Difference between revisions of "Multilateral Negotiations over the Scheldt River Estuary: Transforming Centuries of Deadlock into Productive Multiparty Negotiations?"
| Line 12: | Line 12: | ||
|Water Project= | |Water Project= | ||
|Agreement= | |Agreement= | ||
| − | |REP Framework==== History === | + | |REP Framework=== Background == |
| + | |||
| + | === History === | ||
The Scheldt Basin has been characterized by centuries of conflict and contention, especially over the use of its waterways and sea access. The estuary itself and the ports to which it provided sea access were both a hub of activity during the Roman, Spanish, and French empires, and access through the estuary was often contested and sometimes restricted as a tactical blow in transboundary conflicts in the area. The latter half of the 20th century saw the decline of what had been largely “hostile, securitized relations” (Warner and van Buuren 2009) and began a period of more productive, if still conflictual, relations among the neighboring parties. | The Scheldt Basin has been characterized by centuries of conflict and contention, especially over the use of its waterways and sea access. The estuary itself and the ports to which it provided sea access were both a hub of activity during the Roman, Spanish, and French empires, and access through the estuary was often contested and sometimes restricted as a tactical blow in transboundary conflicts in the area. The latter half of the 20th century saw the decline of what had been largely “hostile, securitized relations” (Warner and van Buuren 2009) and began a period of more productive, if still conflictual, relations among the neighboring parties. | ||
| Line 67: | Line 69: | ||
{{!}}- | {{!}}- | ||
{{!}} Construction of a high-speed rail project between Antwerp and Amsterdam (added as part of a negotiating package) {{!}}{{!}} Netherlands | {{!}} Construction of a high-speed rail project between Antwerp and Amsterdam (added as part of a negotiating package) {{!}}{{!}} Netherlands | ||
| + | {{!}}} | ||
| + | |||
| + | == Timeline of Conflict and Phases of Negotiation == | ||
| + | |||
| + | Between 1967 and 1997 alone, 14 rounds of contentious negotiation took place, primarily on two broad issues of international significance: 1) sea access for the Antwerp port, and 2) water, particularly its quantity and quality, as well as sediment pollution issues. The following timeline outlines key events in the negotiations during this period and in the negotiating developments in the years immediately afterward. | ||
| + | |||
| + | {{{!}} class="wikitable" | ||
| + | {{!}}- | ||
| + | ! Year !! Events | ||
| + | {{!}}- | ||
| + | {{!}} 1967 {{!}}{{!}} Belgium proposes the initiation of negotiations with Netherlands over several development projects to improve transit access for Antwerp Port: | ||
| + | * Construction of Baalhoek and Bath canals (on Dutch territory) to improve access from Antwerp harbors to the Western Scheldt | ||
| + | |||
| + | The Dutch are disincentivized to cooperate due to the risk of decreased competitiveness of their Rotterdam Port resulting from improved sea access for Antwerp Port. The Dutch link Belgium’s request to their own request of improved quantity and quality of flow from Meuse River, and improvement of water quality in the Scheldt. The two parties negotiate on these terms. | ||
| + | |||
| + | {{!}}- | ||
| + | {{!}} 1970-1975 {{!}}{{!}} Major dredging takes place in the estuary. | ||
| + | {{!}}- | ||
| + | {{!}} 1975 {{!}}{{!}} The Belgian-Dutch Water Convention is drafted and includes agreements on all five issues under negotiation (including construction of canals, and increases in water quantity and quality from Meuse and Scheldt Rivers.) | ||
| + | |||
| + | At eleventh hour, Wallonia blocks the draft Water Convention agreement (the Belgian federalization is at that time in process, thus transferring more power to regions), due to an unfavorable cost-benefit calculus: | ||
