Polarizing the discussion about Zeewaarts and Meebewegen isn’t helpful

On page two of Eva Meijer’s latest novel ZEE NU (2022), the narrator offers some thoughts on the connections between humans and the sea. To someone standing on the shore, the sea appears endless. The sea is neither alive nor dead. Like humans, the sea consists of water, but in contrast to humans it has no skin. Color and form depend on the surroundings. “Mensen,” writes Meijer, “zijn ook gevormd door weer en landschap, maar toch veranderen ze niet zo mee met wat om ze heen bewegt, zeker de Nederlanders niet, het volk dat in dit boek centraal staat” (my emphasis).

In dispassionate prose reminiscent of Kafka, Meijer goes on to tell how the sea begins to inundate the Netherlands, advancing one kilometer every day. In response, the government sets a more or less orderly retreat in motion. Many find welcome in Germany or Belgium, while the wealthy simply move to their winter homes in Southern Europe. Some “Blijvers” drown, while others form patchwork communities in “archipelagos” of buildings that break the surface and the flotsam that collects around them. Their feeble attempts om mee te bewegen are too little, too late. They won’t survive the next storm. Further “inland,” the sea inexplicably respects the limits of the German and Belgian borders. All that remains of this unique country known for its ewige strijd tegen het water, for its ingenuity in keeping feet dry in a nation where 26% of its territory lies below sea level, and its tendency to thumb its nose at the threat of sea level rise because of global warming, is the unique circumstance that only the Netherlands was erased by the sea. In literature this is known as poetic justice.

We may think of climate fiction (or cli-fi) as a way to warn readers of dystopian futures that lie ahead and that may be true. A more pertinent quality of good climate fiction is its ability to analyze society. ZEE NU is not about predicting the improbable, total inundation of the Netherlands, although its sober rendering of retreat is certainly instructive. It’s about zeroing in on cultural qualities of Dutch society by putting them under the pressure of fictional circumstances. What are the costs of long-term technological defiance of water and the sea? Of a deficit in the ability om mee te bewegen? Meijer is right. Meebewegen is not something the Dutch come to easily.

To someone immersed in the study of options for how the Netherlands could adapt to accelerated sea level rise, it’s difficult to escape the idea that Meijer had the Deltares climate adaptation paths in mind as she plotted the details of her novel. While Zeewaarts, Beschermen Open, and Beschermen Gesloten have their proponents and resonate well within the technical sector, Meebewegen has been more controversial. Visualizations by designers such as Eric-Jan Pleijster at LolaLandscape and Gijs van den Boomen at KuiperCompagnons project a distant future (2120 or even 2200) where inundation has transformed the Western Netherlands into an urban archipelago and a conurbation of Deventer, Zwolle and Amersfoort has become the flourishing economic heart of the new Netherlands. Unsurprisingly, many instinctively reject the very idea of retreat and giving room to the sea. Yet, at the same time, climate scientists, oceanographers, and physical geographers—many of whom are lead authors for the IPCC—have a mounting sense that accelerating ice melt in Greenland and increasing instability in West and even East Antarctica could mean that sea level rise will outstrip and overwhelm the ability of the Netherlands to keep pace much sooner than we think.

In the Netherlands, the conversation about addressing sea level rise, extreme rainfall, drought, and their combined impacts seems to be resolving into a polarized debate about the respective virtues of Zeewaarts and Meebewegen and the flaws of their opponents. And that’s a pity. As far as the Kennisprogramma Zeespiegelstijging and Deltares are concerned, all four options and combinations thereof are on the table and each requires multidisciplinary investigation in good faith.

Recently, in two articles by Ties Rijcken (“Het water komt maar wees niet bang” and “Het water komt maar het glas is halfvol”) and in an editorial in NRC Handelsblad that profiled the positions of Rijcken, Bas Jonkman and Dick Butijn as proponents of technological adaptation pathways (published online under two different headlines: “Moet Nederland het westen prijsgeven aan het water?” and “Watermanagers roeren zich: we moeten ons juist niet terugtrekken”), Meebewegen has come under heavy critique. As if in confirmation of Meijer’s premise about Dutch distaste for Meebewegen, Arjen Schreuder, author of the NRC article, writes, “Er doen verschillende strategie?n de ronde, vari?rend van de zee zoveel mogelijk buiten de deur houden, tot ‘meebewegen’ en wegtrekken naar het oosten. Vooral deze laatste richting moet het ontgelden [my emphasis]. ‘Het is geen oplossing’, aldus Ties Rijcken.” If the sea in Meijer’s novel had it in for the Netherlands, Schreuder, Rijcken en Jonkman have it in for Meebewegen.

