by Loni Kemp, The Minnesota Project
(Upon returning from a tour of the Rhine River in Holland and Germany the week
of September 21-28, 1996, I wrote these observations to share with others who
may be interested. I think we can gain insight into our own work on water
quality and sustainable agriculture by seeing how other parts of the world
respond to similar issues.)
The Rhine River of Europe and the Mississippi River share much in common. Both
have vast watersheds containing millions of homes, businesses, and farms which
depend on the river for drainage, drinking water, shipping, and recreation.
Unfortunately, both rivers also share common problems. Polluted water, frequent
catastrophic flooding, loss of healthy ecosystems, and huge expenditures made in
attempting to control the river are shared concerns faced by the two great
rivers.
In hopes that the sharing of knowledge and successful strategies will benefit
both rivers, the World Wildlife Fund hosted a delegation of 16 Americans on a
week-long tour of the Rhine River. From the delta at the port of Rotterdam in
the Netherlands, upstream to Germany and France, the group traveled by motor
coach and boat touring high-tech water control structures and nature restoration
areas. Next year a group from the Rhine region will come to the U.S. to tour
the Mississippi River.
The American group consisted of a provocative mix of people working on river
issues. It included environmentalists active in watershed management and
coastal restoration, the head and two officials of the Army Corps of Engineers,
state and local officials, staff of the Natural Resources Conservation Service
and the US Fish and Wildlife Service, and a representative of the Iowa
Corngrowers Association.
Our local hosts were the Netherlands chapter of the World Wildlife Fund, and the
Auen Institute for Floodplains Ecology of the German World Wildlife Fund. They
arranged tours and speakers from many agencies and organizations to share the
story of the Rhine with us.
The Rhine River starts in the Alps of Switzerland and flows north, forming the
border between Germany and France, and emptying into the North Sea through the
delta of the Netherlands. It is about one third the length of the Mississippi,
and only a fraction of its watershed size. Nevertheless the Rhine is extremely
important in its region for shipping. The Rhine has a steady stream of barges
going both directions, with boats filling up the locks all day long. Rotterdam
is the largest harbor in the world, extending for many miles out into the North
Sea.
Following are some highlights of what I learned from the Rhine River.
Elimination of ÒnatureÓ from a major riverine system is possible.
¥ The Rhine River was channelized and separated from its floodplains for
virtually the entire length, starting in the early 1800s. It is lined with
double dikes, groins, power plants, and locks and dams, with dense development
outside the dikes.
¥ Already an open sewer, the Rhine was totally killed off by a 1986 fire at the
Sandoz pesticide factory in Switzerland, which washed chemicals from the
headwaters down to the gulf. All river life was eliminated.
¥ Two thirds of the Netherlands is land ÒreclaimedÓ from below sea level,
requiring eternal pumping and damming at huge cost to maintain safety.
Virtually no natural floodplains, wetlands, forests, or meadows are left in all
of Holland, except for a few fenced off Ònature monuments.Ó The people have
little memory of native wildlife.
¥ Germany is famous for its 70% forest cover, but I was astounded to learn that
the vast majority is in plantations of hybrid poplars and conifers. Little
natural mixed forest remains. (And yet we seem to think we are inventing the
idea of hybrid aspen monoculture in Minnesota -- It seems Germany has been
planting hybrid aspen for 35 years!)
¥ Europeans may have gone too far in trying to control Mother Nature, only to
find out she will lash back. The results of such control include more frequent
and higher floods; loss of numerous species including the salmon and the beaver;
and absence of natural areas for recreation.
Restoration of nature is also possible, albeit very difficult.
¥ The Rhine Action Plan, developed by an international commission, accomplished
a 50% reduction in chemical emissions by industries and cities over the last ten
years.
¥ Life began to return to the Rhine only two years after the Sandoz spill. The
disaster galvanized public concern, resulting in a commitment to a return of the
salmon by the year 2000, after an absence of several decades. Indeed, salmon
have already returned part way up the river.
¥ Several model demonstrations are partially restoring floodplains to natural
dune, forest, and meadow ecosystems, while at the same time maintaining flood
safety and the needs of navigation. A holistic approach uses three zones: the
river channel between the Òsummer dikesÓ is kept open for navigation; the
intensively developed area outside the higher Òwinter dikesÓ is protected from
floods; and floodplains between the two dikes can be restored for nature,
allowing occasional inundation to re-create communities of native plants and
grazing animals.
¥ The reintroduction of a family of beavers to one nature area in Holland is as
unusual and exciting to them as the return of the bald eagle is to us!
Europeans are very serious about reducing nonpoint pollution.
¥ Atrazine is banned in both the Netherlands and Germany because it was found to
move from farms into groundwater and surface water.
¥ Agricultural nutrients are aggressively managed in the Netherlands. Every
farmer with livestock must account for their manure with a nutrient budget,
documenting numbers of animals sold, feed purchased, chemical fertilizer
purchased, how many acres of which crops they grow, and thus nutrients can only
be applied at rates that sustain crops. All manure must be stored under cover,
and must be incorporated into the soil immediately when it is applied.
