Interview Peter van Baalen, Professor of Information Management and Digital Organisation at the University of Amsterdam: “Technology isn’t the solution”

“Well, that’s a huge problem,” Peter van Baalen thought as he read the previous RIWA-Meuse annual report. As a Professor of Information Management and Digital Organisation at the University of Amsterdam’s Faculty of Economics and Business, his field of expertise is not water but the most effective way to share knowledge and information. However, from his home in Maassluis, he can see the Nieuwe Waterweg and the water in his taps at home come from the Meuse.

Not first and foremost

Van Baalen says that he was “a little shocked” by the interviews in the previous report. He was surprised by the lack of transparency and cooperation between parties and countries. For example, the fact that the objectives of the WFD are consistently not being met and will not be met in 2027 either. “Especially when you consider that clean drinking water is our most basic necessity. How can we be lagging behind so much? Why are we struggling to prioritise water quality?”

Van Baalen believes that many people will not know how important the Meuse is as a source of drinking water. “We know the Meuse is used for shipping and that it floods. What’s less well-known is that seven million households depend on it for their drinking water. Once we realise that, I think we’ll start looking at it differently.”

Responsibility

The previous report said that water-quality policy is basically sound – sound guidelines and laws are in place, both at European and national level and the implementing organisations usually act in good faith and and are competent – but that implementation and, as such practice, often leaves much to be desired. “A clear governance structure is absent,” Van Baalen says, referring to the way in which policy is managed, implemented and monitored. “Who is overseeing the whole, the objectives and enforcement? Who is taking responsibility for solving the problem: the poor water quality?”

Van Baalen mentions the wide range of organisations involved: the drinking water companies, water boards, central and local government, environmental services, knowledge institutes and associations – and the fact that they are all responsible for different things. “That worries me. They’re the reason for many of the problems.” Because a lack of clarity also makes it difficult to improve water quality and resolve any tensions or conflicts, he explains.

From fragmented information to a platform

In short, information is very fragmented. For example, about water quality, the many substances that end up in the water, discharge permits, companies in the area and also hydrological data and information about the consequences of climate change. All this information is held in different places, in different programs and is often either not shared or only minimally. Improving this could help improve water quality and water management.

But how can public organisations, knowledge institutes and private parties achieve knowledge, data and information sharing of this nature? This complex question was put to the Professor of Information Management and Digital Organisation as well. Van Baalen thinks it would be a good idea to create a central database or platform and create a third party for this purpose. “Information exchange between organisations is always very difficult,” he says. “Uniform standards and protocols need to be developed. A key issue always is: who adapts to who? However, the willingness to exchange information is even more important.”

Peter van Baalen, Professor of Information Management and Digital Organisation at the University of Amsterdam (Photo: Eelkje Colmjon, Eelk.nl)

Water puzzle

Many companies are very reluctant to share information and will wonder how it would be shared and with whom, Van Baalen says. “Information like this is very sensitive.” He experienced this for himself, for example, when researching the development of standards and agreements on data sharing for the container industry. However, in other research, he has noticed that parties are often willing to share knowledge but are unaware of any demand for it.

Van Baalen is also aware of the risk of information overload: which can happen when organisations send and download all sorts of information. So, it is important to be clear about exactly which information is needed from which party. He summarises this as: “Knowing exactly what the water puzzle is.” In this context, he cites the fact that Meuse water is used not just for drinking water production but also by other sectors: industry, shipping, energy generation, cooling, agriculture, recreation and nature.

Not a technical issue

Van Baalen believes that information sharing is perhaps the most difficult conversation to have within a governance structure. “But once you’ve overcome these hurdles, smart, AI-based technologies can be very helpful, of course.”

However, he does not see effective information sharing as a technical issue first and foremost. “It’s mainly about getting cooperation off to a good start, the agreements you make. The role of technology is relevant but always exists in a social, economic and political context. And that determines how technology will be used.” He adds to this: “Technology enables you to automate and monitor a great deal. And significant improvements can be made. But that’s not the solution. The solution really does lie in the relationships within the governance structure.”

Peer collaboration

As regards the hackathon the police organised to identify the biggest water polluters (see the interview with Amir Niknam), Van Baalen says: “A hackathon about what you can do with the information you have is a very good idea, but it’s important to view all the stakeholders as rights holders. Of course, I completely agree with the detection of water contamination and the tackling of environmental crime. But I don’t think you should criminalise other parties, like industry and farmers, by labelling them as polluters. They definitely won’t be motivated to share knowledge and collaborate if you do.”

Van Baalen believes the best governance structure or approach in this situation – a river basin – is a cooperation-based peer governance structure. “I don’t think a strict enforcement policy and a heavy-handed sanctions policy is the right approach. We need industry, some farmers and other water users. If it’s clear what everyone’s interests are, we can take joint responsibility for them. This may sound naive, but based on my experience with governance and knowledge sharing, this works best.”

Limit situation

Van Baalen explains that each cooperating party should clarify the so-called ‘limit situation’: in which situation is my position at threat? “What does the minimum water quality or quantity need to be? This then has to be recognised by the various parties. I understand that the drinking water companies reach their limit in the event of low water. The concentration of harmful substances is very high at times like this.” In the previous annual report, Van Baalen read that the parties involved in the Danube River Basin had been successful in making good agreements. “I’m very curious how they managed to do that.”

Van Baalen refers to the situation in which drinking water companies stop abstracting water from the river when excessively high concentrations of a harmful substance are measured; this is called an ‘abstraction stop’. “A kind of self-regulation takes place. When industry participates in the governance structure, they all share responsibility. Now, just one party is sanctioned.”

Go all out

The Meuse flows through other countries too, of course. “Yes, that makes it even more complex,” Van Baalen says. “It’s about making companies and organisations share responsibility for clean drinking water. That includes the people who live alongside the Meuse in France, Belgium and the Netherlands. Take me, for example – I benefit from good water quality too.”

Finally, referring to the current water-quality issues, which Van Baalen read about in the previous annual report, the professor says: “It’s an absolute scandal that politicians aren’t prioritising the collective, societal interest. They have to solve this issue but are choosing the interests of their party and siding with businesses or farmers. It’s very bad news. This is political failure and has significant consequences. The slogan ‘Go all out to improve water quality’ on the cover of the 2023 report is no exaggeration. This really does need to be put higher up on the agenda.”

Text: Thessa Lageman, Onder Woorden

Translation: KERN Rotterdam

This interview is published in the RIWA Annual Report 2024 The Meuse