A possibility came into view of the lookout in 1980, when Gotthilf Hempel, direc-tor of the newly established Alfred Wegener Institute for Polar Research (AWI) in Bremerhaven, West Germany, told Zijlstra that a Dutch scientist would be welcome on board an upcoming expedition to Antarctic waters. Besides
5 Archives KNAW.
tending a friendly gesture - Hempel and Zijlstra knew each other quite well; in previous jobs they both had worked on herring in the North Sea - Hempel also hoped to arouse interest among the Dutch scientific community to renew in-volvement in Antarctic research. He assumed that inin-volvement by the Nether-lands would be science-oriented and he thought that in the upcoming renewal of the Antarctic Treaty, scientific matters should be decisive.
Hempel´s invitation was passed on to me and I was eager to accept. My re-search subject was the silica cycle (in which the Southern Ocean plays a key role) and I was also interested in the concentration of aluminium in sea water.
For this element a new sensitive method had become available and virtually nothing was known about Aluminium in the Southern Ocean.
The voyage to the western Weddell Sea with the research vessel Meteor and visits to the British base at Signy Island and the Argentine base Esperanza were an unforgettable experience. The lectures on board, organized by Hempel as chief scientist and as director of the AWI, gave me a quick introduction to the fascinating possibilities of the southern part of the world ocean, for natural science and as a geopolitical playground. Being in the Antarctic environment, both on land and at sea is addicting, many people underwent this experience and I was no exception. So I did want to go again, of course mainly for scientific reasons but there were other factors: the grandiose environment and working in an international team, to name some important considerations. Hempel´s plea for a renewal of Dutch interest into Antarctic research asked for reconnaissance of the political attitude towards Antarctica.
Soon, I discovered that a keen interest in Antarctica existed. The Dutch division of the International Union for the Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources (IUCN) - the world’s largest and most important conservation network - hosted a Working Group since 1980 with politicians, scientists of different disciplines and members from various international conservationist organisations. Conservatio-nist organisations had a strong position in the Netherlands. Antarctica had been a prime target in IUCN´s world conservation strategy6.
An invaluable contribution to "Antarctica-awareness" was made by Wim Tho-massen (Fig. 12-3), an influential Member of Parliament. He was not a scientist but had an encyclopaedic knowledge of the history of Antarctica and of the functioning of the Antarctic Treaty. Repeatedly he had addressed the Dutch Government with pleas that the Netherlands should aim for consultative mem-bership7. In 1982 he joined the IUCN Working Group and we realized that if our country had Consultative Status in the Antarctic Treaty, problems would be a lot easier. The voice of nature conservation would be heard at the right tables, the nation would gain some prestige and last but not least, there would be ear-marked money for research.
Although the Antarctic Treaty was subject to change (Abbink, this volume) and the criteria to obtain Consultative Status became less strict, a Dutch application
6 IUCN 1991.
7 Thomassen 1983.
for Consultative Status was of course not yet possible. Anyhow the Netherlands Committee for Sea Research commissioned a reconnaissance study about the scientific interests in relation to the financial consequences8. The study con-cluded that there was enough support to start a small research group, with an annual budget of Dfl 900,000 (about 400,000 €) earmarked for Antarctic research.
The search for money was rather disappointing; only three Ministries, Science and Education, Agriculture (through its nature conservation division) and Eco-nomic Affairs (through its interest in the negotiations about mineral exploitation, however remote) were willing to contribute a total of Dfl 300,000 annually for a period of three years.
Nevertheless, the director-general for science policy of the ministry of science and education, E. van Spiegel, thought it wise to accept these commitments.
Otherwise, the momentum created by Thomassen and others would be lost and the offers by other nations, notably West-Germany to host Dutch scientists might be withdrawn. In the autumn of 1984 van Spiegel commissioned a trium-virate of directors from the research institutes, managed by the three paying ministries to draw outlines of a limited scientific program. Zijlstra from the NIOZ was chairman, the National Geological Survey (under Economic Affairs) and the Institute of Ecology were members.
Figure 12-3: W. Thomassen (1909-2001). An indefatigable advocate of Antarctica, who played a decisive role in the mid 1980´s, when the Netherlands embarked on the road towards Consulta-tive Status.
In the meantime, the IUCN Antarctic Committee thought it timely to organize a symposium, where politicians and scientists would present their plans. At this
8 Bergman 1983.
symposium, November 1, 1984 Van Spiegel announced the above result. The small amount of money was less than expected, but all Committee members were happy with this breakthrough: An important hurdle had been taken: the lobbying had secured at least a budget and we expected the budget to stay and to grow. The choice for contributions by different Ministries had the advantage of earmarked money, but the money involved in all meetings during this period and its preparations might well be similar to the budget for science.
Subsequently it was decided that a managing committee of Antarctic projects would be established at the Stichting Onderzoek der Zee (SOZ)9. There were few organisations with experience in managing multidisciplinary research, and the SOZ had successfully organized the logistics of the Snellius II expedition in Indonesia. In 1985 SOZ Antarctic Committee started its work; many difficulties were met, but its members succeeded in increasing the budget manifold. In the pilot phase, implementation of the projects heavily depended on the hospitality of many countries, notably (West) Germany, but also Australia, USA, France and the UK.
Regularly symposia were held to report about the results. In 1991 the internatio-nal cooperation, typical for Antarctic research, was stressed to honour our for-eign hosts. Fig. 12-4 shows some of organizers of this symposium.
Figure 12-4: Some of the lobbyists for Dutch Antarctic Research in. From left to right: A. Bijlsma (SOZ) L. van Brederode (secretary of the IUCN Antarctic Committee); J.H. Stel (secretary of the SOZ Antarctic Committee) and the author in 1991.
9 Foundation for Sea Research, see SOZ 1989.