frequency in Pakistan and western India in recent years. In July 2005, Mumbai was deluged by almost 950mm of rain in just one day, and more than 1,000 people were killed in floods in the state of Maharashtra. Last year, deadly flash floods hit northwestern Pakistan, and Karachi was also flooded.

This trend is fuelled both by global warming (which means extremes of rainfall are a growing worldwide trend) and potentially by any intensification and alteration of the El Niño/La Niño cycle. To understand the reasons why global warming is playing a role, one needs to look at the main climatic trends in South Asia. In addition to more extreme rainfall, there is also a reduction of ice over the Tibetan plateau and changing precipitation patterns, with less snow at higher levels, plus more rapid run-off from mountains.

How does climate change help explain this? First, the warming in temperatures leads to less snow. Second, the less stable atmosphere causes deeper convection and intense rainfall. The less stable atmosphere also leads to more airflow over mountains and less lateral deviation – so that the monsoon winds and precipitation can be higher in north-west India and Pakistan and weaker in the north-east. In 2006 there was an unusually intense drought in Assam and rain in north-west India. This year with the strong rainfall in the north-west, there is no pronounced decrease in the north-east. Recent US studies have also concluded that the mountain meteorology is changing, but as a result of the aerosols emitted from urban areas of south Asia.

The biggest question is whether the El Niño southern oscillation (Enso), that determines the 10-year oscillations of weather across the Pacific basin and into South Asia and Africa, will change.

Although there is no scientific consensus, it seems likely that if the Amazon rainforest continues to disappear, and snow/ice melt significantly increases over the Tibetan plateau, there will be significant changes in Enso climatic fluctuations as rises in temperature over land become comparable with the areas of the Pacific where the temperature fluctuates over a few degrees – which is now better monitored and computer modelled.

The reason for concern about changing Enso is that depending on its periodic strength, it greatly affects magnitudes and locations of floods, droughts and hurricanes. Until about 2020-2030, these natural fluctuations are expected to be greater than man-made changes (as was pointed out by many scientists in the 1990s).

Given the massive stakes, not least because of the sizable proportion of the world population affected, these issues need urgent study and also preparations on the ground by the affected countries. Unless this happens, including better flood warning systems and water management infrastructure put in place, societies and governments in the region will be unable to respond to the devastating combination of changing environmental stresses, growing population and geopolitical instability.

This article first appeared in the Architects Journal on the 29th July 2010. Ulf Hackauf, researcher and lecturer at MVRDV’s think-tank The Why Factory, explains why his book ‘Green Dream: How Future Cities Can Outsmart Nature’ advocates less hype and more ambition in building the future’s sustainable cities.

‘We’re all keen to participate, but not sure if we know what sustainability actually is.’ This sentiment of one of the participants behind the Green Dream project was typical of the curious yet uncertain enthusiasm toward ‘green issues’ common to many architects and planners.

Together with a group of master students at the Delft University of Technology, the researchers of The Why Factory (Dutch practice MVRDV’s think-tank) took a position as curious outsiders and started collecting their observations on today’s state of ‘green’ as it plays out in architecture, politics, technology, economics and our personal lives. It resulted in the book Green Dream, an exploration of the topic in an analytical, yet experimental way, with the aim to provide a basis for new angles of debate.

We discovered a confusing and often contradicting number of facts and arguments, a green mess in which apples are compared to pears (and their respective food miles) and in which the discussion tends to lean towards religious passion rather than cool rationalism. Our findings led to 22 observations on today’s green, collecting its flaws, contradictions and missed opportunities, some of which feature above and on the previous page.

We describe how green’s ideology is split in two movements. Since Thomas More’s Utopia (1551) and Francis Bacon’s The New Atlantis (1624), there has been a difference between utopias of sufficiency – which envisioned a future in which we are satisfied with less – and utopias of abundance, which predicted a development where more is available for everybody.

We criticise how today green focuses on the small scale and the individual impact rather than discussing large-scale improvement. It is fascinating to see that the ecological footprint of even a goldfish can be calculated (it allegedly equals that of two mobile phones), but the effective planning of an offshore wind park seems to us a more fruitful subject of discussion.

And we see an imbalance between how much green is talked about and how much it is actually improving. While the first photovoltaic solar cell had been developed as early as 1877, the technology contributed as little as 0.15 per cent of the global energy demand in 2008. This could change if investments in green research would increase. Federal institutions in the US spend about $100 million (65 million UK pounds) per year on renewable research and development (R & D) programmes. In 2009, Apple alone had an R & D budget of $1.3 billion.

