the crossing borders theory - campanastan...4.3.4 the four-balls-concept and the metaphor of the...

The Crossing Borders theory A framework for creating and managing cross-border regional alliances

!

!

!

!

!

Jan van der Molen

2

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

Colophon

Edition December 2011

ISBN 978-94-6190-852-0

Copyright © Jan van der Molen

The content of this book may be used freely for non-commercial purposes. Any other use requires the prior written permission of the author.

3

Preface As author I would like to thank all people and organizations that contributed to the work described in this book, especially professor Hans Bressers and dr. Kris Lulofs of the University of Twente and my employer, the Water Board Velt & Vecht. Their support was without a doubt instrumental for the foundation of this book.

Developing the version of the Crossing Borders theory as described in this book, has been a process that took several years. During this time, parts of the theory were already published. The first eight chapters as such, were included in my Dutch dissertation which was completed earlier in 2011. In the version of the theory at hand, an orientation was added in appendix 9.1 regarding the question if the theory could be applicable in multiple social sectors, and a framework was added in appendix 10.1 which supports the search for the most appropriate legal form.

In case you have any questions or remarks pertaining to the described version of the theory, or if you have any additional comments, I would appreciate receiving these. The best way to do this is by mail ([email protected]) and I would like to thank you for these responses in advance.

Jan van der Molen

4

Table of Contents

1 Introduction 1.1 Brief introduction into the subject 7 1.2 The research and research questions 7 1.3 Overview of the rest of the book 12

2 Cross-border water management and the river Vecht 2.1 Typical case statements 15 2.2 Cross-border water management in the German-Dutch border region 18 2.3 Cross-border cooperation around the river Vecht 24

3 The nature of the research and the approach chosen 3.1 Defining the research area 29 3.2 The research strategy used 30 3.3 Collection and analysis of data 32 3.4 Accountability 34

4 Overview of existing models and theories 4.1 Water management as cross-border cooperation process 37 4.2 Initiating and managing cooperation processes 40

4.2.1 About networks of organizations 41 4.2.2 Network related strategies 43 4.2.3 Stimuli for cooperation 49 4.2.4 Cooperation related themes 49

4.3 Designing cooperative partnerships 61 4.3.1 The basic forms of cooperation 61 4.3.2 Organizing between organizations 62 4.3.3 The role of administrators in cooperative partnerships 64 4.3.4 The four-balls-concept and the metaphor of the juggler 66

4.4 Addressing the effects of state borders 66 4.5 Driving change projects 69 4.6 Resume of added insights 75

5 The developed theory 5.1 Method of establishment 79 5.2 General structure of the theory 80 5.3 Further elaboration of the separate themes 82

5.3.1 Theme 1: the development pattern 82 5.3.2 Theme 2: generally applicable success and failure factors 84 5.3.3 Theme 3: initiating and managing cooperation processes 85

5

5.3.4 Theme 4: establishing cooperative partnerships 87 5.3.5 Theme 5: further development of cooperative partnerships 90 5.3.6 Theme 6: addressing possible issues for joint policy 91 5.3.7 Theme 7: handling possible impact of administrators 93 5.3.8 Theme 8: addressing the effects of state borders 96

5.4 Relationship between theory and research questions 100 5.5 Preparing the developed theory for testing 101

5.5.1 Differentiating the developed theory 101 5.5.2 Scenario-specific success and failure factors 104

6 Case study A: Subcommittee Vecht-Dinkel 6.1 Introduction 107 6.2 Exploration of the context 109 6.3 Field work design and results 112

6.3.1 Field work design 113 6.3.2 Results of interview rounds 1 and 2 114 6.3.3 Results of interview round 3 117

6.4 Conclusions 121

7 Case study B: Work group DeltaRhein 7.1 Introduction 125 7.2 Exploration of the context 127 7.3 Field work design and results 130


7.4 Conclusions 139

8 Case study C: The cross-border Vision on the Vecht 8.1 Introduction 141 8.2 Exploration of the context 143 8.3 Field work design and results 148


8.4 Conclusions 158

9 Comparative analysis and conclusions 9.1 Case comparison 161 9.2 Relevance of the theory for practical use 163 9.3 Final consideration on the research performed 166

6

Literature 169

Summary 179

About the author 189

Appendices 3.1 Composition of the expert panel based on area of expertise 192 3.2 Summary of substantive responses from the expert panel 194 3.3 Research protocol used when conducting the interviews 197 5.1 Substantiation of the indications of importance in table 5.17 201 6.1 List of interviewees (case A) 206 6.2 Questionnaire used in the first interview round (case A) 208

6.3 Questionnaire used in the second interview round (case A) 212 6.4 Written materials used in the third interview round (case A, B and C)) 216

6.5 Final results of the first two interview rounds (case A) 222 7.1 List of interviewees (case B) 224 7.2 Questionnaire used in the first interview round (case B) 226

7.3 Questionnaire used in the second interview round (case B) 230 7.4 Final results of the first two interview rounds (case B) 234 8.1 List of interviewees (case C) 237 8.2 Questionnaire used in the first interview round (case C) 239

8.3 Questionnaire used in the second interview round (case C) 243 8.4 Final results of the first two interview rounds (case C) 247 9.1 Case study D: Cross-border Integral Student Support services 250

9.2 List of interviewees (case D) 264 9.3 Questionnaire used in the interview with the Flemish pioneer (case D) 265

9.4 Questionnaire used in the interview with the ‘grensmakelaar’ (case D) 267 10.2 Determining the appropriate legal form 269

7

1 Introduction 1.1 Brief introduction into the subject In September 2005, the Water Boards Velt & Vecht and Groot Salland took over management of the Dutch part of the German-Dutch river Vecht from Rijkswaterstaat (Directorate-General for Public Works and Water Management). As a result of this taking over, the two water boards each agreed that Velt & Vecht would fulfil an initiating and coordinating role with respect to the cross-border management of the river.

In 2005 some contact was already initiated with organisations on both sides of the border, who were all 'involved' in the Vecht. What was missing, was a distinct view on the way this cross-border cooperation on managing the Vecht, should be arranged. In order to change this, right after the taking over, Water Board Velt & Vecht had chosen to design this cross-border cooperation around the Vecht as an organizational development case, for the time being. The underlying thought in this process was that as soon as the first steps in joint management were taken, this also would imply joint organisation of management, however limited in scope.

The advantage of this mode of operation was the availability of a theoretical framework, which could be used as theory of action for providing direction to cross-border cooperation around the Vecht. This concise theoretical framework included a straightforward model, commonly used in organizational development cases. Particularly in the first year after the taking over, this approach provided a number of clear insights in the prevailing choices of that moment. These insights were published by Van der Molen & Emmrich (2006, 2007a and 2007b).

Yet, in the first year after the taking over, a number of questions arose which also led to the onset of this promotional research. For example, the question if the chosen approach would be sufficient for the longer term. Had the success of this approach in the first year after the taking over not been tied too much to the early stage of the cooperation at that time? Would this approach (as theory of action) not prove to be too limited in scope when the cooperation would be extended beyond the model used initially? And which theoretical framework would possibly be suitable for use as theory of action in case of further cooperation?

On both sides of the border De Vecht fulfils multiple functions. Another question was for which of these functions it would be useful to involve relevant organisations in the cross-border cooperation around the Vecht, to what extent and how? And last but not least, the question which legal form would be most appropriate for this cooperation between the front-line organisations.

1.2 The research and research questions

Thesis

The thesis of this research reads: "In which way can cross-border regional cooperation be developed, within the framework of international water management?" Efforts to answer this question should pursue achievement of the following objectives: a) gathering scientifically based knowledge on the way cross-border regional cooperation can be developed, and b) providing a theoretic framework for

8

the people who work in cross-border practice, in order to support them in developing cross-border cooperative partnerships.

Research questions

Based on the thesis, five research questions have been formulated. The following table provides an overview of the different questions. The nature of each questions is indicated in the table below: D refers to the 'development of a conceptual and analytical / theoretical framework', Dc is 'descriptive', E is 'exploratory'1. Also indicated is whether a question will be answered in principle on the basis of the empirical results or based on secondary analysis of the literature.

No. Nature Answer Research question I D / Dc

literature What phases can be distinguished in developing cross-border regional

cooperation? II D / Dc

/ E literature/empiricism What are success and failure factors in enabling the development of

cross-border regional cooperation? III D / Dc

/ E literature/empiricism How can cooperation!processes!between organizations be initiated and

managed? IV D / Dc

/ E literature/empiricism How can we model the cooperative partnerships of organisations?

V D / Dc / E

literature/empiricism How can we address the effects of state borders?

Figure 1.1!Overview of research questions

Of the above-mentioned research questions, only I and II correspond to the research questions in the founding proposition of this research. Questions III, IV and V were complied during the course of the research, based on progressive insight in the problem definition.

The research

Introduction This research focuses on! cross-border! regional cooperation within the framework of international water management. This concerns cross-border management of river basins or parts thereof. A river basin is the area which drains into a stream, for example, into a river. Parts of river basins, for example, can be sub-river basins or the river itself. With the cross-border management of rivers, we commonly refer to rivers that flow from one country to another country, but it can also apply to rivers that make up the border between two countries.

The term cross-border!regional!cooperation indicates the mutual cooperation between water managers on both sides of the border and sometimes the relationship of these water managers with other stakeholder organisations in the region. We are addressing cross-border cooperation between

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1 Exploration: a form of explanatory research establishing what (and what combination of) factors included in the theoretical framework determine the empirical facts observed in the case. This type of research serves both an understanding of causal patterns around the occurring empirical facts and the further development of the theoretical framework (Bernstein & Dyer, 1984; Swanborn, 1982: pp 155-158).

9

organisations with a regional orientation and not cooperation between organisations with a national or an international orientation dealing with cross-border cooperation between regions. However, this does not imply that organisations with a national or an international orientation can not be involved in cross-border cooperation in the region.

Cross-border cooperation as referred to in this research may have different underlying principles, which will be discussed in further detail in chapter 4. Depending on the motive, there usually is an organisation or a person who feels responsible, or is made responsible for the development of the cooperation. In pursuance of the terminology used in current practice, we will use the term pioneer as collective term for persons involved in the! development of cooperative partnerships between organisations and thereby driving, to a greater or lesser extent, the direction of this development. In terms of origin, the pioneer could be originating from within that cooperative partnership, can be hired by the cooperative partnership or can be contracted from outside this realm. The latter is the case when a pioneer is commissioned from national level. Under the collective term used in this research, pioneers are therefore such persons who are designated elsewhere as coordinator, director, manager, or (project) leader of a cooperative partnership. For the sake of readability, we will identify the pioneer in this research as a male person.

On cooperation in the context of regional water management, many applicable publications have been published and Imperial (2005) offers an interesting overview of this subject. For a definition of cooperation as a concept, Imperial refers to Bardach (2001) in which cooperation is defined as "any joint activity by two or more organisations that aims to generate public value by working together instead of working separately". This definition is on the one hand broad enough to cover a comprehensive range of governmental and non-governmental organisations and on the other hand specific enough to exclude other types of activities between organisations. In this research we will use Bardachs definition of cooperation as basic principle.

The work of Imperial confirms the findings of Bardach (2001) and Provan & Milward (2001) which shows that in a cooperative relationship between organisations there may be multiple forms of cooperation across multiple levels of cooperation. Imperial distinguishes three levels of cooperation; cooperation at! operational! level, at! policy! level and at! organizational! level. This classification is adopted in this research whereby the research is primarily focused on cooperation at policy level.

10

Theoretical framework used In answering the research questions we will be using a theoretical framework. This framework is presented as a theory for creating and managing cross-border regional cooperation and is intended to be used by pioneers of cross-border regional cooperative partnerships.

During elaboration of the theory, the objective was to find a balance between the complexity of the matter on one hand and the applicability of the theory on the other. This has led to a structured theory with eight themes. In table 1.2 these themes are explained: to the left we find the research questions and to the right we see the eight corresponding themes, including a short explanation of the theme in question and/or reference to the paragraph in which this theme is described more comprehensively.

Research question Theme I. What phases can be distinguished in developing cross-border regional cooperation?

1. The development pattern. This is described using a growth model that distinguishes five successive characteristic stages of development. The detailed growth model is described in paragraph 5.3.1.

II. What are success and failure factors in enabling the development of cross-border regional cooperation?

2. Success and failure factors. A distinction is made in!generally applicable!and!scenario-specific!factors. The generally applicable factors are outlined in paragraph 5.3.2, the scenario-specific factors in paragraph 5.5. The latter factors are linked to the scenarios used in paragraph 5.5 to prepare the developed theory for evaluation.

III. How can cooperation!processes!between organizations be initiated and managed?

3. Initiating and managing cooperation processes. Principally, cooperation processes can be initiated and managed by approaching them as change processes. Stimuli for change are important in that respect. Adjustment can be very cumbersome, therefore the choice was made to use elements from the theory for managing change processes in single organizations. In addition, pioneers need to have knowledge on network-related strategies and cooperation-related themes that might become an issue once the cooperation process is initiated (see paragraphs 5.3 and 4.2). 4. Establishing cooperative partnerships. In paragraph 5.3.4 we provide a tool for pioneers to use. 5. Further development of cooperative partnerships. In paragraph 5.3.5 we provide a tool for pioneers to use. 6. Addressing possible issues for joint policies. In paragraph 5.3.6 we provide a tool for pioneers to use.

IV. How can we model the cooperative partnerships for organisations?

7. Handling the impact of administrators. In paragraph 5.3.7 we provide two tools for pioneers to use.

V. How can we address the effects of state borders?

8. Addressing the effects of state borders. Borders between states or countries involve various transitions, for example in language, culture or the structure of public administration. In order to handle these, we use the boundary work concept as described in paragraph 4.4. Paragraph 5.3.8 describes the transitions that are considered potentially critical in relation to cross-border water management. We also provide tools for pioneers to use when these transitions become manifest.

Table 1.2 The overall structure of the developed theory

11

The nature of the developed theory The developed theory is not a conventional theory which connects cause and consequence, neither does it have a predictive character. As mentioned before, the theory developed is intended as support for pioneers in the area of cross-border regional water management in their efforts to establish and manage cross-border cooperative partnerships.

It is common practice to use decision-support systems when dealing with control aspects of water management. It gradually becomes clear, that due to the complex and dynamic character of water management processes, and cross-border processes in particular, an additional theory of action is needed. Theory of action aimed at cooperating aspects of cross-border water management. Not an 'army manual' kind of theory, in terms of 'if this, do that...', but a flexible theory of action offering pioneers significant points of attention and options for each stage of cooperation. This is the purpose of the developed theory.

The result is a system which is supportive of managing (and performing in the case of pioneers) complex and long term processes. The result could also be seen as a model, but due to the technical connotation of the word model within water management, we have chosen to indicate the results as a (collection of relevant) theory. Besides, we find this indication is a closer knit to the terminology used in literature on this subject. In this book - for the sake of being brief - we are referring to this (collection of relevant ) theory as 'the theory'.

Exploration of the quality and applicability of the developed theory Due to the nature of the developed theory, it cannot be researched for 'accuracy' but it can be related to various cases for which it was intended. This is done through the concepts of quality and applicability: • "quality" in the sense that the theory a) is relevant for the issues and contexts presented in the case

and b) potentially offers added value to the pioneers - added value in the sense that the theory will organize existing insights or will generate new insights.

• "applicable" in the sense that the theory is a) comprehensible and b) recognizable - this in the sense that the pioneers are able to relate the contents of the theory to the aspects of the effective situations it applies to.

The quality and applicability of the developed theory will be explored in chapters 6 to 8, supported by three case studies. Since direct evaluation of the quality of the theory could not be done (see paragraph 3.3), we introduced an intermediate step, in which the developed theory is yet to be prepared for exploration and partial evaluation. This intermediate step consists of differentiations for the developed theory into three more or less standard scenarios of cross-border regional water management.

Figure 1.3 is a preliminary overview of the process architecture of the empirical part of the research.

12

Figure 1.3!Overview of the architecture of the empirical part of the research

Starting point in the figure is the developed theory. The interface with the presented cases are the differentiated versions of the developed theory. This enables deeper insight in the quality of the developed theory and illustrates its applicability by means of the three case studies. Despite these results, further exploration will be necessary. A more detailed explanation of figure 1.3 will take place in paragraph 3.3, describing the way data is collected and analysed in this research.

1.3 Overview of the rest of the book

In chapter 2 we will focus on the phenomenon of cross-border water management and the river Vecht. This chapter opens with the typical issues occurring globally in cross-border water management. Then we switch to the German-Dutch border region, especially to that part of the border region where the basin of the river Vecht is located. First the structure of public administration and the water sector in the different states is outlined. Then the underlying legislation and related cooperation structures pertaining to cross-border water management in this region are reviewed. Finally, the river Vecht and the cross-border cooperation around this river are discussed.

The design of the empirical research is described in chapter 3. Successively we will discuss the scope of the research, the research strategy used and the method for collecting and analysing data. The chapter will conclude with an account on how the subjects in this research have been implemented.

Chapter 4 describes the results of the literature survey. In this survey we performed a deliberate search for literature that contributes to finding the answers for the research questions underpinning this research. This means that the results of the literature survey mainly address processes associated with

13

cooperation between organisations, different forms of cooperation between organisations, the effects of borders between countries, as well as the question which options pioneers have to guide these cooperative partnerships.

In answering the research questions we have used a theoretical framework. This framework and its establishment are described in chapter 5. This chapter consists of five paragraphs; the first four successively discuss the applied methods, the broad structure of the applied theoretical framework, the elaboration of specific parts and the relationship between theory and research questions. The last paragraph of the chapter is used to prepare the theory for evaluation by differentiating it for three, more or less standard scenarios of cross-border regional water management, as described in paragraph 1.2.

To get an idea of the quality and applicability of the theory developed in this research, we have performed three case studies. These are described in chapters 6, 7 and 8.

In the ninth and final chapter the results of three case studies are compared and the conclusion of this research is presented. This entails a reflection on the developed theory and the approach of the research, as well as the impact the developed theory will have on daily practice and on lessons for future case analysis.

15

2 Cross-border water management and the river Vecht In this chapter we will focus on the phenomenon of cross-border water management. The first paragraph will address some typical issues that transpire globally in cross-border water management. In the second paragraph we will switch to cross-border water management in the German-Dutch border region, in particular to that part of the border region where the basin of the river Vecht is located. In the third and last paragraph, the river Vecht and the cross-border cooperation around this river will be discussed.

2.1 Typical case statements

Introduction In August 2009, cross-border water management was the subject of the annual World Water Week in Stockholm. Many of the typical issues involved in cross-border water management were discussed there at length. To understand these issues, below, a summary is provided of relevant parts from the book that was released during this Water Week ‘Transboundary Water Management; Principles and Practice’ (Earle e.a., 2010).

Over 263 surface water basins which are shared by two or more states, account for roughly sixty percent of global fresh water flows and cover almost half the Earth's land surface area (Carius e.a., 2004; Wolf e.a., 2005). Added to this is the large number of cross-border aquifers, constituting the primary source of freshwater for over two billion people in the world (Puri & Struckmeier, 2010). The availability, distribution and control of fresh water have been at the centre of human history since the beginning of the Neolithic revolution some twelve thousand years ago. With the advent of the modern nation and the attendant emphasis on sovereignty, self-sufficiency and rivalry it comes at no surprise that interactions between states over shared water courses have at times been tense and conflictual (Wolf e.a., 2005).

Peace and development Research by Wolf (1998 and 2003a), Allan (1999 and 2002), Turton (2003) and Turton & Earle (2005) and others has shown that rather issues such as national identity, cultural values and world view lead to conflicts between states than disputes on water (Kalpakian, 2004). Water disputes have occurred, but rarely develop to greater conflict because it might put the use of the resource itself at risk (Wolf 1998). Instead, it creates a stalemate or a deadlock, yet to a certain degree there is also cooperation. This kind of cooperation has been described as a negative peace; peace in terms of the absence of violence, but without further constructive cooperation (Galtung, 1996).

In cases of water scarcity, where the likelihood of disputes between states may be greater, there appears to be more evidence of cooperation (Wolf e.a. 2003b). This cooperation is promoted and enhanced by institutions such as laws, agreements, organisations and customary practices. These formal or informal institutions offer a platform where disputes can be discussed and amicably settled and may lead to a sustainable development of shared water resources. The latter may in turn contribute to the socio-economic development of the region in question. Given sufficient institutional development, including the associated human resources, legal framework, financial sustainability and

16

political will, the cross-border waterways can become routes for cooperation between states which contribute to sustainable socio-economic development and regional integration.

Role of politicians underexposed In cross-border water management, several groups of organisations are involved: water management organisations, research organisations, financiers, donor organisations and politicians. The water managing organisations are involved in the actual cross-border water management. From their own work, research organisations, financiers and donor organisations influence the way cross-border water management is performed. The role of politicians is often overlooked (Allan, 2001), they influence the course of things as well - by what they do, but also by what they don't do.

Whenever politicians are not capable of establishing formal cross-border structures for cooperation, the water managing organisations go across political borders and use joint professional knowledge or water management needs as foundation for their course of action. Whether these pathways could eventually be formalized depends on the political relations between countries (Jägerskog, 2003).

However, the scope of water management organisations is limited on this point. Without the political will it is difficult to institutionalize the relationships established at working level to the desired extent. The consequence is that cooperation often becomes dependent on one or a few persons which does not enable sustainable cooperation (Earle e.a., 2010).

Unmanageable versatility In many cases, cross-border cooperation can be characterized as not very desirable, superficial and fragmented - the cooperation is only instigated to prevent violent conflict, has no significant impact on development efforts and will not even contribute to the sustainability of temporary agreements. Focus in these situations is mostly directed at the hegemony within the river basin. Ideas and initiatives are supported only when this is truly necessary.

Interests, power and control are structural phenomenons in international systems (Warner & Zeiton, 2008). The question is therefore how the phenomenon of cross-border cooperation can be deepened (Axelrod & Keohane, 1985; Oye, 1985) to then be transformed into actions that lead to development. One problem in answering this question is that cross-border water management possesses a number of specific characteristics. They are: • scale (based on the size of a basin-wide approach); • fragmentation (due to the breakdown into different legal systems); • complexity (given the wide range of cross-sectoral issues in large-scale water management); • interests (established interests in the states involved). These features together provide a powerful field of issues (Earle e.a., 2010) that play a role in cross-border water management.

Breaking the supremacy of engineers Adequate cross-border water management is based on a complex combination of knowledge, politics, and communication. This means that abstract issues such as 'cooperation' need to be deepened, that 're-routing' with the other groups involved in cross-border water management needs to take place and that different types of water managers need to be trained (Salamé & Van der Zaag, 2010).