We are inclined to credit engineers with objectivity and being grounded in the real world. Rijcken, in particular, has a knack for effecting the pose of eminent reasonableness and, by implication, casting his adversaries as illogical fantasizers. “Het lijkt wel eens alsof er een 'parallelle wereld' is waarin mensen hoog van de toren blazen hoe het allemaal zou moeten, […] terwijl het in de 'echte wereld' ontzettend moeilijk is om een paar hectare van bestemming te doen veranderen of een paar centimeter waterstandsverhoging te realiseren. […] Het is ook een persoonlijke voorkeur: houd je meer van een imaginaire wereld, of van de echte wereld?” But is this characterization fair and are the arguments Rijcken, Jonkman en Butijn make really reasonable? And, if they aren’t, why are they so upset about Meebewegen?

In an earlier response to Rijcken which I shared on LinkedIn (“Het echte monster onder het bed: een retorische analyse van Ties Rijckens ‘Het water komt, maar wees niet bang’”), I argued that “het echte doel van zijn artikel het was om voorstanders van meebewegen te verzwakken en te delegitimeren. Impliziet suggereerd Rijcken dat het in twijfel trekken van de veiligheid op de lange termijn van poldergebieden neerkomt op een vorm van landverraad. De versluierde waarschuwing van zijn artkel is dat het beter is om als voorstanders van de strategie van meebewegen met het veranderende klimaat, te zwijgen. Volgens Rijcken is niet de stijging van de zeespiegel, maar het zaaien van angst de echte bedreiging.” I stand by that reading.

In this new response, I want to focus first on the argumentation that Schreuder organizes around quotations from Rijcken, Jonkman, Butijn and Bas Kolen van adviesbureau HKV lijn in water. But then, and more importantly, I want to make a case for resisting the temptation to polarize Zeewaarts and Meebewegen.

1.

The immediate target of Jonkman and Rijcken’s ire is the advice from the Delta Commissioner, Deltares, Sweco and others to avoid development in low-lying and vulnerable areas. In the formulation known as “water en bodem sturend [of leidend]”, this advice made its way into the government accord. For the ambition to build close to a million new homes by 2030, this advice may seem an obstacle. However, recent decisions (e.g., Minister Hugo de Jonge’s to proceed with development in de Gnephoek and Zuidplas) suggest that it isn’t being rigorously applied. So, what are Jonkman and Rijcken really worried about?

Whereas Rijcken is primarily concerned about the impact sentiment in favor of meebewegen might have within the Netherlands, Jonkman adds an international aspect. “Wij Nederlanders bouwen over de hele wereld superveilige kustsystemen, van Singapore tot Texas en New York, en dan zouden we ons in eigen land moeten terugtrekken?” The successful export of Dutch water defense technology depends on the perception abroad that, as NY Times architectural critic Michael Kimmelman puts it, “the Dutch have solutions to rising seas.” Jonkman’s statement in the present tense (“wij Nederlanders bouwen”) may lead non-fact-checking readers to imagine fabulous multi-billion-dollar construction projects underway to protect Houston, New York City, and Singapore. It is true that the US Army Corps of Engineers prepared plans in consultation with Dutch firms for Houston and New York City. The drawings show multiple sets of storm surge barriers that include copies of the signature arms of the Maeslantkering, as well as coastal sea walls and dams. These plans are in various stages of approval and study, but none of them has final approval nor, more significantly, any funding. The NYC plan weighs in at $52 billion, while the Ike Dike in Houston has a $31 billion price tag. Let’s assume—and it’s a big assumption—that environmental impact studies and litigation, legislative inertia, sticker shock, and the sheer volume of coastal protection plans being proposed for other American cities or already in the pipeline won’t sideline these projects. Even then, start dates for construction are still years off. The Dutch debate about Meebewegen isn’t a factor here.

