Seaport development and state boundaries: The Ems-Dollart region and the Scheldt-Antwerp region on Dutch frontiers

Ocean & Coastal Management 18 (1992) 197-213

Seaport Development and State Boundaries: The Ems-DoHart Region and the Scheldt-Antwerp Region on Dutch Frontiers W. Jan van den Bremen Department of Human and Economic Geography, Faculty of Spatial Sciences, Groningen University, P.O. Box 800, 9700 AV Groningen, The Netherlands (Paper first presented at the 26th IGU Congress, Sydney, 21-26 August, 1988)

ABSTRACT Certainty as well as uncertainty about the location of the state boundary can easily give rise to conflicts on regional development, concerning location of economic activities, provision of infrastructure facilities, and environmental management. The chances for discord, delaying or frustrating regional development, are relatively high in low-lying coastal areas with a high degree of marine indentation and estuarine rivers. The historical development of two different cases chosen from Dutch wet boundaries are described to show changes in levels and points of view with regard to problem solving. These regions are the Antwerp-Western Scheldt estuary region, an example of so-called successive waters, and the Ems-Dollart sound region of the boundary waters type. Special attention is given to thematic change from economics and infrastructure to environmental and more comprehensive problems. Different points of view and levels of government are shown: local, regional and national. In the actual situation, cooperation and collaboration are becoming more important under the influence of supranational institutions, such as the EC and Benelux, expressing themselves in regional initiatives.

INTRODUCTION ' B o u n d a r y issues continue to be a vital ingredient of politics b e y o n d E u r o p e and North A m e r i c a ' . 1 T h e y are also important in Western E u r o p e , for instance b e t w e e n the N e t h e r l a n d s and its two neighbouring 197 Ocean & Coastal Management 0964-5691/92/$05.00 © 1992 Elsevier Science Publishers Ltd, England. Printed in Northern Ireland

198

W. Jan oan den Bremen

states Belgium and Germany, there were and are boundary issues which are vital ingredients of politics, to paraphrase the quotation from Taylor. Between The Netherlands and its neighbouring countries these issues are connected with their 'wet' state boundaries: in rivers and bays. They are a 'natural' outcome of the typical coastal physical environment of all three countries: low-lying shallows with small coastal islands and estuarine rivers or rivers debouching into saline bays. The Netherlands and Belgium together are sometimes called the Low Countries for that reason. 'The sea and the rivers (Rhine, Meuse, Scheldt) determined the development of the Low Countries more than any external e v e n t . . , they broke the coastline, they transformed mainland into isles, and they also carried the sand and clay needed for creating new land'. 2 More important than these physical conditions are the human actors and societies who have manipulated and managed these conditions through the ages. A comprehensive review of this man-land interaction will be undertaken. Special attention will be given to changing human intentions at different levels of organization, which also means different levels of resolution or scale. In the 1960s fundamental changes in the emphasis of the relative priority of economic and ecological functions of these 'wet areas' evolved. In these areas port activity and basic manufacturing industry developed fast and on a large scale after the Second World War. From an accepted single-minded viewpoint of economic use and exploitation, opinion changed to that of safeguarding and conserving these areas as unique natural areas and important parts of our life-support system. Such environments were no longer conceived as free goods, which could be used with impunity. However, balanced economic growth and, especially in these two cases, political cooperation, were taken as keys to meeting the twin goals: a stable and healthy environment and a convenient standard of living. In the setting of these three neighbouring states the political boundary is a complicating factor in regional development. Certainty as well as uncertainty can be frustrating for economic and/or environmental development. The problem of the agreement about the correct position of the boundary line is discussed at the level of the (nation) state: government and parliament. The economic development and management of natural resources are, in most cases, activities of the local or regional society. In some cases, it is a common problem for the population of the borderland on both sides of the boundary. Pollution knows no political boundaries but has cross-border regional impacts. State boundary problems should no longer divide people, regions and nations, especially in relation to modern multi- or supra-national