17

Cross-border water management has so many facets that it is unrealistic to assume that managers themselves are able to control all these facets in detail. Water managers in the area of cross-border water management will therefore have to work together with skilled specialist colleagues and / or hired specialists. The water managers themselves will also have to shift their orientation, from !-oriented to!"-oriented managers (Salamé & Van der Zaag, 2010).

Breaking the paradigm of the river basin In the past two decades (and in many cases much longer), the river basin as a unit to be managed has been the dominant paradigm in the world of water management. However, in the current debate on cross-border water ways this paradigm is being questioned, not the river basin area but the problem area is considered as the relevant unit (Allen, 2001). Allen describes the problem area as the operational context, where challenges are found and within that realm decision-makers take their decisions.

Furthermore we see that in negotiations between countries regarding cross-border water issues, the allocation of water is often coupled with other themes (Jägerskog, 2003). Maintaining focus on the river basin as the entity that needs to be managed, will only make things more complicated.

In other words, scale does matter. The river basin as a unit to be managed at national level is the obvious scale (Falkenmark & Jägerskog, 2010). Because the rules of the game are clearer and better developed at that level and often mechanisms exist to protect the interests of the weaker parties. However, at cross-border level the balance of power is often less balanced, which is magnified by a lack of clear and enforceable legal structures.

Effective when? As already mentioned, we see that cooperation can go beyond striving for harmony. It will require organisations or institutions to align their policies towards each other through a process of coordination. The question in that case could be: when will a partnership focused on policy alignment may be considered effective? The answer is that any action (or any set of actions) of one or more of the states involved, which leads to improved management or improved sustainable development of the watercourse and which is to everyone's satisfaction, is a form of effective cooperation (Grey e.a., 2009).

This means that coordination alone is not sufficient, it must reach 'everyone's satisfaction', it should lead to 'improved management' and - ideally - be 'sustainable'. In other words, there must be a clear link to the outcome of the cooperation process (Grey e.a., 2009).

In conclusion This paragraph highlights some of the typical questions which play a role in cross-border water management at a global level. Some of these questions will be revisited in the research at hand. Conversely, the results of this research will contribute to solving the questions at hand.

In the next paragraph we will switch to the cross-border water management in the German-Dutch border region, in particular to that part of the border region where the basin of the river Vecht is located.

18

2.2 Cross-border water management in the German-Dutch border region

In this paragraph we will address the underlying legislature and the associated structures for cooperation connected to cross-border water management in the aforementioned region. Prior to this elaboration, we will outline the main structures of the public administrative bodies and the water sector in the states involved.

Introduction

The basin of the river Vecht stretches over three states, namely the German federal states of North Rhine-Westphalia and Lower Saxony, and the Netherlands. The two German federal states are part of the Federal Republic of Germany, but still have their own government, as well as their own water legislation. Figure 2.1 gives an impression of the structure of the public administrative bodies in the three states.

North Rhine-Westphalia Lower Saxony The Netherlands

Federal level Federal level

Federal state

State

Bezirk (Regional district)

Federal state

Kreis (Municipal district) Kreis (Municipal district)

Province

Municipality Municipality Municipality and Water Board

Figure 2.1 An impression of the structure of the public administrative bodies in the three states

In the Netherlands three levels of public administration are present, where Germany traditionally had five levels. In North Rhine-Westphalia this is still the case, but the Bezirken (the regional districts) in Lower Saxony were abolished in 2005.

Figure 2.2 gives an impression of the structure of the water sector in the three states. The Federal Government takes a delimiting approach regarding the issue of water. This means that the governments of both federal states determine their own policies regarding water, as long as they remain within the specified framework. The Federal Government determines the framework in some areas, but water management is mostly the jurisdiction of the federal states. The main water-related ministries and implementing agencies are shown in the figure, the corresponding abbreviations stand for:

- MINLV : Ministerium für Klimaschutz, Umwelt, Landwirtschaft, Natur- und Verbraucherschutz (Ministry for Climate Protection, Environment, Agriculture,

Nature Conservation and Consumer Protection); - LANUV : Landesamt für Natur, Umweltschutz und Verbraucherschutz (Department for Nature,

Environmental Conservation and Consumer Protection);

19

- UM : Niedersächsisches Ministerium für Umwelt und Klimaschutz (Lower Saxony

Ministry for Environment and Climate Protection); - NLWKN : Niedersächsischer Landesbetrieb für Wasserwirtschaft, Küsten-und Naturschutz

(Lower Saxony State Corporation for Water Management and Conservation of Coast and Nature);

- Min. V&W : Ministerie van Verkeer en Waterstaat (Ministry of Transport and Water Management)2

- RWS : Rijkswaterstaat (Directorate-General for Public Works and Water Management).

North Rhine-Westphalia Lower Saxony The Netherlands

Federal level: delimiting Federal level: delimiting

MUNLV + LANUV

Min. V&W + RWS

Bezirk (Regional district)

UM + NLWKN

Kreis (Municipal district) Kreis (Municipal district)

Province

Verbände (Associations) + Municipality

Verbände (Associations) + Municipality

Water Board + Municipality

Figure 2.2 An impression of the structure of the water sector in the three states

The regional district (Bezirk) and the province are the highest regional water authorities in North Rhine-Westphalia and the Netherlands. The water-related functions of both these bodies are in practical situations quite comparable. In Lower Saxony a substantial part of the water-related functions were transferred from the former regional districts (Bezirk) to the NLWKN.

The major local water authority for the Dutch is the Water Board. In the two German federal states the municipal districts (Kreis) take on this role. The Kreis is the smallest administrative unit superseding the Municipality and is responsible for Public Affairs beyond local interests, including water. In addition, the Kreis has a supervisory role towards the municipalities in its territory.

Regarding the actual maintenance of waterways and dikes in the two German federal states, the so-called Verbände (Associations) have an important role. The latter group consists of the so-called Wasser- und Bodenverbände (Water and soil associations) and Deichverbände (Dikes associations).

We find the German local practise concerning the water sector, to function at a much more complex level than the Dutch practices. This is mainly due to the fact that allocating responsibilities at local level is often complex, not in the least for the German water managers themselves. In Germany mutual

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!2 In 2010 this Ministry merged with the Ministry of Infrastructure and Environment.

20

consultation needs to take place regarding wer zuständig ist (who will take responsibility), before action can be undertaken to address a certain question.

The Border Treaty

Already in 1905, between the former Kingdom of Prussia and the Kingdom of the Netherlands, an agreement was signed governing the cross-border issues regarding drainage in the basin area of the river Vecht. This agreement was replaced in 1974 by an agreement between the Lower Saxony Federal State and the Dutch State, i.e. The Netherlands (Treaty, 1974).

The legal foundation for the 1974 agreement was established by the 1960 Border Treaty (Bundesgesetzblatt, 1963) between the present Federal Republic of Germany and! the Dutch government

In the Border Treaty Germany and the Netherlands agreed on a number of - then current - affairs in the common border area. The fourth chapter of this Treaty discusses the way cooperation on cross-border surface waters, with the exception of the Rhine, Ems and Dollard, will be regulated.

Article 57 of the Treaty stipulates that both parties must organize regular consultation on all water management related questions of importance to the boundary waters in the adjacent state, in order to solve these satisfactory for both countries. In addition it states that such consultation will take place in the Standing Committee on Boundary Waters and its subcommittees as described in articles 64 and 68 of the Treaty.

The Standing Committee on Boundary Waters Article 64 and 65 stipulate that both countries must initiate a Standing Committee on Boundary Waters to promote "cooperation as good neighbours along the boundary waters", and wherein each country must appoint three expert members. The appointed experts are not specified in the Treaty. In 1963, the request was honoured and the Standing Committee on Boundary Waters was established. In 2011 the official German delegation now consists of three senior representatives of the Federal Republic, North Rhine-Westphalia and Lower Saxony. The Dutch delegation consists of two high official representatives of the Dutch state and a high official representative of the provinces bordering Germany. The Committee normally meets once a year, alternating the two countries for its location.

The subcommittees Article 68 of the Treaty deals with the option given to the Committee to establish separate subcommittees for boundary waters. Only local authorities and public bodies are accepted as members and they shall be appointed based on equality. In 2011, there are seven subcommittees along the German-Dutch border. In the past there have been more, when subcommittees were still linked to the individual boundary waters. Over time, however, work areas were scaled up and consequently the number of subcommittees was compressed.

The river basin of the Vecht is covered by one of the aforementioned subcommittees, the so-called subcommittee Vecht-Dinkel. Figure 2.3 gives an impression of the work area of this subcommittee. Cross-border cooperation within this subcommittee is one of the three case studies in this paper (case study A: see Chapter 6).

21

Tasks and responsibilities Article 68 of the Treaty stipulates that the Committee and the subcommittees both have the same tasks, which is to consult on all water management related questions of importance to boundary waters in the adjacent state (in order to solve these satisfactory for both countries again). Yet only the Committee is authorized to receive and address the complaints to be solved. Article 67 of the Treaty stipulates that in case no agreement within the Committee can be reached, the two governments shall endeavour to reach agreement. If this fails, any government may appeal to a special arbitrary tribunal (article 70-73).

The European Water Framework Directive

In October 2000, the European Parliament adopted the European Water Framework Directive (WFD), a typical framework law! in which implementation is closely linked to issuing guidelines for further interpretation of the general directives in the WFD. The objective of the WFD is to reach a ‘good condition’ for all European waters before 2027, in which they will not only be clean but as far as surface waters are concerned also ecologically intact.

The implementation of the required measures is divided into three periods of seven years each, this concerns the periods 2009-2015, 2015-2021 and 2021-2027. Prior to each of the cited periods, a management plan must be developed, in which the measures to be taken during each period are to be documented. The management plans should be submitted to the European Committee for approval, and must each be converted into actions in that respect. Motivated deviation of the management plan is allowed only if the underlying reasoning is sufficiently strong, if this is not the case, fines could follow.

Approach for the river basin The WFD is oriented on river basins. Regarding cross-border rivers basins, the countries involved initially need to attempt to reach one joint cross-border management plan. Should this not be feasible in practice, they will be allowed to present separate partial national plans to the EU. These partial plans should, however, be aligned to each other (EU DG Milieu, 2002). The basin of the river Vecht is part of the total international basin area of the river Rhine and is situated in the lowest downstream part of this river basin area, in the cross-border sub-basin areaRijndelta or DeltaRhein3. The last mentioned sub-basin area is also the area for which the management plan should be developed.4 The sub-basin area DeltaRhein is divided into eight working districts, four Dutch and four German, in order to perform all activities related to the WFD, as efficiently as possible. Figure 2.3 provides an impression of how the above-mentioned areas are situated.5.

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!3 The division of the river basin was set up by the International Committee for the Protection of the Rhine (ICPR) and agreed upon by all countries involved. This division was therefore not established through the KRW or the EC. 4 This was not mandatory, but it was decided in the International Committee for the Protection of the Rhine, the ICPR. 5 These divisions were based purely on national borders and only later aligned.

22

Figure 2.3 The sub-river basin Rhinedelta with the flow of the River

the Vecht and the work area of the subcommittee Vecht-Dinkel

The nine countries involved in the implementation of the WFD in the Rhine basin, have agreed in the past that the Netherlands would coordinate the establishment of the Rhine delta management plan for the period 2009-2015. Case study B, as described in chapter 7, describes the way this coordination was put in effect.

Cross-border steering group DeltaRhein Meetings in the steering group DeltaRhein take place between the water-related ministries mentioned in figure 2.2, where cross-border implementation of the WFD and in particular the establishment of the management plan DeltaRhein and its implementation are discussed. In the first few years, this consultation mostly took place between officials, with the Dutch Ministry of Transport and Water Management as chairperson. As of mid 2006, two of the three border water boards from the

23

Netherlands, also joined the meetings. No principal agreement have been made regarding the frequency of meetings for the steering group, but in practical sense they meet annually at this time.

The steering group consists of three senior officials from the three cited ministries. The German members of the steering group are assisted during meetings by their executive organisations, whereas the Dutch fulfil this role by means of a pioneer for the work group DeltaRhein, as described below. The person in question (see also chapter 7) is an employee of the Ministry of Transport and Water Management, who also acts as secretary of the cross-border steering group. Since mid 2006, the dike graves of the Water Boards Rijn & IJssel and Velt & Vecht are also members of the steering group, besides the aforementioned ministerial representatives.

Cross-border work group DeltaRhein Meetings in the work group DeltaRhein are intended to reach alignment at work level on the cross-border implementation of the WFD and in particular the establishment of the management plan DeltaRhein and its implementation. Up until establishment of the management plan in 2009, the work group was led by an employee of the Dutch Ministry. In 2010 and 2011 nothing happened in terms of cross-border coordination. Mid 2010, the first draft for an agenda and action plan for the coming years were finalized. Completion of this work is estimated for the first quarter of 2011.

Participants of the work group meetings are the Bezirksregierung Münster6, NLWKN Meppen, the Dutch Ministry, the province of Overijssel, Water Board Velt & Vecht and since early 2008 also the water boards Regge & Dinkel and Rijn & IJssel. Cross-border cooperation within the work group DeltaRhein is one of the three case studies in this paper (case study B: see Chapter 7).

In conclusion In this paragraph the underlying legislature and the associated cross-border structures for cooperation connected to cross-border water management in basin area of the river Vecht, were discussed. In Figure 2.4 the relevant legislation and structures for cooperation are outlined in short. In this figure, the cross-border cooperation around the river Vecht is included, which is to be addressed in the next paragraph.

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!6 Since April 2007, before that the Staatliches Umwelt Amt Herten represented North Rhine-Westphalia.

24

Legislation Objective / Goal Regional Structure for Cooperation

Supra-regional Structure for Cooperation

Border Treaty of 1960 Preventing problems Cross-border subcommittee Vecht-Dinkel

Standing Committee on Boundary Waters.

European Water Framework Directive from 2000

Good condition of European waters

Cross-border work group DeltaRhein

Cross-border steering group DeltaRhein

N/A Restoration of the river Vecht and sustainable development of the adjacent area

Partnership Vecht & Vechtdal

N/A

Figure 2.4 An overview of the partnerships discussed in paragraphs 2.2 and 2.3

Although both regional cooperative partnerships are founded on legislation, their objectives are quite diverse. The objective of the subcommittee Vecht-Dinkel can be characterized as conservative - maintaining harmony and only acting when sufficient grounds are present. The objective of the work group DeltaRhein on the other hand, is more directed towards development - proactive and supported by obtained legislation, working towards the goal of establishing a good condition in 2027.

It may be clear that with the arrival of the DeltaRhein work group, the importance of the subcommittee Vecht-Dinkel diminished. This is reflected in an agreement from 2006 in which is stated that the subcommittee should only pursue their annual meeting as per demand.

Figure 2.4 demonstrates that the third example of cross-border water management in the basin area of the Vecht has been the cross-border cooperative partnership Vecht & Vechtdal. Until mid June this cooperative partnership was named cooperative partnership cross-border Vision on the Vecht. This partnership was not primarily aimed at legislation and will be discussed in the next paragraph.

Three of the regional structures for cooperation mentioned in the third column of figure 2.4, are the three cases A, B and C (see fig. 1.3) which will be used in chapters 6 to 8, as base for further exploration of the theory developed in this research (see table 1.2).

2.3 Cross-border cooperation around the river Vecht

In this paragraph the river Vecht and the cross-border cooperation around this river will be discussed. The following information has been largely derived from the document cross-border Vision on the Vecht!(Renner et al, 2009).

The river Vecht

The river Vecht, in its lower course also called the Overijsselse Vecht, runs as cross-border river from Germany to the Netherlands. The Vecht originates in the German state of North Rhine-Westphalia, where the Rockeler Mühlenbach and the Darfelder Vechte are indicated as the origin of the Vecht. Usually the Darfelder Vechte is assumed to be the origin, which has an easily accessible source in Darfeld. Along its first 20 kilometres, the headwaters of the Vecht have a predominantly natural

25

character. Significant portions thereof are located within the Natura 2000 area 'Vechte'. The headwaters of the river Vecht run until the weir in the town of Metelen (see figure 2.3).

At kilometre marker 74.2 the Vecht crosses the border from North Rhine-Westphalia into Lower Saxony. The middle course of the Vecht runs to the location where the Dinkel ends in the river Vecht in Lower Saxony On this route a large amount of tributary streams flow into the Vecht, such as the Gauxbach and the Steinfurter Aa (from the right) and the Feldbach (from the left) in North Rhine-Westphalia. The headwaters of the river Vecht have gravel soils, while the bottom of the middle course - where the river flows into a lowland river - consists of sand and sometimes loam. Most of the soil is made available for intensive agriculture, providing usage of the land along the slope until the top, shaping the countryside. The natural valley slope, distinctive to a lowland river, is therefore not present. From Lower Saxony the Vecht runs as a lowland river and has been largely straightened and channelled for flood protection. The lower course of the river is provided with dikes. At kilometre marker 107 the Vecht leaves Lower-Saxony and thus Germany, and flows through the Dutch province of Overijssel. At kilometre marker 142 the Regge flows into the Vecht and after 167 km the river ends near the city of Zwolle, into the Black Water.

The Vechtdal area throughout the years

Around 1842 the landscape along the Vecht mainly consisted of heath and wetlands. The woodlands that traditionally grew along the river, had largely disappeared to enable grazing by sheep. This expanded the growth of heath steadily. In addition, large amounts of fields and meadows were present which were probably used for the three-field system7.

During this period the Vecht ran through its natural riverbed and the banks were lined with trees and shrubs, and partly by woodlands. Crossing the river was done via a small number of wooden bridges, ferries and some shallow fords. In populated areas, as in Nordhorn, the river played an important role as water supply and for fire fighting.

Trade on the Vecht In general it can be said that, since the 16th century, the Vecht had been one of the most important regional trade routes, mainly because of the connection to the international port of Amsterdam.

To improve this trade route a shipping channel between Munster and the Vecht was commissioned by Bishop Clemens August in 1723 to guarantee accessibility for maritime traffic on the Vecht. This so-called Max-Clemens channel was partially achieved, but never completed. These canals did not only play a role in the economic development of the area, but were important for drainage of the wetlands as well. These dramatic changes led to a concentration of population in towns and villages along the Vecht.

Since the Middle Ages, the Vecht played an important role in the cross-border traffic between Germany and Netherlands resulting from intensified trade contacts. Even into Schüttorf there were docks for the so-called 'zompen' (a type of peat barge), and sandstone formed an important commodity

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!7 An old farming method wherein fallow fields, winter and spring grains are alternated in a three-year cycle.

26

as well. Yet the Vecht lost its function as a trade route, particularly because the Ems was made accessible for maritime traffic (1815), the Lippe was channelled (1819) and a customs agreement was signed between Prussia and Holland (1831), which focused on the Rhine.

Regulating the Vecht As part of opening up the Ems (Decision of the German Bundestag on May 5, 1950 on "Antrag auf der Erschließung Ödländereien des Emslandes", known as the Emsland Plan) peat and wetland areas were cultivated in the postwar years and more farm land became available and revenues increased due to higher farming yields. Simultaneously, land consolidation had started.

Part of this package of measures was a completely new approach to water management, among other things through an extensive drainage system. In the Vechtdal upstream of Nordhorn, drainage primarily takes place via drainage ditches (Talgräben). These run parallel to the Vecht through the deepest point of the flood plains and flow into the river downstream from the weirs. The Vecht itself runs higher up, artificially routed before the Second World War. Rerouting the river, including construction of the weirs, took place to be able to use the Vecht for meadow land irrigation purposes.

In Lower Saxony, a total of eight weirs (such as Tinholt, Samern, Brandlecht, Grasdorf and Neuenhaus) were constructed for flood control and irrigation purposes. The importation works were mainly built in the thirties of the last century. In the sixties of the 20th century the lower course of the Vecht in Lower Saxony was widened. In the period from 1960 to 1965, the Vecht was fully widened and channelled between Neuenhaus and Laar. In total 50 meanders were cut off in the German upper and middle courses of the Vecht. As a result the river was shortened with 40 km.

In the Netherlands, regulation of the Vecht already took place earlier by cutting off 69 meanders, through which the river was shortened with 30 km (1896-1907). The regulation took place by broadening the cross section and strengthening the banks by dumping of debris and stone facing. The decline was therefore increased, allowing the river to wear deeper into the countryside. To prevent dehydration and soil erosion seven weirs were built (1907-1914), of which six still remain. Before that, around 1850 the first weirs in the Haandrik and Ane were built to ensure that the water level remained stable in the shipping channels that were built (the Overijssel channels and the Dedemsvaart channel).

27

The cooperative partnership around the Vecht

Introduction As control of the Vecht was taken over in 2005, the water boards involved committed themselves towards other parties involved to achieve a cross-border vision for the future of the Vecht. This was the framework that led to establishing the cooperative partnership cross-border Vision on the Vecht in 2007. The desired cross-border Vision on the Vecht and on the Vechtdal as well was completed mid 2009.

The cross-border Vision on the Vecht In this vision, a future vision is developed for the river Vecht and the area adjacent to the Vecht, the Vechtdal. This future vision reads (Renner e.a., 2009):

"High water and water discharge must be guaranteed, but at each possible location, the Vecht will be restored to a lively, semi-natural lowland river. Were possible, this semi-natural lowland river will have a chance to run freely in the winter flood plain. Distinctive river processes such a meandering, erosion and visible flow will be present.

The German and Dutch population of the Vechtdal has expressed their connection to the Vecht. This river is once again being established. Besides this, the Vecht can be more directly experienced due to its new features and improved access options, combined with preservation of the valuable cultural and historic structures. The recovery of the Vecht as semi-natural river, will in this case contribute to the socio-economical development of the Vechtdal.

In 2050 the Vecht will once again flow as a central river through the area, and everyone will be aware of the value of the Vecht and the Vechtdal. The German-Dutch Vechtdal, an area with charisma, authenticity, culture and history, is an area of profound storytelling."

This overall image of the future will be compiled in a vision document, that will be founded on five statements for deeper elaboration. The vision document is accompanied by a building block document and three implementation programs. In the building block document river-oriented and ecological building blocks are presented for the restoration of the Vecht. The three implementation programs include projects and project ideas that may contribute to the outlined future vision.

The nature of cooperation The core of the cooperative partnership around the Vecht consists of ten cooperating organisations. At the German side these are four Kreisen (Borken, Coesfeld, Bentheim and Steinfurt), the NLWKN and the border town of Emlichheim. Dutch participants are the province of Overijssel, two water boards (Velt & Vecht and Groot Salland) and the border town of Hardenberg.