As the Dutch know all too well, these massive international infrastructure projects are incredibly messy and difficult to control. Just think of the Great Garuda Seawall that was supposed to protect Jakarta. Pictures of the NCICD used to feature prominently on pamphlets of the Netherlands Water Partnership and Het Internationale Waterambitie. No more. The Great Garuda is an unresolved trauma for the Dutch international water sector. But what troubles me more as an American about coastal resilience projects along the Louisiana and Texas coasts is the suspicion that the motivation isn’t to protect frontline communities, but the fossil fuel industry. Americans can be quite blunt about that. “Members of the Texas congressional delegation have worked to convince their colleagues in Congress of the project’s national significance, arguing that it’s crucial to protect the nation’s biggest concentration of oil, gas and petrochemical facilities. Texas accounts for about 30% of the nation’s oil-refining capacity. ‘Given Texas’ critical role in powering our country and facilitating trade, protecting our coast isn’t just a state or local priority — it’s a national imperative,’ U.S. Sen.?John Cornyn, R-Texas, said in a written statement in December advocating for the legislation’s passage.” In other words, the Dutch firms, institutions and government agencies involved in the Ike Dike and similar Gulf Coast resilience projects are also working to protect and prolong fossil fuel dependency—to their own climate detriment.

If Dutch involvement abroad easily slips out of control, is it any easier to keep public discourse on track in the Netherlands? You can’t blame Butijn, Jonkman and Rijcken for not trying. “We worden bang gemaakt,” says Butijn. “Zelfs de banken en verzekeraars worden onnodig bang gemaakt,” adds Jonkman. Rijcken indulges a little panic-sowing himself: “Terugtrekking [zou leiden] tot ‘apocalyptische toestanden’ omdat huizen onverkoopbaar worden en alleen de rijken het verloederende westen kunnen verlaten.” Do bankers, insurers, and accountants let themselves get spooked by designers who visualize Meebewegen? I hardly think so. It’s much more likely that they are genuinely concerned by what they read in the 6th assessment of the IPCC. Since assuming the position of ABN Amro head economist in 2019, Sandra Phlippen has been asking difficult questions. What happens if a sea dike breaches and homes are flooded? What is the continued impact of paalrot? How will the housing market respond to increased awareness of climate-related risk? Richard Weurding , director of the Verbond van Verzekeraars, asks similar questions: “Wat moet er gebeuren om Nederland klimaatbestendiger te maken? We moeten met z’n allen aan de slag, maar de overheid moet de regie nemen. Om schade te voorkomen, preventie dus. Maar ook om ons aan te passen, adaptatie. En op de derde plaats: we moeten echt gaan kijken waar we nog kunnen bouwen in Nederland.” And then there’s the Algemene Rekenkamer, which recently announced that they would conduct a yearlong study of the Ministry of Infrastructure and Water: “De vraag is of alleen het versterken van dijken ons in de toekomst nog wel genoeg beschermt.” Were all of them misled by proponents of Meebewegen? Not likely. These economists and accountants are simply doing their job. And to the extent that they continue to follow the science, their concerns will increase.

Jonkman and Rijcken, by contrast, are sea level rise optimists. Underlying all their argumentation is the premise that sea level rise will progress gradually. “Ik mis de onderbouwing,” says Jonkman. “De pleidooien voor terugtrekken en ruimte vrijhouden zijn gebaseerd op projecties van zeespiegelstijging die we pas over eeuwen kunnen verwachten. We kunnen de zeespiegelstijging voorlopig prima aan. Er moeten huizen worden gebouwd, rekening houdend met waterrisico’s.” Jonkman has colleagues in the climate change and sea level rise sector who are doing all they can to call attention to new scientific findings that show that land ice on Antarctica and Greenland is melting much faster than anyone expected. While the IPCC’s famously conservative, consensus-based report says science cannot rule out 2 meters of sea level rise by 2100 and 5 meters by 2150, my University of Pennsylvania colleague, renowned climate scientist Michael Mann , can’t rule out 6 meters by 2100. And he’s not alone. They’re not saying it will happen, but it could. It’s important to understand: the only reason scientists at Deltares, NIOZ, Universiteit-Utrecht, and other institutions are insisting that Meebewegen be taken seriously as one of the adaptation pathways is the realistic threat of accelerated sea level rise. The thought of retreating to the East is as unappealing to them as to any other Laag Nederlander. The evidence-free assertion that their contributions to the debate have “dogmatische en soms zelfs religieuze trekjes” is patently false. Jonkman, Rijcken, and Butijn are engineers. They should listen to climate scientists.