‘Green’ is a complex topic and it seems difficult to determine what really matters in the green debate. As a consequence, it’s in danger of becoming pure marketing; ‘green-washing’ that exploits the current interest in green for selling products. The results are all around us: whatever you can do, there seems to be a greener way to do it – green skates, sustainable pizzas and environmentally friendly toothbrushes. You can even buy eco-friendly vodka and help save the planet – one glass at a time. In 2006, The Sunday Times reported that even British arms manufacturer BAE Systems saw it necessary to promote itself as green by introducing ‘environmentally friendly’ weapons including ‘reduced lead’ bullets and rockets with fewer toxins. Perhaps not the brightest moment of company PR, but it shows that if green remains vague, it is in danger of becoming a temporary hype, which will be arbitrary in the future.

To escape this green vagueness and abuse, we make a plea for a more rational, quantifiable and measurable approach to green. As one step in that direction, we describe the concept of the ‘green city calculator’, a software tool that can be used for the evaluation and design of sustainable cities or regions. The focus is less on newly built eco-cities, but more on extending and adjusting existing cities.
This rational calculator approach could lead to new, different proposals and green designs. It could lead to less visible but effective strategies for energy networks, as well as other ways to make use of synergetic effects in the city. It should leave space for experiments and support research in new technologies of energy generation, waste management and food production.

It would result in a different scale in green, away from an emphasis of reduction towards new, larger structures. And it could lead to a new aesthetic in green design that goes beyond biomimicry and dares to compete with the beauty of nature.

Green Dream: How Future Cities Can Outsmart Nature, edited by Winy Maas, Ulf Hackauf and Pirjo Haikola, NAi Publishers, 2010.

The Why Factory is a global think-tank and research institute, run by MVRDV and Delft University of Technology and led by Winy Maas, a founding partner of MVRDV

This article by Lord Julian Hunt first appeared on Reuters The Great Debate UK on August 20, 2010.  Lord Julian Hunt is visiting Professor at Delft University of Technology, and former Director-General of the UK Met Office.

The unusually large rainfall from this year’s monsoon has caused the most catastrophic flooding in Pakistan for 80 years, with the U.N. estimating that around one fifth of the country is underwater.  This is thus truly a crisis of the very first order.

Heavy monsoon precipitation has increased in frequency in Pakistan and Western India in recent years.  For instance, in July 2005, Mumbai was deluged by almost 950 mm (37 inches) of rain in just one day, and more than 1,000 people were killed in floods in the state of Maharashtra. Last year, deadly flash floods hit Northwestern Pakistan, and Karachi was also flooded.

It is my clear view that this trend is being fueled both by global warming (which also means extremes of rainfall are also a growing world-wide trend), and indeed potentially by any intensification of the El-Nino/La-Nino cycle.

To understand the reasons why global warming is playing a role here, one needs to look at the main climatic trends in South Asia.  In addition to more extreme rainfall events, there is also a decreasing thickness of ice over the Tibetan plateau and changing patterns of precipitation, with less snow at higher levels, plus more rapid run off from mountains.

How does climate change help explain this?

First, the warming in temperatures leads to less snow.

Second, the less stable atmosphere causes deeper convection and intense rainfall events.

The less stable atmosphere also leads to more airflow over mountains and less lateral deviation — so that the monsoon winds and precipitation can be higher in North West India and Pakistan and weaker in North East.  In 2006, there was an unusually intense drought in Assam and rain in North West India.  This year with the strong precipitation in North West, there is no pronounced decrease in rains in North East.

Recent U.S. studies have also concluded that the mountain meteorology is changing but as a result of the aerosols emitted into the atmosphere from urban areas of South Asia.

The biggest question going forwards is whether the El-Nino southern oscillation, that determines the large 10 year oscillations of weather across the whole Pacific basin and into South Asia and Africa, will change.

Although there is no scientific consensus on this, it seems likely to me that if the Amazon rain forest continues to disappear, and snow/ice melt significantly increases over the Tibetan plateau, there will be significant changes in enso climatic fluctuations as rises in temperature over land areas become comparable with the areas of the Pacific where currently the temperature fluctuates over a few degrees — which is now better monitored and computer modeled.
The reason for concern about changing enso is that depending on its periodic strength, it greatly affects magnitudes and locations of floods, droughts, hurricanes.  Until about 2020-2030, these natural fluctuations are expected to be greater than man-made changes (as was pointed out by many scientists in the 1990s).

Given the massive stakes in play, not least because of the sizeable proportion of the world population impacted, these issues need urgent study and also preparations on the ground by the affected countries.