Cooperation around the Vecht is explicitly development-oriented and is not enforced by law. Is there no regulation by the law, then? There is indirectly, through the measures constituted in the European Water Framework Directive, which form a valuable basis for the restoration of the river. Nevertheless, all parties partake completely voluntarily in cooperating around the Vecht, from an awareness of mutual opportunities.

28

Furthermore, this cooperation around the Vecht will be based on the so-called embedded or nested approach (van Leussen, 2009). This approach implies that the measures implemented in and around the river are in line with activities and actions occurring in the rest of the river basin. This way, a different scope can be chosen from management's perspective, besides the river basin. This need not necessarily be a hydrological unit, but might as well be an ecosystem or a political-administrative division. The point is that it needs to be well argued.

Naming the cooperative partnership In mid June 2009, the above-mentioned vision document was published. Since this date the partnership is named cross-border cooperative partnership Vecht & Vechtdal. This cooperative partnership is provided with a steering group consisting of high officials and administrators and a program team consisting of officials. The main task of the program team is to keep one of the three implementation programs going, namely the implementation program of cross-border projects (the other two implementation programs with German respectively Dutch projects are managed directly from the two countries). The cross-border steering group supervises the execution of that implementation program, acts as sponsor of the program team where appropriate and works, above all, to accomplish collectivity.

Until mid June this cooperation was named cooperative partnership for cross-border Vision on the Vecht. The latter partnership is one of the three case studies in this paper (case study C: see Chapter 8).

29

3 The nature of the research and the approach chosen In this chapter the design of the research for this paper will be described. Successively we will discuss the scope of the research, the research strategy used and the method for collecting and analysing data. The chapter will conclude with an account on how the subjects in this research have been implemented.

3.1 Defining the research area

The definition of the research was drawn up using a tested conceptual framework (Geurts, 1999: p. 42-60). To provide clarity on the concepts used we included an overview of Geurts' approach. Subsequently we used these concepts to define the research at hand.

Object variables Object variables are the units that possess the qualities or characteristics we would like to investigate. In essence, an object variable could be each case or any abstraction subject to questioning: what are the characteristics of ...? Object variables are also called objects of research or research units.

The theory developed in this research for pioneers in cross-border regional cooperative partnerships aimed at international water management, is the main object variable in this research.

Predicate variables The characteristics of the object variable we want to observe, are called predicate variables. These are variables subject to exploration, description, explanation or prediction. The main variable among these predicate variables is also referred to as the object of research.

In this research, the quality and the applicability of the developed theory are the predicate variables. This research focuses on predicate variables subject to exploration and description. The main predicate variable, and thus object of research, is the applicability of the developed theory of action.

Research domain The object variables are related to the domain or the area of a research. Often a research does not include all named objects, but will place a restriction for various, often practical, reasons. By designating the domain of a research, the researcher will limit the claim of universality for his findings.

The results obtained in this research regarding the applicability of the developed theory, do not reach beyond the case studies described in the chapters 6 to 8 which are merely an illustration of the applicability of the developed theory. They are: 1. the subcommittee Vecht-Dinkel of the German-Dutch Standing Committee on Boundary Waters; 2. the work group DeltaRhein for the implementation of the WFD in the cross-border sub-basin area

Rijndelta or DeltaRhein; 3. the cooperative partnership leading to the cross-border Vision on the Vecht in 2009.

These three cases establish the domain of this research.

30

3.2 The research strategy used

Development of the theory As described in paragraph 1.2, answering the research questions contributed not only to building the theoretical framework but also to deploying this. The framework is modelled into a theory which can be used by pioneers in cross-border regional cooperative partnerships, when establishing and driving cross-border regional cooperation. The developed theory is not a conventional theory which connects cause and consequence, neither does it have a predictive character.

In the water sector ‘common practice’ indicated that in order to fulfil managing aspects of water management one should use decision-support systems. It gradually becomes clear, that due to the complex and dynamic character of water management processes, and cross-border processes in particular, an additional theory of action is needed. Theory of action aimed at cooperating aspects of cross-border water management. Not an 'army manual' kind of theory, in terms of 'if this, do that...', but a flexible theory of action offering pioneers significant points of attention and options for each stage of cooperation. This is the purpose of the developed theory.

On one hand the theory is based on what is found in literature (see chapter 4) and on the other hand personal experiences were used. Thereafter, in the Spring of 2009, the version at hand was presented to a so-called panel of experts and each pair of members were requested to evaluate the theory from a certain perspective. For each couple of panel members a combination of research-oriented and practice-oriented approached were chosen; in appendix 3.1 an overview of the panel members can be found. The contextual responses of the expert panel were summarized in appendix 3.2 which also indicates in which way adaptation of the theory has taken place wherever the response of the expert panel gave reason to do so.

The result is a system which is supportive of managing (and performing in the case of pioneers) complex and long term processes. An overview of the structure of the developed theory was already presented in table 1.2 and a more comprehensive description of the theory itself will follow in chapter 5.

Exploration of the quality and applicability of the developed theory Due to the nature of the developed theory, it cannot be researched for 'accuracy' but it can be related to various cases for which it was intended. "#$%!$%!&'()!*#+',-#!*#)!.'(.)/*%!'0!"#$%&'(!1(&!$))%&*$+&%&'(2 • "quality" in the sense that the theory a) is relevant for the issues and contexts presented in the case



Since direct evaluation of the quality of the theory could not be done, we introduced an intermediate step, in which the developed theory is yet to be prepared for exploration and partial evaluation. This intermediate step consists of differentiations for the developed theory into three more or less standard scenarios of cross-border regional water management. This differentiation will be performed in the last

31

paragraph of chapter 5. Subsequently, the quality and applicability of the developed theory will be explored in chapters 6 to 8, using the three case studies. Using these case studies we can establish a primary impression of the quality and applicability of the differentiated versions of the theory and the applicability of the developed theory for three somewhat standard cases of cross-border water management are illustrated!accordingly. Furthermore, an impression is provided of the quality of the developed, non-differentiated theory, which is already explained in paragraph 1.2 and which will be more comprehensively described in the following paragraph, together with the description of data analysis.

Selection of cases Chapters 6 to 8 contain case studies which are directly related to my working environment. Below you will find an impression of the degree of involvement I have had with the different cases: 1) Subcommittee Vecht-Dinkel - although I (am) was not a member of this committee, I am

acquainted with most of the members and had knowledge of some of the history involved prior to my research.

2) Work group DeltaRhein - since its establishment in 2005 I have actively involved as member of the work group.

3) Cross-border Vision on the Vecht - I was closely involved in this project. Thus, I have contributed to the foundation of the cooperative partnership of eight Dutch and German parties, who have commissioned the implementation of this project. During the implementation I was the coordinator on behalf of the joint principals and as such I had a close working relationship with the two hired external project leaders, who were the co-pioneers in establishing the Vision on the Vecht.

Due to the fact that these cases are derived from my immediate work environment and since these cases have inspired me to develop this theory, there can be no doubt that the amount of prior knowledge I have regarding these cases is substantial. Using these cases would therefore not have been appropriate for justifying the!accuracy of the developed theory. This disadvantage should not be an issue because in this research the accuracy of the developed theory does not need to be proven since it is aimed at exploring the quality of the developed theory, as well as illustrating its applicability. In addition, the research will utilize empirical illustration of the developed theory. The advantage of the cases at hand is that each of these three cases represents one of the three scenarios for which the theory will be differentiated in paragraph 5.5, and that in all three cases the primary analysis could be used, due to the fact that I am familiar with the individuals and organizations involved in all three cases. Selecting cases still remains a balance of pros and cons!

Approach for the interviews In order to maximize my prior knowledge and yet to remain as objective as possible, three interview rounds were chosen as working method for the case studies. In the first two rounds, the pioneers and successively a number of participants were interviewed, mostly based on closed-ended questions. This was done to obtain the most objective foundation for the analysis of the differences in the third round. In the third round we have used my prior knowledge of the cases in question as added input to achieve (together with the pioneers) an adequate analysis of differences.

32

Several of the respondents were participants in two or sometimes three of the cases studied. This might lead to questions concerning cross-contamination in the cases at hand, resulting from this ambiguity. This is not correct: the three cases each represent one of the three scenarios for which the theory was differentiated. Contamination would exist when two or more cases that represent the same scenario are not independent of each other, which is not the issue here.

3.3 Collection and analysis of data Collection of data For this research three case studies in the field of cross-border water management have been performed (chapters 6 to 8), these are already mentioned in chapter 3.1. These case studies are used to explore, respectively evaluate, the quality and applicability of the developed theory differentiated for scenarios a, b and c. Four questions were chosen as a starting point in the process - the first three apply to the quality and the fourth question pertains to the applicability of the differentiated versions of the theory. These questions can be found below:

Question 1. Various strategies can be used for initiating and driving cooperation processes (see table 1.2, theme 3). At this point the theory is primarily based on the strategies listed in box 5.5. Are these truly the strategies that matter in this respect?

Question 2. In this research, the developed theory was differentiated for three typical scenarios of cross-border regional water management (see fig. 1.3). Are the consequential factors (see paragraph 5.5.2) truly the factors that matter in this respect?

Question 3. Cross-border regional cooperative relationships could (partly) be stalled by critical transitions based on differences on either side of the border (see table 1.2, theme 8). This theory describes seven transitions considered as potentially critical (box 5.13). Are these truly the transitions that matter in this respect?

Question 4. Would the developed theory have been applicable for the pioneers in the cases described in chapters 6 to 8?

For each of the case studies we have chosen an approach with three interview rounds: 1. In the first round the pioneers concerned were interviewed using questionnaires with mostly

closed questions, based on question 1 to 3 as described above. The imposed questions were aimed at obtaining a first impression of the quality of the differentiated versions of the theory.

2. In the second round some of the participants in the three cooperative partnerships were interviewed using questionnaires with mostly closed questions as well, based on question 1 to 3 as described above. The imposed questions were aimed at obtaining additional insight in the quality of the differentiated versions of the theory.

3. In the third round, the results of the second round were fed back to the particular pioneer in an open discussion. The differentiated versions of the theory were sent to the pioneer prior to this discussion, enabling him to prepare for this interview with respect to the theory at hand. The above-mentioned question 4 was subsequently discussed with the pioneer, as to the assumption that the differentiated version of the theory would have been applicable to his situation.

33

The agreements regarding conducting the interviews and processing the data were discussed with the interviewees in advance according to the research protocol included in appendix 3.3. All interviews were recorded using a tape recorder.

Analysis of data Figure 3.1 is an overview of the process architecture of the empirical part of the research.

Figure 3.1!Overview of the architecture of the empirical part of the research

The starting point in the figure is the developed theory. The interface with the presented cases are the differentiated versions of the developed theory. Differentiations were applied to the three scenarios, a,b and c. This step enables the exploration and partial evaluation, as described. At the far right in the figure there are three cases in the area of cross-border regional water management which are reasonably consistent with the cited scenarios for which differentiation took place, these are the cases A, B and C.

Using the case studies we examined and partially evaluated the theory of action differentiated for scenarios a, b and c. This was done to determine to which extent the theory would have been of value and applicable for the pioneers of the cross-border cooperative partnerships involved. The first two steps were used to explore this and in scenario c these will show the following result: - During the first step,! the quality of the theory of action differentiated for scenario c was

investigated, utilizing the case which is similar to a certain extent with this scenario, namely case C. This step is used to verify if there is reason to assume that the quality of the theory of action differentiated for scenario c would be "incorrect". "Incorrect" in the sense that the theory bears no relevance to the issues and contexts which occurred in the cases or that the theory did not organize existing insights, nor generate new insights.

34

- In the second step, the pioneer in case C was directly questioned regarding the applicability using several questions. This provided a direct response on whether the theory of action differentiated for scenario C would have been applicable to pioneers in case C from their particular perspective.

If the aforementioned demonstrates that the theory of action differentiated for scenario c is applicable to the pioneer in case C, this does not say anything about the applicability of the theory of action differentiated for scenario c in other situations of cross-border regional water management. Before any statement can be made on the applicability of the theory of action differentiated for scenario c, many more cases that are reasonably consistent with scenario c should be investigated. The same reasoning applies to the scenarios a and b in relation to the cases A and B.

If case study C shows that there is no reason to suppose that the quality of the theory differentiated for scenario C would be incorrect, it does not present a qualification of the quality of the general theory itself. This would justify the conclusion that based on case study C, there is no reason to assume that the quality of the general theory would be incorrect.

A similar conclusion may also be the result of case studies A and B, should these case studies be considered separately from the other two case studies. However, if one should consider case studies A, B and C combined, then the conclusion will shift somewhat, not to concluding 'there is no reason to assume the theory would be incorrect', but moving towards 'it seems that this theory is reasonably put together and might be worth further consideration' (Yin, 1984; Boskma & Herweijer, 1988). This enables deeper insight in the quality of the developed theory and illustrates its applicability by means of the three case studies. Despite these results, further exploration will be necessary.

3.4 Accountability Research design The design for the research as a whole was developed from a kind of iterative process of thinking, reading, elaborating, discussing and again, thinking reading, elaborating... The literature below was mainly used to support this process: - Van probleem naar onderzoek (Geurts, 1999); - Het ontwerpen van een onderzoek (Verschuren & Doorewaard, 2007); - Designing Social Research; The Logic of Application (Blaikie, 2005) - Political Science Research Methods (Buttolph Johnson & Reynolds, 2005) - Methoden van sociaalwetenschappelijk onderzoek; Inleiding in ontwerpstrategieën (Swanborn,

1982); - Beleidseffectiviteit en casestudies: Een vergelijking van verschillende onderzoeksontwerpen

(Boskma & Herweijer, 1988). Below we provide further elaboration on a number of aspects within the research design, as described in the previous paragraphs.

35

Defining the research area As mentioned in paragraph 4.1 we used Geurts (1999) to define the research parameters: a tested conceptual framework without any noise in the conceptual framework as the result of any translation complications, as it is a Dutch book.

Deployment of expert panel Deploying an expert panel can be seen as a first-line quality control. The set-up of the panel was in line with the report 'Kwaliteitszorg in de wetenschap' (Quality in Science) of the KNAW-Committee on Quality Assurance (2008). One of the things this report points out, is that in multidisciplinary and interdisciplinary research it is extremely difficult to obtain a panel wide comprehensive assessment, and that it would be wise to consider the intrinsic quality of research in relation to its social relevance. In the present research we opted to let the panel members work two by two from a number of different angles to give their opinion. For each angle we choose a combination of more research-based and more practice-oriented member.

Strategy selection The first step in strategy selection was swiftly taken: to find out whether the differentiated versions of the developed theory would be useful for pioneers, an exploration using case studies was the most obvious approach. The choice of case studies was not as effortless, in paragraph 3.2 we already mentioned a few things about this process. The scientific justification behind these choices was mainly derived from Swanborn (1982) indicating that it is sometimes inevitable for a researcher to work subjectively and that this in itself is no objection as long as the researcher offers complete clarity on the approach taken. Swanborn calls this the researcher's obligation to be explicit.

Collection and analysis of data In preparing the questionnaire and compiling the interviews, the work of Swanborn (1982), Blaikie (2005), Buttolph Johnson & Reynolds (2005) and Verschuren & Doorewaard (2007) was incorporated, as was mentioned in paragraph 3.3. Prior to the interviews, a test interview was held as well, which led to some adjustments.

Starting point for the collection and analysis of data in paragraph 3.3 were questions and not hypotheses, which is in line with Blaikie (2005: p. 9-11). These pages refer to the assumption that all existing research questions in socio-scientific research can be traced to three standard questions, namely 'what', 'why' and 'how'. Blaikie sees hypotheses as possible answers to some 'how' questions and to 'why' questions. The 'what' questions would not require hypotheses anyway: “nothing is gained from hazarding an answer to a question that simply requires research to produce a description”, according to Blaikie. Of the five questions that shape the foundation of this research (see table 1.1), research questions I and II are essentially the 'what' questions and can therefore be answered without using hypotheses. Research questions III, IV and V are essentially the 'how' questions in terms of 'which way?'. This kind of 'how' question could also be answered without the use of hypotheses, due to their explorable character induced by the thesis of this research.

For the analysis of data, Boskma & Herweijer (1988) and Blaikie (2005) were used. When analysing the quality of the developed theory, we incorporated Boskma & Herweijer's conceptual schemes for

36

research into policy effectiveness. These conceptual schemes were originally developed by Yin, 1984 (see Boskma & Herweijer, 1988). Blaikie refers to similar work by Yin in 1989, when discussing ‘Generalizing and Theorizing from Case Studies’: “ Multiple cases, in this sense, should be considered like multiple experiments (or multiple surveys). Under these circumstances, the method of generalization is ‘analytic generalization’, in which a previously developed theory is used as a template with which to compare the empirical results of the case study… Analytic generalization can be used whether your case study involves one or several cases.” (Yin 1989: p. 38, in Blaikie 2005: p. 223). Blaikie also points out however, that in this approach researchers should ensure to provide readers with a correct impression of the relevant contexts.

37

4 Overview of existing models and theories This chapter describes the results of the literature survey. In this survey we performed a deliberate search for literature that contributes to finding the answers for the five research questions underpinning this research. This means that the results of the literature survey mainly address processes associated with cooperation between organisations, different forms of cooperation between organisations, the effects of borders between countries, as well as the question which options pioneers have to guide these cooperative partnerships. The reported results will mainly consist of models and theories and the insights derived of those will be presented as a resume in the final paragraph. Assembly of these insights will take place in chapter 5.

4.1 Water management as cross-border cooperation process

General Cooperation is increasingly becoming part of the governance strategy of water controlling organisations (Imperial, 2005). On one hand this is due to the fact that society has become more complex and in most cases water policies can only be implemented in cooperation with other organisations (Bresser e.a., 2005). On the other hand, new legislation, such as the European Water Framework Directive, requires water controlling organisations on both sides of the border to cooperate and align their policies towards each other with regard to cross-border waterways. Therefore it is no surprise that in the past decade much has been written on cooperation between water controlling organisations and other entities, and on cooperation between water controlling organisations on both sides of the border. Part of what is written on cross-sector cooperation, is also applicable on cross-border cooperation and vice versa. Below we have gathered some examples of publications on the above-mentioned varieties in cooperation.

These publication generally outline: - Governance of water resources and/or (cross-border) river basins Examples are Bressers & Kuks

(2004), Pigram (2006), Turton e.a. (2007), Painter & Menon (2008) and Van Leussen & Lulofs (2009).

- Different cooperative strategies in (cross-border) water management. Examples are Imperial (2005), Sabatier e.a. (2005), Huitema e.a. (2006) and Bressers & Lulofs (2010).

- Examples from practice on cooperation in the area of (cross-border) water management. Examples are Van Leussen & van Slobbe (2004), Keetman & Verhallen (2006), Van Leussen e.a. (2007), Feld & Locker-Grütjen (2007), Skias & Kallioras (2007), Pichla e.a. (2007), Lulofs e.a. (2007) and Lulofs & Coenen (2007).

- The importance of networking in (cross-border) implementation of water policies. Examples are Menahem (1998), Bressers e.a. (2005), De Bruin & Ten Heuvelhof (2007), Keetman (2007) and Huitema & Meijerink (2009).

- Handling the complexity within (cross-border) water management. Examples are Westley (2002), Geldof (2001), Pahl-Wostl (2008), Mollinga (2010) and Bressers & Lulofs (2010).

38

- The necessity for capacity building in support of (cross-border) water management. Examples are Tropp (2007), Blockland e.a. (2009), Salamé & van der Zaag (2010).

- The meaning of borders in general cross-border regional cooperation. An example is the work under supervision of Korsten e.a. (1999) in which various authors approach this theme from historical, as well as legal, administrative and economical perspective.

- The legal aspects of cross-border water management. Examples are Keessen e.a. (2008), Gilissen & van Rijswick (2009) and McIntyre (2010).

During the literature survey no other publications than Van der Molen & Lulofs (2010) were found that specifically address the way cooperative relationships aimed at cross-border regional water management can be developed. This is the reason that the literature survey was mainly aimed at literature on separate parts of the development of cross-border regional cooperation between organisations. The obtained results are described in paragraphs 4.2 to 4.4. In anticipation of the theory described in chapter 5, the 2010 publication by Van der Molen & Lulofs already contained some 'guidelines' for development of cross-border regional cooperative partnerships.

The development pattern This subject is directly linked to the first research question. This was 'Which stages can be distinguished in developing cross-border regional cooperation?'.

In the literature survey only one publication was found in which a growth model for the development of cross-border cooperation has been described, and this pertains to the 2007 publication of Verwijmeren & Wiering. In this growth model the development pattern of cross-border cooperation is described by using six development stages. The model is displayed in figure 4.1 - at the right side of the ovals, targets for the separate stages are indicated, while the ovals contain the most important prerequisites that need to be satisfied in order to reach the indicated targets.

Starting point of the model is the situation in which organisations on both sides of the cross-border river basin work completely separated from each other and therefore do not communicate with each other. In this situation (stage 0) there is neither any coherence in policy. The transition to stage 1 will initiate communication between regions, for example by exchanging research data or by organizing workshops on controlling the river or its basin. By starting communications (condition) parties will get familiar with each other, the objective is to become aware of mutual dependence for example with regard to the degree of shared problem definition and agendas for policy-making, etc. The next step is to establish mutual problem awareness (stage 2). Conditions are transparency with respect to their own problem setting and willingness to communicate on this. Mutual dependency does not have to be balanced or pertain to the same policy field, just as long as a joined awareness of cause and solutions for cross-border situations emerges. This joint awareness will then form a foundation for adjusting the own policies of the respective regions towards a joint policy (stage 3). Further development of the cooperation can lead to the next step (stage 4): some form of transition from autonomy to the realm of joint agreements or a joint organisation, in order to enable implementation of the joint policy. The final step, full integration (stage 5) is not feasible if administrative borders are kept in place. !

39

!

Figure 4.1 The model by Verwijmeren & Wiering

Verwijmeren & Wiering emphasise that full integration or increasing coherency are not necessarily the objective, region's can also deliberately chose for a higher degree of autonomy.

The model by Verwijmeren & Wiering was initially developed to be able to compare the five cross-border regional cooperative partnerships in a more directed way, but basically it is suited for analysing other cross-border regional cooperative partnerships as well. As part of the theory which is developed in this research, a growth model is presented in paragraph 5.3.1. which is derived from the model by Verwijmeren & Wiering.

Success and failure factors This subject is directly linked to the second research question. This was 'What are success and failure factors in enabling the development of cross-border regional cooperation?'.