199

State boundaries on Dutch frontiers

cooperation, and they should be of minor importance in the relations of regional development. And certainly not within the setting of the European Community (EC), the Benelux Economic Union (BEU), or the cross-border cooperation at the regional 'Ems-Dollart Euro region' level between the Dutch provinces Groningen and Drenthe, and the comparable administrative counties from the German 'Land' Lower Saxony. The two wet border and political boundary regions to be reviewed are: (1) the Ems-Dollart Region, in the northeast of the Netherlands and the northeast of Germany, with the German River Ems as its fluvial artery, and with the German ports Emden (5.0 million tons), Leer (0-9 million tons), Papenburg (0.5 million tons) and the Dutch ports Delfzijl/Eemshaven (5.8 million tons) (see Fig. 1); and (2) the Western Scheldt Region, in the southwest of the Netherlands, with the Belgian Scheldt river as its fluvial artery, and with the Belgian ports of Antwerp (94-2 million tons), Ghent (24-2 million tons) and the Dutch ports Terneuzen (8-8 million tons) and Flushing/Sloe (9.5 million tons) (see Fig. 2). /i//,,,.

wadden sea

North Sea

~t-J

~z

~/Y///////II

E~mshaven

G ERMANY

Emden

Delfzijl i

THE NETHERLANDS Lower Saxiona • Siochteren

0

10 km

///'////~, German supervision and management

- --

boundary seabed mining

~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~Dutch :~:~ supervision and management

.....

state boundary

Fig. 1.

M a p o f the E m s - D o l l a r t

Region.

200

W. Jan van den B r e m e n

T

~

'-~

....................

",,Y/

PROVINCE \ , \ F ushing

~ ;

.; it

F--...

! l,

0

i

Q'~-\b'

..

'5>ch

\" @/CI i

"-

~

10 km

I /,c-z,'

E

Fig, 2.

L

/~ ~

)~,'G

1_~

I

<~c~....

.

.

.

.

•

/

~&~7

I i

)

ee~o'.~%~,~,~J~ /

"<~\'\

"/OoXo~%z.:,,

'~

~/

....

~ "

M

.

\ )

7

i

.... . ({, ,

U

"~

' ' 1

Bend of Bath %%. -t --

-

f~.,

/•

~

Kreekrakll~

FLANDERS

t .- ~

......

-,.j~l~

.......

~=

--

"-Passag~°l~

.

'

~

.

B

"I

,,'

--~

. . . . . . . . . . . . . .

.-..%°

......

\,

D UT C H

i

- - "

~ ....

ZEELAND

j~3

e

~'-~"

....

~

j?

,',' J

Map of the Western Scheldt Region.

In the first region the 'uncertainty' about the location of the boundary has been a major point in the development of the region as a whole, environmental management included. In the second region the 'certainty' about boundary location has hampered the development of Belgian ports for a very long time. This asymmetric 'power' relation has been a negative factor in the development of the region concerning port and manufacturing activities as well as environmental quality.

H A R B O U R AND PORT D E V E L O P M E N T T H R O U G H T H E AGES IN T H E E M S - D O L L A R T A N D W E S T E R N S C H E L D T REGION The Ems-Dollart Region has as its axis the River Ems (Dutch: Eems) which empties in a wide indentation into the land, formed by the North Sea, called Dollart (Dutch: Dollard): a unique saline tidal environment within the Wadden Sea wetlands area. This is a coastal sea separated from the deep sea by islands and less deep water, with shallows and channels extending to the mainland coast. This region has always been on the periphery of the economic hub and population concentration of Western Europe to the south of it. Its main seaports, Emden (Germany) and Delfzijl (Holland), remained comparatively small in cargo throughput compared with other German and Dutch ports. They did not have the glorious history of the old German Hansa or the more centrally located Scheldt port cities. Emden's traditions as a port with