2.

The eye-catching image that accompanied the NRC article is of a new storm surge barrier the plan for which Rijcken promises to unveil in the near future. I look forward to it. He calls it the “Hollandkering,” to be located upstream from the Maeslantkering on het Nieuwe Waterweg as an additional defense. Compared to the Ike Dike, this €1-2 billion storm surge barrier is a bargain. The 150-meter-high barrier functions like a reverse ophalbrug—a sort of neerlaatkering, so to speak—that would be 11 meters higher than the Erasmusbrug in Rotterdam. No question, this would be a piece of iconic infrastructure in the spirit of the Deltawerken. As a contribution to Beschermen Open, this is a project worth serious consideration.

Whether the Haakse Zeedijk is ready for primetime is another question. I have been following this constantly evolving piece of Wensinfrastruktuur for several years. Originally conceived as hard offshore infrastructure for the entire extent of the Dutch coast, it has adjusted to take into account renewable energy, a lower CO2 footprint, nature-based solutions, and increased height for accelerated sea level rise. A few years ago, it must have dawned on the proponents of the Haakse Zeedijk that the Netherlands is just a segment of the vulnerable European coast. They released grandiose plans for what amounts to a European Zeedijk. As the current website explains, “de uiteindelijke vorm van De Haakse Zeedijk beperkt zich niet tot Nederland, immers de landen om ons heen?hebben eveneens te maken met klimaatverandering. De ultieme oplossing is De Europese Zeedijk: een dijk van de kliffen van Calais, langs Belgi?, Nederland, Noord-Duitsland en Denemarken?naar het Zweedse gebergte bij Gotenburg. Daarmee is de gehele kuststrook van het NW-Europese continent, inclusief de Oostzee-landen, beschermd tegen overstroming vanuit zee en de rivieren.” In effect, this is the Brexit version of Sjoerd Groeskamp ’s Northern European Enclosure Dam. As contributions to Zeewaarts as one of the adaptation pathways, both must be given due consideration.

We owe the same respect to the climate scientists, physical geographers, designers, transition experts, and others working to explore the modalities of Meebewegen and Verplaatsen. In “Het water komt, maar het glas is half vol,” Rijcken issues a challenge: “Als we beginnen met laag Nederland prijsgeven aan de zee kunnen we stoppen met dijkversterking, maar dan moeten we iets wat eeuwen heeft gekost om op te bouwen fatsoenlijk afbreken en opnieuw opbouwen, en dat kost meer energie dan in stand houden wat we nu hebben. Dit zou iemand eens moeten uitrekenen, en dat is ook mijn weerwoord op veel van de kritiek die ik heb gezien: werk je alternatief verder uit, pak er een bierviltje bij en ga eens rekenen.” We’ll need more than a beer coaster for the kind of calculations that are Rijcken’s rhetorical trademark, but he’s right. We need economists and climate risk experts capable of capturing the large picture, including externalities and indirect costs and benefits, integrated within a scientifically grounded and precautionary context of climate change scenarios that take Antarctic instability into account. But we need more than just economists, in addition to the climate scientists and designers already mentioned. We need ecologists and engineers who grasp the connection between biodiversity and resilience. We need serious citizen engagement such as the Burgerberaden Eva Rovers and others are lobbying for. And we need people in the arts and culture sector. Why? Because Meebewegen is about the capacity to reorient culturally, to transition from one paradigm to another. Meebewegen is about telling a new story.

