EN

Preface

Brussels currently lacks an official outdoor swimming area, yet people still enter the canal out of necessity, which makes the Port of Brussels the de facto manager of a forbidden but persistent activity. Other cities such as Copenhagen, Basel and Paris have shown that swimming directly in urban waters can be safely integrated into city life, despite very different local contexts, by treating waterways as shared public spaces rather than purely functional infrastructures.

Swimming naturally involves risks that cannot be fully eliminated, but these can be realistically managed through shared responsibility: authorities providing safe infrastructure, maintenance and clear information; and individuals honestly assessing their own swimming abilities, following basic safety rules and respecting the place. The Brussels canal itself is divided into three parts, and the southern section emerges as the most promising for supervised swimming — thanks to its better water quality, fewer sewage overflows and limited shipping traffic, particularly on Sundays when commercial vessels are banned.

A detailed analysis shows that injuries from debris can be minimised by systematic cleaning and inspections; drowning risks in opaque water can be mitigated by lifeguards, swimming with a buddy, and avoiding sudden immersion when overheated. Health risks from bacteria or cyanobacteria blooms can be managed through regular lab tests, real-time monitoring and predictive models. An equally important measure is ensuring that all children have the opportunity to learn to swim, as swimming education in schools is still insufficient.

Rather than maintaining a blanket ban that is often ignored and leaves swimmers unprotected, Brussels could start with supervised pilot zones in the southern canal to test, learn and adapt. With political support and openness from the Port, the canal could become a safe, welcoming space for urban swimming — enriching Brussels as a healthier, more inclusive and liveable city.

This document explores that possibility in depth: examining the canal’s specific risks, comparing them to other cities, and proposing concrete measures and shared responsibilities to make swimming in the Brussels canal a realistic and responsible goal.

Introduction

There is no official outdoor swimming location in Brussels today. Nevertheless, people still swim in the canal — driven by necessity and the lack of alternatives. This situation inadvertently makes the Port of Brussels the only authority effectively managing an outdoor swimming spot in the city. Could swimming in the canal in Brussels become a valid, official option for outdoor swimming?

Swimming directly in urban waters is already common in several cities: consider Copenhagen, Basel, more recently Paris and Duisburg. Other cities like London or Berlin are also exploring such possibilities. These cities all have very different characteristics and water bodies, yet they share one ambition: to become swimmable cities by opening ports, canals and rivers to swimmers.

The advantages of swimming directly in the canal in Brussels are obvious: it is the largest water body in the city, deep enough for swimming, and could be made accessible with simple, inexpensive infrastructure like pontoons with ladders. Yet while the Port of Brussels — the responsible public authority managing the canal — is open to floating pools in the canal and swimming areas separated from the canal water, it remains firmly opposed to swimming directly in the canal itself, even for occasional events. There are three reasons for this: firstly, legislation that simply prohibits swimming in the canal; secondly, their consistent communication line that swimming is dangerous and therefore forbidden; and thirdly, what they see as clear dangers, listed in a risk analysis that was shared with us as part of a penalty following the Big Jump event in 2018.

This article aims to respond to that list of risks, re-evaluating them and proposing methods and techniques to address them, so that swimming in the canal can become possible in a safe and responsible way. But before looking at the specific challenges of managing the risks of outdoor swimming in the canal, we need to consider how risks are perceived, and how responsibility can be shared to deal with them.

Dealing with risks in general

Risks must be judged realistically. While they can be managed as effectively as possible, they can never be completely eliminated.

To illustrate this, consider the risk of swimming — whether in the canal or elsewhere — compared to the risk of traffic. Accidents happen, sometimes fatal ones, despite clear rules, solid infrastructure and public education on how to behave in traffic. Yet nobody would propose banning pedestrians from walking on the streets because cars exist.

Managing risk requires a twofold strategy. It is the responsibility of each individual to judge their own capabilities and the circumstances around them. To judge those circumstances, the relevant factors must either be directly visible, or proper information must be provided so that people can make an informed judgment. Authorities have the responsibility to create infrastructure that can be assessed visually (e.g., platforms, ladders, stairs) and to communicate clearly about parameters that individuals cannot judge themselves (e.g., water quality, currents, temperature, depth). Authorities must also ensure safety by regularly checking and cleaning the bottom of the swimming area to remove debris or trash. Conversely, individuals have the linked responsibility to follow common rules — such as not throwing trash into the water.