| + | * Walloon would garner little benefit from agreement, as the increased access to Antwerp Port is more of a benefit to Brussels Capital and especially Flanders. | ||
| + | * As an upstream party, Walloon would bear heavy responsibility for remediation of both rivers. It would also be responsible for holding and developing water storage reservoirs and infrastructure to guarantee minimum flows to the Netherlands from the Meuse River. | ||
| + | * Walloon is concerned over loss of autonomy on Meuse River issues, and asks to bring France into negotiations. | ||
| + | |||
| + | Beginning of 10-year deadlock on negotiations | ||
| + | |||
| + | {{!}}- | ||
| + | {{!}} Example {{!}}{{!}} Example | ||
| + | {{!}}- | ||
| + | {{!}} Example {{!}}{{!}} Example | ||
| + | {{!}}- | ||
| + | {{!}} Example {{!}}{{!}} Example | ||
| + | {{!}}- | ||
| + | {{!}} Example {{!}}{{!}} Example | ||
| + | {{!}}- | ||
| + | {{!}} Example {{!}}{{!}} Example | ||
| + | {{!}}- | ||
| + | {{!}} Example {{!}}{{!}} Example | ||
| + | {{!}}- | ||
| + | {{!}} Example {{!}}{{!}} Example | ||
| + | {{!}}- | ||
| + | {{!}} Example {{!}}{{!}} Example | ||
| + | {{!}}- | ||
| + | {{!}} Example {{!}}{{!}} Example | ||
| + | {{!}}- | ||
| + | {{!}} Example {{!}}{{!}} Example | ||
{{!}}} | {{!}}} | ||
|Summary=The Scheldt River rises in France, flows through the three regions of Belgium—Wallonia, Brussels Capital, and Flanders—and empties into the North Sea in the Netherlands. While the entire region, and especially the waterways and strategic sea access that the Scheldt River provides, have been a source of conflict and tension in the region for centuries, this case will focus primarily on negotiations over the Western Scheldt Estuary specifically, beginning in the 1960s at the start of a period of more productive relations among the neighboring parties, and describe and later analyze the interactions between them through the early 2000s. Information about the Basin is provided to give context to this analysis. | |Summary=The Scheldt River rises in France, flows through the three regions of Belgium—Wallonia, Brussels Capital, and Flanders—and empties into the North Sea in the Netherlands. While the entire region, and especially the waterways and strategic sea access that the Scheldt River provides, have been a source of conflict and tension in the region for centuries, this case will focus primarily on negotiations over the Western Scheldt Estuary specifically, beginning in the 1960s at the start of a period of more productive relations among the neighboring parties, and describe and later analyze the interactions between them through the early 2000s. Information about the Basin is provided to give context to this analysis. | ||
Revision as of 18:03, 22 May 2014
| Geolocation: | 51° 25' 4.9836", 3° 39' 30.4102" |
|---|---|
| Total Population | 12.812,800,000 millionmillion |
| Total Area | 2211622,116 km² 8,538.988 mi² km2 |
| Climate Descriptors | temperate |
| Predominent Land Use Descriptors | agricultural- cropland and pasture, industrial use, urban- high density |
| Important Uses of Water | Agriculture or Irrigation, Domestic/Urban Supply, Industry - non-consumptive use, Other Ecological Services |
Contents
Summary
The Scheldt River rises in France, flows through the three regions of Belgium—Wallonia, Brussels Capital, and Flanders—and empties into the North Sea in the Netherlands. While the entire region, and especially the waterways and strategic sea access that the Scheldt River provides, have been a source of conflict and tension in the region for centuries, this case will focus primarily on negotiations over the Western Scheldt Estuary specifically, beginning in the 1960s at the start of a period of more productive relations among the neighboring parties, and describe and later analyze the interactions between them through the early 2000s. Information about the Basin is provided to give context to this analysis.