During the literature survey no publications were found which referred specifically to success and failure factors in developing cross-border regional cooperative partnerships. There is however regular mention of problems that can occur during cross-border cooperation as result of differences on respective sides of the border, such as cultural differences or various structures of public governance on either side of the border. Lulofs & Coenen (2007), van Leussen e.a. (2007) and Fall (2009) among others, mention these differences. Thus we can assume that serious effects will occur as result of state borders and these should be considered failure factors. Paragraph 4.4 addresses the effects of boundaries.

General literature on success and failure factors in cooperation between organisations, and not specifically cross-border related, is amply available. Huxham & Vangen (2006) provide an overview

40

of success and failure factors in cooperation between organisations. The following factors are considered success!factors:

1. Selecting appropriate partners 2. Mutual trust 3. Honesty and reliability 4. Share vision 5. Mutual interdependence 6. Support by the highest decision-makers 7. A skilled pioneer (project leader) 8. Involvement of stakeholders

The following factors are considered failure factors:

1. Personal agendas 2. Egos 3. Politicization 4. Poor relationships at management or board level 5. Geographic distance 6. Differences in organisational cultures

The above-mentioned overview is based on a period of fifteen years of research into cooperation between organisations: partnerships, alliances, joint ventures, various types of networks, different scenarios in contracting & outsourcing, joint work groups and so on.

In the theory developed in this research (paragraph 5.3.2), the factors mentioned above are copied as success and failure factors for the development of cross-border regional cooperative partnerships.

4.2 Initiating and managing cooperation processes

This paragraph is directly linked to the third research question. This question was 'How can cooperation!processes!between organisations be initiated and managed?'

Regional water managing organisations are part of various networks, sectoral and cross-sector networks. In many cases this implies networks with cross-border characteristics. The meaning of the latter aspect will be revisited in paragraph 4.4 and is not under discussion in the present paragraph.

Examples of sectoral networks are networks of water managing organisations who are active within certain, administratively confined areas such as a province or country or in naturally confined areas such as river basins. Examples of trans-sectoral networks are regional networks within governmental or non-governmental organisations in various sectors who are connected to water in some way or another. In order to get a clear picture of the essence of this cooperation between networks in these situations and to which extent and in which way cooperation processes between organisations can be initiated and managed, the following four sub-paragraphs will successively discuss networks in organisations, network related strategies, stimuli for cooperation and a number of cooperation related themes.

41

4.2.1. About networks in organisations

Understanding how networks of organisations work is important for project managers driving the cross-border regional cooperative partnerships. Partly to be able to apply, but also to understand what is happening around them and why organisations or representatives of organisations behave the way they do. In paragraph 4.2.1. we therefore will describe some subjects which are relevant for this research with regard to networks in organisations. The contents of this paragraph are not part of the theory developed in this research, but serves as prelude for paragraph 4.2.2 in which a number of typical network related strategies are described which are part of the developed theory.

Mutual dependency Many publications exist on networks within organisations. Mandell (1988), Kickert e.a. (1997), Agranoff & McGuire (2003), Koppenjan & Klijn (2004), Bressers e.a. (2005) and De Bruin & Ten Heuvelhof (2007) all describe for instance that an actor in a network who wants to change something is dependent on collaboration of other actors. The question is if these other actors are willing to support this decision to change and, assuming they are, if they all will display this readiness at the right moment. When a decision-making process in a network needs to take place, it means that various actors will be involved in the decision-making process. These actors will have various interests and are interdependent. This means that the actors are not capable of solving this problem independently. They must work together in order to achieve their! own objectives; a decision-making process is only effective when decision-making takes place jointly. This could also involve various mutual differences between the actors, which would hamper cooperation and inhibit joint decision-making. Certain actors may not even be interested in particular situations regarding this decision-making. The amount of actors involved may also change during the course of the decision-making process.

Unpredictability in content and in the flow of processes The most important consequence of the above-mentioned factors is that decision-making processes often take place erratic and unstructured (Kickert e.a., 1997; Koppenjan & Klijn, 2004; De Bruin & Ten Heuvelhof, 2007). This pertains not only to the contents or context, but also to the process. The content of a problem and a solution continuously shifts (see also paragraph 4.2.2), where solutions could determine the problem definitions, instead of the other way around. New problems and solutions can be brought in during the decision-making process, and existing problems and solutions can be discarded. The erratic process can be seen in the fact that decision-making does not take place in clear 'start and finish' order and the consecutive rounds will be irregularly planned (see also paragraph 4.2.2).

Importance and limitations of actor analysis It is clear that an initiator who wants to pursue a particular decision, always needs to perform an analysis of all stakeholders (actors): who are the most important players, what are their views and interests and what are their power sources and relation networks? (Bennet e.a.., 1989; Van de Riet, 2003; Howlet & Margaran, 2006). However, analysis of actors also has its limitations. Views, interests, power sources and relationships can't always be easily revealed. On the other hand, actors in networks often will behave strategically (Koppenjan & Klijn, 2004). Strategic behaviour, in short, can

42

be described as behaviour of an actor not determined by contextual considerations, but aimed at strengthening their dominant position in the network. This means in our case that the attention shifts from the analysis as an unique activity to maintaining continuous relations with as many actors as possible, in order for the initiator to understand the views, interests, resources and relations of the other actors.

Selective activation and power positions Involving other parties in the decision-making process is a necessity in interdependent networks (Kickert e.a., 1997; Bressers, 2005). Important in this respect is which parties will be involved and what degree of power they will have. Involving all parties or stakeholders rarely is an option due to the high interaction expenses. Opposed to this approach is the option of selective activation of a network: selecting parties demands a strategic choice in which power positions play an important role. Regarding power positioning, we can differentiate between the positions of production power and blocking power and the diffuse power position (De Bruin & Ten Heuvelhof, 2007).

Production power consists of an actor being able to contribute positively to achieving something. Parties with production power are obviously necessary. The power sources they control are after all necessary to take decisions and subsequently implement them. In this respect we could question how many parties have control over the same power source. When an initiator is completely dependent on a party regarding financing a plan, this party will definitely have a strong dominant position. For this the initiator must pose an important strategic question regarding possibilities for multiple sourcing.

Blocking power means that an actor is merely able to stop something. Parties with blocking power are both necessary and not necessary for decision-making. Not necessary, because they do not furnish positive contributions to the decision-making process. The support of these parties is however necessary insofar as they could practice their blocking power and thus stop the process of decision-making. The most important question will therefore not be if they need to be involved in the process, but what the pertaining conditions will be to get them to behave cooperatively.

A diffuse power position means that the initiator cannot see clearly which dominant position an actor holds, that the position itself could change or that it is not clear whether an actor will want to use its power sources and relations. For parties with a diffuse power position, we can only wait and see how strong their power position is and which resources they control. They have the power to develop into parties with unique facilities, or parties with strong blocking power or turn out to be parties that have no power position at all (Pemberton, 2003). This is the reason that we should always keep the option open of offering them access to the process while it is already running.

Decision-making and change A quote from De Bruin & Ten Heuvelhof (2007): 'In a great deal of such model talk in which decision-making follows an orderly path in neat phased lapses, there is no justice given to the reality of a network. Anyone who derives his change strategies from such models and model talk, has little chance of success. If we take comparison to hardware and software - change strategy (software) is not compatible with the reality of decision-making (hardware). Decision-making in a network often follows a chaotic and capricious path and the change strategy must be able to deal with this

43

meandering.' (p. 6). In paragraph 4.2.2. we will present some strategies which - as the before-mentioned authors indicate - 'do work in a network'.

4.2.2. Network related strategies

In paragraph 4.2.1 it has become clear that decision-making in networks can be chaotic and erratic and the traditional change strategies can be insufficient in such situations. In the paragraph at hand we will therefore describe a number of typical network-related strategies which can be deployed in place of or in addition to the more traditional change strategies. The strategies mentioned are primarily derived from De Bruin & Ten Heuvelhof (2007).

Problem perception and priming An actor who defines a problem, will have to be aware that this is 'only' the perception of a problem. The problem shows the perspective of the pertaining actor and the question is if other actors do have the same perception of that problem (see also Dery, 1984). Even if that should be the case, there could also be completely different views in various actors regarding the urgency of the problem. There might even be many other problem perceptions, all fighting for priority (see also Van de Graaf & Hoppe, 1996; Hisschemöller & Hoppe, 2001). When problem perceptions receive central focus, then the actor will have to influence the problem perception of other actors (see also Van Buuren, 2006). Content analysis could play a role in this - if this content analysis shows that the pertaining problem is alarmingly large in size, then this will influence the problem perception of many other actors. When content analyses are insufficient, the attention of the actor will move to strategies enabling influencing the problem perception of actors (see also Koppenjan & Klijn, 2004). An example of this scenario is the strategy of priming – literal: priming with a layer of paint - in order to get the desired problem perception to 'cover and stick' better.

Broad problem definition Outlining problems too rigorously, could be dysfunctional (see also Edelenbos e.a., 2003). After all, the more delimitation of a problem, the less support there will be for a problem definition. In many cases it will make more sense to have a broad definition of a problem and even opt to link them to other problems. Such broad definition of a problem will certainly implicate that there are attractive elements in there for all actors. Defining a problem on those premises is more than just being vague about the actual problem. By offering a broad definition, other parties are able to include their interests.

Increasing complexities Increasing complexities can be meaningful for the process approach - as more problems and solutions play a part in a decision-making process, it becomes easier to link and disconnect them. It also becomes easier to make a packaged deal. Reducing complexities and decomposition will isolate problems and solutions. Per problem or per solution this could produce one-issue and yes/no-situations, making decision-making less efficient and purposeful.

44

Link the solution for the problem to others actors or disconnect Anyone who has knowledge of the problems other actors face, is able to link their own solution to the problem of the other actor(s). De Bruin & Ten Heuvelhof give the example of a harbour installation wanting to develop new industry territories in connection with a lack of space in the existing harbour territory. The company needs the support of a governmental ministry who has other priorities. In this example, the governmental official is strongly influenced by a strong sense of urgency to solve a drastic shortage in airport capacity which needs to be addressed. The harbour installation could propose to include a landing strip in the new industry territory, which could support the expansion of the national airport capacity. The consequence of this approach is that the new industry territory suddenly becomes the solution for the problem of the government official. The chances of obtaining his support for this new territory will therefore increase. Problems are thus linked to solutions, when other parties increase their support for this solution through this linkage. Disconnecting is also possible, when linking will restrict finding the solution to a problem.

Waiting for the 'window of opportunity' The moment that is chosen to define the problem, is a strategic choice. Many situations can be conceived, in which a problem has little or even a great amount of probability to finding a solution. For instance because there are many competing problems and thus insufficient focus. Waiting for less items on the agenda will then be the best solution. Or because the sense of urgency with by other parties in the network is limited. Investing in a sense of urgency with the other parties, by taking on the strategy of priming should be considered. Or, the problem might not be 'sexy', it does not appeal to the 'Zeitgeist' or to the prevailing strategic agenda. De Bruin & Ten Heuvelhof mention the example of privacy protection in this respect. Pleas for privacy protection have less chance on support during an era in which fear for terrorist attacks is present, than it would in more quiet times. On the other hand, anyone who would put problems related to safety on the agenda, stands a good chance of having the window of opportunity open.

Goals will be defined during the process In a network the objective is often a snapshot of the situation (Herweijer, 2003). Objectives are defined, but it is very well possible that another objective is defined during the process. After all, the parties involved will learn. They have the option to positional learning - they are gaining insight in which objectives will and which will not receive support. They are able to learn with respect to content - through the information being released throughout the process, they might see new possibilities and are thus able to define new goals. In a project, the goal will provide direction for the actions performed by the actors, in the process the actors will seek the goals that receive sufficient support (positional) and are attractive with respect to their content. It may very well be possible that parties will not define their objectives until the process is almost finished, when the learning processes cease to exist. However, decision-making without goal-orientation is often impossible. Something of an objective must be defined in order to get parties to take action. The point is to define the objective in such terms that it will attract other actors. Strategies such as goalstretching and naming and framing could contribute to this goal.

45

Goalstretching Similar to the situation of defining the problem, one could say that objectives need to be broadly formulated in order to be sufficiently recognizable for the critical mass of actors. If this is not the case, then we may have to resort to 'stretching' the objective. Objectives are not or not exclusively related to the problem definition, but (also) to the stakeholders involved - these should be able to recognize the definition of goals for themselves. It will be more likely for them to find an attraction in the objective, if it has been defined in the broadest sense.

Naming and framing As far as naming and framing is concerned, the question of using the most appealing language to describe the objective is essential. Within the process approach, framing of an objective is determined by the question if support can be acquired from other actors (Schon, 1987). The strategy of multi-targeting is in this respect similar to the previous approach. Whenever it is possible to link the same action to multiple goals, the chances for support will increase.

Preconditions arise and are flexible The decision-making process with its goal-oriented characteristics has also consequences for the preconditions that are required in this respect. Preconditions can only play a role in a network when all parties involved agree on those preconditions. Any dispute regarding this issue can only be the result of negotiations (see also Van de Riet, 2003). Preconditions which are actually included, will teach parties during the process that agreed upon preconditions can block certain problem perceptions or solutions, which could subsequently justify renegotiating the agreed preconditions. Some reserve should be made in a network when establishing preconditions, since they could act as wall limiting the decision-making process.

The necessity of negotiated knowledge In networks, 'non-structured' problems play an important role. The essence of these kind of problems is that they are not objectifiable. The underlying information for problem analysis, is always debatable or open to dispute (due to the usage of data, methods and system limitations, see also Van de Graaf & Hoppe, 1996; Hisschemöller & Hoppe, 2001). Problem analysis will require normative choices in most cases, which are debatable as well. The information used by one actor to underpin his problem analysis or decision, could bear little or no authority according to another actor. Thus, unstructured problems have no objective solutions. Although unstructured problems appear everywhere, they have an extra dimension in networks. In a network, parties will have different interests and will therefore have a strong stimulus to question the information and problem analysis of other parties (see also Koppenjan & Klijn, 2004). This implies that the unstructured character of a problem will often be magnified in a network-like situation. This poses a difficult dilemma. On one hand a good decision can only be based in good information and on the other hand information is rarely objective or unquestionable. The way out of this dilemma is that parties negotiate the correctness of the information (see also Van de Riet, 2003). When every party has its own perspective on a problem and possesses relevant expertise, establishing the correctness of the information will have to take place in mutual interaction.

46

Deploying strategic information Information is a major power source. Parties who can provide particular information, can use this strategically. For instance when information is strategically deployed by parties. Parties will emphasize information that is beneficial to them and introduce this into the network prior to the decision-making process. Information, that works against this party, is trivialized. Or parties can deploy information selectively in a network. Certain actors will be and others will not be informed, in order to strengthen their position during negotiations. Actors will have to be aware of the fact that others will use information equally strategic. Regarding information that is received in the network, check and double will always be the motto, as well as the question if this information was issued on possible strategic grounds.

Nice to know information gathering Decision-making in a network follows capricious and ostensibly chaotically routes. Information gathering in a network taking place based on the nice to know principle, will be more effective than need to know information gathering. Nice to know information gathering lacks clear focus. An actor will try to get as much information as possible from the network, even when it might not be immediately clear what the purpose of this information is. After all, this erratic decision-making will often lead to unexpected opportunities or barriers. The more information a party possess, the more they will be able to handle this unpredictability. By knowing which problems others have, it becomes easier to link solutions that are found to the problems of others. Knowing which issues are relevant for other parties, will enable them to furnish them with attractive multi-issue agendas.

Watching for sufficient attention An important manifestation of the inconsistent flow of decision-making is that the actors in a network will sometimes be receptive to new information and sometimes seclude themselves off from it. The question whether they are receptive or not will be largely dependent on the course of the decision-making process. It could very well be possible that parties are receptive for new information when they have reached a certain impasse in the decision-making process. New information will then lead to a change in positions of the parties and thus restart the decision-making process. When reaching consensus took a great deal of effort, new information will disturb this consensus and they will be likely to seclude themselves off from it. Each of these mechanisms imply that the impact of information in a decision-making process is not only determined on account of the contents of the information, but also on the moment of introduction in the process and the attention of the actors in the network (Coyle, 1999). The strategic question will always be if there is sufficient attention in the network for certain information. If not, it is not wise to introduce the information. There will be no value at present and the future value cannot be sustained.

Tick off Decision-making in a network is the result of a process, in which parties have been negotiating on a large number of issues. The formal establishment of the package will eventually be no surprise for these parties. They introduced their issues, went through discussions and negotiations and compiled a package. Formal decision-making is a matter of 'ticking off' - the decision needs only to be agreed upon formally, after the negotiations. As opposed to the project approach, this formal point of decision

47

will no longer be directive. The direction was already determined in the process, that preceded the formal decision-making. 'Decisions as result of a process' will often be documented as the formal policy or plan. Unlike the hierarchical environment, the policy or plan will therefore not be the start of a process of implementation and action, but the result of such a process.

Decision-making is an ongoing process In networks, a formal decision seldom indicates the end of the decision-making process. In negotiations on issues A-D, the losers in issue A could very well be compensated with respect to decision-making in B, C or D. The decision-making process on A appears to be concluded, but in reality this influences decision-making in B-D. Parties are able to use this effect actively by accepting the loss regarding A, provided they are compensated during the decision-making process on B. Decision-making thus becomes an ongoing process. Decision-making on B cannot be understood without understanding the decision-making on A, while decision-making on A might have been influenced by earlier decision-making processes.

Open decision Making the decision fully 'closed up' is more likely in a hierarchy - detailed decisions, leaving little play, are an important insurance of implementation being executed according to the lines of this decision. In a network the objective is more often a package deal. Such deals usually lead to a win-win situation - all parties stand more to gain than to lose. This win-win outcome is the guarantee that implementation progresses according to the decision. After all each party will have something to gain by such implementation. Decision-making may also become a win-loose-game, there will be some that stand to lose. Having the decision fully closed up in a win-lose-game, will take away any chance on winning for the losing party and could be an stimulus for them to hamper the implementation at any given opportunity. When some options are still open for discussion, we see open decision-making as scenario, making it possible for each party to have chances for the future. Open decision-making in a network has a positive undertone - it is a stimulus for cooperative behaviour.

Changes in pace Project-oriented decision-making is often characterized by the crucial role played by planning and scheduling. Before the decisions are made, the whole overview of aspects to be deciding upon and their end-date, has to be in place. The bargaining position of the actors could be weakened due to plans and deadlines within a network. Project-oriented decision-making will often be characterized by changes in pace. Sometimes delays can be wise, in expectation of sufficient attention or a window of opportunity - a sudden chance offering a link to a new problem or a new solution (Kingdon, 1995). When such a window opens, the actors can accelerate the process and achieve a large number of links.

Decision follows action. Avoid formal decision-making Sometimes it is wise to avoid formal decision-making. Sometimes processes offer the opportunities to take joint action as parties, without having a decision to precede this step. This way, these parties can realize their interests in a simple manner. When no one takes action, and everyone waits for the formal decision-making process, take they two risks: their action could be delayed and chances are that the proposal will not make it unharmed through the formal decision-making process. Decision-making

48

implies after all that other parties also give their attention to the intended action. This poses a risk, especially when it is not clear up front if they will be supporting this action or not.

Implementation is a new round, so there are new chances Especially when decisions are not 'boarded up' but offer play room, we see implementation as a new round in the process of consultation and negotiation, with the same new chances for the parties involved (see also Teisman, 1992 en 2001; Koppenjan & Klijn, 2004). They could try to redefine the decision, postpone the implementation, implement the decision differently from the intended cause of action. Moreover, new opportunities could appear, possibly requiring an entire other decision, or even complete reversal of the decision. Actors who are aware that the implementation is 'yet' another round in the process, are able to anticipate on this situation. Processes of consultation and negotiation can invoke high cost, they will require a great deal of time, could affect relationships with other parties and have no guarantee that they will be leading to success. Actors could opt for a passive approach in this matter and take advantage of it, knowing that in the implementation stage there will be ample room to achieve their own interests. An additional advantage could be that parties who took this passive position and did not gain many profitable outcomes, now have some credit left with the other parties. Parties who gained a lot during the composition of the package deal, might have less say when it comes to the implementation.

Implementation also requires strategic choices. Create points of no return Actors with interests in the implementation of packaged decisions, will hesitate agreeing with a number of the before-mentioned strategies. Once the packaged decision is made and the other actors only see this as a new round of negotiations or as possibility to rearrange the decision, then interests of others might be affected. The risk of these strategies is fairly limited, provided sufficient actors have interest in implementation according to the decisions. The actor who tries to renegotiate will put his relationship with a great number of other actors at danger, which is not wise within a network of repetitive interdependencies. Another strategy is to create points of no return in the implementation process. This is illustrated by De Bruin & Ten Heuvelhof with an example of a rail road track being built from A to B, spanning 200 kilometre. Thirty kilometre before reaching B, the track could run along C or D. After lengthy negotiation, the decision is made to run the track along C, but there was a great deal of resistance against this choice. The implementation of this decision could be defined as strategic activity. Although it might not be logical from an operational perspective, it could be wise not to wait too long with building the track at C. As long as there are no building activities around C, there could always be a chance that the choice of the trajectory will be re-discussed. Building at C will therefore limit the possibilities, since now a point of no return has been created.

In conclusion In paragraph 4.2.2 some typical network-related strategies were addressed which were mostly derived from De Bruin & Ten Heuvelhof (2007) which can be deployed in place of or in addition to the more traditional change strategies. In the theory developed in this research (see box 5.4 in paragraph 5.3.3), these strategies are presented to the pioneers in order to initiate and manage the cooperative!processes.

49

4.2.3 Stimuli for cooperation

During the literature survey, multiple publications were found in which reference is made regarding stimuli for cooperation, c.q. stimuli for change in water governance, such as Imperial (2001), Bressers & Kuks (2003) and Huxham & Vangen (2006).

Since the stimuli for cooperation in the theory developed in this research (see paragraph 5.3.3., box 5.4) were derived from Bressers & Kuks (2003), we will provide a short description of the stimuli mentioned in these publications.

Based on a comparative study between twenty-four cases in six countries, Bressers & Kuks have identified several factors which can lead to change in water governance, and they have made distinctions in stimuli and circumstances. This supports the conclusion that stimuli can only lead to change if the circumstances are favourable. Bressers & Kuks assume the following stimuli for change:

1. Pressure from the EU through policy and law-making; 2. Pressure from National Governments through policy and law-making; 3. Problem pressure; 4. Other pressure, for example from social organisations (NGOs).

The circumstances in which the stimuli can lead to change, have been divided into five categories:

1. Experience in cooperation / collaboration; 2. Joint awareness of problems; 3. Awareness of mutual opportunities; 4. Credible alternative threats; 5. Favourable legal conditions.