State boundaries on Dutch frontiers

201

staple rights go further back than those of Delfzijl/Eemshaven. E m d e n harbour was silted up in the 16th and 17th century, but revived thereafter. However, its development as a m o d e m port is quite recent. This revival is strongly connected with the economic expansion of the Ruhr mining and manufacturing region during the second half of the 19th century and the economic and political unity of the German lands, especially because of imports of iron ore from abroad. For that reason the Ems river was connected, in 1882, to this manufacturing and mining belt by dredging the D o r t m u n d - E m s Canal. From 1905 to 1913 the harbour and port area of Emden was extended nearer to the River Ems on the southern fringe of the old city. It was equipped with a large shipyard. Following the Second World War, more diversified activities developed. They included an oil refinery and a Volkswagen plant producing cars for export. The Dutch port of Delfzijl developed as a specialized manufacturing port only after the Second World War, in direct relation with the location of manufacturing industry based on regional deposits of salt (AKZO). Cheap energy from the Slochteren natural gas field in the hinterland was an opportunity for the aluminium ( A L D E L ) metal industry. As the Dutch part of the Western Scheldt Region could also take advantage of the cheap energy from this northern gas field, there was no exclusive location factor for that industry in the borders of the Ems-Dollart Region. To expand the port and manufacturing activity of the Delfzijl port area larger vessels with draughts of up to 70 000 dwt (deadweight tonnage: total load in tons of cargo, fuel, stores and ballast, which a ship can carry) had to be accommodated. However, this was impossible in the existing harbour of Delfzijl, because of its position on the shallow southern side of the Ems-Dollart estuary and the River Ems outlet (18 000 dwt). Therefore dredging of a new harbour, 20 km downstream, northwest of Delfzijl, called Eemshaven, was started in the early 1970s. It was completed in 1973. For many reasons, including the oil crises of 1973 and 1979 and the world recession of the 1980s, the development of Eemshaven as an industrial port has not been successful. Also, the basic functions of the port, the handling and storing of goods, have developed slowly. The Western Scheldt Region has a rich history of harbour and port city development from the Middle Ages onwards. In the 14th century, Ghent was a booming city of about 50 000 inhabitants and the biggest manufacturing town in north-western Europe. 2 In the 16th century, Antwerp accounted for some 100 000 inhabitants. This region remained in many respects at the centre of the sea-land interface of the economic heart of Western Europe. With the earliest developments in the Industrial Revolution of the European continent, which took place in

202

w . Jan van den B r e m e n

the southern part of Belgium (Liege to Mons) the ports of Antwerp and Ghent were once again stimulated in their economic development by the economic expansion in their Meuse-Sambre hinterlands. Success breeds success, and later many manufacturing activities, as well as transport, trade and banking activities located and expanded in the port regions. Antwerp developed as, what is today, the second port in throughput of the H a m b u r g - L e Havre range with the accent on dry cargo and general cargo and specialization in the handling of metal and metal products from its national and international hinterlands. This is unique in a situation in which all ports of the range try to present the same set of services to trade and transport with the emphasis on liquid or dry bulk. The Ghent port activities stabilized at a much lower level of throughput. The port specialized in dry bulk grain. The Dutch ports of Terneuzen (the port of Ghent on the Ghent-Terneuzen Canal 3) and Flushing remained at just under 10 million tons throughput. In both ports, extensions were developed outside of their original port area for the development of modern manufacturing industry, for the basic chemical industry. The same development took place in the Ems-Dollart Region. In the Western Scheldt Region there were also problems with regard to the accessibility of ports for the larger sea-going ships associated with the manufacturing of basic chemicals and metals. Ship draught has increased considerably during the last two and a half decades, especially for oil tankers and dry bulk carriers. The upper limit for ships is now at some 100 000 dwt. This is higher than in the Ems-Dollart Region with a limit of some 80 000 dwt (in the Eemshaven). The accessibility problems in the Western Scheldt Region are not only connected with draught, but also with the tidal range and the time available to reach the harbour of Antwerp or depart from there to the North Sea. The situation in the Western Scheldt Region is further complicated by the dense west-east movement of sea shipping interfering with the northsouth movement of inland shipping. Inland shipping from Antwerp and Terneuzen/Ghent to Rotterdam, the R h i n e - R u h r region and upstream to Switzerland is vital to the development of the region's port functions. However, there are not only requests concerning better general sailing conditions but also for the extension of the port areas for manufacturing, storing, loading and unloading activities on or near 'foreign' territory. BOUNDARIES AND RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT With regard to resource use and regional development Prescott 4 according to his own opinion and those of other specialists, divided

State boundaries on Dutch frontiers

203

rivers, including their estuaries into three types: (a) boundary waters; (b) tributaries of boundary waters; and (c) successive waters.

Boundary waters Type (a) waters are usable 'natural' boundaries; however, there is always a problem of the exact boundary line. Is it at the deepest point of the river (the stream filament principle in international law) or at one of the borders? How will this problem be solved when the river has no stable bed as is the case with meandering rivers downstream or in estuaries? The most practical solution is a reasonable agreement, especially about the use of the river, its water and maintenance, because this is what concerns the riparians, and not the problem of the state and its territorial rights and obligations. The best solution is one at the practical lower level of resolution together with one at the more fundamental or basic, higher resolution level of the state. This type of boundary situation exists in the E m s - D o l l a r t Region. A complete solution to the boundary problem has not been found. There is an agreement about parts of the boundary though not in the stream filament, and there are many practical solutions for the use of the water area. However, changing environmental, economic and social conditions does not lead directly to satisfactory practical solutions, because of discussions in principle about the state border between neighbouring states.

