Background and request for advice
Far-reaching measures are needed in the coming decades to keep the Netherlands water safe, to protect it against flooding, and to ensure the availability of sufficient freshwater. These measures to make the Netherlands climate-resilient have a major spatial impact. Additional space is needed for dyke reinforcement, river widening and water storage. But the way we use space for things like living, working, agriculture, energy and nature will also change. If we build homes in the wrong places now (for example, because this space will be needed in the future for dyke reinforcement or water storage), future water management costs will be too high. Current farming in parts of the low-lying Netherlands, where salinisation is a growing problem, can also only be continued at a high cost. On top of this, increasing drought will inevitably affect nature, agriculture and business activity in high-lying areas of the Netherlands.
The government's ambition is for water and soil to be 'guiding' in all these spatial developments. This means that the requirements of the water and soil system must be the guiding principle for how we use and develop our country's space. In practice, we have not yet made enough progress in this area. What are the obstacles? How can the government eliminate them? What is needed to enable the government to effectively promote climate-resilient spatial planning in our country? These questions are answered in the advisory report.
Explanation
In the advisory report, we note that seven obstacles stand in the way of climate-resilient spatial planning:
1. Politicians and administrators prioritise the most urgent societal challenges that require space, such as housing targets.
2. 'Water interests' are not sufficiently taken into account in spatial decision-making processes.
3. Politicians and administrators are concerned that spatial measures will undermine investor confidence.
4. There is uncertainty about the speed of climate change and the magnitude of the consequences discourages politicians and administrators from making choices.
5. There is a lack of financial incentives to factor the effects of climate change into investment choices.
6. Land designated as a new residential or business location is not likely to change designated use due to the negative financial consequences
7. Solutions are mainly sought within national borders. This limits the scope for solutions.
Based on our analysis, we draw the following conclusions:
• Not everything can be done everywhere and forever. We need to move towards spatial planning that respects the boundaries of the water system ('not everything can be done everywhere'), coupled with an approach that offers the flexibility to gradually adapt land use to changing circumstances ('not everything can be done forever').
• The 'water contract' between government and society needs to be reviewed. When it comes to flooding, freshwater availability and, eventually, water safety, the government will no longer be able to provide the same guarantees as before on the long term . The government's role will for a large part shift from providing safeguards to making uncertainties manageable. This will result in a stronger reliance on citizens and businesses to make climate-resilient spatial choices on their own.
• Climate-resilient spatial planning requires setting limits based on water management. In more cases, the water managers (Rijkswaterstaat and the water boards) will need to set limits based on their knowledge and expertise. They will need to define more explicitly what is and what is not possible in terms of creating the water management conditions for current and future use of space.
• Climate-resilient spatial planning also offers opportunities: to create a nicer and better country, for ourselves and for future generations. This requires utilising the connection between challenges as well as cooperation, new, innovative ideas, and timely choices. Choices we can start to work on now, but which also leave enough freedom of choice for future generations.
Based on this, the Council makes the following ten recommendations, divided into four solution approaches. With these recommendations, we aim to help the government effectively promote climate-resilient spatial planning.
Solution approach 1: Ensure that spatial choices by both government and society take into account the effects of climate change as much as possible
1. Use a 'water calendar' to systematically provide timely and publicly available information on changing water management conditions (central government and water boards)
2. Test all government spatial visions, plans and decisions for climate resilience (central government, provinces, municipalities, water boards)
Solution approach 2: Make flexibility the new norm for spatial planning
3. Reserve space in environment plans for water management measures (central government, provinces, municipalities)
4. Take advantage of opportunities for temporary use of space (central government, provinces, water boards, municipalities)
Solution approach 3: Strengthen the toolkit for climate-resilient and flexible spatial choices by government and society
5. Take the long-term costs of climate change into account in investment decisions (municipalities, provinces, central government, property developers, banks, investors, entrepreneurs, homeowners)
6. Set general rules for climate-resilient spatial design (central government, water boards)
7. When making spatial decisions, take water interests into account as early as possible and at the right level (central government, provinces, water boards)
8. Reach agreements with upstream countries on water supply and water storage (central government, provinces, water boards)
Solution approach 4: Make timely decisions on major system choices and their spatial impact
9. Implement an integrated knowledge and research programme for climate-resilient spatial planning (central government)
10. Establish a long-term programme aimed at decision-making on major system choices (central government)
More information
For more information about the advisory report or to comment, please contact the project leader, Luc Boot, at luc.boot@rli.nl, or on +31 (0)6 10577495.