Note regarding the categorization of stimuli and circumstances as classified by Bressers & Kuks (2003): 'awareness of mutual opportunities' was added as a favourable circumstance for change. Mutual opportunities can, by themselves, also be classified as stimulus for cooperation in certain cases.

4.2.4. Cooperation related themes

During the literature survey, multiple publications were found that address various themes which might become an issue at the time the cooperative! process has been initiated. Examples are Gray (1989), Bardach (1998), Dyer & Singh (1998), Linden (2002) and Huxham & Vangen (2006).

In paragraph 5.3.3, box 5.4, the pioneers in the theory developed in this research are referred to the so-called collaborative advantage theory by Huxham & Vangen (2006) for a comprehensive and broad overview of these themes. Below you will find an excerpt of this advice with relevant parts for this theory. Most of the ideas and referrals by Huxhan & Vangen deserve the credit that is earned and therefore we have placed the excerpts mostly one-on-one.

The collaborative advantage theory is based on a period of fifteen years of research into cooperation between organisations: partnerships. alliances, joint ventures, various types of networks, various forms

50

of contracting & outsourcing, joint work groups, etc. The theory is constructed around a number of so-called themes of collaborative practice: overlapping themes that surfaced during the fifteen years of research as success and failure factors for cooperation in practical situations. Beneath the surface of these themes are deeper issues. Underlying issues might be connected with multiple themes, since these can overlap in certain areas.

Huxham & Vangen present their theory based on seven perspectives on cooperation. Some of the above-mentioned themes of collaborative practice are almost ‘wrapped’ in these seven perspectives, the other themes will be address in five text boxes.

Perspective 1: We must establish common goals, but we cannot agree on them

General opinion suggests that when organisations work together it is good to have a clear picture where this cooperation should lead to, preferably described as common goals, and at least in the form of compatible individual goals. Practice shows that due to the differing agendas of organisations and individuals involved, it is often difficult to agree on the goals of the cooperation.

There are multiple reasons (or rather deeper issues) why reaching agreement often is a difficult task. Organisations come together and contribute resources and expertise for example, which potentially could lead to collaborative advantage. The organisations, however, have different reasons to join, so their representatives aim at achieving various forms of output. Sometimes this difference in goals can lead to conflicts of interest between the organisations involved in the process.

In addition, achieving common goals can be a condition to achieve their objectives for some organisations, while others are much less interested and perhaps only - or even reluctantly - joined as a result of external pressure. This may create some tension: some organisations are very interested in influencing and controlling the common agenda, while others reluctantly provide resources or other means.

Representatives of organisations might also have joined with different expectations, aspirations and insights into what should be achieved collectively. At first glance it may very well seem that the partners are only concerned with addressing common goals, but in reality their aim on organisational level or on a personal level could hamper an agreement by causing confusion, misunderstanding and conflicts of interest.

In addition, only part of the variety of goals will be explicit, another part is often not publicly addressed. The latter goals are sometimes assumptions used by participants, while other participants do not recognize them, or they remain deliberately hidden.

Managing goals in practice Figure 4.2 depicts a framework that can be used to gain a better view of the diverse goals of a participant. Of course, not all goals are known, but there is no objection to ponder about other people's hidden agenda.

51

Perspective per participant Explicit Assumed Hidden Common goals N/A Organisational goals Personal goals

Figure 4.2!A framework to better understand goals (Huxham & Vangen, 2006)

By entering information into the framework for several participants, an impression is created of the different goals included in the process. Often the conclusion will be that it is difficult to comply with the desire for clear common goals. This reveals an important management dilemma, namely that common goals can provide clear direction for cooperation, while irreconcilable differences could emerge in an open discussion about goal setting.

Difficulties arising from having to bridge communications along professional and natural language differences, organisational differences, cultural differences and professional variations, will not contribute to a smooth negotiation process. Similar concerns arise with respect to the accountability of participants in the organisations or other institutions who must account for their actions and have a difficult time engaging in making compromises. Often the only practical way to make progress is simply by starting an action, without full agreement on the goals. This is then flagged as find a way of stating the aims so that none of the parties can disagree.

Box 4.3 Language and culture

As well as different goals, the parties will also bring different working cultures, ideologies and procedures into the cooperation. They will therefore tend to tackle tasks in different ways. Seemingly trivial or routine matters such as what pay level or conditions of service are appropriate for a member of staff appointed to the cooperation, can often take a great deal of time to sort out.

As well as practical difficulties of satisfying the norms of more than one organisation, cultural and ideological differences can cause major communication problems through encouraging different interpretations of 'facts'. This problem will be exacerbated by language difficulties.

In cross-border cooperation there is the obvious problem of different mother tongues. Even when parties fairly fluently speak the same language, there is always the risk that sensitive messages such as goals or culture are not transferred in full. Less obvious but in this context not least important is the fact that participants from different professional fields will describe similar situations using different jargon.

Examples include police, social workers and educators: three parties who need to coordinate their work on a regular basis, but have very different jargon. In addition, they also have very different goals, cultures and procedures. Cooperative partnerships that cover several industries often face similar problems; these are often precisely the kind of problems affecting industrial acquisitions. Forms of cooperation where voluntary-public-private partnerships have to be established, are even more susceptible to these problems. The way each of their interventions is interpreted by others in the cooperative partnership will, without a doubt, be influenced by all the factors mentioned above. It is therefore not surprising that this type of cooperation will either progress positively with lengthy processes of clarification or negatively ending in confusion and stagnation.

52

Perspective 2: Sharing of power is important, but people are not acting that way

The saying 'whoever pays, determines' suggests that those who lack the budgets are automatically deprived of power. Viewed objectively, this often seems at odds with 'reality' when dealing with practice. Most parties have at least the minimal power of retreating from the cooperation. People often behave as if the above proverb of 'whoever pays, determines' is irrevocable reality, and tend to exhibit aggressive and defensive behaviour to support that belief.

When we look at where power is actually deployed to negotiate, implement and influence activities within the cooperation, then a number of!points of power! - points in order to exert power - can be identified. Many of these points occur at microlevel within the partnership, and are often not explicitly visible to those directly involved. An example of such a point is naming the cooperative partnership, since that name will at some point have influence on what the partnership will be doing or not be doing. Those involved in the naming process are therefore - in terms of power - in a position of strength at that moment. Other examples relate to inviting the parties to participate in a partnership; those involved in the selection of entrants apparently are in a position of power at that moment, although those deciding on membership policies acquired an even stronger position. Who should be invited is also the focus of the theme of 'democracy and equality' which is summarized in box 4.8.

Many points of power are related to communication processes. A whole set of examples can be drawn from the arrangements surrounding meetings. During the meeting the person who performs the role of chairperson or facilitator will be the one with power, at least until the meeting is over. A more subtle and perhaps more significant degree of power is held by those who deal with the question who will preside or facilitate. Those deciding on the location of a meeting will also have a certain amount of power, especially if they can decide whether the meeting will or will not take place at the location of a particular participant. And even those who decide on when a meeting takes place, could derive power from that status.

An important feature of points of power is that they are not static. Within the cooperative partnerships powers will be continuously shifting. Prior to the start-up phase, drawing up the contracts and collecting funds will provide someone with a strong position. During the start-up phase, when the budgets become available, much more power will concentrate around those who are appointed to manage the cooperative partnership: at this stage they are able to significantly influence the direction and work processes. Only at a later stage will the actual active members get the opportunity to exercise power.

Less detectable, but surely significant, are the continuous shifts of power during each of the stages. For example, the power of network managers in the periods between meetings, because it is in these periods that they are often the only ones able to devote their time entirely to the network and generally have access to the network resources. At meetings, however, the power shifts towards the participants, who then decide on new members, times and locations of meetings and at that time maintain their influence by making appointments for actions. Others less directly involved, such as facilitators and consultants, may take positions of power for short periods of time. External influences, such as from

53

governments, can sometimes be extremely strong in the short term when a report or a response to an initiative is demanded.

Managing power in practice By themselves we consider issues related to 'whoever pays, determines' significant, but there are many more connecting points from which power is exercised in practice. For all participants there will be a moment in time when they more or less get a chance to exercise power and have regular opportunities to strengthen their dominant position in the cooperative partnership. Understanding and exploring these issues within the concept of!points or power!makes it possible to find out when and where other participants consciously or unconsciously exercise power, and where and when the other participants feel that others are exercising their power over them. It also enables people to think about when and where one consciously exercises power. Providing follow up on these insights, however, requires the willingness to accept that manipulative behaviour is acceptable - something which some would claim, does not fit the spirit of cooperation.

Box 4.4 Compromises

In the text it was already mentioned that willingness to compromise with regard to different agendas is essential for progress in cooperative partnerships. In addition, people involved in cooperative partnerships often emphasize the need to compromise with regard to different working methods, organisational cultures and personal work styles.

The need to compromise stems from the fact that organisations differ from each other. Besides various purposes, they also have different cultural values and standards. This may mean that things seen as trivial or routine in a single organisation, could take more time in an cooperative partnership, because compromises need to be negotiated to achieve buy-in from all participants.

Many difficulties arise in cooperative partnerships because many people from various disciplines are required to work together. People working in child care for example, often have very different values, goals and work styles than people in the police force, health care, education and local government, and yet they have to work together with many people from these sectors.

Perspective 3: Trust is necessary for successful cooperation, but we cannot seem to find it

It is often argued that trust is a precondition for successful cooperation. In practice, however, trust between partners is often utopian and the starting point is more often surrounded with distrust. Participants rarely have the luxury of being able to choose their partners: the pressure of imposed government policy or very practical reasons, will condemn partners to having to work together without sufficient amounts of trust.

54

Figure 4.5 The trust-building loop (Huxham & Vangen, 2006)

This suggests that it is wise to pay attention to building trust between partners. One way of thinking about building trust can be drawn from the proposed loop in Figure 4.5.

In the loop displayed above we assume that building trust requires two important initial conditions. The first has to do with determining the mutual expectations regarding cooperation. Principles for setting common goals may include: reputation, past behaviour and / or more formal contracts and agreements. The second initial condition has to do with taking risks. The reasoning here is that partners must trust each other enough to engage in a particular risk by wanting to start the cooperation. If these two initial conditions can be met, the loop can be set in motion. Trust can be built up gradually through realistic - and initially not too highly set - goals which should be achievable within a reasonable degree of certainty. This reinforces trust between partners and provides a basis for a more ambitious cooperation.

Managing trust in practice The practical conclusion to be derived from figure 4.5 is similar to common goals: it is better to keep them small and manageable and then slowly but surely start building confidence step by step. This incremental approach to building trust cannot be applied when an immediate objective needs to be achieved within a short time frame. In such cases, defining common goals and taking risks will have to be managed simultaneously, supported by other activities that will work on building trust. In most cases, it is recommended to start working on incremental building of trust first.

55

Box 4.6 Communication

The theme of communication is related to the theme of compromising. The call for good communication is very common among those who are experienced in cooperating. Often they distinguish three communication channels: communication between people within the core of the cooperative partnership, the communication between the core group and other organisations involved and communication between the cooperative partnership and the world beyond.

An important issue concerning communication within the core group is language. Normal language for one person, may be perceived as typical jargon for someone else. This may apply between professionals from different disciplines but also between professionals and volunteers or between professionals and representatives of social engaged groups. If the latter are comprised of representatives of ethnic groups, who have lesser command of the common language, communication problems may rapidly occur.

Even in the absence of serious problems with jargon or language, communication problems can still occur. This is because people with different backgrounds could interpret the things being said very differently. People involved in the daily practice of cooperation, often emphasize that participants in the core group check whether everyone is on the same page regarding what is being said and are tolerant towards one another on this issue.

Good communication within the core group is not always self-evident. The same applies to communication between the core group and other relevant organisations. This communication is often time consuming, but is also considered essential in terms of early identification of disputes and gaining trust, commitment, support and resources within the individual organisations.

For cooperative partnerships established to solve social problems at local levels, communication between the partnership and the local community is considered vitally important. Keeping the partnership informed of what goes on in the community and maintaining/establishing a good relationship with the community is key to this premiss.

Perspective 4: We are sick and tired of partnerships and everything that goes with it

One of the things that is striking in research into cooperation between organisations, is how little clarity can be found on exactly who the participants are. Participants produce requested lists with names of other participants that do not match, and the staff member fulfilling a central role in the partnership is unable to list all participants without consulting the formal pieces of documentation. Two underlying issues are contributing to this situation. The first relates to the commitment that people or organisations have regarding partnerships and the status they hold within the network. The second underlying issue involves the confusion that often prevails concerning the question if someone participates as an individual or an organisation.

The lack of clarity concerning the partners are often exacerbated by the complexity associated with partaking in larger numbers of partnerships. Huxham & Vangen refer in this paragraph to the example of an electronics manufacturer who is involved in approximately 400 strategic alliances involved. In the public sector, these numbers are lower, but certainly also refer to partnership fatigue because of the large number of meetings taking place as result of the associated partnerships.

56

Involvement in multiple partnerships has other consequences than cooperation fatigue. One is that participants may try linking agendas of various partnerships, because (they think) they connect or overlap, without having an eye for the whole. Another consequence may be that it can be unclear if someone is speaking on behalf of their organisation, or on behalf of another cooperative partnership.

In addition to the complexity of the number of cooperative partnerships, there is often the complexity of networks of partnerships in organisations. See for example the situation where a municipality participates in partnership A, B and C, and through those connections is involved in partnership D as well, where A, B and C are members. In an extreme case, the municipality itself is a member of cooperative partnership D. Many networks of cooperative partnerships have a hierarchical nature in the sense that cooperative partnerships are members of a different 'higher' cooperative partnership as well. Examples - a joint venture, which is part of a strategic alliance, trade organisation who represent their members in policy networks, etc.

Managing ambiguity and complexity in practice It is difficult for managers to agree with goals, build mutual understanding, manage power and link to partners when they do not clearly know who their partners are. Similar in difficulty is managing partnerships within complex systems in which different elements affect each other but where there is little clarity about the nature of this influence.

Mapping the relational connections using relationship diagrams can be useful at this point, but it may be clear that this will not eliminate the ambiguity and uncertainty to the fullest extend. Learning to identify ambiguity and complexity, to live with it and making progress is perhaps the main challenge within this perspective.

Box 4.7 Accountability

... Autonomy to act ... increases the speed with which actions can be performed by a partnership. This concept, along with the other side of it - accountability - seems to be central in collaborative inertia.

The necessity for members of the core group to be accountable to their own organisation will affect in practice their willingness to agree with certain actions of the partnership (Friend, 1990). Often a member needs to consult the groups of adherents before agreeing with a decision of the partnership. Conversely, organisations, because they are part of a cooperative partnership, can no longer act entirely free as far as the objective of the cooperative partnership is concerned (Batsleer & Randall, 1993). In these cases, organisations will often consult with the other parties in the cooperative partnership before taking action. This creates a lack of autonomy for both individuals and organisations within the cooperative partnership, which may ultimately lead to collaborative inertia.

Individual organisations sometimes try to break through collaborative inertia by stepping outside the core group to liaise with other participating organisations. When communication is good and there is a sufficient degree of confidence this can be an effective way to move forward.

57

Perspective 5: Everything keeps changing

Cooperative partnerships are often addressed in the assumption that stability among members is a natural phenomenon, at least within an overseeable time frame. The reality appears to be different, several issues influence this situation.

Changes in policies, both internally an often externally imposed, regular restructuring of participants. Mergers and break-ups, new start-ups and terminations, acquisitions and sales are common phenomena, which in turn often affect the partnerships in which the organisations are participating.

Policy changes affecting individual participants can influence the objective of cooperation3 These changes may be initiated internally, e.g. as a result of a revision of the strategic vision. And even externally, for example due to government policy or due to market disruption. Both cases imply a change in the relevance of cooperation for the participants. Perhaps other methods of cooperating are required of the participants, new participants may enter or existing ones leave.

Another cause of change has to do with the fact that individuals can change position. Relationships between individuals in partnerships are often essential to get anything done, which makes cooperation very sensitive to changes in the positions of individuals.

Besides the reasons for change mentioned above, partnerships also have their own underlying dynamics. Once the original objective of the partnership is reached, there is often a need to prepare and implement a joint follow-up agenda. As a rule, this changes the demands on the participants.

All organisations are dynamic in the sense that they will gradually transform. Partnerships are sensitive to the transformations within each of the participating organisations and therefore can change very quickly. At this point, Huxham & Vangen refer to the example of a cooperative partnership with an ambiguous original structure and many participants, going through three identifiable reincarnation within a period of three years and ending up being a very well-organized partnership of two organisations. The objective of this partnership was substantially different, but still reasonably related to that of the original cooperative partnership.

Managing the dynamics of cooperation in practice The dynamic nature of partnerships makes the loop shown in figure 3.4 for building trust very fragile. All efforts devoted to building mutual understanding and trust could -for instance- have been in vain due to a change in the structure of a major participating organisation or as result of a change in function of an important individual. A practical conclusion for those who want a successful cooperation is that developing cooperative relationships require constant attention: ‘Treat jointly managed schemes as fragile plants which need careful nurturing until they have taken organisational root.’

Perspective 6: Leadership lies not always in the hands of the participants

Given the previously discussed difficulties involved in cooperation, the issue of leadership seems highly relevant. Because there are no cooperative partnerships in traditional hierarchies, it is useful to consider leadership in a more general sense in stead of limiting this to the realm of senior

58

administrators or prominent public figures. Huxham & Vangen rather consider leadership as something connected to the mechanisms leading to actual outcomes of the cooperative partnership. In essence Huxham & Vangen focus on the question ‘What makes things happen?’ and arrive therefore at establishing and implementing policy and the agenda of activities ruling the partnerships.

When looking at leadership from this perspective, leadership is surprisingly something that is not only performed by people. Structures and processes are as important as members of cooperative partnerships in the preparation of agendas. For example in case of a partnership between two organisations, the structure should be such that both partners have good access to the agenda, but other organisations are excluded. An entirely different example is an cooperative partnership where every organisation can join and where all members have access to the agenda. In this structure it may be practically difficult for representatives to influence the agenda. Something similar applies to processes: in case of an cooperative partnership where communication is largely done through open meetings, access to the agenda is organized substantially different than in the case of a partnership in which the communication is largely done via email and/or phone. In short, for the better part the structures and processes are leading in compiling the agendas. Participants could also lead in this case, but mostly these will be the emergent informal leaders, and not those who operate from an authoritative position.

Structures, processes and participants can be considered as a variety in media through which collaborative leadership can be established in practical sense. An important point concerning all three major media is that they are mostly placed outside the control of participants in the cooperative partnerships. Structures and processes are sometimes imposed from outside the cooperative partnership, e.g. by government, the head offices or the funding organisation. Even when this is not the case, structures and processes often emerge from prior actions rather than explicitly being designed by the participants. Even in the context of 'participants' as leadership media, leadership is not only a role for participants in a cooperative partnership. External stakeholders such as customers and local public figures often greatly influence the direction of a partnership or an alliance. A strong leading role is often reserved for the support staff who are, strictly speaking, not seen as participants.

Managing leadership media This perspective shows the ease with which participants lose control of cooperative partnerships. Part of what can be done in practice is to recognize this is partly inevitable and comes down to doing what is feasible under the circumstances. Mapping the different relational connections may help to clarify the nature of the structure, as the first step to gain insight into the consequences of the structure for the leadership.

For leaders who want to lead more actively, this perspective means that part of their work will be designing structures and processes, as well as monitoring the performance and development thereof. In the seventh and final perspective we will address active leadership.

59

Box 4.8 Democracy and equality

We can distinguish at least three aspects related to the way people think of the concept of democracy.

The first aspect consists of the question who should be involved in the partnership. To involve 'anyone who has an interest' (Mattesich & Monsey 1992) is very democratic, but will everyone have enough time to spend on being a good participant? In addition, large numbers of participants will also make communication and decision-making among members a difficult task. Finding the right balance between the size of the group and a good representation of all interests is seen as an important issue.

In practice, very few community-oriented cooperative partnerships have been well-thought-out in their composition. Nevertheless, research shows the importance of determining a) the critical organisations or persons for achieving the goals, b) those that will experience the effects of these goals, and c) potential saboteurs (Eden, 1996) In a fully democratic setting, all these three groups should be involved, but for pragmatic reasons it is not often done in practice.

One way to think about stakeholders is to divide them into internal and external stakeholders. Internal stakeholders are part of the cooperative partnership, external stakeholder will remain external (Finn, 1996) Internal stakeholders will need to be invited to participate, and will certainly want to negotiate the goals of cooperative partnership. External stakeholders will also need to be involved, for example through a consultation process (focus groups, etc.).

The second aspect is related to the cooperation process itself. Members of community-oriented organisations are often concerned if true democracy actually takes place in cooperative partnerships. However, this can only occur when everyone is always present, although in practice especially those are present who have a real interest in what is to be decided. In addition, participants are very sensitive to people who want to make their mark in the debate, but - nevertheless - someone must act as leader. These two points indicate that full democratic decision-making is difficult to achieve and the price for a purely democratic process could be that nobody ever takes responsibility for the partnership.

Equality and credits are other points of concern. Recognizing the contributions of each individual and ensuring that everyone shares the credits for a joint success is seen as an important point. Consequence is that those participants who have actually accomplished the success will be denied full credit. (Re)distribution of credits among all members of the cooperative partnership is important for two reasons: by letting everyone share, the cooperative partnership becomes manifest, which feeds future funding of the partnership. In addition, it is also good for the morale among the staff (Huxham & McDonald, 1992).

The third aspect is related to the accountability and representativeness. Participating organisations in cooperative partnerships are represented by individuals. These persons are limited in their actions by what their organisation wants and sometimes by what the adherents want from their organisation. This highly restricts the freedom of cooperative partnerships to act at their sole discretion. In box 4.6 we pointed out that good communication between the core group and other organisations is essential. On the other hand, this could seriously delay the output of the cooperative partnership.

Another aspect of accountability is the representativeness of a representative. Representatives of community-oriented organisations often decide on views outside the immediate sphere of interest of their adhering groups. For other participants the question remains to what degree the views of the respective representative can be seen as representative.

60

Perspective 7: Leadership activities continually meet with dilemmas and difficulties

Organisations or individuals develop leadership activities to further cooperation into a direction they regard as meaningful. On one hand they will affect the outcome of the joint initiatives in this manner. On the other hand they encounter in their efforts often so many difficulties that the results of their leadership activities will turn out different from what they originally intended.