Tributaries of boundary waters The usability of rivers downstream for shipping, irrigation and as a drinking water resource depends on activities upstream, especially in relation to the tributaries. There should be water agreements about the guaranteed volume and quality of the water, at all times. This is not only a problem for downstream nations in arid or semi-arid conditions. In the Low Countries, the Netherlands and Belgium, the flow of a certain amount of fresh water from inland areas and states should be guaranteed to counter the flow of sea water from coastal areas. Because of the saline character of groundwater in the lower and most densely populated areas of these countries, sufficient fresh water of an acceptable quality should be available from sources outside the coastal area. It could be prepared there for human consumption, at high cost if necessary. We leave aside here the more general conditions of the water for downstream professional fishing and inland shipping. This transfer of fresh water is not a problem in the E m s - D o l l a r t Region, nor

204

W. Jan van den Bremen

in the Western Scheldt Region. However, in the Western Scheldt Region, after the separation of the Netherlands and Belgium in 1830 treaties were agreed (London 1939, 1942; Maastricht 1943) in which the throughput of water from the Belgian Meuse, originating in France flowing through the Wallonian part of Belgium to the Netherlands was regulated. This problem of water supply was not at that time associated with the so-called Scheldt question: the deepening of the Western Scheldt estuary for ships with higher draught. Overlooking the connection of Antwerp and Ghent to the North Sea, the connection for inland shipping from Antwerp to the Rhine river through the Dutch Delta-island Region (the so-called Scheldt-Rhine Canal) called for additional fresh water. Shipping locks were built between the saline Western Scheldt and the as yet brackish, but in the future fresh, water of the eastern part of the Eastern Scheldt to the north, with a spill over of saline water in the essentially fresh water reservoir of the Dutch Delta Region. This loss and pollution of fresh water had to be compensated for by the inflow of fresh water from the Belgian Meuse in Wallonia through the eastern part of the Netherlands to the Delta Region reservoir. So the Dutch made an indirect relation between the Western Scheldt estuary (sailing) problems and the eastern Meuse fresh water tributary problem. A fresh water request was connected with the Western Scheldt problem: the required deepening for better accessibility to the Antwerp port.

Successive waters

The Western Scheldt estuary and navigation channel is the last downstream part of the Belgian River Scheldt, on the banks of which the teeming port city of Antwerp has developed. This lower stretch was separated from the upper reaches, when in 1839 the Belgian state and the Netherlands became independent from each other. If the left bank of the Western Scheldt estuary had been added to Belgium then there would be the same situation as in the E m s - D o l l a r t estuary. Now it is an example of Prescott's successive river type, so the Dutch had to agree not to harm the shipping to and from Antwerp and make possible the adaptation of the navigation channel to the changing requirements of a prospering seaport. The Belgians had to look for an adequate inflow of fresh, preferably non-polluted, water from the River Scheldt.

State boundaries on Dutch frontiers

205

THE EMS-DOLLART ESTUARY AND SOUND The German River Ems discharges fresh water into the brackish Dollart sound. This sound originated with a transgression of the North Sea in 1413 and was enlarged during flood periods in the 14th and 15th centuries. The extension of the bay area was mostly in a southerly direction. From the 16th century until the first half of the 20th century new polders were dyked and the area of the bay was reduced. Apart from some shipping and harbour facilities, the most important function of the Ems estuary and the Dollart basin, for the Dutch side, was the possibility of drainage of fresh water from the inland polder regions and other parts of the north and later of polluted water from the starch and cardboard industry in Eastern Groningen. During the second half of the 19th century, the Ems Canal was built (1870-1876) for that purpose and for strengthening the position of Groningen and Delfzijl as sea harbours. The River Ems on the north side of the Dollart was important only to the cities of Germany: Emden, and further inland, Leer and Papenburg. A certain imbalance exists between the local or regional German interests and the local and regional Dutch interests with regard to the use of the area. German interest was directed at the River Ems and the channel to the North Sea in relation to the development of the northern borderlands in which the harbour of E m d e n was located. To the Dutch, however, the Dollart and Ems channels were especially vital for the drainage of the lowlying agricultural land at low tides in the north and west, for shipping from its ports to the North Sea and as a reserve (some 1000 ha) for polder development to reclaim new agricultural land. However, in terms of the official reactions of both central governments there was no obvious difference in interest. It is common knowledge that most boundaries in Western Europe, especially those between Germany and the Netherlands, had already been agreed on at the Treaty of Westphalia (Miinster in 1648). One problem remained unsolved: the precise boundary line in the E m s Dollart Region. The interest in the peripheral regions in the north of both countries was so low that the representatives of both sides left the situation undecided. However, the German side made it clear that they claimed nearly the whole estuary region on historical grounds: always having been in that area and proven by a kind of document in which the rights were given to the German riparians by some feudal lord (in 1453 or 1464). It took until the 19th century (1824) before, in the Treaty of Meppen, a decision was made about that part of the boundary from the land border to the north to the River Ems in the eastern part of the