Large scale transitions aren’t easy, especially if they involve geographic reorientation. Energy transitions, for example, are notoriously difficult because they create new winners and losers. This was true in the past and in the present (coal miners in Germany and the US, for example). Livelihoods and wealth are at stake. Uncertainty breeds anxiety. Emotions are triggered. We would like things to remain the same. But a precautionary response to the climate emergency advises against that. We need all the adaptation pathways on the table, including Meebewegen. Indeed, being able to transition between the adaptation pathways is another quality of Meebewegen. Having those pathways ready—physically and socially—is key. What the Netherlands now faces is what Matthijs Bouw calls a “land use transition.” Like an energy transition, it has the potential to be disruptive, but less so if it’s studied, managed, mitigated by prudent planning, and stretched out over time. It won’t be apocalyptic. The whole point is to avoid disaster. It will offer an array of new opportunities for new winners and, if they adapt, new losers as well. Government has an obvious role to play. But so do culture and the arts.

Eva Meijer’s ZEE NU is one example of cultural storytelling in the service of imaginative climate adaptation. She’s not alone. In theaters, galleries, and festivals throughout the Netherlands, artists are collaborating with scientists to tell the stories of climate change and sea level rise in terms people understand. We need this. We need to work through the emotions, explore possible futures, and understand how communities can rise to the occasion. With a repertoire of three concurrently running productions, cabaret artist Patrick Nederkoorn has been particularly inventive. In a piece called Overvloed, he teams up with NIOZ oceanographer Sjoerd Groeskamp in an exploration of daily life in the Netherlands in the year 2100 according to three IPCC climate scenarios, ranging from best case to worst. Entertaining and emotionally revealing by turns, Overvloed is an example of the kind of arts and science collaboration we need. (I would argue that Groeskamp’s article “NEED: The Northern European Enclosure Dam for if Climate Change Mitigation Fails,” which became a global media sensation, is itself a masterful example of cultural intervention.) In Hoogtij and Die orangene Gefahr: Die Holl?nder kommen, Dutch and German-language versions of the same story, Nederkoorn address Meebewegen and Verplaatsen directly. Performing in Dutch and German theaters, in cities along the border and in the Ruhrgebiet, he confronts audiences with the possibility that the migration of Laag Nederlanders to the East could bring the Dutch-German border into play. Whether you live in Nordrhein-Westfalen or the Achterhoek, the Randstader is a cultural invader. What a playground for intercultural encounter!

Migration has a long and storied history in the Netherlands. (It’s part of my own story: my parents left the Netherlands for Canada in a wave of emigration in the 1950s.) Given the strong orientation towards North America, we tend to forget that migration to the East is also part of the Dutch story. Throughout Eastern Europe, Dutch immigrants were prized for their water management knowhow. Prussian kings were not alone in making accommodations such as das Hollandische Viertel in Potsdam to entice Dutch citizens to move to Brandenburg. Seen in that light, both the cabaret theater of Nederkoorn as well as the #Toekomstvisie of het College van Rijksbouwmeester & Rijksadviseurs , which includes language about “de nieuwe Randstad,” a Dutch-German conurbation empowered by the economic synergies of Dutch, Belgian and German cities in the Rhine River watershed, are important contributions to exploring the potential of Meebewegen. This, too, must be part of the calculation.

The Kennisprogramma Zeespiegelstijging is part of the Deltaprogramma. It explicitly recognizes the threat potential of ice melt in Antarctica and Greenland. There are five investigative tracks. The fourth track concerns long term perspectives. “Wat is het handelingsperspectief: welke lange termijn oplossingsrichtingen zijn er voor als de huidige strategie niet meer houdbaar is? En hoe kunnen we daar nu al rekening mee houden?” Track 5 looks into the flexibility—I’m tempted to call it het vermogen om mee te bewegen—that will be required to accomplish the transitions that will eventually be needed: “Wat is er nodig om alle relevante partijen te betrekken bij het kennisprogramma en hoe kun je een eventuele verandering naar een andere aanpak voor elkaar krijgen?” Against this programmatic background, engineers such as Jonkman, Rijcken and Butijn should be encouraged to invest all their ingenuity into working out the details of the three technological approaches (Beschermen Open, Beschermen Gesloten, and Zeewaarts). It is also necessary that a similar level of rigorous investigation—employing climate science, ecology, economics, risk analysis, but also design, culture, and the arts--be devoted to Meebewegen. It’s not Meebewegen, but failure to take Meebewegen seriously in the context of accelerated sea level rise that would give banks and insurers a reason to be afraid. Polarizing the discussion doesn’t help.

