The ESDP From A Dutch Point Of View Derek Martin
	Session:European Spatial Planning (March 11, 4:00pm)

Abstract: During the ‘90’s, the Netherlands has played a significant role in developing European spatial planning and its major product the European Spatial Development Perspective (ESDP). This paper identifies the main political and planning factors contributing to this positive attitude. It looks then at the relevance of the achievements of European spatial planning up till now to present-day national planning policies in the Netherlands. Introduction From Faludi’s description of the ESDP process from 1989 to the present day, the reader may have noticed a relatively active participation of the Dutch. The Dutch role in the process can probably best be described as a sort of modest omnipresence. The first initiative in 1988 to develop spatial development within European Community policies was largely a French/Dutch initiative. The initiative to set up a European Committee on Spatial Development was taken under the Dutch Presidency of the EU in 1991. The Dutch seconded experts to help the European Commission develop spatial development policy from 1990-93 and to assist the Germans in producing the ESDP forerunner at Leipzig in 1994. Their Presidency in 1997 was used to get the all-important first draft produced in 1997 to which Dutch experts made a considerable writing contribution. It is then pertinent to ask what lay at the roots of Dutch interest. Why was there so much willingness to invest time, personnel capacity and effort in developing spatial planning at the European level and in particular its major focus in the 90’s: the ESDP? Why the Dutch interest in Europe? The fundamental reason, of course, has to be geographical. The Netherlands is a small country (16,000 sq. miles) with the highest population density of any country in Europe (1,000 per sq. mile) centrally located at the mouth of one of the largest river basins (Rhine, Meuse and Scheldt) in Europe. A highly effective and detailed land use planning system is therefore essential for the very functioning of the country. Its economy, trade and people are therefore very internationally orientated. Its political culture is open, direct, relatively non-nationalistic and directed towards co-operation and consensus. Its spatial organization is highly influenced by external developments and major spatial development decisions taken by its surrounding countries. It is then no wonder that the interest in establishing and developing co-operation in practical planning matters with its neighbors was always in advance of almost all the other European countries, and dates from the 70’s when a number of European countries had still not really developed their planning systems. With the build-up to the Single European Market in the second half of the ‘80’s, it was becoming evident that there would be an increasing influence of Community policies, both directly and indirectly, on the Dutch territory. The influence of European agricultural policy on rural areas in the Netherlands was already becoming evident, both visibly (e.g. changing landscapes, increasing farm size) and invisibly (e.g. polluted ground water). The Single Market would bring with it more far-reaching policies in the fields of environment, transport and infrastructure and regional economic development, all of which could potentially affect the locational patterns of activity in this small, densely-populated delta land. There was a desire, amongst planners at least, to develop: more awareness for the spatial implications of European sector policies, a more integrated and strategic spatial planning approach to European regional policies, a more practical and policy-orientated form of cross-border and transnational co-operation between the countries of the European Community. So when European regional economic policy was radically overhauled in 1988 and offered an opening to evolve into a more strategic, forward-looking, integral and spatially orientated policy field, the Netherlands got in on the act. It worked both at developing this more holistic approach and at lobbying for more EU finance for cross-border and transnational co-operation in the field of spatial planning. To understand this general picture better, the two basic factors determining this essentially positive attitude to the ESDP and what it stands for, need to be looked at more closely. They are politics and planning. Political factors The Netherlands has always been one of the most enthusiastic founding fathers of the EU. Its main motive for supporting a deeper European co-operation and an increasing European influence in its internal affairs has, however, always been more pragmatic than idealistic, more economically than politically motivated. The Netherlands is too small to play European power politics like France and the UK and is culturally just not equipped to do so. Its cultural identity as (part of) a European region, unlike more peripheral parts of Europe such as Scandinavia, Iberia or Greece, does not particularly stand out and can best be described as rather ‘indistinguishable central Northwest European’. The sovereignty issue is therefore not a particularly important political issue. New areas of Community policy are quite easily accepted if their usefulness and economic, social or environmental advantages are seen to be valid. Whereas other Member States have a quite rigid way of instructing their civil servants in negotiations on formulating common European policies, to ensure they follow the government’s general foreign policy lines, the Dutch are a little more flexible. They tend to allow the sector Departments to negotiate in their own interests. In the making of the ESDP, the Dutch planners involved therefore had little trouble in this area. No-body from the Dutch "Prime Ministers Office" or "State Department" or "Treasury" really interfered with the ESDP process. It was only when the first draft ESDP appeared under the Dutch Presidency in 1997 that other