It is always possible that third parties create danger, despite everyone else acting carefully. For instance, a driver might miss a red light (deliberately or due to technical failure) and drive through a pedestrian crossing, even though pedestrians trusted the green light. The same could happen on the water: swimmers might encounter boats that fail to follow rules. Still, society does not see crossing the street with a green light as especially risky; pedestrian crossings and traffic lights exist everywhere. Even unmarked crossings exist, and although accidents do happen, they are rare. On the water, there are far fewer boats in the canal than vehicles on a road. The risk of swimmers and boats interfering should therefore be approached similarly — comparable to managing risk in traffic.

A comprehension of how we see a share of responsibilities for safe outdoor swimming in Brussels

Responsibilities of authorities:

Provide appropriate infrastructure
Carry out maintenance to keep the place safe and clean
Share clear information about invisible risks
Educate the public on risks and basic rules
Support swimming lessons

Responsibilities of individuals:

Learn about risks and basic rules
Seek information on invisible risks
Treat infrastructure with respect
Understand and, if needed, improve personal swimming capabilities
Look out for others (children, friends, strangers)

Risks of swimming in natural water

Swimming always carries risks, like any other activity. In traffic, danger can be judged visually; in the case of air pollution, it can sometimes be smelled or seen (but not always). Natural water, however, is opaque, unlike a swimming pool, and cannot be fully assessed by the human senses. While water temperature can be felt and judged personally, water quality — such as bacteriological contamination — cannot be perceived directly. Similarly, the depth or objects at the bottom usually remain invisible.

Therefore, someone must observe and evaluate these invisible risks, and communicate clear and comprehensible information about them. This requires a relationship of trust: individuals must trust that authorities provide accurate and up-to-date information, and authorities must trust that individuals read, understand and use that information responsibly.

Risks of swimming in the canal of Brussels

The canal in Brussels is an artificial water body, used today mainly for shipping. It is also the city’s largest body of water. It serves as a habitat for fish and other aquatic life, acts as a rainwater buffer during storms (which brings its own problems, as discussed below), and provides open space and long views in Brussels’ dense urban landscape. It is already used for recreation along its quays, parks and cycle paths, and on the water itself, through rowing and kayak clubs, sailing lessons and boat cruises. But this is where it stops. Could the canal also become a swimming spot? In reality, it already is — unofficially. To answer that, we must look more closely at the canal itself and its specific risks.

A differentiated look at the canal

The canal is unlike a river, which is typically a continuous, uniform water body. Instead, the Brussels canal consists of very long, narrow stretches of water connected only by locks, which means there is limited water exchange under normal conditions. In Brussels, the canal can be divided into three parts:

The southern part: from the Brussels Region border at Ruisbroek to the Anderlecht lock
The central part: between the Anderlecht and Molenbeek locks
The northern part: from the Molenbeek lock to the regional border with Vilvoorde

Most of the time, water only flows when boats pass from a higher to a lower section. Although there is a constant slow flow from south to north, there is hardly any current under normal conditions. This can change drastically during rainstorms when sewage overflows immediately worsen water quality. This is discussed in more detail below. Importantly, these overflows are not evenly distributed: several exist in the central and northern canal, but there are none in the southern part within Brussels, and only a few minor ones further south on Flemish territory. As a result, water quality on average is significantly better in the southern part than elsewhere. Based on tests we conducted following European regulations for bathing water, we can say that in more than 90% of analyses, water in the southern canal is fit for swimming when applying the standards used in Flanders for inland freshwater swimming areas. However, in the few tests conducted in the central or northern parts, these standards were not met, so swimming there cannot be recommended based on current data.

E.coli & Enterococcus in the canal Brussels - Charleroi at CRBK Anderlecht

Another important factor is the canal’s morphology throughout Brussels. Sometimes it is as narrow as 20 metres, just wide enough for two ships to pass; elsewhere, it widens into harbour basins up to around 120 metres. Along its length there are mostly quay walls up to 5 metres high, but in some places there are sloped green banks. Some stretches are directly accessible, while others border private, mostly commercial, sites. The canal’s depth also increases from south to north, from about 3.5 metres in the southern and central parts up to about 6.5 metres in the north.

Thirdly, shipping traffic varies across the canal. Large ships have 24/7 access to the canal from the north as far as the Vergote basin. It is also in the northern part that most commercial facilities supplied by ship are located. Further south, navigation depends on the opening hours of the locks, which means that shipping traffic in the south of Brussels is limited on average. In addition, commercial inland shipping is prohibited throughout Belgium on Sundays. This means that no large barges travel through Brussels on Sundays, and only smaller pleasure boats might pass.

