The conversation takes place via Teams. We are talking about the reports of the IPCC and the floods that ravaged Limburg in the summer of 2021. But the emphasis is on our climate. That is the expertise of Van den Hurk, who works as scientific director at Deltares in Delft.

Faster and faster pace

He's busy. Since the publication of the IPCC report, he has given "at least twenty lectures and the necessary interviews". That latest report is a summary of the three separate volumes that have already been released.
Van den Hurk co-wrote part 1, which was published in August 2021. The main conclusions of 'his' working group were not tender, but actually already known: the climate is changing and humans are the cause. The report also made it poignantly clear that the change is being observed around the world. And at an ever faster pace.
"Now that the climate is literally entering our back door, the social discussion is also getting stronger. I think that makes sense. It may, or rather should, be sanded a little. That's what the message does."

Are you shocked by that latest IPCC report?

"I don't know if you should really call it shocking, but the realization that there is no escape from it now dawned on me. The climate is speaking and although I am not a pessimist, it will be – anyway – a bumpy road. We're going to have to pull out all the stops to make that road a little less bumpy ."

It is striking that everyone gives their own interpretation to the report. In one newspaper I read that it is not so bad, while another newspaper sounds the alarm. Does that annoy you?

"No, I don't find that difference in interpretations irritating. In fact, I think it makes sense. When the media or politicians use factual material, I find it irritating. The climate is a battle and everyone can find what they want, but we have to fight with the same weapons."

The climate is a fight?

"Yes, and a very predictable fight. When I graduated in 1988, it was about acid rain. Climate was a niche topic and was long limited to science. It took until 2015 for the Paris Agreement to come into being and become a topic for global politics. And then it takes years before it lands with the citizen. Only when the climate literally penetrates our own backyard and policies are made that affect our personal lives does the resistance come. I saw that coming ten or fifteen years ago, but I understand that we have to fight the fight now."

Do you never get tired of that fighting?

"Sure. I almost feel like a prophet sometimes. And I sometimes get tired of the fight itself, but it probably couldn't have happened sooner. The moment of truth is now."

We need to get going?

"It's a fossil point of view to think we can wait another twenty years. The conclusions are harsh. And clearly. Whether it concerns biodiversity, water, social welfare or income distribution, all developments are moving in the same direction. The climate is just a thermometer with which we can gauge many other developments. Slowly but surely the realization is dawning that all these developments are interrelated, and I think that is a hard blow. That's why I don't always like the focus on CO2. It's too limited. Take the electric car. For me, it's an abomination. All cars have gained an average of 100 kilos in the past ten years and that is really not just in the battery. Under the guise of 'it's electric, so it's allowed', everyone suddenly drives an SUV. That's like saying you can fly to Thailand this summer because you haven't eaten meat for a few days. These are developments that annoy me. Not the government, but individuals are at the forefront of this."

Would you have preferred us all to board the train?

"That's for sure, but I think it's a shame that we never asked ourselves if it could be a little less. Instead of traveling less, we use different energy. Why isn't the focus on less? Less travel, fewer raw materials, less land use and less CO2. Now we are only shifting the conflict and confrontation. Also take a look at water. That is scarce worldwide. If we want to survive, we have to make sure that we can do with less water. For me, that is more sustainable than all kinds of systems that are based on exploitation of old water resources, or ultimately need more water than is available in the future. Climate change is making great strides there."

Water is scarce, but not always. In the summer of 2021, Limburg experienced flooding. Coincidence or does that have to do with our climate?

"The fact that this huge rain shower falls is meteorologically determined. That it will happen more often has been proven climatically. The fact that it falls in Limburg has to do with a confluence of circumstances."

Have you therefore done the stress test What if the 'Limburg shower' falls on Zuid-Holland?

"When such an extreme shower comes along, you have to learn lessons from it. Research was immediately in high demand. Soon after the disaster, many parties wondered whether it could have happened to them as well. Or, more so, what happens to us? Together with a number of water boards (including those of Zuid-Holland), some large municipalities and the safety regions, we have carried out such a stress test. That's pretty special, because I think it's the first time that such a supra-regional stress test has been done."

And? Can it happen again?

"Every year our country runs the risk of a rain shower somewhere that only occurs once every thousand years locally. The fact that Limburg was affected in 2021 does not mean that we are safe for a thousand years now. Statistically that's crazy, but somewhere in our country it could just happen again this summer."

How does such a stress test work?