This article by prof. Han Meyer first appeared on Reuters The Great Debate UK on Aug 20, 2010. Han Meyer is Professor of Urban Design at Delft University of Technology. He has been a principal organiser of the ‘Dutch Dialogues’ (http://dutchdialogues.com) with New Orleans since 2005 and is Editor of ‘New Orleans-Netherlands: Common Challenges in Urbanised Deltas’.

In August 2005, Hurricanes Katrina and Rita devastated large swathes of the U.S. Gulf Coast and overwhelmed New Orleans causing what then-U.S. Secretary of Homeland Security Michael Chertoff described as "probably the worst catastrophe, or set of catastrophes" in U.S. history.

Katrina’s punishing storm surge, strong winds and massive rainfall weakened flood protection infrastructure which then failed, flooding coastal areas of Louisiana and Mississippi, including 80 percent of New Orleans:

* Tragically, at least 1,836 people lost their lives, while a massive 1.3 million residents were evacuated, some never to return.
* The scale of the carnage is underlined by the fact that U.S. federal disaster declarations covered some 90,000 square miles, an area almost as large as the United Kingdom.
* The U.S. Geological survey has estimated that some 217 square miles of land was transformed to water by Katrina and Rita.
* The economic impact of the crisis has been estimated at some 150 billion pounds, with around 81 billion dollars in property damage alone.

The disaster was not only the costliest in U.S. history, but also served as a major warning for all urbanised deltas across the world of the need to maintain sufficient and efficient flood defences and water management systems.  As such, one of the biggest questions raised in New Orleans itself since 2005 has been how, and indeed whether, the city should be reconstructed and redeveloped given the threat it will continue to face from future hurricanes and catastrophic flooding.

This debate has not only prompted major interest from U.S. planners, engineers and designers, but also public authorities and politicians too, including Louisiana Senator Mary Landrieu, about international best practice, especially the pioneering ‘Dutch tradition’ of combining water management with urban development.

The Netherlands (with about 20 percent of its land area and 21 percent of its population located below sea level, and 50 percent of its land lying less than a metre above sea level) has long been famous for its flood protection systems.

Reflecting this expertise, and with the support of the American Planning Association, I have worked with Delft University of Technology since 2007 as part of a ‘Dutch Dialogue’ project in New Orleans to provide long-term recommendations for enhanced flood protection infrastructure, and reducing subsidence, restoring wetlands, and boosting ecosystem resiliency along the Gulf coast.

Far from New Orleans being a lost cause, our unwavering belief is that ‘out of disasters can come wonderful things’ and that the city can not only survive as a major urban centre, but also prosper and grow if it can get key fundamentals right.

What are these fundamentals?

In short, the essence is the combination of a ‘safety first’ strategy with an improvement of the quality of the urban environment.  A delta-city should not only be safe to live in, but also attractive and enjoyable.  The question is how to combine these two goals.

‘Safety first’ means in practice that the New Orleans area, in particular, has to better adapt to threats inherent in living in a subsiding delta, with protection against hurricanes, floods and excess storm water being the sine qua non for redevelopment.

Since 2005, crucial flood protection infrastructure around coastal Louisiana, the Mississippi Delta and New Orleans has been repaired.  However, this is just the start of what is needed.

Key amongst forthcoming, new safety initiatives is construction of three major storm surge barriers in New Orleans. Considering the city’s intense rainfall, we have also recommended more storm storage.

Adding water-storage capacity will lower the risk from localised flooding during hurricanes and make it easier to actively manage the water table (and risks levels) just as in the Netherlands.

While safety first must be the priority, New Orleans can also adapt more effectively to a corollary ‘Living with the Water’ principle.  Thus, rather than seeing flood protection systems as being exclusively to keep the water out’ or ‘keeping it contained’, it can re-secure the vibrant and prosperous future it deserves by better exploiting the economic, societal , and cultural gain of being, like Dutch settlements such as Amsterdam, a world leading ‘water city’.

For instance, there are unique opportunities post-Katrina to create more amenities like canals, lakes, ponds, wetlands in and around New Orleans:

* Additional canal capacity exists in the city:  many old canals were covered or backfilled over the past century. Moreover, we have also encouraged the construction of new canals and other water storage systems with an ‘urban feel’ (comparable to that in the Netherlands) where people enjoy living near the water.
* Wetlands can also be created and restored to add robust ecosystems that are attractive, environmentally friendly, enhancing recreation and tourism, and improving sustainability.

To be sure, many in Louisiana and Mississippi believe that the process of reconstruction and redevelopment so far has been insufficient and patchy.  It is certainly true that, some five years later, many thousands of displaced residents continue to live in ‘temporary’ accommodation such as trailers, and, indeed as late as 2009, the New Orleans population of around 320,000 was only two thirds that of its 2005 size of 480,000.