Many of the activities performed by those who are meant to be in charge of the cooperative partnerships, will do so within the spirit of cooperation. These kind of activities are often highly supportive and refer to embracing, enhancing, involving and driving participants. The same people seem to be occupied with activities that are seemingly less oriented on cooperation, such as manipulating agendas and engaging in political manoeuvring. Huxham & Vangen characterize these activities as leaning!towards collaborative thuggery, in other words almost uncivilized.

Managing leadership activities Is the consequence of the dilemma described above a choice between the ideology of cooperation and pragmatism necessary to get things done? Not necessarily. The previously used metaphor of caring for a plant also has many faces. Often it is referred to in the context of loving care towards a fragile little plant. But when the object of concern is growing in a garden overrun by weeds that need to be eliminated, then rigorous techniques are needed such as weeding, hoeing and so on. Huxham & Vangen do not present hard evidence, but we can assume that successful leaders utilize both leadership styles, not only in de spirit of cooperation but also towards collaborative thuggery, are alternated and when needed even deployed simultaneously.

To conclude paragraph 4.2 The collaborative advantage theory by Huxham & Vangen (2006) provides pioneers of cross-border regional cooperative partnerships with a thorough view on the processes involved in the cooperation between organisations. However, the theory does not deliver measured recipes for managerial action, but was not intended as such. Huxham & Vangen see managing cooperation between organisations more as an inexact art form which requires a great deal of personal interpretation. In the opinion of both authors, understanding the nature of situations where cooperation is needed, is the foundation for this interpretation. The conceptual cues in this theory are merely provided as foundation for what they indicate as thoughtful action. Parts of the collaborative advantage theory as described in paragraph 4.2.4., are presented to the pioneers in paragraph 5.3.3 in box 2.4 in order to support them with initiating and managing the cooperative processes.

The results presented in paragraph 4.2 of the literature survey indicate that initiating and managing cooperative processes can be considered as a change process, in which change takes place in a multi-actor context. It also shows that this type of change process has limited controllability and that pioneers in cross-border regional cooperative partnerships have little grip on tangible sources to be able to manage these change processes. In order to provide the pioneer with more 'ammunition', paragraph 4.5 explores the option of offering them more grip by applying the 'rules' of driving change processes within single organisations to have similar effects in driving change processes within multiple organisations.

61

Paragraph 4.2.5. made clear that leadership is not something that is exercised only by people, but structures and processes sometimes play an equally important role. In the following subsection we will therefore focus on the more organisational side of cooperation between organisations.

4.3 Designing cooperative partnerships

This paragraph is directly linked to the fourth research question. This was 'How can we model cooperative partnerships for organisations?'.

In order to obtain a clear image of what the essence of cooperative partnerships is, the following four sub-paragraphs will subsequently address the basic forms of cooperation, organising between organisations, the role of the administrators in cooperative partnerships and managing cooperative partnerships.

4.3.1 The basic forms of cooperation

Kaats e.a. (2005) distinguish! four! basic forms of cooperation: transactional cooperation, functional cooperation, entrepreneurial cooperation and exploratory cooperation.

Transactional cooperation In transactional cooperation, the transactions are the essence of the cooperation. The intention is to improve a production process or a chain through an efficient exchange of people, products, services and information. Parties exchange structural 'forecasting' information, align production and inventory data and manage inventory. This type of cooperation is often found in purchasing and supplier networks.

Functional cooperation In functional cooperation, one partner transfers the management of his business function to the other partner. This often happens because the relevant business function is a non-core activity for one partner and improvement is possible through outsourcing to another partner whose core business it is. Partners commit strongly to each other and make specific agreements on the way they align their processes.

Entrepreneurial cooperation Entrepreneurial cooperation is rooted in the recognition that organisations cannot achieve strategic renewal on their own, but need one or more complementary parties to do so. This leads to intense cooperation where partners share competencies and skills to a large extent. Total commitment from each party is required, mainly because strategically important information, knowledge and technologies are introduced to all partners. All parties involved are equal to a high degree as far as the field of cooperation is concerned. This does not imply similarity in size, but can be seen in the weight each party attributes to the other's competencies. In entrepreneurial cooperation, cooperative partnerships aim at discovery and development.

Exploratory cooperation In exploratory cooperation, organisations meet because they have mutual or similar assignments and work together to renew their knowledge levels. By exchanging knowledge and experiences,

62

organisations learn to learn from each other and create healthy conditions for the implementation of the assignment. Parties are not exclusively connected to each other and are equal when cooperating. This neither implies that the participating organisations are the same size, but that they are equivalent because they have a comparable authority in the field they work together.

The above-mentioned basic forms should be seen as archetypes, most models of cooperation used in practice are intermediate forms and thus derive their properties from two or more of these basic forms. Intermediate forms can change over time.

In relation to cross-border regional water management, cooperation is mostly situated between exploratory and entrepreneurial cooperation. For example, there is a form of cooperation that tends to be exploratory when it comes to purely cross-border regional management of river basins or sub-river basins - organisations facing a common task meet each other, exchange information and agree on how they will address certain aspects of their policies. Generally we see an intermediate form of exploratory and entrepreneurial cooperation with regard to not only the cooperation between water managers on both sides of the border, but also the cooperation of these water managing entities with other stakeholder organisations in the region. This is the case, for example, when cross-border regional water management and area development go hand in hand because all participants see opportunities ahead.

The above-mentioned basic forms of cooperation are part of the theory which is developed in this research - see paragraph 5.3.4, box 5.7.

4.3.2 Organizing between organisations

Establishing cooperative partnerships. In the literature survey we found two publications in which descriptions were found of models for establishment of cooperative partnerships for exploratory and entrepreneurial cooperation. These are Van der Molen (2001) for entrepreneurial cooperation and Kaats e.a. (2005) for exploratory cooperation, both models consist of five phases, named 1) orientation phase, 2) partner search phase, 3) designing phase, 4) fund raising phase and 5) realisation phase. Both models describe the underlying activities for each of the phases. Below you will find a description of these activities.

In the case of exploratory cooperation (Kaats e.a., 2005) we see that in the orientation phase (stage 1) organisations facing a common task meet each other and try to asses if existing cooperative partnerships are already working on these task. In the partner search phase (stage 2), an assessment to join the cooperative partnership is made, should this initiative already exist. If this is not the case, a determination is made regarding which organisations are crucial for the cooperation to succeed, with these organisations an initiating meeting will be planned. During the design phase (stage 3) extensive interaction on common vision and purpose will take place. Subsequently an agenda is compiled with activities and projects aimed at bringing the objective of the cooperative partnership within reach. In the fund raising phase (stage 4), agreements are made about who will contribute how much to the cost of implementing the agenda set in stage 3. In the implementation phase (stage 5) all activities and projects scheduled in the agenda are to be implemented.

63

In the case of entrepreneurial cooperation, the orientation phase (stage 1) is used for brainstorming on an existing idea (Van der Molen, 2001). Is this a good idea? Is it technically feasible? Would it be financially viable? What kind of partners are needed to further develop the idea? The partner search phase (stage 2) deals with potential partners and may produce a decision to start working as preliminary cooperative partnership on the project description. In the design phase (stage 3) the plans are then adapted to project-oriented tasks and estimates are produced with the final projected feasibility. In the fund-raising phase (stage 4) funds are collected, as well as own resources and possibly grants. It is also possible that 'investment risk' will have to be taken, which means that investments will be necessary although results are not certain. If all lights are green, implementation (stage 5) can be initiated.

In the theory developed in this research, both aforementioned models will be combined to one; see paragraph 5.3.4, figure 5.8.

Designing cooperative partnerships Designing cooperative partnerships can vary considerably but there is a!basic structure!visible (Kaats e.a., 2005). This basic structure consists of three clusters of organisations: the strategic core, the complementary rink and the free space.

The members of the strategic core are the driving force behind the cooperative partnership. They set the vision, define the strategy, define the entry and exit rules, the rules and code of conduct and develop common knowledge. The strategic core may consist of one or more parties. In public settings the dominant party often derives its position of institutional agreements and/or legislation.

Members of the complementary rink fill the ‘strategic holes’ of the group. They follow the strategy of the strategic core, adopt rules and codes of conduct. The players in the complementary rink have access to knowledge and information of the cooperative partnership, but, in contrast to the participants of the strategic core, do not posses the full set of knowledge and information. Members of the strategic core determine what information the members of the complementary rink will receive.

Organisations in the free space fill operational holes of cooperative partnerships through capacity, infrastructure, service and parts. These members are not strategically bound and are involved in the cooperative partnership on a transactional basis. They share information and knowledge for their specific contribution.

A position in the strategic core is not necessarily a good position for organisations. Operating in the strategic core entails responsibility, manoeuvrability is limited and often requires a large degree of diplomatic talent to be efficient and reliable at the same time.

Table 4.9 identifies the main design principles in the case of exploratory and entrepreneurial cooperation.

Question Exploratory cooperation Entrepreneurial cooperation How do we arrange mutual relationships and which roles fit in?

Parties find each other on issues that are stimulating or conditional for their performance and on

Together we can do something smarter / better / cheaper / ... develop, implement and / or sell,

64

options to reinforce each other than individually possible How do we organize the combined household?

Cost-covering input to encourage cooperation and keep things going

Allocation of risk and profit, joint budgeting and ledger

How do arrange decision-making?

Mutual influencing; negotiating with various parties about by-laws; later entrants have to 'get in line'

Joint decision-making; determining the procedure for decision-making

What performance indicators do we use?

The extent to which the parties wish to continue their contributions.

Value adding (input output balance in a broad sense) for each of the parties; flow of new initiatives, and the ease with which they can be made operational; low transaction costs.

What roles do we regard as key roles in the cooperation?

Facilitating professionals; scouts and designers.

Entrepreneurs and marketeers; creators.

What management style is appropriate for cooperation?

Facilitative management style; result reflects interaction.

Enterprising, creative and space creating management style; 'idea leads to opportunity leads to success'

To what extent do we share information?

Open information management aimed at optimizing knowledge exchange.

Closed information exchange aimed at developing; protecting a joint initiative.

What is the essence of the work process during cooperation?

Organizing the communication and interaction process; knowledge-management.

Managing the development and marketing process.

Table 4.9!Some of the main design principles for exploratory and entrepreneurial cooperation (Kaats e. a., 2005)

The basic structure for the design of cooperative partnerships, as mentioned before, is part of the knowledge provided to pioneers at this point, within the framework of the theory developed in this research (see paragraph 5.3.4., box 5.7).

4.3.3 The role of administrators in cooperative partnerships

The contents of this paragraph is derived of the promotional research completed in 2008 by Kaats & Opheij. This research focused on administrators in health care and building environments, with a reputation in the area of cooperation.

The above-mentioned research indicated that administrators are of great importance to engaging in, establishing and maintaining cooperative partnerships. Their personal motives play an important role, they give meaning to the partnership based on those motives. It also appears that they define personal space, based on their own vision and personal drive, within the context of their environment. Within that space they take initiatives that may contribute to personal and organisational goals. Finally, they contribute to their own interests: they do those things in the cooperative partnership that are meaningful to them. These three conclusions are further elaborated below.

65

Personal reasons Rational arguments are only a limited part of the administrators rationale for cooperation. Administrators are largely driven by personal motives concerning power, being number one, autonomy, delivering performances, commitment, fear, regret, faith, personal rapport, wanting attention and personal reputation. Each administrator also experiences dilemmas when entering into and acting in cooperative partnerships, linked to his vision of cooperation, his personal positioning, his style of operating in a context of cooperation and his relationship with partners.

Rational arguments mainly play a role 'on stage' because administrators know rational terms need to be used to get the story across: on stage, the story must be 'complete' because stories shape reality.

Administrators define their personal play-room within the context Administrators closely involved in cooperative partnerships put their signature on it and prioritize their own interests as well. Thus affecting the context. On the other hand, we see the context, both the sector and the own organisation, influencing the attitude of the administrator. The characteristics of the sectors are reflected in the rationale, best practice models and preferred styles of administrators in cooperative partnerships. So there is mutual influencing between the administrator and his environment.

Within their context (sector, geography, governance, etc.) administrators define - whether or not explicitly - their play-room where they 'can go about their business', do 'fun' things with 'nice people' and thereby contribute to personal and organisational goals. Within this play-room they are able to take initiatives and make decisions in relative freedom, as well as rationalizing these in public if needed. Outside, their freedom of action is limited and the rules and norms of the context are determining factors.

Giving meaning to self-interest Administrators do things that are meaningful to them, they are not unselfish collaborators. Within the environment they operate, they stand for their personal and organisational interest, and seek power and influence from that interest.

Administrators gain power and influence in several ways: they develop a vast network of relationships, they concentrate on the development of knowledge, skills, training and they watch their organisation to gain from it (social, cultural and economic capital). This distinguishes administrators from!collaborative leaders!as they are referred to in literature, since those bring parties together, as a mediator without formal authority or position of power.

Self-interest for administrators is also found in the pleasure they gain from cooperating. Administrators are strongly attracted to cooperation. Interaction with potential partners creates an environment where strategy and execution, thought and action, pioneering and achieving are found closely connected. Working together also enables them to interact with other administrators to create new environments.

66

The contents of this paragraph are in part used as foundation for what is being said in the theory developed in this research (see paragraph 5.3.7) regarding the impact of administrators on cooperative partnerships.

4.3.4 The four-balls-concept and the metaphor of the juggler

In the theory developed in this research, we have tied designing of cooperative partnerships to four themes in which the pioneer has to divide his attention, as a juggler who has to keep four balls in the air simultaneously (see the last sentence in paragraph 5.2).

Westley (2002) uses the metaphor of the juggler balancing four balls. The work referred to here deals with complex adaptive systems, systems that are difficult to control due to the high degree of diversity, continuous change and learning processes and the complex interdependencies inherent to these systems. Westley indicates that in order to control such systems, managers needs to span their attention to!four important processes simultaneously to be able to manage them. She typifies these four processes as 'recurrent enough to provide conceptual focus' (p. 337). In the case of adaptive management of ecosystems, as in the research of Wesley, these four processes come down to involving the outside world (managing out), finding the right ways within the organisation (managing in), furthering substantive knowledge (managing through) and the political process (managing up).

Westley states on the juggler metaphor ‘It is helpful to envision these four kinds of strategies (read ‘processes’) as four balls, which the effective manager seeking to harness complexity must juggle. Depending on his or her values and skills as well as his or her formal position and contextual factors, it is easy to drop one or more balls. Extending the metaphor, surprise may act like a sudden wind, looping a ball into a new dynamic, or like a sudden shift in terrain, which causes the juggler to lose his footing and his balance. The trick is to keep the eye on these four balls and somehow, with peripheral vision, adjust to those surprises as they may unfold, or, even better, use them like a good golfer or tennis player uses the wind.’ (p. 338-339).

4.4. Addressing the effects of state borders

This paragraph is directly linked to the fifth and final research question. This was 'How can we address the effects of state borders?'.

To understand the effects of borders in cross-border cooperation between organisations and what this means for the pioneers of this kind of cooperative partnerships, we will apply the boundary work concept.

Introduction The term!boundary work!was first published by Gieryn (1983). Boundary work is a kind of collective term referring to dealing with various types of borders. This could be borders between areas of knowledge, or borders between social sectors, but also borders between states or countries. When dealing with borders we can differentiate in neutralising or bridging the effects of borders (and sometimes also maintaining them deliberately).

67

In the boundary work concept an important role is reserved for the boundary spanner. This is a person or a group of people or an organisation that ensures that the effects of boundaries or borders are neutralized or bridged.

Over time there have been several publications that contributed to deepening the boundary work concept. Many discuss boundary spanning in relationship to borders between community-oriented sectors and are reasonably comparable to what was written on managing in networks in paragraph 3.1, as well as what was written concerning managing cooperation. The latter publications are therefore not discussed further, Huitema e.a. (2006) and Bressers & Lulofs (2010) provide a good overview of its contents. In the remainder of this paragraph,! the effects of country borders! and! the role of the pioneer in dealing with these effects!are discussed.

The effects of country borders Borders between countries are associated with all kinds of transitions, such as transitions in language, culture or the way the public administration operates. The boundary work concept assumes a) that some of these transitions are critical for cooperation between organisations on both sides of the border and b) that this kind of cooperation could be (partly) forestalled when certain critical transitions cannot be neutralized or bridged.

In this case the term ‘critical’ indicates that the cooperation at hand will be (partly) forestalled when the transition can not be neutralized or bridged. In case neutralization and bridging is possible, the transition at hand will not cause any delay. Whether or not a transition should be considered critical depends on the context (sector, region). In chapter 5, as part of the theoretical framework, transitions considered critical for regional cross-border water management are described.

The boundary work concept assumes that cooperation may be (partly)!forestalled at a given time when a critical transition can not be bridged. Indicating partial and not complete delay or forestall is due to the fact that cooperative relationships between organisations are built around multiple dimensions. Whetten (1992) distinguishes seven different dimensions regarding this point (1992).

Dimension Meaning Multitude The number of different forms of cooperation that connect two organisations Stability The extent to which certain types of relationships continue unchanged Standardisation The degree of standardization of agreements between partners Formalization The degree of formalization of interaction between partners Intensity The relative amount of resources devoted to the relationship Reciprocity The extent to which the relationship is reciprocal or symmetrical Redundancy The extent to which the purpose of the relationship is unique or redundant

Table 4.10!The seven dimensions of cooperative relationships between organisations (Whetten, 1992)

When delay in any of these dimensions occurs but the other dimensions serve as safety net, this will result in partial and not full forestallment of the cooperative partnership.

68

The role of the pioneer As mentioned in the description of the boundary work concept, an important role is to be played by the boundary spanner. Boundary spanners are able to prevent all or part of the delays in cooperation, and in case this does happen, they are able to revive them with respect to this particular subject. In relation to cross-border cooperation between organisations the pioneer will be the person who is most suitable to fulfil the role of boundary spanner.

Pioneers acting as boundary spanners need to make sure that they are accepted in this role on both sides of the border. Pioneers serve ‘multiple lords’ in this respect and need to fulfil that function to the very best of their ability. General opinion on the way pioneers should operate, is largely based on the evaluation both sides of the border have made of the pioneer in question (Guston, 2001).

As boundary spanner the pioneers will also have to deal with questions in the area of inter-cultural communication. After all, they will need to communicate with participants from countries other than their own during their work and they will also need to be monitoring the 'cross-border' communication between the organisations involved. In inter-cultural communication the focus is aimed on developing the right attitude regarding cultural differences and less on keeping abreast of the exact content of the culture one has to deal with (Tennekes, 1994). The latter argument by Tennekes will be explained in the following two paragraphs.

Any coherent picture of a different culture, however nuanced it may be, is always a profound reduction of the complexity of cultural reality. Information on the contents of a culture is indispensable in order to obtain insight in what one might expect from people who live in other cultures. However, we always deal with people and not with cultures. Time and again it is demonstrated that expectations based on the available information regarding the content of the culture, are not true when we observe the actual behaviour of people originating from that culture.

That is the reason why the right attitude is so important. The intention of Tennekes is to take into account that the other might see the world differently and to be aware of things that are not obvious. Allowing for the eventuality that the other has completely different axioms, is the approach to take. Successful communication is only possible if we develop an attitude of openness (and ideally even curiosity) on what people form different parts of the world 'know' and the way they experience and feel this. This attitude will make them quickly become aware of cultural differences that are relevant in any given situation and to make optimum use of the information regarding the other cultures which they already possess. This will prevent misunderstanding and incomprehension, or if they do occur, keeping them within manageable limits.

The ideas of Tennekes are a nice bridge to the!Duende approach!in cooperation by Ietswaart (2008). Premise of the Duende approach is that cooperative partnerships can be developed while working on them. Central areas are focus, skill, confidence and passion. By flowing the energy put into the cooperative partnership along these core concepts, moments emerge in which cooperation is reinforced, similar to the moments of Duende in the Flamenco dances. Differences and contrasts between authenticities,! such as cultural differences, can provide extra energy to the process. For pioneers this means that the effects of state borders do not need to be neutralized or bridged at all

69

expense, but that they can also be deployed to strengthen the development of cross-border cooperative partnerships.

The point made by Tennekes on curiosity about what people from other cultures 'know' of the world, and the ways they experience and feel this, also surfaces with Mikhaylova (2010). Mikhaylova underpins that it is not easy to develop cross-border regional cooperation. In order to drive the development of such cooperative partnerships in a professional manner, pioneers need to posses the knowledge, skill and passion. She refers to passion for the region where cooperation relates to and / or passion for the processes that are addressed in this kind of partnerships, and / or passion for other cultures and the people in it.

Furthermore, boundary spanners are known for being able to relay their message during different occasions in different 'colours', depending on the recipients of the message (Guston, 2001). Similar to the saying 'the truth has many faces', or perhaps in analogy to a famous statement of Einstein 'be as honest as possible, but don't be more than that'. This phenomenon closely resembles what was referred to in paragraph 4.2.4 by Huxham & Vangen as ‘towards collaborative thuggery’.

To conclude paragraph 4.4 The!boundary work concept!is not the only concept used in dealing with borders of states or countries. In some cases the interaction concept is used, which assumes that the existence of interaction options will encourage cooperation.

The contents of paragraph 4.4 is part of the knowledge provided to pioneers at this point, within the framework of the theory developed in this research (see paragraph 5.3.8, box 5.13).

4.5 Driving change projects

In the concluding part of paragraph 4.2 we see that developing cooperation between organisations can be approached as a change process involving multiple organisations. We also concluded that this type of change has limited controllability and that pioneers in cross-border regional partnerships have little grip on tangible sources to be able to manage these change processes.

In order to provide the pioneers with more 'ammunition', this paragraph explores the option of offering them more grip by applying the 'rules' of driving change projects within single organisations to have similar effects in driving change projects in multiple organisations.

Introduction Change projects in singular organisations can be implemented in various ways. Swieringa and Jansen (2007) outline the two most divergent variants using two metaphors,! travelling and hiking in which travel represents the more traditional method of change and hiking stands for learning during change. When travelling the destination is the goal. The destination is determined and clear. Therefore, the journey can be precisely mapped in advance. The journey itself is a necessary evil. In hiking the journey itself is the goal and there is no goal in terms of a destination. The hikers will determine this together as each day or step progresses. What unites them is shared ambition, such as experiencing

70

great weather or foreign peoples, and having enough trust in each other to dare to take each step. Of course there will be all sorts of intermediate forms besides these two diverging varieties.

Many publications exist on change management and managing change processes within singular organisations, examples are Otto (1996), Ten Have (2005), De Caluwé & Vermaak (2006), McMillan (2008), Palmer e.a. (2008), Cozijnsen & Vrakking, (2009), Hayes (2010) and Hughes (2010).