¥ Europeans also are targeting gaseous nitrate emissions from cattle feedlots,
confinement barns, and liquid manure spreading as an important source of
nutrient deposition in water pollution. This source is almost never mentioned
in the U.S.
¥ Noxious algae blooms up and down the coasts have heightened awareness of
nutrient pollution, unlike the MississippiÕs zone of hypoxia lying miles out in
the ocean where it is largely ignored.
Curiously, the Europeans expressed almost no interest in erosion control.
¥ Although they spend billions on river dredging and contaminated sediment
disposal. they seem to assume that erosion comes from mountains and riverbanks
and is natural. I find it hard to believe that agriculture, forestry, and
especially development are not sources which could be reduced.
¥ Similarly, they seem to have rejected upland water retention as a strategy for
flood control, possibly because their denser populations make it more costly.
The Dutch have placed their bets on technology and there is no going back.
¥ Two thirds of the Netherlands is below sea level and they will do and spend
whatever is necessary to prevent floods from rivers or the North Sea.
¥ Netherlands means Òlow country,Ó and indeed it was originally one huge coastal
wetland. By 1200 the Dutch were already building dikes around the higher spots,
and in the 1500Õs started using windmills to drain lakes created by peat
extraction. Steam pumping in the mid-1800s launched greatly expanded drainage of
ÒpoldersÓ, or shallow lakes created by dikes both inland and out into the sea.
Today pumping continues around the clock to maintain cities and farms.
¥ Channelizing of the Rhine River was intended to protect lands behind the dikes
from flooding and speed water flow, but the cumulative effect increases the
volume and frequency of flooding because of the elimination of floodplains.
Holland actually faces a double threat, because floods from the North sea caused
by high tides and storm surges are just as often the cause of floods as the
river.
¥ Each new flood triggers another soaring investment in concrete and technology.
¥ They accept less risk than we do, planning for one-in-1250 year storm events
for the river and one-in-10,000 year events for the sea. Although floods are
getting worse and global climate change will lead to rising sea levels, they
really see no choice but to keep investing in safety.
Europe is ÒgreenÓ.
¥ In the last decades public attitudes have changed dramatically. Concern for
the environment resulted in major shifts in government policy. Without
compromising flood safety or navigation, ways are being found to reduce impacts
on the ecosystem, and bring back ÒnatureÓ. This seems to be universally
accepted by all sectors.
Dutch Agriculture is both high tech and small scale.
¥ Although not a primary focus of this trip, I was fascinated to observe the
Dutch countryside, platted out into small 5-20 acre fields each bordered by
water-filled ditches. Dutch farmers own relatively small holdings and modest
numbers of livestock, but they use the latest in genetics and production
technologies. Extensive greenhouses and fields of high-value fruits,
vegetables, and flowers are interspersed with many fields of pasture and hay for
livestock. While some livestock concentration is reported, the majority of
Dutch farmers manage to use the latest technologies at a scale that fits a
family-size farm. In contrast to American propaganda, efficiency is not
synonymous with farm expansion.
Marginal lands eyed for ÒnatureÓ.
¥ Environmentalists feel that overproduction of food is a problem, and that
20-30% of Dutch farmland is marginal, due to increasing water levels, saltwater
intrusion, or historically poor soils. Some of these acres are targets for
eventual purchase for Ònature restorationÓ, allowing wetlands, floodplains, and
wet meadow ecosystems to be reestablished. Of course other interests worry
about the loss of rural culture and food self-sufficiency that could result.
¥ There really is little hope of combining nature and agriculture on each farm
as we envision here, because farms there consist of disconnected fields with few
natural features to work with.
Food quality is revered.
Europeans seem to seek out fabulous quality foods, take the time to enjoy them,
and make eating and drinking together a key part of their everyday quality of
life. Beef has all but disappeared from menus and stores despite the cow
massacre of Britain, because people wouldnÕt dream of eating foods even tinged
with bad associations.
What is sustainable?
¥ If the Dutch were able to raise food for 500 years on drained lands, was that
not sustainable? We tend to measure sustainability generation to generation,
and on that criterion they may have succeeded.
¥ Now it appears that such farms have become marginal, depending on constant
investments of energy, chemicals and water control, and threatened by rising sea
levels due to global warming. It brings a longer perspective to
sustainability...
Europeans may have almost eliminated ÒnatureÓ, but they do beautifully at
controlling development compared to us.
¥ Europeans know how to keep their towns vital, historic and beautiful. The
whole week I never saw a mall or a discount store. Towns are compact with
virtually no sprawl. Gardens are a universal hobby. Bikes are widely used,
cars are discouraged from cities, and the streets are for people. Even the
famous German autobahn is lined with trees and shrubs for noise control
virtually the entire length, minimizing impacts on surrounding areas.
Loni Kemp
Senior Policy Analyst, The Minnesota Project
Box A81
Canton, MN 55922
(507) 743-8300 Fax same
Chair, Minnesota Institute for Sustainable Agriculture
Loni Kemp
Senior Policy Analyst, The Minnesota Project
Box A81
Canton, MN 55922
(507) 743-8300 Fax same
Chair, Minnesota Institute for Sustainable Agriculture