206

W. Jan van den B r e m e n

estuary. The east-west boundary in the estuary and sound remained undecided. Both governments adhered to their own point of view about rights concerning the estuary. The G e r m a n boundary delimitation was south of the Dutch one, so both governments finally accepted a kind of undecided and disputable territory in between. After the First World War the Allied Powers offered a solution to the Dutch government in harmony with their point of view; but the Dutch refused, being neutral in that war. After the Second World War the Dutch realised they were in a situation in which they could get what they wanted. However, the Allied Powers disagreed and produced only one official statement. There should not be any boundary in the Ems channel or mouth. In 1957, both countries started their own deliberations on all boundary questions and decided in 1960 upon a treaty in which no boundary was designated for the E m s - D o l l a r t estuary. However, practical solutions were proposed about the m a n a g e m e n t of the estuary, on the basis of 'good neighbours' and designed to meet the c o m m o n and special interests of the partners. Most important was the partition of responsibility with regard to the maintenance and improvement of the navigability of the ship channels by dredging and other hydraulic activities. The proposal was that this should be executed on the basis of research and an agreed plan. Most of the action had to originate from the German riparians, who are responsible for the more important shipping channels on the northern flanks. In one sense, the Dutch government could be happy with this situation, because with a delimitation of rights in the middle of the Ems, they should have been responsible for half of the dredging, without full profits. In total, the German side dredges some 10 million m 3 of m u d from their area. The Dutch supervise less than one-third of the Ems channel and about three-quarters of the Dollart area. A n Ems Committee was set up consisting of specialists to coordinate c o m m o n activities and to discuss complaints and safeguard good communication and information. In 1962, a supplement was added to the treaty arranging the mutual rights concerning the exploration and exploitation of minerals in the estuary, the Wadden and North Sea. It is in this agreement that the concept of 'border area' was introduced, meaning the disputable territory. This 'border area' is divided in length, passing through the Ems channel to the North Seas, following the rules of the Treaty of the Continental Shelf of 1964. However, the dividing line of the 'border area' is not the state boundary, but a practical way to know ones rights and to prevent conflicts, as was intended in the Treaty of 1960. The partners in the Treaty of 1960 are obliged to take any measure which is necessary to keep the shipping channels for E m d e n and

State boundaries on Dutch frontiers

207

Delfzijl in a satisfactory condition and if possible improve them and cooperate when the other partner is developing similar measures. To lessen the burden of dredging, the German partner promoted and proposed a contrived shift of the bed of the River Ems to the south along the Geise shallows. If the old course of the Ems river, south of the port of Emden, could be closed by locks on both sides, with the help of existing dykes on both sides, the dredging could be reduced further. The port of E m d e n could also be extended with a new harbour and dock, to be called Dollart harbour (650 ha); and possibly new areas for manufacturing industries (600 ha) between the old bed and the new one on the Geise fiats that would be raised by the deposition of mud from the Dollart harbour. In the mid-1970s this was a reasonable plan for stimulating economic activity in the Ems-Dollart Region, thereby lessening regional unemployment. However, it was also the period in which it was argued whether all human effort should be directed to economic growth alone. There was doubt about the right approach to resource use; and there were problems with resource depletion (Club of Rome). Also, there was an increasing feeling of responsibility in society for the natural life of the world system. A great deal of multi-disciplinary research was promoted to cope with the redirection of the Ems river and related reconstruction. Both partners participated. Researchers concluded that 12% of the nature reserve, or 900 ha, would disappear; the number of carnivorous birds could be diminished sharply by the reduction of available food in the now less salty water environment; and the same would be the case with the salt pasture vegetation and so on. The nature conservationists on both sides were very unhappy concerning these changes, but good opportunities exist to reach many of their goals. They have been supported by the declaration of the European Year of the Environment in 1987. Although the expansion scheme was on the German side, the Dutch riparians also agreed, because they thought it would give a positive spin-off in trade and manufacturing. However, the European Commission (EC) stated recently that there cannot be an economic case for the development of a new harbour and area for manufacturing industry now. From the point of view of all agreements on environmental protection, on both a world and national scale there is a second (and for some a first) argument not to approve the development plan. In 1980, the Convention of Ramsar concerning waterbirds was signed and large areas of the Wadden Sea and the Dollart met the requirements of the convention. In 1981, it was followed by the Joint Declaration of the EC concerning bird protection. There was also a national regional planning decision about the Wadden Sea, citing it as one of the