In order to get an impression of the grip pioneers would derive from driving change projects in singular organisations, we have included the following six sections from the article 'Besturen van veranderingsprocessen (Driving change processes)' by Otto (1996). Each section contains a brief clarification of the link this section has with change projects in a singular organisation. Subsequently, a brief clarification of the link this section has with change projects in a multiple organisations.

1. Two basic questions

Singular organisation There are two essential basic questions that need to be introduced when managing change projects. These are: a) to what extent can the issue at stake be influenced, and b) whether the change manager has a position to exert this influence?

One pitfall in assessing to what extent the issue at hand can be influenced, is too much one-sided emphasis on the question which challenges the organisation faces and which ones the organisation should act upon. Two other questions are equally important, and are related to the current operations ('why are things running the way they do?') and the question concerning the ambitions of those involved ('what does everyone involved want?'). Lack of visibility of - and respect for - the current operations and ambitions of those involved could produce a mere superficial assessment of the extent of influence possible in this matter.

Whether the change manager is influential enough to develop the cooperation in question, depends on his or her skills but also with the amount of 'play-room' he or she is given. Particularly in political organisations the concept of play-room often plays a major role because the political administration will have the final say.

Multiple organisation In fact, the same two basic questions exist concerning the development of cooperative partnerships. In this case the questions are: to which extent can the development of a cooperative partnership be influenced, and will the pioneer have sufficient authority to exert this influence?

The other two points mentioned are translatable into cooperation between organisations in the same fashion.

2. Making a diagnosis

Singular organisation For guiding it is necessary to first establish a proper diagnosis of the situation, subsequently the core of the matter must be found and then we determine what needs to be changed. Diagnosis is both

71

identifying the cause, the purpose and the issue at stake and the exploration of the context in which the change process should take place. On those grounds we can determine the most advisable change strategy.

Multiple organisation Whenever there is cooperation between organisations, the diagnosis contains the same points, identifying the cause, the purpose and the issue at stake and the exploration of the context. However, the contents of the points will be different.

Regarding the cause: in order to get organisations to actually work together they need to receive some form of stimulus to work together!(see paragraph 4.2.3). Regarding the purpose and the issue at hand there are, as with the change projects in singular organisations, no special remarks. When exploring the context organisations will be using different resources in their partnership or alliance. In this research the Contextual Interaction Theory by Bressers (Bressers, 2009 and 2010) will be used for the exploration of the context, in chapters 6, 7 and 8.

This theory assumes that complex interactive processes between actors within a cooperative partnership can be influenced from the context and that the results of these complex interactive processes can, partially, influence the context itself. Figure 4.11 shows a schematic image of the Contextual Interaction Theory in terms of cooperative partnerships (derived from Bressers, 2010).

Figure 4.11 Context and interactive processes in cooperative partnerships (acc. Bressers, 2010)

72

To the right of figure 4.11, we see the arena in which a certain process takes place between two actors. The Contextual Interaction Theory assumes that all characteristics of the actors involved can basically be reduced to the three characteristics mentioned in the figure - cognitions ('what people assume to be true'), motivations ('what people want') and capacity & power ('what people have available'). "These three characteristics cannot be seen separately. They influence each other, but cannot be reduced completely to one and other. We are selectively observing the world, under the influence of our motivations and these motivations are subsequently confronted with a world of opportunities and threats based on our cognitions. The existence or demise of an important resource such as trust, can only be understood from the interaction between the three characteristics mentioned here" (Bressers, 2010).

The Contextual Interaction Theory organises the context and distinguishes three layers. The inner layer or specific context contains for example the objectives of the cooperative partnership, the available tools, the available resources and the prevailing agreements on time. The middle layer or structural context consists of factors to be observed within the case and which contribute to the way governance is conducted. In the theory these factors are clustered in five elements from the elements-of-governance-model (Bressers & Kuks, 2001), these are the social and administrative levels, the networks and actors within them, the problem perception and goal ambitions, the strategies and tools and finally the organisations and resources for implementation. The outer layer or broad context contains factors which are not straightforwardly visible, as opposed to the factors in the other two layers. These are factors such as culture, economics, politics and the degree of technical advancement.

Each context influences the next one, but can also directly influence the interaction between the actors involved. The theory assumes that influencing interaction between actors from the three contexts, will take place along the line of cognitions, the line of ambitions or the line of resources, or along combinations thereof (Lulofs e.a., 2005; Bressers 2009).

3. Dealing with resistance

Singular organisation In short, Otto (1996) distinguishes the following three categories of resistance: 1) fear of the new and unknown, 2) the culture of an organisation is not focused on shared learning and change, and 3) positions of power will be jeopardized as result of the change. These forms of resistance represent a partition of the process: the reduction of 'commitment' to the present and development of new relationships with the desired situation.

Otto does recognize a somewhat positive approach to the phenomenon 'resistance'. Resistance does not originate from rebellion, power or ignorance, but from strong identification with the organisation. Resistance is different from indifference: it is a clear signal of the fact that people feel involved with the organisation. The key question in this approach is how this commitment can be deployed to work in favour of the change proces.

73

Multiple organisation The first three categories of resistance - namely: 1) fear of the new and unknown, 2) the culture of an organisation is not focused on shared learning and change, and 3) positions of power will be jeopardized as result of the change, also occur during the development of cooperation between organisations. These categories have been partially discussed previously, in chapter 4 (see e.g. box 4.4 or 4.7 , and perspective 2 in paragraph 4.2.2).

The fourth form of resistance, resistance by strong identification with the organisation, will occur as well in cooperation between organisations (paragraph 3.1).

4. Change strategies to be used

Singular organisation Often the choice for a change strategy is dictated not only by the issue at hand but also by the context in which it occurs. Change strategies most commonly used by far, are a) facilitating or learning strategies, b) persuasion or advocacy strategies and c) directive or coercive strategies. Less frequently used strategies are for instance d) inspirational strategies and e) motivational strategies. These strategies can be deployed separately, but sometimes in combination with each other as well.

Multiple organisation The five strategies listed above can in many cases also be used in cooperation between organisations. There is one type of strategy that cannot be used in change projects in singular organisations, but is suited in cooperation between multiple organisations, which are binding strategies aimed at linking organisations together. Sometimes deployment of network related strategies described in paragraph 4.2.2 needs to take place, in stead of or in addition to the mentioned change strategies.

5. Tools to be deployed

Singular organisation There are many tools that can be utilized in managing change projects ranging from individual coaching to plenary education and from simulations to harsh confrontations. The choice of tools to be deployed depends strongly on the underlying strategy.

Multiple organisation In cooperation between organisations there are many tools that can be deployed, and the choice of tools is also strongly dependent on the underlying strategy. Chapter 5 lists some examples of tools to be utilized in these cases.

6. Inclusion of control

Singular organisation Driving and managing change processes requires anticipating by means of continuous monitoring, any necessary form of adjustment, and again monitoring …. In that sense it is a cyclical process of action, expected or unexpected effects and renewed action.

74

Multiple organisation In the development of cooperation between organisations we should also anticipate by means of continuously monitoring (and adjusting) the way the cooperative partnership develops - in the broadest sense. Multiple organisations will most likely experience more unpredictable situations, than singular organisations in this respect. Anticipation could thereby take on a whole new meaning (see paragraphs 4.2.1 and 4.2.2).

To conclude paragraph 4.5, about managing change processes Change processes in singular organisations and change processes in multiple organisations will essentially contain different processes. However, the way change processes are managed in single organisations can at some points provide support for change processes in multiple organisations, where these change processes concern the development of cooperation between organisations. Whether this is not contradictory? Given the above-mentioned differences in processes, at first glance, it does!

However, we should add more nuance to this statement. The approach Otto described will commonly be used for change processes in single organisations. It is well known that this type of change processes are often difficult to drive and manage. One of the reasons is that the organisational divisions involved - such as sectors or departments - are not focused on mutual cooperation and will be prone to pursue their own interests. Singular organisations will therefore display more or less network-like characteristics (see De Bruin & Ten Heuvelhof, 2007: p. 2). In short, the approach described by Otto is already in use for organisations with!both singular and multiple (read: network-like) characteristics.

It is conceivable that cooperative partnerships of organisation who want to achieve something together or need to achieve something together, and are not solely focused on their own objectives but more on the mutual goals, will more or less already display characteristics of singular organisations. This would make it likely that the approach described by Otto indeed can provide guidance for pioneers who drive the development of cooperative partnerships. This would therefore also involve organisations with both multiple and singular characteristics.

Besides, the approach Otto described is an example of a theory of action aimed at people working in practical environments, providing them with tools to shape the way everyday control of change processes should take place. In such theories, the underlying processes are often not spelled out in detail, partly because these processes are still partially understood (even by science). This implies that these theories of action will allow room for a certain bandwidth in underlying processes. Theabove outlined ambiguity of both the singular and multiple organisations could very well find a place within the bandwidth of the theory of action by Otto.

In the theory which has been developed in this research, we have chosen an inclusive construction (see paragraph 5.3.3, box 5.4) whereby the change strategies referred to in paragraph 4.5 are being offered, but in addition the network-related strategies from paragraph 4.2.2 and the suggestions for handling cooperation-related themes as found in paragraph 4.2.3, are offered as well.

75

4.6 Resume of added insights

In chapter 4 the results of the literature survey are described. In this survey we performed a deliberate search for literature that contributes to finding the answers for the five research questions underpinning this research. Below we have summarized the insights gained in this process and the practical implementations thereof.

Research question I (Paragraph 4.1) This research question was: 'What phases can be distinguished in developing cross-border regional cooperation?'. In the literature survey only one publication was found in which a growth model for the development of cross-border cooperation has been described, and this pertains to a publication of Verwijmeren & Wiering (2007). The model by Verwijmeren & Wiering, as shown in figure 4.1, was initially developed to be able to compare the five cross-border regional cooperative partnerships in a more directed way, but basically it is suited for analysing other cross-border regional cooperative partnerships as well. In the theory which is developed in this research, a growth model is presented which is derived from the model by Verwijmeren & Wiering (paragraph 5.3.1).

Research question II (Paragraph 4.1) This research question was 'What are success and failure factors in enabling the development of cross-border regional cooperation?'. During the literature survey no publications were found which referr specifically to success and failure factors in developing cross-border regional cooperative partnerships. There is however regular mention of problems that can occur during cross-border cooperation as result of differences on respective sides of the border, such as cultural differences or various structures of public governance. General literature on success and failure factors in cooperation between organisations, and not specifically cross-border related, is amply available. Huxham & Vangen (2006) provide an overview of success and failure factors in cooperation between organisations. The factors presented by Huxham & Vangen and the differences on both sides of the border, as mentioned before, are included in the developed theory as success and failure factors for the development of cross-border regional cooperative partnerships (paragraph 5.3.2).

Research question III (Paragraph 4.2) This research question was 'How can cooperation! processes! between organisations be initiated and managed?' Since cross-border regional cooperative partnerships tend to emerge from networks of organisations on both sides of the border, our attention was initially aimed at searching for literature on the way change processes in networks are managed an driven. Soon we gathered that change processes within networks have their own set of dynamics, in which traditional change strategies can be insufficient and that in most cases it would be more beneficial to deploy specific network-related strategies. In paragraph 4.2 several typical network-related strategies are described, which were mostly derived from De Bruin & Ten Heuvelhof (2007). These strategies are now part of the developed theory (paragraph 5.3.3). In addition we have tried to find literature on stimuli that might lead to cooperation between organisations. We found that Bressers & Kuks (2003) identified factors which may lead to change in water governance. Three of these factors are now part of the developed theory (paragraph 5.3.3). Furthermore we have tried to find literature on ways to drive and manage

76

cooperation between organisations within the cooperative partnerships. We concluded that cooperation between organisations not only tends to be an extremely complex subject, but that driving and managing this complexity should be considered an inexact art form which requires a great deal of personal interpretation. Huxham& Vangen (2006) developed their so-called collaborative advantage theory, which can be used by pioneers in cooperative partnerships, as basis for their own interpretation. The parts of the theory by Huxham & Vangen as described in paragraph 4.2, are now included in the developed theory (paragraph 5.3.3).

The results of the literature survey in paragraph 4.2 show that pioneers have little grip on tangible sources to be able to drive and manage these cooperative processes. In order to provide the pioneer with more 'ammunition', paragraph 4.5 explores the option of offering them more grip by investigating if traditional strategies used for driving and managing change processes within singular organisations will have similar effects in driving change processes in multiple organisations. Assuming that cooperative partnerships between organisations will have traits from multiple as well as singular organisations, this is the case. Prerequisite for deploying traditional strategies is that pioneers not only gain knowledge on these strategies, but will acquire knowledge on network-related strategies, as well as cooperation-related themes from the collaborative advantage theory. This approach will enable pioneers in cross-border regional cooperative partnerships to utilize traditional change strategies in a responsible manner (Otto, 1996). Therefore, these strategies are now also included in the developed theory (paragraph 5.3.3).

Research question IV (Paragraph 4.3) This research question was 'How can we model cooperative partnerships for organisations?'. The literature survey indicated that multiple basic forms of cooperation can be distinguished. Kaats e.a. (2005) differentiated four basic forms, of which two are included in the developed theory (paragraph 5.3.4). In the literature survey model descriptions were found for both basic forms leading to initiating cooperative partnerships. These too are included in the developed theory, as well as the basic structure regarding the design of cooperative partnerships and the major principles for this design as described by Kaats e.a. (paragraph 5.3.4). Kaats & Opheij (2008) describe the role of administrators in cooperative partnerships. The content of this publication serves as foundation of what is being said in the developed theory regarding the impact of administrators on cooperative partnerships (paragraph 5.3.7).

Westley (2002) uses the metaphor of the juggler who has to balance four balls in order to manage complex adaptive systems, systems that are difficult to manage due to the high degree of diversity, the continuous change and learning processes and the complex interdependencies inherent to these systems. The four balls symbolize the four major processes that are being managed simultaneously. Westley typifies these four processes as 'recurrent enough to provide conceptual focus' (p. 337). In the developed theory, we have tied designing of cooperative partnerships to four themes in which the pioneer has to divide his attention, as a juggler who has to keep four balls in the air simultaneously (paragraph 5.2).

77

Research question V (Paragraph 4.4) The research question was 'How can we address the effects of state borders?'. The so-called boundary work concept was discussed in paragraph 4.4. with regard to this research question. Huitema e.a. (2006) and Bressers & Lulofs (2010) provide an excellent overview of this concept and the role of the pioneer within it. The boundary work concept is now part of the developed theory (paragraph 5.3.8).

This concludes the resume of the insights obtained as result of the literature survey. Assembly of these insights will take place in chapter 5.

79

5 The developed theory In answering the research questions we have used a theoretical framework. This framework and its construction are described in the first four paragraphs of this chapter. These paragraphs successively discuss the applied method, the general structure of the theoretical framework used, further elaboration of the separate parts and the relationship between theory and research questions. In the fifth and final paragraph the developed theory is prepared for being tested based on the three cases described in subsequent chapters.

5.1 Method of establishment

The elaborated framework is presented as a theory for creating and managing cross-border regional cooperation from the perspective of the pioneers within cross-border regional cooperative partnerships. The way this theory is brought together, primarily serves the research described in this book. In the first half of 2012, we will be issuing a user-oriented version for pioneers who want to know more about the developed theory.

The applied method for developing the theory is described in the figure below.

Figure 5.1!The applied method for developing the theory

The developed theory can be found in the lower left corner of the figure. It is based on what was obtained in the literature survey, as well as on personal experiences. Obviously, experience also played a part in the selection of what to include from literature. This has influenced the literature used and particularly also which part of it has become the foundation for my theory. By experience one develops 'mental maps' with regard to what is essential for establishing and further developing

80

cooperation. In order to develop the right 'map', it is however of importance to use a certain amount of critique with regard to these experiences. A good way of doing this would be to frequently test the experiences obtained to what is found in literature. This shows yet another example of the importance of own experiences as well as literature when developing the theory. The personal experiences were partly gathered from my current practice and partly from previous positions.

In chapter 6 to 8, the developed theory is tested in comparison with reality. Since direct evaluation of the sustainability of the theory cannot be done (see paragraph 3.3), we introduced an intermediate step, in which the developed theory is yet to be prepared for partial evaluation with real life situations. This intermediate step consists of differentiations for the developed theory into three more or less standard scenarios of cross-border regional water management. This differentiation is performed in paragraph 5.5. As shown in the figure above, the differentiated version of the theory interfaces between the developed theory and real life situations.

Figure 5.1 shows even more clearly that in this research there can be no independent evaluation of the theory. This is caused by the relationship between real life situations in the lower right of figure 5.1 and the personal experiences in the top middle: the applied cases are directly derived from my working environment and thus contributing to my personal experience. This point has already been discussed in paragraph 3.2 in which the selection of cases as part of the research strategy has been discussed.

The question is whether this is allowed. The answer to this question is that this is not, per definition, advised against in social sciences, as long as!maximum transparency is pursued with regard to the applied methods. The ultimate example of this approach is the so-called Grounded Theory, which is a research method assuming the development of theories based on real life situations. Grounded Theory was developed in the sixties of the previous century and was first published by Glaser & Strauss (1967). The objective of Grounded Theory is to bridge the gap between 'theoretically uninformed empirical research' and 'empirically uninformed theory' by grounding the theory in data, whereby emphasis is placed on the development of the theory (Goulding, 2002). In the first stages of the research, data collection and interpretation, for example, may consist of interviews, transcription and descriptions within the data. Once patterns become visible and relations are established by experience, the next phase will be abstraction by means of conceptualization and eventually theory building, supported by quotes, observations and excerpts from interviews (Goulding, 2002). Grounded Theory can be seen as approach for striving to align handling the theory and research strategy to the problem thesis and the field of research. From the perspective of positive understanding of scientific approaches, this research can be typified as an exploratory research.

5.2 General structure of the theory

During elaboration of the theory, the objective was to find a balance between the complexity of the matter on one hand and the applicability of the theory on the other. This resulted in a theory divided into eight themes. Later in this paragraph a more detailed clarification of the choice for this number will be provided. Table 5.2 shows the general structure of the developed theory. The left column shows the (research) questions which led to the development of the theory (see paragraph 1.2). The

81

right column shows the eight themes with their corresponding questions, linked to a brief explanation of the theme and / or a reference to the paragraph in which the theme will be described.

Question Theme I. What phases can be distinguished in developing cross-border regional cooperation?

1. The development pattern. This is described by using a growth model that distinguishes five successive characteristic stages of development. The detailed growth model is described in paragraph 5.3.1.


2. Success and failure factors. A distinction is made in!generally applicable!and!scenario-specific!factors. The generally applicable factors are outlined in paragraph 5.3.2, the scenario-specific factors in paragraph 5.5. The latter factors are linked to the scenarios used in paragraph 5.5 to prepare the developed theory for evaluation.

III. How can cooperation!processes!between organisations be initiated and managed?

3. Initiating and managing cooperation processes. Principally, cooperation processes can be initiated and managed by approaching them as change processes. Stimuli for change are important in that respect. Adjustment can be very cumbersome, therefore elements from the theory were used to drive change in single organisations. In addition, pioneers need to have knowledge on network-related strategies and cooperation-related themes that might become an issue once the cooperation process is initiated (see paragraphs 5.3 and 4.2). 4. Establishing cooperative partnerships. In paragraph 5.3.4 we provide a tool for pioneers to use. 5. Further development of cooperative partnerships. In paragraph 5.3.5 we provide a tool for pioneers to use. 6. Addressing possible issues for joint policies. In paragraph 5.3.6 we provide a tool for pioneers to use.


7. Handling the impact of administrators. In paragraph 5.3.7 we provide two tools for pioneers to use.

Q. How can we address the effects of state borders?

8. Addressing the effects of state borders. Borders between states or countries involve various transitions, for example in language, culture or the structure of public administration. In order to handle these, we use the boundary work concept as described in paragraph 4.4. Paragraph 5.3.8 describes the transitions that are considered potentially critical in relation to cross-border water management. We also provided tools for pioneers to use when these transitions become manifest.

Table 5.2 The overall structure of the developed theory

As mentioned before, during elaboration of the theory, the objective was to find a balance between the complexity of the matter on one hand and the applicability of the theory on the other. In that respect we have divided the main process, which is enabling the development of cross-border regional cooperation, into three sub-processes: - initiating and managing cooperation processes; - designing cooperative partnerships; - handling the effects of borders between states or countries.

82

These sub-processes are closely connected and combine three different perspectives from which the main process is continuously observed or monitored. The three perspectives represent subsequently process-oriented , organisational and cross-border approaches in the development of cross-border regional cooperation. The classification above was not derived from literature.

In table 5.2, the above-mentioned three sub-processes are represented by the questions III to V in the left column. These three questions represent in this sense the above-mentioned three perspectives from which pioneers need to look at the main process. Translated to the themes in the right column of table 5.2, this means that pioneers must, continuously and to a greater or lesser extent, be involved in handling the issues in themes 3 to 8 - as jugglers, who constantly need to keep six balls in the air.

The other themes are not included? Yes they are, but in a different way. Themes 1 and 2 serve as reference for pioneers, and theme 9 is almost a derivative from the themes 3 to 8.

At question IV (see table 5.2), why was the developed theory divided into four themes? The concept of these four themes and the metaphor of the juggler originated in the second half of 2007. Afterwards, further review of the literature showed that the concept of the four themes and the content demonstrated similarity with the work by Westley (2002) described in paragraph 4.3. The four selected themes were later submitted to the expert panel linked to this project. The competent member of the expert panel concluded at this point that he considered the choice of the four themes plausible because 'cooperation processes are complied of these four dimensions'.

5.3 Further elaboration of the separate themes

In the paragraph at hand, the eight themes are presented in greater detail. For each of the themes the pioneers will be provided with support in the form of knowledge and / or strategies and / or tools, often in the form of model descriptions.

At first glance the suggested model descriptions might seem contradictory because linear phase models and equilibrium models are presented interchangeably. However, this mix of models can be explained: it stems from the fact that! different types of processes! are described, all transpiring simultaneously.

5.3.1 Theme 1: the development pattern

This theme answers the question regarding which phases can be distinguished in developing cross-border regional cooperation. The distinct phases are part of a growth model which was developed in the context of this research. This model is derived from the growth model by Verwijmeren & Wiering (2007) as described in paragraph 4.1 and is included as figure 5.3. The decision was made to develop a proprietary model and not to use the model of Verwijmeren & Wiering, in order to have a model that is in line with the rest of the developed theory. The growth model distinguishes five stages and its use is limited to cooperation at policy level.