Nonetheless, just as the Netherlands emerged more strongly after the cataclysmic storm surges of 1953 which killed around 2000 people, and flooded most of the southwestern part of the country, I am absolutely sure that a more vibrant, thriving and safer New Orleans is not only possible but also feasible.  Consigning the city to becoming an historical artifact (culturally, economically, socially and strategically) would be shortsighted and a major mistake.

Lord Hunt is a visiting professor at Delft University of Technology and former director-general of the UK Met Office. This article first appeared in The Independent on Monday, 16th of August 2010

Once heavy rain is imminent, better short-term warnings could help to inform local communities about the likely duration of precipitation and flooding

The unusually large rainfall from this year’s monsoon has caused the most catastrophic flooding in Pakistan for 80 years, with the UN estimating that around a fifth of the country is under water. Perhaps 20 million people are homeless, along a path of destruction over 600 miles long.

Meanwhile, the UN is warning of impending food shortages, with the World Bank estimating that $1bn (£640m) worth of crops have been ruined, whilst cholera is reported to have broken out in the North-West Frontier Province, where flooding has been most intense.

This is a crisis of the very first order. What is particularly disturbing about it is that, despite long-range forecasts of the likelihood of heavy summer rain, appropriate warnings appear not to have been issued to local authorities and communities who might have made the necessary preparations. The worst of the rains may now be over, but this is not simply a retrospective, academic issue. Heavy monsoon precipitation – potentially exacerbated by any intensification of the El Niño/La Niña cycle, and also by the effects of global warming (which means extremes of rainfall are also a growing world-wide trend) – has increased in frequency in Pakistan and western India in recent years.

In July 2005, for instance, Mumbai was deluged by almost 950mm (37in) of rain in just one day, and more than 1,000 people were killed in floods in the state of Maharashtra. Last year, deadly flash floods hit north-western Pakistan. Karachi was also flooded. The danger is that Pakistan, and the Indian subcontinent in general, will become the focus of much more regular catastrophic flooding, with all the concomitant problems this would bring for an unstable state lurching from crisis to crisis and at the centre of a "campaign against terrorism".

This is therefore not just a question of trying to mitigate natural hazards better, but one with profound implications for geopolitics and inter-national security.

How can better flood warnings and prevention measures be a part of the solution? On the warnings point, there have been major advancements since the 1990s in the international exchange of weather forecast data, with regional computer models used widely by authorities across Asia. Such exchanges have been encouraged by the UN and bilateral government agreements, often as part of development assistance programmes, leading to greater accuracy in regional computer models, such as those of the UK Met Office.

In practice, however, there is great sensitivity in many countries about long-term warnings being issued publicly, especially in international media, due to the anxiety and potential mayhem this could cause. This is understandable, and it underlines the need for an effective and responsible structure within governments to evaluate risk, to do scenario planning, and to issue authoritative warnings based on all the available information.

Especially once heavy rain is imminent, much better short-term warnings could help to inform local communities about the likely duration of precipitation and flooding; such warnings are now much more reliable because the interaction between flood waters, soil and vegetation is better understood. Yet whereas some countries, for instance China, have generally issued effective short-term warnings, few – if any – were apparently given by the Pakistani authorities in advance of this most recent disaster.

The Chinese example is a good one for other countries in the region to aspire towards. Local communities in China receive detailed short-term forecasts before floods – allowing sufficient time for community workers to move people, especially the elderly and sick, to higher ground. Organisational support, with army and government collaboration, is also provided for "clean-up" operations afterwards. Similar arrangements have also been established in Bangladesh. The need for such short-term warnings is especially clear in developing countries, as there is often reluctance and fear on the part of many (especially very poor) communities of moving and leaving behind their possessions, including livestock. If monsoon flooding does become a perennial concern in Pakistan in the future, what may be inevitable is migration away from particularly flood-prone areas towards urban zones. Similar movement to urban areas has taken place in Africa, albeit as a result of drought, over the past three years. As floods or drought diminish (as now in West Africa), reversing this migration will only happen slowly, if at all.

As for prevention, some argue that nothing could have been done to mitigate the flooding. But the unusually large rainfall from the monsoon, which fell farther north and west in Pakistan this year than normal, has exposed the country’s lack of investment in water infrastructure, including dams, and the removal of forest cover which allowed rain-water to drain into rivers more quickly.