Negotiations over water resources, ecology and nature preservation, and transit/sea access issues, among others, were conducted over more than 40 years (some are ongoing), principally between the Netherlands and Belgium, with other stakeholders involved to varying degrees at different points. Adding layers of complexity to these negotiations were the federalization process occurring in Belgium, which changed the stakeholders who had a seat at the table mid-way through negotiations, and the evolving requirements governing water resource management and ecosystem conservation, stemming from the European Water Framework Directive and from regulations from the European Commission such as the Habitats and Birds Directives (European Commission, n.d.) and from the UN Economic Commission for Europe.
Natural, Historic, Economic, Regional, and Political Framework
Background
History
The Scheldt Basin has been characterized by centuries of conflict and contention, especially over the use of its waterways and sea access. The estuary itself and the ports to which it provided sea access were both a hub of activity during the Roman, Spanish, and French empires, and access through the estuary was often contested and sometimes restricted as a tactical blow in transboundary conflicts in the area. The latter half of the 20th century saw the decline of what had been largely “hostile, securitized relations” (Warner and van Buuren 2009) and began a period of more productive, if still conflictual, relations among the neighboring parties.
Geography
The total surface Scheldt River Basin is 22,116 km²; the surface of the Scheldt River Basin District (which includes other minor river basins) is 36,416 km² (International Scheldt Commission). The Scheldt River rises in the Saint-Quentin plateau of France and travels through the Belgian regions of Wallonia, Brussels Capital, and Flanders, and empties into the North Sea in the Netherlands through the Western Scheldt Estuary (other branches of the river have been dammed.) It is 350 km long, including a large 160 km-long estuary, which at its mouth in the Netherlands is 5 km wide. This estuary provides the only sea access for Port of Antwerp, which is one of Europe’s largest ports. Many human-made channels, built to improve navigation in the Scheldt and to connect it to neighboring bodies of water, crisscross the basin. The estuary has been deepened several times over the years to accommodate larger ships transit to and from the Antwerp Port.
Ecology
The Western Scheldt’s wide and long estuary gives rise to some uncommon ecological characteristics. It has a gradual transition from fresh to saltwater, contains a large freshwater tidal area, and a 35-km2 brackish tidal area—the largest in all of Europe (Commission Internationale de l’Escaut International Scheldencommissie and Scaldit). Its ecology provides a home for unique flora and fauna, and is a wintering area for large populations of migratory birds (Warner and van Buuren 2009). The Scheldt’s annual discharge is approximately 10 million m3, but because of the effects of the tide, about 1 billion m3 enters and exits the estuary daily (International Scheldt Commission).
13% of the Scheldt district area is highly urbanized and built-up. 61% of the total area is devoted to agriculture (Commission Internationale de l’Escaut International Scheldencommissie and Scaldit).
Economic and Political Factors
The area of the Scheldt basin is densely populated, containing 12.8 million inhabitants. At 353 inhabitants/km2, it is about three times as densely populated as the European average. Over 40% of that total population is in the Flemish region, 35% in France, less than 10% each in the Brussels Capital Region and Wallonia, and finally, 4% in the Netherlands (ibid).
The basin is highly industrialized. The most common industries are food and metallurgy, but the chemical and textile sectors are also major players. As noted above, the majority of the land use in the basin is devoted to agriculture—mostly livestock farming in the north, and crop farming in the south. Additionally, industry includes significant tourism activities all along the basin, but especially in the more built-up Flemish region.
Governance Context
During the course of the most intensive negotiations between Belgium and the Netherlands (which will be outlined in detail below), the Belgian government was undergoing a significant federalization reform, which transferred incrementally more autonomy and governing powers to the regions of Belgium (Portal Belgian Government, n.d.). The most significant milestone of these reforms occurred in 1992-1993, at which point certain treaty-making authorities were transferred directly to the governments of the regions of Belgium, which allowed them to broker deals directly with other states—in this case, the Netherlands (Meijerink 1999.)