These differences in water quality, morphology and shipping traffic show why it is essential to distinguish between different parts of the canal — and even specific locations — when discussing the possibility of swimming: each area has different challenges and opportunities.

Focus on the southern part of the canal

Considering all the factors mentioned above, we believe that the southern part of the canal is particularly suitable for swimming in the future. In the central and northern sections, floating pools or other swimming facilities that use water separated from the canal itself would be more appropriate for now. But in the south, we see an immediate opportunity for swimming directly in the canal.

One particularly interesting area lies along the western bank, between the rowing club and the kayak club. Between the kayak club’s pontoon and an existing slipway there is enough space for a 50-metre-long swimming zone. Simple infrastructure, like lifeguard stations and changing cabins, could be placed on floating pontoons. In the water itself, a swimming zone of about 50 by 8 metres could be installed without obstructing the passage of ships, small recreational boats or water sports users. This could be set up permanently, or at first temporarily during the summer as a test. We believe swimming there could even be possible at times when large ships are passing. However, starting with a Sunday Swim programme could be a good way to test swimming in the canal, since on Sundays no large commercial ships travel through Brussels.

All it takes is a very simple floating infrastructure: a ponton, two ramps to access it, and a light frame with a line of buoys to define a 50 x 8 m large swimming zone.

Are you in for a Sunday Swim?

How to deal with the risks identified by the Port of Brussels

The greatest challenge in making this vision reality remains convincing the Port of Brussels, the authority managing the entire canal. Permission from the Port would be essential for swimming to be allowed. Interestingly, swimming in this section of the canal is not fully prohibited by law. The relevant ▶︎ regional police regulations for the port (in effect since 2010) do not mention swimming at all. The other relevant legal framework is the ▶︎ “General Police Regulations for Navigation on Inland Waterways.” Article 6.37 of this regulation states that swimming is allowed if the swimming zone is properly marked with specific water traffic signs. This means that in principle, swimming is legally possible.

Nevertheless, the Port of Brussels produced a risk analysis listing the following risks of swimming in the canal:

Risk analysis for swimming in the canal in general by the Port of Brussels, 2018

Accident risks – risk of injuries

Cuts or scratches from contact with metal objects, glass or other items not detected on the bottom or banks
Thorny plants on the banks
Bites from wild animals frequenting riverbanks and canal edges (e.g., rats)
Injury when jumping into the water due to a blunt object that was not visible on the bottom
Collision with a floating object just under the surface, unseen because of the opaque water (e.g., wooden beam)
Collision with a vessel ignoring the prohibition on navigating through the swimming area

Accident risks – risk of drowning

Hydrocution (cold shock): swimmer sinks unseen because of opaque water
Swimmer becomes unconscious after collision and sinks unseen
Inexperienced swimmer sinks unseen
Swimmer in distress sinks unseen
Swimmer swept away by current when lock gate opens, falling into the lock, and cannot be rescued
Panic after an incident; location lacks enough exits to allow many swimmers to leave the water quickly
Passage of a boat creates suction that could pull swimmers out of the swimming zone, leading to dangerous collisions

Health risks

Sanitary condition of the water changes between time of analysis and time of swimming
A harmful germ not detected during testing
Bites or stings from animals (e.g., rats) or insects
Presence of heavy metals or other pollutants in the water

It is important to point out that these risks are not unique to the Brussels canal; they also apply to virtually every natural swimming location. In fact, swimming does take place at many other sites with similar conditions — both in Belgium (for instance, seasonally in Keerdok Mechelen, Bonapartedok Antwerp and the canals of Bruges, or during events in the port of Ghent and at ▶︎ the various locations where the BIG JUMP can take place in Belgium) and abroad.

Accident risks – risk of injuries

Cuts or scratches caused by contact with a metal object, glass or other debris not detected on the bottom or on the bank

This is indeed a real risk, and there have been reports of people actually touching or injuring themselves on submerged objects. In the past, bicycles have been pulled out of the canal near the pontoon of CRBK. To make swimming safer, the bottom of the canal in the area where people might jump in and dive should be cleaned by divers to remove debris. We collaborated with a local diving company to do exactly this during the ▶︎ Expedition Swim in 2019. In other places, such as in Flanders, this work is often done by divers from the fire brigade. Cleaning should be performed before the main swimming season in summer and can be repeated mid-season if needed. Additionally, the organisation managing the swimming zone can regularly carry out floor inspections by dragging nets over the bottom to detect any new debris. If debris is found, divers can then be called to remove it. Signage at the pontoon should inform people about the water depth, and swimming can be discouraged if the water is too shallow. With these measures, the risk of injury can be greatly reduced.