Aside from the very real issue of authorities being weighed down by security and other social problems, one of the key issues here appears to be the embezzlement and mis-spending of public funds for flood prevention. Syed Adil Gilani, head of Transparency International’s Pakistan office, says that 60-70 per cent of the 85bn Pakistan rupees (about £640m) spent by the country’s Federal Flood Commission has been embezzled since the commission’s inception in 1977.

Whatever the truth of this claim, the Pakistani government, the military, and the international community will now need to consider carefully what can be done to introduce cost-effective flood prevention and resilient flooding infrastructure, so as to help avoid a repeat of the current disaster in which, tragically, many rescue workers have struggled to deliver aid because of washed-out bridges and roads, with communication lines destroyed.

In the context of more variable monsoons and more catastrophic flooding, the introduction of better warning systems and enhanced infrastructure is essential. If the international community fails in this mission, societies and governments will be unable to respond to the devastating combination of changing environmental stresses, a growing population and geopolitical instability.

This opinion piece by Julian Hunt was published by The Independent on Thursday, 5 August 2010. Lord Hunt is Visiting Professor at Delft University of Technology and former director-general of the UK Met Office

Julian Hunt: Stay local to beat global warming

It is not hard to see why pessimism over climate change has been growing. But I believe we are reaching the point when the tide will decisively turn

Since the collapse of the landmark Copenhagen Summit last December, there has appeared to be setback after setback for those who, like me, believe climate change is the most serious problem facing mankind.

Most recently, the US Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid this week decided to withdraw a landmark cap-and-trade bill in recognition of its lack of support in the chamber. This effectively means that there will be no major US federal climate change initiative until at least after the 2012 presidential election.

This follows the confused misrepresentation of climate trends, especially by the Republicans and some British politicians, which appears to have sown further confusion among international publics about global warming complexity; this misunderstanding accounts, in part, for some global warming scepticism and indeed some of the confusion of "Climategate".

Meanwhile, evidence continues to mount that our planet is heating up, including the authoritative State of the Climate Report 2009 released this week by the US National Oceanic and Atmosphere Office (featuring data from the British Met Office). This shows, for the first time, multiple observational records from the top of the atmosphere to the depths of the ocean and concludes that "global warming is undeniable".

Given this backdrop, it is not hard to see why pessimism has grown this year about the future of international efforts to tackle climate change. However, far from this being the disaster that some assert, I believe that we are rapidly reaching the point when the tide will decisively turn. Why the reasons for such optimism amid so much apparent gloom?

First, there is now a much underappreciated movement towards the adoption of nuclear energy across the world. Despite the lack of recognition in the final Copenhagen communiqué, it is estimated by the International Atomic Agency that some 50 countries will have built nuclear reactors by 2030. This will result in a significant shift in the global energy mix and, while nuclear will continue to have vociferous critics, its virtue in the battle against climate change is as unquestionable as renewables such as wind and solar.

Second, in the absence of both a new global climate change deal to replace Kyoto, and more decisive national action by preponderant countries such as the United States, it is now much clearer than even a few months ago at Copenhagen that the centre of gravity of decision-making on how we respond to climate change must move towards the sub-national level, including to those many US cities which are leading the battle against global warming in North America.

The need for such a paradigm shift from a "top-down" to a "bottom-up" approach is becoming clearer by the day. For instance, over the last decade, while the earth’s land and sea surface has been warming overall, trends of weather and climate records reveal larger and more unusual local variations – some unprecedented since the end of the last ice age 10,000 years ago. What these data patterns underline is that, while climate change is a reality, it is impacting regions and indeed sub-regions of the world in very different ways. More openness and clarity is needed about this huge complexity as it accounts, in part, for some global warming scepticism.

It is within this crucial context that sub-national governments across the world, including cities, are putting into practice the fact that adaptation needs to build on existing knowledge and infrastructures in local settings. Forming loose collaborative networks is enabling regional facilitation centres, their experts and decision-makers to learn from one another and also draw upon the resources of existing national and international databases and programmes, such as those of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPPC) and the growing number of consortia linking major cities, local governments, and the private sector.

Experience shows that this bottom-up approach works very effectively as it is only generally when sub-national areas, such as cities, learn how they will be specifically affected by climate change that widespread, grassroots political action can be aroused.

I am therefore delighted at the increasing numbers of regional monitoring centres across the world, which are contributing towards local adaptation plans. In China, where provinces require targets for power station construction, regional environmental and climate change centres are now well developed. In the US, reports have highlighted the value of non-official centres, such as a severe storm centre in Oklahoma, which gives independent advice to communities and businesses, while relying on government programmes for much of the data. In Brazil, regional centres are providing data and predictions about agriculture and deforestation, and inform legislation about policy options.