In September 2022, Deltares published Analyse van bouwstenen en adaptatiepaden voor aanpassen aan zeespiegelstijging in Nederland. This report is a good place for all of us to start.

Simon Richter is the Class of 1942 Endowed Term Professor at the University of Pennsylvania. He tweets as @Poldergeist3 and, as Dr Poldergeist, creates videos about climate adaptation in the Netherlands:?https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCQrvu36tni8MEpLR4ZqFJsQ

Sources

?Kennisprogramma Zeespiegelstijging (https://www.deltaprogramma.nl/deltaprogramma/kennisontwikkeling-en-signalering/zeespiegelstijging)

Ties Rijcken, “Het water komt, maar wees niet bang” (https://decorrespondent.nl/13396/het-water-komt-maar-wees-niet-bang/20975879189276-ec2ed26a)

Ties Rijcken, “Het water komt, maar het glas is halfvol” (https://flowsplatform.nl/#/het-water-komt--maar-het-glas-is-half-vol-1663422036270)

Arjen Schreuder, “Moet Nederland het westen prijsgeven aan het water?” (https://www.nrc.nl/nieuws/2022/10/11/watermanagers-roeren-zich-in-discussie-we-moeten-ons-juist-niet-terugtrekken-voor-de-stijgende-zeespiegel-a4144835)

Trouw, “Minister De Jonge zet ‘Masterplan Gnephoek’ door: 5500 nieuwe woningen in de Alphense polder” (https://www.trouw.nl/duurzaamheid-economie/minister-de-jonge-zet-masterplan-gnephoek-door-5500-nieuwe-woningen-in-de-alphense-polder~b3138495/?referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com%2F)

Michael Kimmelman, “The Dutch Have Solutions to Rising Seas” (https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/06/15/world/europe/climate-change-rotterdam.html)

Texas Tribune, “U.S. House approves massive $31 billion “Ike Dike” project to protect Texas coast from hurricanes” (https://www.texastribune.org/2022/06/09/texas-ike-dike-hurricanes-house-vote/)

Gothamist, “12 storm surge gates: Army Corps proposes $52 billion barriers for New York-New Jersey waterways” (https://gothamist.com/news/army-corps-52-billion-dollar-storm-surge-barriers-new-york-new-jersey-harbor-waterways)

Map Oberndorff, “Hoofdeconoom Sandra Phlippen (ABN Amro): ‘Ik heb mezelf op het zadel gehesen. Heel eng’” (https://fd.nl/samenleving/1440766/hoofdeconoom-sandra-phlippen-abn-amro-ik-heb-mezelf-op-het-zadel-gehesen-heel-eng-otj2ca1NID8O)

Eva Smal, “Directeur Verbond van Verzekeraars: ‘We moeten echt gaan kijken waar we nog kunnen bouwen in Nederland’” (https://www.nrc.nl/nieuws/2022/10/11/directeur-verbond-van-verzekeraars-we-moeten-echt-gaan-kijken-waar-we-nog-kunnen-bouwen-in-nederland-a4144838)

Algemene Rekenkamer, “Waterveiligheid: naar een integrale aanpak” (https://www.rekenkamer.nl/actueel/lopend-onderzoek/waterveiligheid-naar-een-integrale-aanpak)

Living on Earth (podcast), “Interview with Michael Mann” (https://www.loe.org/shows/segments.html?programID=21-P13-00031&segmentID=3)

Patrick Nederkoorn, Die orangene Gefahr: Die Holl?nder kommen (https://patricknederkoorn.de/project/die-orangene-gefahr/)

Patrick Nederkoorn and Sjoerd Groeskamp, Overvloed (https://patricknederkoorn.nl/project/overvloed/)

College van Rijksadviseurs, Toekomstverkenning NL 2100 (https://www.collegevanrijksadviseurs.nl/adviezen-publicaties/publicatie/2022/07/04/toekomstverkenning-nl2100)

Deltares, Analyse van bouwstenen en adaptatiepaden voor aanpassen aan zeespiegelstijging in Nederland (https://www.deltares.nl/app/uploads/2022/09/Rapport-Bouwstenen-en-Adaptatiepaden-Zeespiegelstijging-final.pdf)