Thorny plants on the banks

Plants along the banks should simply be trimmed wherever swimmers might come into contact with them. This task falls to the organisation responsible for maintaining the swimming zone.

Bites from wild animals frequenting riverbanks and canal edges (e.g., rats)

In general, animals — including rats — tend to be more afraid of humans than the other way around. Bites leading to injuries or infections do happen, but are extremely rare. To reduce this risk further, pontoons could be placed slightly away (about a metre) from the shore. Regular cleaning and prompt removal of any rubbish that could attract rats will help make the swimming area less appealing to them, thereby reducing the chance of encounters.

Injury while jumping into the water because of unseen blunt objects

The same preventative measures mentioned earlier — regular diving inspections, cleaning, and floor net sweeps — apply here as well.

Collision with a floating object just beneath the surface, unseen due to the opaque water

A practical solution is to delimit the swimming zone with a line of buoys, to which a net is attached reaching down to the bottom. This net will prevent objects from floating into the swimming area. It is also worth noting that in the southern part of the canal there tends to be less floating debris than in other sections.

Collision with a vessel that ignores the prohibition on navigating through the swimming area

This risk could result from human error or technical problems. The most important measure is clear communication to all boat and ship operators about the location of the swimming zone. This can be achieved by placing the required traffic signs well in advance of the zone, and marking the swimming area itself clearly with highly visible buoys and floating lines. For permanent swimming zones, additional protective structures such as deflecting poles or beams can also be installed in the canal, though this is a more costly option.

Besides measures aimed at boats, swimmers themselves can also be alerted to approaching vessels. This can be done by lifeguards or staff responsible for managing the swimming area who keep watch visually, or by installing camera systems monitoring the canal in both directions. These cameras can be linked to image recognition software that automatically detects approaching boats and triggers an audible or visual warning in the swimming zone, allowing swimmers to leave the water safely in time.

If swimming is permitted during times when large commercial vessels might pass, swimmers could also be warned in real time using data from the ships’ ▶︎ Automatic Identification System (AIS). This system broadcasts each ship’s position, course, and speed at least every 30 seconds. With enough AIS receivers installed along the canal, it becomes possible to predict a ship’s trajectory very accurately. This data is already visualised on websites like ▶︎ MarineTraffic and ▶︎ VesselFinder. AIS data could be integrated into a local system to trigger on-site warnings or alerts in a dedicated swimming app.

Accident risks – risk of drowning

The points raised about drowning focus not so much on the drowning risk itself, but on the concern that a drowning person might not be visible to lifeguards or other swimmers because of the canal’s opaque water. In the southern part of the canal, the water clarity — or visible depth — is about 60 cm. This level of opacity is very common for natural swimming water in central Europe.

Countless swimming areas — including many in Belgium — have similarly opaque water, yet people swim safely in them every year. The fact that these places are authorised and properly equipped shows that the risk is not unacceptable, but instead manageable.

It’s also important to note that lifeguards typically spot swimmers in difficulty not by seeing them underwater, but by observing their behaviour at the surface. Most rescues start because someone notices signs of distress above the water. Full water transparency can help, but it is not strictly essential if surveillance is done correctly.

Hydrocution: swimmer sinks unseen because the water is opaque

Hydrocution, also known as cold water shock, can occur when someone overheated from sun exposure or exercise suddenly enters cold water, leading to rapid temperature change. This can trigger dangerous responses like fainting or even cardiac arrest, which could result in drowning.

To greatly reduce the risk, swimmers should follow one of the fundamental swimming safety rules: never jump into cold water if you are overheated — always give your body time to adjust. This guidance is part of ▶︎ the basic safety card developed by the Swiss Lifesaving Society. Such simple, well-communicated rules are key: they should be taught from the earliest school years and repeated often at swimming spots. Following them is the best individual protection against accidents and drowning.

Swimmer becomes unconscious after collision, sinks unseen

By following the preventative measures discussed earlier — like cleaning the swimming area of debris — and adhering to basic swimming safety rules, the risk of such severe collisions can be kept very low.