What this activity points to is the need for a broader global network of such centres to support national climate initiatives, and to facilitate international funding and technical cooperation in delivering the right information to the right place at the right time.

Local actions can only be effective if measurements of climate and environment are made regularly and are publicised as well as information about targets, and projections of emissions. Experience shows that full exposure is needed about what is happening, what is planned, and how every individual can be involved (as the Danes show, for instance, by their community investment in wind power).

Taken overall, and despite recent setbacks such as the demise of the US cap-and-trade bill, I am therefore increasingly optimistic that the tide is turning decisively in favour of tackling climate change, but that it will be the cumulative effect of sub-national actions which will prove crucial in determining the speed and effectiveness of responses to climate change. While international and national policy will still have a key role to play, the message is nonetheless clear: "localisation of action and data" must and will increasingly be the priority in tackling the global warming menace.

Prof. Theo Toonen

Het nieuw te vormen kabinet gaat bezuinigen op het overheidsapparaat, zoveel is zeker. Helaas spreekt uit de reeks heroverwegingsrapporten een alarmerend gebrek aan intellectuele diepgang. Op geen enkele manier gaan de rapporten over productiviteit en maatschappelijke efficiëntie in de publieke sector. Noch over de maatschappelijke ‘kosteneffectiviteit’ van maatregelen of van een andere manier van werken. De boventoon voert de administratieve – bureaucratische – vraag naar kostenreductie.

Het meeste bespaar je door taken af te stoten. Meer nog door de overheid op te heffen. Hetzelfde geldt trouwens voor de markt. Nog een stapje verder en je geeft Nederland terug aan de zee. Lekker goedkoop. Een efficiencymaatregel die voldoende besparingen oplevert om de verhuiskosten te bekostigen van een massamigratie naar hoger gelegen delen van Europa. Een extreem idee?
De opheffing van het waterschap als eigenstandige overheid is door zijn institutionele concurrenten tot doelmatigheidsmaatregel nummer één verheven. Er is zelfs brede steun voor in de Tweede Kamer. Provincies, gemeenten en (in stilte) Rijkswaterstaat zien in de crisis een kans. Het waterschap als bestuurlijke lastpost – als onafhankelijke klokkenluider voor onze waterveiligheid – kan ten langen leste de nek om worden gedraaid. In het voorbijgaan kan een vrijkomend belastinggebied worden ingepikt.
De kabelnetwerkbedrijven en energiebedrijven van gemeenten en provincies zijn onlangs met winst verkocht. Hier dient zich een nieuwe prooi aan.

Het opheffen van waterschappen is geen doelmatigheidsmaatregel. Het is een bestuurlijke systeemingreep. Provincies willen waterschappen niet opheffen. Zij willen zich het instituut toe-eigenen door er een watercorporatie van te maken. Net als met woningnood valt met waterveiligheid momenteel politieke winst te behalen. Ook gemeenten willen waterschappen helemaal niet kwijt. Zij zullen er een gemeenschappelijke regeling van moeten maken. Op zijn best komt er dan een veiligheidsregio bij, georganiseerd rond stroomgebieden en dijkringen. Waarschijnlijker is de totstandkoming van een onzichtbare, op afstand geplaatste en extern nauwelijks meer te controleren uitvoeringsdienst voor regionaal waterbeheer. En Rijkswaterstaat? Dat is al gewend aan een nationale politiek die geen oog heeft voor het langetermijnbelang van strategisch beheer en onderhoud van grootschalige infrastructuur. ‘Waterstaat’ kan wel wat geld gebruiken voor het achterstallige onderhoud van zijn areaal in de ‘droge sector’.

Waterbeheer is altijd een politieke strijd geweest. Een strijd om de macht over het water. Waterschappen zitten vol met technici, ingenieurs en juristen. Zij communiceren over hun technische prestaties. Niet over de fundamentele waarden en maatschappelijke belangen waar zij voor staan. Onbedoeld bevestigen ze daarmee telkens het beeld een uitvoerende dienst te zijn. In ons staatrechtelijke systeem hebben Rijk, provincies en gemeenten het recht en de taak – omwille van de doelmatigheid – alles tegen elkaar af te wegen. Kannonen tegen boter, werk tegen inkomen. Maar niet tegen waterveiligheid. Want dan houdt Nederland op te bestaan. Vanuit systeemperspectief zijn de waterschappen constitutioneel verankerde buffers tegen bureaucratische doelmatigheid en politiek winstbejag. Zij zijn het geïnstitutionaliseerde grondrecht op waterveiligheid in Nederland.
Na een grondige analyse van de systeemcrisis in het bancaire stelsel concludeerde de WRR onlangs: ‘Dunne buffers zijn goed voor de winstgevendheid, maar gevaarlijk voor het voortbestaan’. Zo is het maar net.