Departments and Ministers started to get involved. And then it was not these "top of the range" generalist Departments that objected, it was more the Departments involved in spatial development, such as agriculture, transport and economic affairs, that did not like the spatial planners interfering with their own specific areas of European policy formulation. They thought that the spatial planners may compromise "their" interests, such as the (very strong) position of Dutch ports in the European territory. In addition, Dutch politics are consensus politics. There is no conservative-liberal polarization, no "them or us" mentality. In Dutch politics, policies in general do not change radically from coalition government to coalition government, spatial planning policies probably least of all. There is a job to be done to fit 16 million people with a high standard of living in an environmentally responsible way into 16.000 sq. miles of territory. The fundamental vision on how to do that does not really change with a change of government, but does evolve with changing circumstances. And the really quite rapid internationalization of spatial development issues within Europe has been one of the most important changing circumstances in the ‘90’s. Economic globalization, new transport, information and communication technologies, the completion of the Economic and Monetary Union, the enlargement of the European Union with the countries of Central and Eastern Europe etc. are all reinforcing the trend towards the further ‘spatial’ breakdown of national borders. During this decade, planners in the Netherlands have had to try to ensure that planning policies adapt to these new demands of internationalization. One aim has been to try and increase understanding amongst the European countries on spatial planning issues. Another has been to try and develop a spatial dimension to European Community policies having an impact on spatial development. Working together with the other Member States and the European institutions1 in the ESDP process was an effective way to achieve these aims. Planning factors Three fundamental traditions of Dutch planning have been favorable to the positive attitude towards developing a European dimension to the discipline. Firstly, in the Netherlands, spatial and land-use planning is accepted as something unavoidable, with absolute TINA-status: There Is No Alternative. God created the world, but the Dutch created the Netherlands. The fight against the sea and flooding from rivers has created a tradition of regulation. The Netherlands is a regulated country. There is a broad acceptance of a plan-based planning system, with quite far-reaching and influential planning laws. At the same time, Dutch pragmatism and commercial instincts ensure that this regulated system is implemented with sufficient flexibility to ensure enough room to accommodate the dynamics of modern society. The Single Market, the emergence of a closer European Union, the new economy, the present strong liberal, free-market dominance has not changed this basic attitude. If, for a good spatial development, there is a need to regulate certain things at the European level, then the general attitude in the Netherlands is: so be it, but let’s be pragmatic and flexible. Secondly, there has always been a tradition of planning at all government levels: national, regional and local. All levels of administration play their own quasi-independent role in a fully integrated planning system, where the accent is on spatial strategy and vision at the national level and on legally-binding land-use regulation at the local level. Through the years there have been a mass of national planning reports, sector plans, outline plans, regional plans, structure plans, local land use plans etc. all mixing in together. The ESDP, a non-binding "vision" of European, transnational and cross-border spatial development, fits logically into this system. Thirdly, national and regional planning in the Netherlands has always had a neutral status, basically just coordinating the policies of the spending departments from a holistic and spatially integrated view of development, which is then translated into specific land use at the local level. So as well as one of acceptance and recognition as being necessary, the attitude to planning has always been one devoid of power. The spending departments — transport, agriculture, economic investments, nature protection etc. — have always had the political and financial power in things spatial. The planners’ task was just to put things, necessarily, in a spatial perspective. So too at the European level. The sector specialists accepted the ESDP because it gave them new insights and they thought that it would have no real influence on policies affecting their neck of the woods. It was just another non-binding, inspirational holistic overview of European spatial development issues that would have no real impact on European financial support or policies. The changing position of planning However, recently, especially towards the end of the ESDP process, things have been changing, and really quite rapidly. The economic boom of the 90’s, the growing population and the need for sound environmental management have reinforced both the status of, and the attitudes to, planning in the Netherlands. Spatial planning is a hot issue now, high on the political agenda, not just a rather abstract policy of coordination of policies involving land-use functions. It is no longer seen as restrictive, but also as development orientated. The present increased political status of planning has meant a desire to introduce planning policies with more direct influence and more money. This approach fits in far better with European polices, where the emphasis lies traditionally more on the level of financial support than on policy substance. The characteristics of planning policy implementation within the Netherlands and at the European level are, as it were, converging. At the same time, there is in the Netherlands