Inexperienced swimmer: swimmer sinks without being spotted because the water is opaque

This risk highlights a wider and deeply important issue: many people, especially children, have not had the chance to learn to swim properly. In Brussels, as in many other places, there is a significant lack of swimming lessons offered at school, which remains a serious public health and safety concern.

Addressing this risk requires both broader swimming education — making sure all children can learn to swim confidently — and individual responsibility. Swimmers must realistically assess their own abilities and those of children or companions. Authorities, in turn, must provide clear, visible information on swimming conditions — including water depth, temperature, possible currents and other relevant factors — both on-site and online. This combination of good education and transparent information empowers individuals to decide responsibly whether they are capable of swimming safely in the canal, thus reducing the likelihood of accidents involving inexperienced swimmers.

Swimmer in distress sinks unseen

Again, the best prevention is following basic safety rules: not swimming alone, swimming with a buddy, and being aware of one’s own limits all help reduce the likelihood of distress.

Swimmer swept away when lock gates open, falls into the lock and cannot be rescued

The places in the southern part of the canal where people currently swim illegally are about 400 metres from the Anderlecht lock. Under normal operation, this lock has little to no effect on the current in the canal. However, during heavy rainstorms the canal acts as a stormwater buffer and can fill quickly. To release this water downstream toward the Scheldt river, weirs next to the lock can be opened, which temporarily creates significant currents. Importantly, this does not happen without warning and typically coincides with bad weather, which in itself deters swimming. The Port of Brussels, as manager of the locks and weirs, could also issue warnings before opening them, which could lead to temporary closure of the swimming area or real-time information at the site and online.

Panic after an incident; location lacks enough exits for many swimmers

A well-designed swimming zone along the southern canal will likely be a long area running parallel to the bank, with a continuous pontoon fitted with numerous ladders or stairs. This design would allow swimmers to leave the water quickly and easily if needed.

Passage of a boat creates suction that can pull swimmers out of the swimming zone and cause collisions

Swimming close to a passing ship can indeed be dangerous, but the actual risk depends on factors like the ship’s size, draught and speed. There are several ways to manage this:

The simplest is to allow swimming only on Sundays, when large commercial ships are not using the canal.
Smaller pleasure boats can be required to slow down when passing the swimming zone, as already happens at other narrow points in the canal when two ships meet.
If swimming is allowed when large ships might pass, the swimming zone could be temporarily narrowed to keep swimmers further from vessels. Ships could be kept away from the swimming area with buoys marking the navigation channel.
For more permanent protection, rigid structures could even be installed in the canal to physically shield the swimming zone.

Swimming in the Rhine in Basel, CH, next to a large cargo ship of 95m length and 11m width. No other safety precautions than good information. There has never been an accidents involving swimmers and vessels, as confirmed by local authorities. Picture © Lucia Mosteyrin.

Health risks: infection via swallowed water or a skin injury

The health risks are mainly related to the sanitary condition of the water and the possibility of infection from bacteria present in it. By law — from local up to European level — swimming water must be tested regularly by a certified laboratory for two specific indicator bacteria: E.coli and Enterococci. These bacteria are not necessarily dangerous themselves, but they indicate possible contamination by other, harder-to-detect germs.

Bacteria levels in the water are volatile and can increase quickly due to factors like heavy rainfall and resulting sewage overflows. That’s why regular testing is so important. According to EU guidelines, water must be tested at the start of the bathing season and then at least once per month. This rather low testing frequency relates to the first risk noted in the Port’s analysis:

The sanitary condition of the water changed between the time of analysis and the time of bathing.

Water quality in places exposed to external factors — like rain washing dirt into the canal or sewage overflows — can change much faster than the legally required testing interval can detect. Additionally, laboratory testing requires an incubation time of 24–48 hours, so results are delayed. However, today there are new ways to track water quality continuously, including automatic tests that deliver immediate results and AI-based prediction models that can forecast expected contamination.

These two innovations — automatic real-time analysis and predictive modelling — are relatively new but have become a game changer for managing water safety.

Automatic testing works through probes in the water that use chemical or biological reactions to detect the presence of E.coli or Enterococci. Results can be transmitted digitally within minutes. These measurements, together with traditional lab tests for verification and historical weather data, are then fed into computer models. Using artificial intelligence, these models learn how weather and water quality relate and can forecast water safety much like a weather forecast. The forecasts are continually refined as new test results come in.