208

W. Jan van den Bremen

important examples of a so-called 'wetland'. The Convention of Ramsar was followed in 1982 by the Convention of Berne concerned with the protection of plant and animal life; and the Convention of Bonn in 1983, relating to migrating wild animals. The discussion of hydraulic and economic changes in a disputed area has not only been complicated by environmental issues, but also by the effects of the economic recession and structural changes in the global trade and manufacturing activities, and also by the supra-national context of the EC with regard to infrastructural investments and subsidies by national government. The state governments disagree about the boundary line, but the populations in both adjoining regions cooperate and generally agree on economic and environmental issues. In 1990, it was decided to shelve the expansion plans and look for an inland solution for the necessary expansion of the port area and facilities for the E m d e n area. Within the E m s - D o l l a r t Region one is looking for more institutional methods of regional cooperation, especially between the port cities. Good examples can be found in the Western Scheldt Region, within the jurisdiction of the B e n e l u x - E u r o region Scheldt mouth.

THE WESTERN SCHELDT REGION The Scheldt originates in Northern France and is a typical rain-fed river system. Passing beyond the Belgian-Dutch border where the Western Scheldt estuary begins, it has a width of 2 km, and terminates with a width of 5 km past Flushing at the North Sea coast. From the 14th century marine transgressions altered the smaller estuary into a large estuary or sound. The northern land area of the Dutch province of Zeeland was divided into a group of islands. The Flemish border to the south had many inlets. To the north there were passages between the islands to the so-called Eastern Scheldt. It was then relatively easy for ships to pass through this northern Dutch archipelago from Antwerp or Ghent to the important inland sea port of Dordrecht in the Netherlands and further to the Rhinelands of Germany and Switzerland. However, in the second half of the 19th century, it had become very difficult for larger ships to cross the Kreekrak channel at normal tide. So, ships had to take increasingly circuitous routes to get to their northern destinations in the Netherlands and the Rhine area. Until the economic recession of the 1930s Belgium and the Netherlands lived apart. As trading and shipping nations, they had c o m m o n

State boundaries on Dutch frontiers

209

interests in the development of their coastal areas, but their ports were competitors of old. From the 16th century onwards both countries had a special position in the empire of Charles V. Antwerp and Amsterdam, respectively, were their main economic and political centres and sea ports. At the end of this prosperous century, conflicts with the Spanish king resulted in the northern part of the Low Countries, the Netherlands, separating from the Habsburg empire. However, the southern part stayed under the rule of the Spaniards. To lessen the strong-hold for the Spaniards in the south, the River Scheldt was closed and much of the prosperity of the Flemish port cities rapidly disappeared (1585). In 1648, with the treaty of Westphalia (Miinster), the conflict was ended officially. However, the Scheldt remained closed, so the southern part of the Low Countries, Belgium, could form a reliable barrier to possible French opponents. Moreover, Amsterdam had in the meantime taken the lead as the main trading hub of Western Europe and did not want the competition of the old Flemish ports and urban centres. In 1792, following the French Revolution, a French squadron sailed up the Western Scheldt estuary and declared the 'natural fight of free navigation'. After some 200 years the Western Scheldt was reopened, but the Napoleonic Continental Trade Regulation blocked trade with overseas countries. It was after the Congress of Vienna i n 1815 that shipping was declared free for all on the main rivers of Western Europe, crossing many boundaries e.g. the Rhine, Danube, Meuse and Scheldt. At that time the former parts of the Low Countries were reunited in one nation state so there was no river boundary problem with the Scheldt or the Meuse in the east. This reunion was short-lived and lasted for only some 15 years. The Netherland and Belgium were separated again in 1830, which was confirmed in 1839 at the Treaty of London, within the state boundaries of 1795, originally decided on at the Treaty of Westphalia (Miinster in 1648). Dutch Flanders to the south of the Western Scheldt was allocated to the Netherlands and the problem of successive waters was recreated. Thinking had changed after the Vienna Congress in 1815 and the French Revolution that had preceded it. Free trade flourished and the Industrial Revolution began to affect the Continent. It was impossible for the Dutch to close the Western Scheldt again and in that way block the access of Antwerp to the North Sea and the Rhine. Economic thinking prevailed, and the Dutch asked for duty on every ton of goods using the navigation channel from and to the sea. This was inconvenient to the Antwerp and Ghent shipping activity. Economic development and technical change followed. The heart of

