Renate I. Mreschar | March, 2002

As late as the 1970s the River Rhine was the open sewer of Europe. Vast stretches had simply died. Since then, pollution levels have dropped by 90 percent. Thanks in large part to voluntary action rather than legislation.

The extensive action to clean the Rhine is one of the most successful feats of environmental protection ever achieved on our planet.

But in fact, this success was not achieved through international co-operation between the Rhine countries that signed the Rhine Action Programme in 1987. It was much more the result of comprehensive and voluntary protection measures that many chemical companies based along the Rhine chose to undertake. Most of the demands set out in the Action Programme were met before the programme had been adopted.

	The recovering Rhine is one of Europe's biggest environmental success stories

This surprising conclusion has been reached by Marco Verweij of the Project Group "Common Goods: Law, Politics and Economics", based at the Max Planck Society in Bonn, Germany. "Careful analysis of data relating to water quality reveals that the emission values for almost all chemical pollutants had already been significantly reduced even before the international programme was launched," explains Verweij.

This transition, from polluted sewer to clean waterway rich in animal and plant life, is made all the more remarkable by the fact that 18 percent of the world's chemical industry proceeded to settle here during the time of the clean-up campaign - in addition to numerous companies manufacturing other industrial and agricultural products.

The investigations carried out by Verweij show that industry's campaign to combat Rhine pollution was carried out in two phases. Firstly, from 1971 until the mid 1980s, the emission levels of almost all chemical pollutants were reduced drastically, by 80 to 90 percent. Secondly, following the Sandoz accident in 1986, remaining pollution levels were further reduced by 80 to 90 percent. In the past, experts would not have believed that a clean-up campaign on such a massive scale could ever be possible.

Legislative role minimal
Legislation and tax policies implemented on a national scale by individual states played no direct role in this large-scale and relatively rapid clean-up process. On the contrary, the governments' water pollution standards were even lower than international standards stipulated in the Rhine Action Programme itself. Moreover, the water pollution tax that firms were forced to pay was always far too low to be effective. According to Verweij, "the real contribution made by the Rhine Action programme, was the way in which it triggered a new dynamic in the drive to restore the Rhine's natural habitat."

The eco-system of a river requires more than clean water if it is to remain fairly intact. The riverbed, the banks and shores of the river and the surrounding land contained within the natural flood plains must all be taken into consideration. It is precisely here where those plant and animal communities typical of the Rhine region survive and must thrive. These plants and animals require specific conditions within their own habitat and environment.

Almost 30 years ago, in the spring of 1971, tons of dead fish were washed up on the banks of the Rhine between Koblenz and Mainz in Germany. A disastrous combination of extreme pollution levels and unfavourable weather conditions resulted in the river being depleted of all oxygen along a stretch of more than 100 kilometres. All forms of life within that stretch of the river were killed. "The destruction of such vast quantities of fish came as an immense shock to the chemical companies on the Rhine, much greater than the later Sandoz accident. This was the turning point." explains Verweij.

Until then, these companies had believed that chemical effluent would not harm the Rhine. They regarded it as a large reservoir for their waste products, and gave no thought to any possible environmental problems. This has become evident from company documentation dating back to the 50s and 60s.

"Many people still believe the Sandoz accident triggered the change in the behaviour of these companies. This isn't true," says Verweij. Comparison of data from 1971 onwards shows that the levels of the worst form of environmental pollution present in the Rhine (i.e., the most dangerous chemical substances) had already fallen by 80 to 90 percent before the Sandoz accident had occurred. This was purely due to voluntary investment made by industry.

Disaster spurs action
Once companies realised the full extent of the disaster they themselves had created (the large-scale destruction of fish was proof enough), they sprang into action. They started off by setting ambitious environmental objectives - and then went on to develop new technologies for treatment of waste effluent. According to Verweij, these companies - above all Bayer and Hoechst, but also BASF and Sandoz - treated these new tasks "just as if they were capturing a new market." In the meantime, Bayer has been selling the technologies that they developed for cleaning the Rhine to companies throughout the world.

Little known is the fact that voluntary action taken by industry was often co-ordinated by professional organisations such as the Association of Chemical Industries (Verband der Chemischen Industrie). Verweij refutes any suggestion that these companies only implemented environmental protection measures for PR reasons: "If their real motivation was to gain publicity, then this must have been a completely disastrous PR campaign because clearly no one knows anything about it."

Verweij's investigations led him to conclude that the attitude of many companies towards environmental protection is not always as negative as many would have us believe. Companies have often adopted a different approach to environmental issues to those taken by citizen action groups. Companies tend to regard only a small list of chemicals as being toxic, and all too often consider small doses as being harmless. Environmental activists often represent the opposing standpoint, and argue that it is better to assume that even small quantities of many different chemicals will have a toxic effect.

Both perspectives are at the same time legitimate and supported by scientific research. The clash of viewpoints is often the cause of environmental disputes, not any extreme unwillingness on the part of companies to put an end to the poisoning of animals, plants and humans.

Verweij has also reached a second conclusion: if corporate managers are convinced that their firms are causing serious environmental problems, then they themselves can also play a very effective and efficient role in solving these problems. State environmental policy is traditionally made up of objectives that can be achieved using the best technology available. This is an extremely limited basis for progress.

A whole range of companies based in the Rhine basin has done exactly the opposite. Because inter-state and intra-state negotiations are often arduous and drawn out, we should take full advantage of the creativity and expertise within companies when attempting to solve environmental problems.

Major disputes over minute details
In the 1970s major disputes raged on the international stage over many minute details concerning Rhine pollution. At one point, the Dutch ambassador was even recalled from Paris. In the meantime, the Rhine was becoming increasingly clean as a direct result of action taken by industry. According the Verweij, the success of this clean-up campaign suggests that governments would sometimes be better advised to establish a dialogue with industry rather than relying entirely on the more traditional legislative routes and inter-state co-operation when attempting to solve environmental problems.

Efforts made in climate protection - hopelessly plagued by disputes and controversy - could have benefited greatly from this type of approach. In the meantime, the new agreement protecting the Rhine forms the basis for co-operation between Holland, Germany, France, Luxembourg, Switzerland and the European Community. There is still much to do, however. This applies particularly to river pollution caused by agriculture and the effects of high waters and floods.

Renate I. Mreschar wrote this article for the Max Planck Research Society in Bonn, Germany.