Prof. Theo Toonen is decaan van de faculteit Techniek, Bestuur en Management van de TU Delft

Deze column is gepubliceerd in het juni 2010-nummer van TBM Quarterly
van de faculteit Techniek, Bestuur en Management van de TU Delft

Dr.ir. Peter-Jules van Overloop

‘Het Nederlandse waterbeheer is duidelijk en democratisch. Dit is terug te voeren op onze watergeschiedenis. Polderschappen zijn ooit ontstaan omdat water een gemeenschappelijke bedreiging vormde voor de bewoners en gebruikers van een polder. Er moest allereerst worden samengewerkt om dijken te bouwen en te onderhouden. Voor de veiligheid moesten de peilen in de sloten laag genoeg worden gehouden, maar er diende ook voldoende water beschikbaar te zijn voor landbouw. Boten moesten goederen kunnen vervoeren met voldoende diepgang. Ecologie was nog niet uitgevonden. Na lang vergaderen met alle belanghebbenden werd een polderpeil vastgelegd, waarop het waterniveau in de sloten het hele jaar zoveel mogelijk moest worden gehandhaafd. Een statische benadering, terwijl de toestand en belasting van een polder erg dynamisch is over de verschillende seizoenen. Met onze huidige kennis zouden we dit waterbeheer simpel en conservatief noemen.

Als we echter naar het huidige waterbeheer kijken, is er niet veel veranderd. Er wordt tegenwoordig weliswaar een winter- en een zomerpeil gehandhaafd om de toestand van het systeem te beïnvloeden, maar die zijn nog steeds statisch gedurende zes maanden en houden geen rekening met de belasting. Ook op grotere schaal werkt het ‘polderen’ nog altijd door. Als een belanghebbende van respectievelijk de Rotterdamse haven, een natuurvereniging, een drinkwaterbedrijf en binnenvaart tot een compromis moeten komen, liggen achterliggende gedachten en uitgesproken woorden vaak ver uit elkaar. Zo zijn de respectievelijke gedachten: ’De Rotterdamse haven moet wereldtop blijven’; ‘Als het maar beter wordt voor de dieren’; ‘In de zomer stijgt het zoutgehalte van mijn innamewater nu al flink, dat verzouten leidt misschien tot problemen’; ‘Nederland moet een belangrijk binnenvaartland blijven’, terwijl de woorden wat anders zeggen: ‘De Maeslantkering mag NOOIT dicht, alleen als er extreme storm op zee is!;, ‘ALLE menselijke (ingenieurs) ingrepen zijn onnatuurlijk en moeten worden vermeden!’; ‘Houd alles maar VOLLEDIG zoet!’; ‘De diepte in de rivieren moet ALTIJD minimaal het grootste type schepen kunnen faciliteren!’

Het moge duidelijk zijn dat het resulterende compromis suboptimaal zal zijn. Een veel betere benadering van onderhandelen is het duidelijk stellen van de eigen wensen en acceptatiegrenzen, zonder directe uitspraken te doen over het waterbeheer: ‘Ik wil als haven nu en in de toekomst winstgevend zijn’; ‘Ik wil dat er voldoende dynamiek in het systeem zit voor een gezond ecosysteem’; ‘Het water dat ik inneem moet boven de zoutgehaltenorm van ongeveer 2 g/kg blijven’; ‘Stremmingen moeten zoveel mogelijk vermeden worden’. Het waterbeheer krijgt dan een veel grotere oplossingsruimte, maar wordt wel complexer.

Juist voor het vinden van de beste oplossing op ieder moment, gegeven de toestand en belasting van het watersysteem, kunnen we met de huidige optimalisatietechnieken prima uit de voeten. Daarvoor hebben we krachtige computers die, gegeven de wet van Moore, over 40 jaar 2 tot de macht 20, oftewel meer dan een miljoen keer krachtiger zijn dan nu. We zitten dan in het belangrijke jaar 2050, waarop nu klimaatmitigerende maatregelen worden getoetst. Dan zullen sensoren, nauwkeurige voorspellingsmodellen met een horizon van tien dagen en slimme computers vanuit een centrale locatie, alle sluizen en pompen in het hoofdwatersysteem van Nederland in samenhang aansturen.