an almost sub-conscious realization and acceptance that the national frontiers have now disappeared economically, hardly exist socially and are becoming weaker and weaker politically. It is therefore no wonder that, from the point of view of spatial development and planning, national borders are also no longer of real significance. In the new - 5th - national planning report just issued at the beginning of 2001, there are no national borders on the maps. National planning policies are now not so much about spatial development in the Netherlands, but in "that part of Europe called the Netherlands". The recent national planning report has identified a number of planning issues that have to be dealt with at the cross-border, transnational and European level: Water management at the transnational river basin level Transnational infrastructure corridor development and logistical networks Cross-border ecological infrastructure networks, open spaces and major nature reservations of European significance, such as the Wadden Sea The international development of the "Randstad-Holland" Cross-border urban networks Cooperation between ports and airports Cross-border coastal zone management and spatial planning in the North Sea These issues have to be dealt with both bilaterally with our neighboring countries and, where possible, by developing and exploiting European Community policies. The ESDP has definitely provided a springboard to do this. While spatial and land-use planning policies have been unconditionally accepted within the Netherlands for well over 30 years, their international dimension is now at last just starting to become politically recognized. What the Dutch have achieved with the ESDP process So it is fair to conclude that considerable progress has been made towards achieving the goals that the Dutch have always had in mind throughout the whole ESDP process. Firstly, there is a common European document on spatial development; the ESDP process has brought together very divergent planning traditions. Secondly, there is, as a direct result of the ESDP process, a Community program entitled INTERREG, which in the period 2000-2006 will involve almost $10 billion to promote a balanced and sustainable development of the Community’s territory by encouraging cross-border, transnational and interregional co-operation between the Member States. Thirdly, there is a growing awareness within the European institutions of the need to pay due consideration to the spatial dimension of European Community sector policies, especially rural development, infrastructure and aspects of environmental policy such as nature protection and water management. Fourthly, as a direct result of the ESDP, the more strategic spatial approach to regional economic policies is beginning to take root within the European institutions. This "European spatial heritage" will enable Dutch planners to develop common planning policies with their neighboring countries to deal with those issues of spatial development mentioned above that can no longer be dealt with solely within the national borders of the Netherlands. The link between national spatial planning policies and European spatial development is, as far as the Dutch are concerned, now well and truly established. Conclusions on the future This last statement is probably the most important conclusion of the process up until now. There is, however, still a lot to achieve. Spatial planning at the European level has only just begun but its further development is, on the face of things, almost inevitable. Economic globalization, the extension of the Economic Union into a Monetary Union (the Euro) and the growing interdependence of the national economies within Europe are major factors that point to this. In addition, the political desire to bring the (far less wealthy) Central and Eastern European countries into the democratic European family will increase the need for a broad spatial development strategy for Europe. However, it will take some time, and maybe even a crisis, before politicians realize this, given the strength still of national sentiments in the majority of European countries. Also, the further development of European spatial development policies will probably only really succeed if there is a shift in emphasis in European policy from purely financial support to actual policy substance (i.e. what is done with that financial support). At the moment, with the budgetary consequences of admitting to the Union a considerable number of far less-developed countries high on the agenda, this is a long way off. At the European level planning will definitely remain politics. References Martin D. & ten Velden H: "Extra options as optional extra’s" in Built Environment, Vol. 23, Nr. 4, 1997. Ministry of Housing, Spatial Planning and the Environment: "Ruimte maken, ruimte delen", The Hague, January 2001. (This is the 5th National Planning Report which will have been translated into English in the course of March 2001) National Spatial Planning Agency: "Spatial Perspectives in Europe", The Hague, Netherlands, January 2000 Note: This is a general term for the European Commission, European Parliament, European Court of Justice, Committee of the Regions and Social & Economic Committee. [back] Author and Copyright Information Copyright 2001 by Author Derek Martin is presently Head of International Affairs Division at the Dutch National Spatial Planning Agency in The Hague. He has been involved all his 20-years+ planning career in cross-border, transnational and European planning, both in the Agency and in the European Commission. He has worked on the spatial aspects of European environment policy and on setting up spatial planning within European regional policy, leading to his involvement in both the negotiating and the writing process of the ESDP. Derek Martin Head of International Affairs National Spatial Planning Agency P.O. Box 30940 2500 GX The Hague Netherlands Tel: +31-70-339-3116 Fax: +31-70-339-1180 E-mail: derek.martin@bo.rpd.minvrom.nl