210

W. Jan van den Bremen

this new development occurred in the R h i n e - R u h r area, where it was stimulated by the German economic and political unity attained in 1870. A railway was built from Flushing to the Rhine area (1863) and dams were constructed closing the navigation channels from the Western Scheldt to the Rhine. However, in the spirit of 'good neighbourship', a shipping canal with time-consuming locks was built at the same time to restore the broken Scheldt-Rhine link. There was only one real problem: over some 20 km of waterway there was a mix of sea-going and inland shipping. With the passing of time it became more dangerous. However, the situation had improved and a shorter connection for inland shipping for the much smaller ports of G h e n t Terneuzen with the Rhine river was established. Antwerp was also connected with the Rhine by rail (1879), the so-called 'Iron River'. After the Second World War an agreement over the Scheldt-Rhine Connection was reached and a modern canal (1975) was built to shorten the Antwerp-Rhine distance. Also by separating the inland and sea-going shipping, traffic became much safer. The canal was paid for by the Belgian state amounting to some 85% of all costs. Ownership could not be claimed on Dutch territory. Maintenance, servicing etc. should be paid for by the Dutch state. The problems of changing navigation channels, bigger ships and deeper draught and the obligations resulting from the different treaties (one of which is the Scheldt Regulation' 1842/43) compelled the authorities to regulate pilotage, beaconage, maintenance and even to improve or adapt the increasing trade and modern ship types. A bi-national Permanent Committee had to look after things, but had no right to manage these activities themselves. It is understandable that the Antwerp businessmen and port authorities thought that most measures to keep shipping more or less optimal were taken too late or not at all. On the other hand, the Dutch were in no hurry to meet all Belgian wishes without careful deliberation and research, because of the possible unexpected repercussions. Cooperation in Western Europe improved with the EEC, EGKS (European Community for Coal and Steel, integrated within the E E C after July 1967) and more directly the Benelux Economic Union. However, in 1960 all activities to improve the Western Scheldt situation failed. The Chambers of Commerce of Rotterdam, and later Amsterdam, and of Antwerp then tried to reach an agreement, especially about the Scheldt-Rhine Connection, partly because of the existing Rhine Shipping Premium for Belgian shippers to neutralize their natural disadvantage in comparison with Rotterdam. This agreement finally resulted in the treaty between both governments to construct the Scheldt-Rhine Connection (1963).

State boundaries on Dutch frontiers

211

In 1968, the dredging in the most seaward navigation channel (Het Scheur) had proceeded to accommodate a draught of 44 ft or 14.60 m. Now they had to proceed further inland, but this was proving difficult, because of the risks of damage to the Western Scheldt dykes, the polders behind them, and the repercussions for the unique natural environment, the Shallows of Saeftinghe (see Fig. 2). Here also, environmental protection took its toll in the final decision making about the improvement and extension plans. In 1975 the governments of both countries agreed to three so-called 'Water Treaties': (1) the Meuse Treaty, concerning the fresh water supply (1961) and, although a separate treaty, always connected by the Dutch with the implementation of the other treaties; (2) the Scheldt Treaty, concerning an improved shipping lane, preferably by cutting the ninety degree bend of the river at Bath; and (3) the Baalhoek Treaty, which was concerned with the opening of the new harbour extensions of Antwerp on the left bank and shortening the distance to the sea as requested in 1968. The last two treaties were connected. It appeared impossible for the Dutch to agree to the last two treaties undersigned by the governments. Times have changed since the 1970s and at short notice there is no need for the last plan. It is interesting to see that the projected Baalhoek Canal, which met with heavy resistance from the local, regional and provincial population and authorities in the Netherlands, was omitted from the provincial and municipal plans; but will almost certainly keep its place in the plans from the Dutch national government on shipping infrastructure. Deepening of the bed of the Western Scheldt appears to be the most acceptable solution, rather than cutting out the Western Scheldt bend near Bath. However, the Scheldt is not only one of the rivers with the highest shipping traffic in Western Europe; it is also one of the most polluted rivers, especially near the Antwerp port area. There is the problem of dumping dredging spoil from the upper part of the Western Scheldt, which should not take place in the lower, cleaner part of the estuary, but then where? In the event, the Dutch, backed by the Environmental Protection organizations, connect the deepening of the navigation channel with improvement of the water quality and the first of the so-called Water Treaties. With regard to water pollution as an external problem to be solved by Belgium, the Dutch are also backed by international rules, especially those of the EC (1975, 1976). In the meantime, considerable cooperation between the regional and national authorities on both sides of the boundary has been regenerated, for example in respect of planning the regional economic and