Deze Water Prediction And Control Technology (WaterPACT) gaat in de komende 40 jaar een belangrijk vakgebied worden. Het is dé manier om met bestaande infrastructuur, dus goedkoop, het Nederlandse waterbeheer veiliger, efficiënter en adaptief te maken.”

Peter-Jules van Overloop (1969) is Universitair Docent Operationeel Waterbeheer aan de Technische Universiteit Delft en internationaal expert op het gebied van de toepassing van meet- en regeltechniek in het waterbeheer.

Dit opiniestuk is gepubliceerd in het juni 2010-nummer van TBM Quarterly
van de faculteit Techniek, Bestuur en Management van de TU Delft nav
het seminar Watermanagement, Bestuur en Beleid dat eerder dit jaar
plaatsvond.

Prof. ir. Joost Schrijnen

‘Nooit eerder was waterbeheer en -beleid zo spannend als nu. Mijn benadering is vooral gebiedsgericht; als stedebouwkundige zit dat nu eenmaal in mijn bloed. Ook juich ik een intergouvernementele toenadering (multilevel governance) en intersectorale aanpak toe. Bij zeer omvangrijke projecten – en daar hebben we het hier over – is er altijd sprake van samenwerkende overheden. Je kunt niet anders dan intergouvernementeel handelen.

De spannende vraag is nu hoe we dit qua beleid kunnen invullen. Het Nationaal Deltaprogramma gaat immers over de lange termijn van waterveiligheid en zoetwateraanpak. Dat stelt condities aan de invulling van de ruimtelijke ordening in heel Nederland. Dat is enorm, maar tegelijkertijd ook een geweldige kans, voor jaren! Nederland is uniek in de wereld: we zijn het eerste land dat zo integraal nadenkt over de toekomst met het oog op klimaatveranderingen. Het is daarbij van belang dat we kalm blijven en ons niet laten meeslepen door de waan van de dag. We moeten ons voorbereiden op mogelijke toekomsten, beïnvloed door klimaatveranderingen in de toekomst. Het beleidsantwoord moet dus zeker ook over bewustzijn gaan.

Zekerheden creëren
Nederland is een klein landje, maar speelt een uiterst belangrijke rol. Immers, in onze Delta komen alle economische belangen in Noord-West Europa bij elkaar. Het is dus aan ons om zekerheden te creëren, tot op het laagste bestuurlijke niveau. Dat is bijvoorbeeld nodig om ruimtelijke investeringen van grote bedrijven zoals Shell, maar bijvoorbeeld ook van horecagelegenheden aan het water, zeker te stellen. Geen investeringen zonder duidelijkheid!

Belangrijk in deze is dat de overheid meer dan ooit de verantwoordelijkheid neemt. Dat is evident. Zij moet een handelingsperspectief schetsen, met intergouvernementeel draagvlak – anders gaat het fout. Mijns inziens gaan we dan ook een nieuwe fase in, waarin onze intellectuele vaardigheden, ja zelfs ons menszijn zwaar op de proef wordt gesteld. We moeten boven onszelf uitstijgen en alles over grenzen heen durven doen. Overigens ben ik wat dit betreft een leerling van professor Geert Teisman, Hoogleraar Bestuurskunde aan de Erasmus Universiteit.
Er ligt dus een spannende uitdaging voor ons, maar ik vind dat we al aardig aan het leren zijn.

Grensoverschrijdend
Het is van cruciaal belang dat de TU Delft het grensoverschrijdende vraagstuk begrijpt en daar adequaat op inspeelt, zodat ingenieurs niet alleen ingenieurs zijn. Natuurlijk ben ik blij dat ingenieurs hun vak goed verstaan; daar is geen twijfel over mogelijk. Neem de aanleg van de Noord/Zuidlijn, daar zijn enorme verantwoordelijkheden mee gemoeid. Desondanks dring ik erop aan dat ingenieurs het grensoverschrijdende aspect begrijpen, zodat zij hun vak ten volle kunnen benutten.’

Joost Schrijnen (1947) is Praktijkhoogleraar Ruimtelijke Planning en Strategie bij de TU Delft. Daarnaast is hij programmadirecteur van de Stuurgroep Zuidwestelijke Delta. Eerder was hij directeur Structuurvisie Almere 2030+, Directeur Ruimte en Mobiliteit bij de Provincie Zuid-Holland en Directeur Stadsontwikkeling bij de gemeente Rotterdam.

Dit opiniestuk is gepubliceerd in het juni 2010-nummer van TBM Quarterly
van de faculteit Techniek, Bestuur en Management van de TU Delft nav
het seminar Watermanagement, Bestuur en Beleid dat eerder dit jaar
plaatsvond.