Such systems already operate in several cities. Paris, for example, uses them to ▶︎ monitor water quality at the Seine and the Bassin de la Villette. Copenhagen also uses ▶︎similar tools (https://badevand.dk/). Berlin offers ▶︎ a simple website that shows whether water quality meets standards, using a green background for “safe” and red for “not advised”.

A similar system could easily be installed for the canal in Brussels. It could also be connected to an app or website that bundles together many aspects of swimming safety in one place: recent rainfall, water temperature, bacteria levels, cyanobacteria alerts, and even the real-time approach of large ships. We developed a prototype app called SWIM CAST together with students from the Multimedia and Creative Technology course at Erasmus Brussels University of Applied Sciences and Arts (EhB). The app proved to be a very intuitive way to present this information in a clear summary, while still allowing users to explore more details if they wish.

Parameters and information that could be shared via the future SWIM CAST app. And the beautiful poster made by the students of the EHB.

A germ was not detected during analysis

At first, this might seem like a criticism of the competence of laboratories. More likely, it refers to the risk of infection from germs that are not regularly tested for. As mentioned, E.coli and Enterococci act as indicator bacteria, chosen because detecting them suggests possible presence of other pathogens. This approach is central to the EU bathing water directive. However, it can also be sensible to run additional tests for other germs — for example, Salmonella. As far as we know, Salmonella has never been found in the southern part of the canal, though it has been detected elsewhere in Brussels.

Another potential health risk common in still or slow-moving inland waters is blooms of cyanobacteria, often called blue-green algae. These bacteria can produce toxins like microcystin, which can be harmful to humans and animals. Blooms usually happen under conditions of warm water, high sunlight and high nutrient levels (phosphorus and nitrates) — all of which are common in summer, exactly when people most want to swim.

Fortunately, blooms can often be identified visually, and there are simple tests to check for toxins, which can be verified further in a lab. As far as we know, there has not yet been a bloom in the southern part of the canal. In the future, with enough data, cyanobacteria bloom predictions could also be included in the kind of water safety app described earlier.

Bites or stings from animals or insects

This risk exists everywhere that people swim in natural water, including countless official urban swimming spots worldwide. As noted earlier, animals usually avoid contact with humans. Careful design and management of swimming infrastructure — for example, avoiding waste accumulation that might attract rats — can help keep this risk low.

Presence of heavy metals or other pollutants in the water

Inland waterways sometimes contain remnants of historical pollution: hydrocarbons (oil) or metals from past industry on the banks. Currently, we do not have data on such pollutants in the southern canal, but there has never been heavy industry in this part of the city.

Nevertheless, a comprehensive test for possible chemical pollutants should be carried out to better understand the situation. Unfortunately, there are no regulations for chemical contamination in recreational water. The only guideline comes from the World Health Organization (WHO), which recommends safety thresholds for recreational water roughly 20 times higher than those for drinking water. More information is available in chapter 8 of ▶︎ the WHO report.

The southern part of the canal in 1971 and 2024. Source: bruciel.brussels

Conclusion

We remain convinced that swimming directly in the southern part of the canal could become possible. Right now, it lacks the necessary infrastructure and systems to collect and communicate the information swimmers need to judge conditions — whether provided by an authority or checked by swimmers themselves. However, it would certainly be possible to organise test events to educate the public about the opportunities and challenges, rather than relying on a general ban which is often ignored, leaving swimmers alone without the information needed to make an informed decision.

Swimming carries risks, which differ from pool swimming and therefore need to be addressed differently. But there is no need to exaggerate these risks. Many outdoor swimming spots in similar urban settings show that safe swimming can be managed.

To move forward in Brussels, it will take politicians who recognise the potential and challenges, supporting the idea of swimming in the canal. It will also take a Port authority willing to redefine its role and experiment to make Brussels a more liveable city — using the major asset it controls: the canal.

In a ▶︎ 2022 interview with BRUZZ, the Port of Brussels’ then-new general director said:

“Swimming in the canal, why not? But let’s not forget that the harbour is an economic driver. Swimming on weekdays? I’m not sure that’s feasible. That said, it’s not impossible to go swimming in the canal. Let’s look at it without any taboos.”

— Gert Van der Eeken in BRUZZ, 30/05/2022

Based on this promising statement, we had hoped for more openness to work together on organising the BIG JUMP in 2025. We hope he will hear his own words — and help make swimming in the canal a reality in the near future.

FR

Bientôt …

NL

Binnenkort …

How about a SUNDAY SWIM in the canal?

EN