"Let me start at the beginning. At the end of 2021, we carried out a three-day hackathon at Deltares. We looked at what happens if a polder in Zuid-Holland receives 200 mm of rainwater in one day. A little polder has a pump capacity of 20 mm per day. Then it takes ten days to pump that water away again. We also investigated what it does when 20 mm falls for ten days in Haarlemmermeer or Amsterdam. Ten days of water in your street does not immediately pose a safety risk, but in the vicinity of Kampen, coinciding drain waves from the Vecht catchment area turned out to really lead to safety risks. The results of that hackathon were so appealing that we then carried out a case study together with the Province of Zuid- Holland, the water boards, Rijkswaterstaat and the municipalities of Dordrecht and Rotterdam. In it, we investigated what could happen if there were as much precipitation in Zuid-Holland as happened in Limburg."

You estimate that damage at two billion euros?

"Minimal, because then you are only talking about the calculated damage. We mainly included direct damage in our stress test. That does include uninsured things like public infrastructure. Think of networks, transport routes and public facilities. But the indirect (follow-up) damage is not included, so the amount can be even higher."

Who's going to pay for that?

"We didn't deal with that. As a researcher, I don't think much of that either, but as a citizen, of course, I do. This whole issue has to do with solidarity. That's what I like about our Delta and flood protection program. We need to protect ourselves from high water. This is a question of solidarity, because it provides enormous added value at a social level. Despite the fact that things have gone wrong, for me that is also one of the most important conclusions of Limburg. We have a well thought-out water safety system. This system consists of three layers: prevention (dikes), limiting consequential damage (by spatial planning) and crisis management. At the policy tables, a fourth layer is now being discussed: attention to recovery. A healthy development. We cannot continue to protect indefinitely and will have to accept the consequences more often. Repair of material damage is then important. And one of the most important aspects is trust. As a citizen, you have to be able to rely on being helped if it happens to you. Our society is agile, but we need to do a better job of restoring it."

Doesn't recovery start with prevention?

"Certainly, but we can't put down six-metre-high quay walls at Valkenburg. Prevention is always limited. As far as I'm concerned, recovery is about arranging in advance. Insurance is part of that and I now know how complicated that issue is. I'm not going to burn my fingers on that, because that's not my expertise, but insurers can of course handle the damage very well."

Limburg has provided important lessons. What are our biggest vulnerabilities?

"In any case, it is inevitable that many crisis services will have to take action at the same time. That's a difficult dilemma, because you don't want to close everything. There must be room for improvisation. It is important that people know how to find each other easily and quickly, but then they have to know each other. In the supraregional stress test, several provinces, water boards, safety regions and several larger municipalities were simultaneously managing a crisis. An eye-opener, especially in an administrative sense, because now they know each other. That helps if something happens. I sometimes jokingly say that it is better to invest in company parties where new meetings take place than in risk protocols."

Aren't protocols necessary then?

"Thinking about protocols is not bad. They're there for a reason, either. If you deviate too much from it, you may be better off in the short term, but not in the long term. I am certainly not against protocols. On the contrary. I am merely arguing that we should also think about that ability to improvise. There is always something of a surprise in every event. We have to learn from that."

How? You write in the research report: prevention is not possible, preparation is. What can we do?

"The preparation is mainly in the stress test itself. The surprise is now out, because we assumed that there was so much precipitation, in that region, with that infrastructure, etc. And of course, the reality is always a little different, but even with those known factors, we can already draw surprising conclusions. That's why I'm such a strong supporter of stress testing. We can learn from what has already happened elsewhere."

This is mainly at the administrative level. What can the citizen do himself? For example, I live near the Nieuwe Waterweg. Should I take a look at Funda?

"I wouldn't move right away if I were you. But I would give myself some mental stress tests. What would I do if it happened? And what can I do? Research shows that our water safety is very high. Our confidence in that water management is also high. But our water awareness is strangely low enough. Apparently we need Limburg to think about it. So let's use Limburg to make it stick, so that we can be more aware and make preparations. It really gives peace of mind if you know what you could do yourself if the Limburg shower falls in your province. And it helps even more if you know if and how you are insured, who is liable and what you can count on."

In May, The Association's Climate Damage Monitor will be released again. Does that monitor help with awareness?

"I'm a fan, because transparency about risks and damage is needed. That's part of stirring up consciousness, but on the other hand, we also have to watch out for tendentious messages. Limburg is not suddenly the norm. Of course, you can't always foresee everything, but you can think about your own risk profile and make sure you are well informed about the possibilities to hedge risks. I think Ahmed Aboutaleb is a very good example of someone who takes responsibility. He constantly and everywhere emphasizes that Rotterdam is a water city and therefore has to deal with climate risks. He is the personification of a mayor who is water conscious."

Finally, how do you view the role of insurers? Are they doing enough?

"More than. The discussion about insurability is conducted in public. The Association stimulates the social discussion, collaborates with all kinds of academic institutes and bundles the knowledge. I think that's a good thing. Insurers know their stuff, for example about risk profiles and claims handling, but they must continue to guard against too opportunistic tendencies. Transparency about the consequences must go hand in hand with transparency about the risk."

(Text: Miranda de Groene - photography: Ivar Pel)