212

W. Jan van den Bremen

spatial structure, and multidisciplinary hydraulic and biological research. The subject was the problem of a successive River Scheldt and the connected development of the port city of Antwerp, especially its problem of accessibility to the downstream part of the river. Included also were aspects of the inland shipping Scheldt-Rhine Connection. The connection of the Belgian port city of Ghent and its canal through Dutch Flanders to the Western Scheldt at Terneuzen was mentioned. This is also a type of successive water situation influenced by the regime of the Western Scheldt in a political way. 3 Cooperation in this region is proceeding in an interesting way and should have special attention as an example of international and multifactor regional integration. This collaboration is developing under the auspices of the recent Benelux Convention on over the Border Territorial C o o p e r a t i o n ?

CONCLUDING REMARKS It has been demonstrated that boundary problems in aquatic environments can produce many difficulties with regard to resource development. Resource development should in that case be interpreted as development of location and of access roads and accessibility in general. This is, in the Old World, a problem of long standing, with changing issues and conditions. A comparison has been made of two situations in the Netherlands. The Ems-Dollart Region, a boundary water, is in a peripheral situation, with small ports, an interesting and valuable natural environment and no boundary decision made by the governments. Of relatively recent date is international cooperation across the border and the influence and political power of environmentalists, on both sides. Economic development was positively judged at the local and regional level. The Western Scheldt Region, a successive water, is in a central position in Western Europe with proven and intrinsic development potentialities. The cities on its borders were more important in the 16th century than they are now, especially Antwerp. The closing of their life artery to the sea nearly proved to be disastrous to the cities and their economic life. Their revival, after some 200 years, is astonishing, because cooperation with the Dutch was not optimal, to say the least. The situation has been rather complicated, because one of the incentives for development of a main port city was in the early industrial development of the French-speaking part of Belgium.

State boundaries on Dutch frontiers

213

Cleverly the Dutch combined their fresh water problem with the Western Scheldt Region problem, which had to be solved by the same French-speaking Belgians, albeit, without an obvious benefit to them: 'Divide et impera'? These conditions are missing in the E m s - D o l l a r t region. The relative decline of economic issues and the rise of environmental protection, research and m a n a g e m e n t supported by local as well as international institutions is comparable. A more integrated view of problems is obvious. More cooperation or better collaboration across the borders, away from a narrow local or national point of view or interest is discernible. The pressure of economic development with its disadvantageous effects is less obvious in the E m s - D o l l a r t region at the local and regional level. At a distance, the central governments keep an eye on sovereignty, which has not changed since 1648. The viewpoints of the riparians have changed far more and these vary from place to place.

REFERENCES 1. Taylor, P. J., Political Geography: World-economy, Nation-state and Locality. Longman, London, 1985. 2. Kossmann, E. H., The L o w Countries 1780-1940. Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1978. 3. Charlier, J., Gand-Terneuzen: un complexe portuaire transnational ~ la charni6re du Delta d'Or. J. Mar. Marchande, Special Yearbk, (1985) p. 53-92. 4. Prescott, J. R. V., Political Frontiers and Boundaries. Allen & Unwin, London, 1987. 5. 21~mes Journ6es d'Etude Portuaires Benelux ~ Gand (18/19 Avril 1991) Coop6ration portuaires transfrontali~re, castype: Gand-Terneuzen, Expos6s. Union Economique Benelux/GIBET.

BIBLIOGRAPHY Pounds, N. J. G. Poh'tical Geography. McGraw Hill, New York, 1963. Prescott, J. R. V. The Geography of Frontiers and Boundaries. Hutchinson, London. 1965. Prescott, J. R. V. Boundaries and Frontiers. Croom Helm, London, 1978. Prescott, J. R. V. The Marine Political Boundaries of the World. Methuen, London, 1985. United Nations. The Law of the Sea: UN Conventions on the Law of the Sea. United Nations Secretariat, New York, 1983.