There was also tension between the national and provincial levels of government in the Netherlands: The province of Zeeland, whose territory is divided by and contains most of the two branches of the Scheldt Estuary, had in 1953 experienced a sea flood which killed approximately 2000 people in the province. After that point, a network of dykes and dams were constructed to protect Zeeland against even extreme flooding, and the concept of breaching those protections intentionally was regarded as culturally unacceptable in the region. Zeeland was therefore quite wary of returning agricultural land to the sea/estuary through flooding to “make space for the river”, an element of Dutch flood management that was incorporated into the deepening negotiations.
Issues and Stakeholders
The following parties form the major stakeholders of the Western Scheldt Estuary negotiations:
- The Netherlands
- Zeeland (province of the Netherlands)
- Belgium
- Flanders (region of Belgium)
- Brussels Capital (region of Belgium)
- Walloon (region of Belgium)
- France
- Environmental NGOs and groups
- Agricultural industry and farmers
The following interests were the primary factors in negotiations in the Estuary:
| Interests: | Parties: |
|---|---|
| Increased access for transit of cargo ships to and from Port of Antwerp (including deepening of Western Scheldt channels, improving navigability of Western Scheldt by reducing tight bends, and construction of additional channels to access sea via Scheldt) | Belgium, especially region of Flanders |
| Improvement and management of water quality in Scheldt River, including reduction of sediment pollution and water contamination | Netherlands, Environmental NGOs, (European Commission) |
| Estuarine rehabilitation; nature restoration (including maintaining environment to European Commission standards) | Netherlands, Environmental NGOs, (European Commission) |
| Regional autonomy and avoidance of infrastructural burdens | Belgian regions, especially Wallonia |
| Water quality and guaranteed flows from the Meuse River (major drinking water source for the Netherlands) (added as part of a negotiating package) | Netherlands |
| Preservation of land in Zeeland from being intentionally flooded and submerged into estuary | Zeeland, agriculture industry, farmers in Zeeland |
| Construction of a high-speed rail project between Antwerp and Amsterdam (added as part of a negotiating package) | Netherlands |
Timeline of Conflict and Phases of Negotiation
Between 1967 and 1997 alone, 14 rounds of contentious negotiation took place, primarily on two broad issues of international significance: 1) sea access for the Antwerp port, and 2) water, particularly its quantity and quality, as well as sediment pollution issues. The following timeline outlines key events in the negotiations during this period and in the negotiating developments in the years immediately afterward.
| Year | Events |
|---|---|
| 1967 | Belgium proposes the initiation of negotiations with Netherlands over several development projects to improve transit access for Antwerp Port:
The Dutch are disincentivized to cooperate due to the risk of decreased competitiveness of their Rotterdam Port resulting from improved sea access for Antwerp Port. The Dutch link Belgium’s request to their own request of improved quantity and quality of flow from Meuse River, and improvement of water quality in the Scheldt. The two parties negotiate on these terms. |
| 1970-1975 | Major dredging takes place in the estuary. |
| 1975 | The Belgian-Dutch Water Convention is drafted and includes agreements on all five issues under negotiation (including construction of canals, and increases in water quantity and quality from Meuse and Scheldt Rivers.)
At eleventh hour, Wallonia blocks the draft Water Convention agreement (the Belgian federalization is at that time in process, thus transferring more power to regions), due to an unfavorable cost-benefit calculus:
Beginning of 10-year deadlock on negotiations |
| Example | Example |
| Example | Example |
| Example | Example |
| Example | Example |
| Example | Example |
| Example | Example |
| Example | Example |
| Example | Example |
| Example | Example |
| Example | Example |
Analysis, Synthesis, and Insight
Individuals may add their own Analysis, Synthesis, and Insight (ASI) to a case. ASI sub-articles are protected, so that each contributor retains authorship and control of their own content. Edit the case to add your own ASI.
Learn moreASI:Reflection on Challenges and Lessons Learned in Negotiations over the Western Scheldt Estuary
Contributed by: Elizabeth Cooper (last edit: 27 May 2014)