83

Figure 5.3!The detailed growth model

Starting point of the model is phase 0, the situation in which organisations on both sides of the border work completely separated from each other and therefore do not communicate about policy issues.

With the transition to phase 1 organisations on both sides of the border start to communicate and get acquainted with each other. By including this in conversations, for example through organising workshops on managing cross-border basins, issues come up that lead to questions such as: 'shouldn't we coordinate this with each other?'. Once agreement is found on the fact that for certain issues further alignment will be required, this alignment will take place during the next phase of cooperation, the phase of knowledge exchange.

In the second phase, the phase of knowledge exchange, we examine which of the issues put forward in the first phase, will become the issue at stake. In order to obtain a clear picture at this phase, significant amounts of information will need to be exchanged. Important aspect in this phase is that all parties involved maintain transparency with regard to their own issues and are willing to communicate about these issues. Once consensus is found regarding agreements on actions related to some of the issues, these actions will be placed on the administrative agenda in the next phase of cooperation, the phase of agenda setting.

The third phase, setting the administrative agenda, is a politically sensitive phase. Not everyone will agree that certain issues are placed on the agenda, if they could have a negative impact on their region

84

or organisation. This is also the phase in which negotiations take place and where interests are exchanged or issues linked together. When issues on the agenda need administrative permission to pursue joint development of policies, we have arrived at the next phase of cooperation, the phase of alignment or fine-tuning.

The fourth and fifth phases of the model, are phases for coordination and implementation phase, in which the standing policy of both sides of the border will be gathered at first and subsequently introduced as joint policy.

Similar to the growth model by Verwijmeren & Wiering we find that increased coherence in policy does not necessarily need to be the objective and that organisations or regions could make a conscious choice for more autonomy.

5.3.2 Theme 2: generally applicable success and failure factors

Within the theme of success and failure factors we distinguish! generally applicable! and! scenario-specific!factors.

Generally applicable factors The following factors are generally considered as!success!factors for enabling development of cross-border regional cooperation: 9. Selecting appropriate partners; 10. Mutual trust; 11. Honesty and reliability; 12. Shared vision; 13. Mutual interdependence; 14. Support by the highest decision-makers; 15. A skilled pioneer (project leader); 16. Involvement of stakeholders.

The following factors are considered potential!failure!factors for enabling development of cross-border regional cooperation: 7. Personal agendas; 8. Egos; 9. Politicization; 10. Poor relationships at management or board level; 11. Geographic distance; 12. Differences in organisational cultures; 13. Significant effects from state borders.

The cited success and failure factors are taken from the literature survey in paragraph 4.1 and as such derived from the work of Huxham & Vangen (2006) on the outcomes of various researches into the success and failure factors for good cooperation between organisations.

85

Because the list by Huxham & Vangen was not intended for cross-border cooperation, subject 7 was added to the list of failure factors. This concerns the effects of state borders and this is done to include the cross-border aspect. Further details on the effects of state borders related to cross-border water management and the way these effects are handled, can be found in paragraph 5.3.8.

The choice to use the overview from Huxham & Vangen is based on two considerations. On one hand it is based on the consideration that this is the work of renowned researchers in the area of cooperation between organisations, but equally important is the consideration that the overview was compiled based on a very long term and strong amount of experience researching this field (see paragraph 4.2).

Scenario-specific factors When preparing the developed theory for testing in paragraph 5.5, it will show that there are some scenario-specific concerns that can lead to success and/or failure. These concerns may be considered as scenario-specific success and failure factors and will be revisited paragraph 5.5.

5.3.3 Theme 3: initiating and managing cooperation processes

General Theme 3 is first and foremost the theme that encapsulated finding a balance between the complexity of the matter and the applicability of the theory. From literature described in paragraph 4.2 on operating in networks and managing cooperation, we can conclude that initiating and managing cooperation processes is complex in essence and does not offer much support to pioneers.

The developed theory was therefore!supplemented with elements from the theory on driving change initiatives in single organisations, instead of only using the theory on driving change initiatives in multiple organisations.

This approach justifies the question whether this leads to oversimplification. The answer to this question is that this could be the case, were it not for the fact that multiple organisations in many prevailing cases display the same characteristics as single organisations (see the last part of paragraph 4.5). In these cases it is not a question of oversimplification beforehand. Moreover, there is a 'complementary' construction: for cases of cooperation where the 'simple single organisation' approach seems to be insufficient, pioneers should be able to add elements from the 'complex multiple organisation approach' to complement their needs (see box 5.4).

Presented knowledge Box 5.4 provides an overview of the presented knowledge with respect to theme 3, initiating and managing cooperation processes.

Box 5.4!Presented knowledge with respect to theme 3 Cooperation processes between organisations can basically be initiated and managed by approaching them as change initiatives. Stimuli for change or cooperation therefore play a significant role, because they are necessary to initiate cooperation. The main stimuli are considered: 1. awareness of mutual opportunities; 2. policy and institutional pressures; 3. problem pressure.

86

The above stimuli are derived from the work by Bressers & Kuks (2001), described in paragraph 4.2.

Management is basically done by monitoring, adjusting when necessary, monitoring again, etcetera. Adjusting is done primarily through the deployment of change strategies (see box 5.5). Adjusting can sometimes be difficult, when cooperation between organisations involves a network of different actors with different interests, who are interdependent in relation to achieving their goals. As a result, decision making in networks is often chaotic and capricious, and change strategies need to be able to adapt to those uncertainties. This implies that the pioneers need to obtain knowledge on network-related strategies and cooperation-related themes that might surface when the cooperation processes are getting started, in addition to knowledge on the change initiatives referred to in box 5.5.

Network-related strategies are important for pioneers for two reasons: partly to apply them, but also to be able to understand what is going on around them and why organisations or representatives of organisations behave the way they do. Important network-related strategies are (De Bruin & Ten Heuvelhof, 2007) : influencing problem perceptions, raising complexity, linking or disconnecting problems, taking advantage of the 'windows of opportunity', stretching targets, 'naming and framing', using open decision-making and creating 'points of no return'. For more detailed descriptions of these and other strategies and the related references, see paragraph 4.2.

To obtain a broader and more comprehensive overview of cooperation-related themes that might surface once the cooperation initiative is started, the pioneers are referred to the collaborative advantage theory by Huxham & Vangen (2006), as described in chapter 4. This theory also addresses issues focussed on daily practices such as managing goals, power, trust, ambiguity, complexity, dynamics of cooperation, leadership media and leadership activities. For more detailed descriptions of these and other strategies and the related references, see the section!managing cooperation!in chapter 4.2.

Presented strategies Box 5.5 provides an overview of the presented change strategies with respect to initiating and managing cooperation processes. The presented strategies are based on paragraph 4.5 and are identified according to their starting point.

Box 5.5!Presented strategies with respect to theme 3 Connect. Connecting strategies are aimed at linking stakeholders which, if successful, leads to cross-contacts, work relationships, network relationships and more.

Facilitate. Facilitative strategies are based on conditioning processes and are often used in combination with other strategies. If only facilitation takes place, it will come down to 'want to' and 'can do' by stakeholders and there will be a typical 'bottom-up' strategy.

Inspire. Strategies aimed at inspiring the imagination of those concerned are often used to stimulate the 'needs' of stakeholders, as well as influence and / or increase imagination powers. Inspiring strategies are essentially bottom-up strategies.

Motivate. Motivational strategies are aimed at getting everyone involved to 'move' and/or 'keep moving'. Motivational strategies can have 'top-down' traits when those involved cannot refuse the suggested or requested course of action, without being rude.

Persuade. Persuading strategies are aimed at convincing those concerned with evidence and good argumentation. They will need to be convinced that the proposed steps, based on the analysis, are right. The

87

approach is 'top-down' and 'tell and sell'.

Apply force. Forceful or directive strategies are based on a strong concentration of power. This strategy involves direct control, 'top-down' and sanctioning.

Presented tools Box 5.6 provides an overview of the presented tools with respect to initiating and managing cooperation processes. The presented tools are examples of how the strategies in box 5.5 can be applied, and are based on personal experience.

Box 5.6!Presented tools with respect to theme 3 Connect. Sending out overviews to participants prior to meetings, building networking opportunities into meetings, purposely introducing people to each other, creating seating arrangements for dinners, organising social events and / or setting up a Web community.

Facilitate. Providing suitable locations for meetings, timely sending of documents, efficiently preparing agendas, providing enough moments to relax, providing a snack and a drink and / or being available for questions at appropriate times.

Inspire. Using narrative outlines (storytelling) to convey what could be possible and what benefits it could bring, coming up with examples where something similar has been successfully implemented and / or organising an excursion to one of these examples.

Motivate. Addressing the actors on their feelings, such as their responsibility or their honour. Appealing to their sense of time, or suggesting an allowance in the form of a financial contribution to those involved.

Persuade. Using discussions and arguments to ensure that the arguments used are valid and conclusive, showing that a proper analysis was performed, if necessary asking an independent party to perform the analysis and collect arguments.

Apply force. Making direct compelling requests to do something or not to do, and if useful also informing them what penalty will be applied when the request is not met. Forcing one of the stakeholder(s), without their knowledge, through his or her superior is certainly not the case.

5.3.4 Theme 4: establishing cooperative partnerships

Presented knowledge Box 5.7 provides an overview of the presented knowledge with respect to theme 4, establishing cooperative partnerships.

Box 5.7!Presented knowledge with respect to theme 4 Cooperative partnerships may vary strongly as far as their design is concerned, but there is evidence of a basic structure (Kaats e.a., 2005). This basic structure consists of three clusters of organisations: the strategic core, the complementary layer and the free space. A position in the strategic core does not necessarily imply a good position for organisations. Operating in the strategic core will entail responsibility, freedom of movement is limited and often requires a large portion of diplomatic talent to be able to be efficient and reliable at the same time.

In addition, cooperative partnerships can also exist in various cooperation models. We distinguish four basic

88

forms of cooperation (Kaats e.a., 2005): transactional, functional, entrepreneurial and exploratory cooperation. Transactional and functional cooperation are related to purchasing and outsourcing. In exploratory cooperation we see organisations looking for similar minded organisations to address joint or comparable assignments. Entrepreneurial cooperation originates in the recognition of organisations that new development cannot be done solitary, but requires one or more complementary parties. Most models for cooperation used in common situations are intermediate forms and thus derive their features of one or two of the above-mentioned basic forms.

In relation to cross-border regional water management, cooperation is mostly situated between exploratory and entrepreneurial cooperation. For example, there is a form of cooperation that tends to be exploratory when it comes to purely cross-border regional management of river basins or sub-river basins - organisations facing a common task meet each other, exchange information and agree on how they will address certain aspects of their policies. Generally we see an intermediate form of exploratory and entrepreneurial cooperation with regard to not only the cooperation between water managers on both sides of the border, but also the cooperation of these water managing entities with other stakeholder organisations in the region. This is the case when cross-border regional water management and land development go hand in hand because all participants see opportunities ahead.

For more detailed descriptions of the above-mentioned basic structures and the four basic forms of cooperation, see paragraph 4.3.

Presented tools The pioneer can use the model shown in figure 5.8, when managing the establishment of cooperative partnerships. This model is the result of a combination of the models described in paragraph 4.3 by Van der Molen (2001) and Kaats e.a. 2005). The presented model in figure 5.8 distinguishes five more or less autonomous phases in which the underlying activities are closely related. The various stages do not necessarily follow a straight time line - future stages may already be started without the present stages being completed. However, to reach completion of a stage, the result of the present stage may be required as input.

89

Figure 5.8!The model for managing the establishment of cooperative partnerships

Each phase of the model consist of underlying activities aimed at cooperation, this is for exploratory cooperation (cursive in figure 5.8) and for entrepreneurial cooperation. Exploratory and entrepreneurial cooperation are two of the four basic forms of cooperation listed in box 5.7.

The 'exploratory cooperation' variant of the model In the case of exploratory cooperation we see that in the orientation phase (phase 1) organisations facing a common task meet each other and try to asses if existing cooperative partnerships are already working on these task. In the partner search phase (phase 2), an assessment to join the cooperative partnership is made, should this initiative already exist. If this is not the case, a determination is made regarding which organisations are crucial for the cooperation to succeed, with these organisations an initiating meeting will be planned. During the design phase (phase 3) extensive interaction on common vision and purpose will take place. Subsequently an agenda is compiled with activities and projects aimed at bringing the objective of the cooperative partnership within reach. In the fund raising phase (phase 4), agreements are made about who will contribute how much to the cost of implementing the agenda set in stage 3. In the implementation phase (phase 5) all activities and projects scheduled in the agenda are to be implemented.

The 'entrepreneurial cooperation' variant of the model In the case of entrepreneurial cooperation, the orientation phase (phase 1) is used for brainstorming on an existing idea. Is this a good idea? Is it technically feasible? Would it be financially viable? What kind of partners are needed to further develop the idea? The partner search phase (phase 2) deals with potential partners and may produce a decision to start working as preliminary cooperative partnership

90

on the project description. In the design phase (phase 3) the plans are then adapted to project-oriented tasks and estimates are produced with the final projected feasibility. In the fund-raising phase (phase 4) funds are collected, as well as own resources and possibly grants. It is also possible that 'investment risk' will have to be taken, which means that investments will be necessary although results are not certain. If all lights are green, implementation (stage 5) can be initiated.

In chapters 6, 7 and 8, case studies are introduced in which examples of this model are described.

5.3.5 Theme 5: further development of cooperative partnerships

Presented tools In this theme the pioneers will be presented with the model in figure 5.9.

Figure 5.9!The model of internal coordination

This model is generally used for organisational development cases in single organisations, but will also be suitable for use in managing further development of complex organisations. The model is also called the model of!internal coordination!and is described in various publications in different varieties. The version described in figure 5.9 is derived from Korringa & van der Molen (2005).

The core message of the model is that further development of an organisation is based on four pillars with various elements/factors contributing, making further development stable only in those cases when the development of the separate pillars is coordinated .

91

The four circles in the figure represent four pillars: the Future, what the cooperative partnership want to achieve and what plans are made to realise this; the Hard side, how are thing arranged and organised; the Soft side, participants and culture, and the Resource side, available funds and means.

To ensure stable development of their cooperative partnership, pioneers will have to tune their managing abilities to balancing the further development of these four pillars. In chapters 6, 7 and 8, case studies are introduced in which examples are described of the application of this model.

5.3.6 Theme 6: addressing possible issues for joint policy

This research focuses on enabling the development of cross-border cooperation at policy level. In general it will be aimed at joining standing policies from both sides of the border and later to have them implemented.

Presented tools In order to provide guidance to handle possible issues regarding joint policies in cross-border cooperation, pioneers will be presented a growth model derived from the model described by Verwijmeren & Wiering (2007) in paragraph 4.1 and from which the detailed growth model in paragraph 5.3.1 was derived .

The presented growth model identifies five distinctive phases for the development of joint policies. In figure 5.10, the different aspects are represented by the ovals and the text on the right reflects the accompanying objectives. The idea behind this model is that possible issues related to joint policies will not be addressed sooner than when they have been discussed, and only when sufficient relevancy is established potential issues will become cause for implementation of new joint policies.

The first stage of the model is the communication phase, the phase in which the issue is being discussed for the first time. When this phase clearly results in the assessment that the issue is no further subject for joint policy, it will be 'returned' (figure of speech) to the level where the relevance to joint policy equals zero. This is shown in the figure by using the down arrow under the communication phase. Should the assessment conclude that it would be better to investigate the issue further, then it will progress to the next phase, the phase of knowledge exchange.

92

Figure 5.10!The model for development of common policies

The second phase of the model is the knowledge exchange phase, the phase in which the data is used to assess whether it really makes sense to develop joint policies for this issue. When this phase results in the assessment that this is not the case, it will be 'returned' (figure of speech) to the level where the relevance to joint policy equals zero. This is shown in the figure by using the down arrow under the knowledge exchange phase. Should the assessment conclude that it would be better to 'further' the issue, then it will progress to the next phase, the phase of administrative agenda setting.

The third phase of the model is the agenda-setting phase, the phase in which the issue will be placed on the agenda to acquire administrative permission for the development of joint policies. If the result at administrative level provides insufficient reason to joint development of policy, it will 'be returned' to the level where the relevance to joint policy equals zero. This is shown in the figure by using the down arrow under the agenda-setting phase. If, on the other hand, administrative permission is given to the development of joint policies, then the issue will move on to the next phase, the phase of coordination.

The fourth and fifth phases of the model, are phases for coordination and implementation, in which the standing policy on both sides of the border will be gathered at first and subsequently introduced as joint policy.

Emerging issues will therefore not necessarily lead to joint policies. For clarity, when issues come down to the level where the relevance equals zero, this means that these issues will play no part in the

93

development of new joint policy. The issues may however be important topics for the individual participants. Issues can eventually be re-entered when one of the participants expresses a need for it.

Pioneers in partnerships will be able to use the above model in two ways: 1) as a guiding tool, to guide the way possible policy issues are addressed within the cooperative partnership, and 2) as a planning tool, to oversee various phases in which issues are allocated within the cooperative partnership.

5.3.7 Theme 7: handling possible impact of administrators

The pioneer does not only have to deal with participants representing participating organisations in the cooperative partnerships, but also with the organisations behind those people, with the cultures prevailing in these organisations, with local rules and regulations and also with politically or otherwise elected officials of these organisations. As part of this research, two models were developed for pioneers to use in dealing with the impact administrators might have on the development of their cooperative partnership.

Presented tools The first of the two models is included as Figure 5.11: it will assist pioneers in assessing what they can expect from the administrators. This model was developed based on the work described in paragraph 4.3 by Kaats & Opheij (2008) and on personal experience as well.

The three circles in the model represent: • Administrative reality: any issue considered relevant for administrators and possible details at

administrative level; • Personal priorities: personal interests and possible details at personal level; • Delivering information: the way administrators are informed and the extent to which this takes

place. The core message this model conveys is that administrators depend on the amount of information and the way it is brought to them, for their reaction based on their administrative reality and possibly also on personal priorities.

For pioneers this means that in order to get the administrator to have a positive attitude towards the cooperative partnership, they need to find out if the administrative reality or personal priorities of the administrator in question are of such nature that a positive attitude can be expected. In the event that the administrative reality and / or personal priorities of the administrator are expected not to initiate a positive attitude, the pioneer could encounter some difficulty when trying to influence him or her. Often it will be a matter of 'keeping a foot in the door', until there is a situation that will help to reach a different a outcome.

94

Figure 5.11!The developed model for assessing the position of the administrator

Alternatively, the next question is whether the administrator is properly and adequately informed. If this is the case, the pioneer can assume that the administrator will have a positive impact. If this does not seem to be the case, the pioneer will have to make adjustments!regarding the method with and the extent to which the administrator will be informed. The important question will be whether the administrator will be directly or indirectly involved in the cooperative partnership.

We can say there is! direct involvement!when the administrator might be participating in a steering group, to which the leadership of the cooperative partnership, including the pioneer, would have to answer periodically. In such cases, the pioneer can adjust the course relatively easy in terms of providing information, because in that case there is regular direct contact between the pioneer and the pertaining administrator. When we have a case of!indirect involvement!the steering committee will not consist of administrators, but of their staff who are expected to communicate with their administrators on their own. In such cases, it is difficult for the pioneer to adjust the course in terms of providing information, because in that case there is no regular direct contact between the pioneer and the pertaining administrator. The second model, developed out of personal experience (figure 5.12) provides insight to pioneers into the interfacing points they have to influence for delivery of information!in case of an indirect involvement of administrators!.

The most continuous information channel for an indirectly involved administrator of a participating organisation is basically his direct representative in the cooperative partnership. This gives the pioneer two interfacing options in this case to influence the delivery of information. Firstly, the pioneer can

95

decide how much and which information the representative will receive, if this is provided by or through the pioneer (interface 1). In addition, the pioneer can try to ensure that the representative informs the administrator in such a way (interface 2) that the cooperative partnership may benefit from this information. The latter has everything to do with 'how the representative connects': do they see themselves as an advocate for his followers or rather as a co-designer of the cooperative partnership?

Figure 5.12!Interfaces for influencing the delivery of information

A third interface is the transfer of information through the regular channels (number 3) such as newsletters, brochures, etcetera. Again, the pioneer will only be able to influence this information to a certain extent. Part of this can also be to arrange consultation with the administrator, to get him or her up to speed, per request if needed.

What remains are two non-regular forms of information delivery, often referred to as 'top-wise' (interface 4) and 'bottom-wise' (interface 5). In case of a 'top' approach in communicating, the pioneer will ask assistance of a 'benevolent' administrator - such a person is referred to as 'sponsor' in figure 5.12 - to inform the administrator who needs to be informed. This could occur when the pioneer is assessing that the official representative within the steering group does not 'see through' the political game. In case of the 'bottom' approach, it is the pioneer who will make sure the administrator is up to speed. Both forms of communication imply that once the administrator needs to be convinced of a certain notion, which is often the case for 'top or bottom approaches', we already find evidence of more than just influencing the way information is provided. The transition is then made in figure 5.11 from Information delivery (I) at the lower right of the figure, towards Political reality (P) at the top of the figure.

96

As mentioned in the text above, representatives of the participating organisations play a vital role in dealing with the impact administrators could have on cross-border cooperation. They are not only the most continuous information channel for their own administrators, but they are also the ideal persons who can inform the pioneer about the administrative realities and the personal priorities of their respective administrator. Again, this emphasizes the importance of 'how the representative connects': do they see themselves as an advocate for his followers or rather as a co-designer of the cooperative partnership? The pioneer will have some possibility to adjust in this case, for example by involving the representative in question, provide him or her with a position or responsibilities.

5.3.8 Theme 8: addressing the effects of state borders

The developed theory connects with respect to this theme to the boundary work concept described in paragraph 4.4. Two reasons are the basis for selecting this concept. First of all this concept interfaces with the phenomenon ‘state borders’, and in addition it will provide substance to the role of the pioneer through the functionality of the boundary spanner. In the developed theory, seven transitions are considered potentially critical for cross-border water management (box 5.13). The choice in favour of these seven transitions was based on literature (paragraph 4.1: Janssen, 2004; Lulofs & Coenen, 2007; van Leussen e.a., 2007) as well as practical experience.

Presented knowledge Box 5.13 provides an overview of the presented knowledge with respect to theme 8, addressing the effects of state borders.

Box 5.13!Presented knowledge with respect to theme 8 Borders are associated with all kinds of transitions. Some of these transitions can be critical for cooperation between organisations. This means that cooperation between organisations may be delayed (in part) at a given moment, if a critical transition at that time can not be neutralized or bridged. Pioneers fulfil the role of boundary spanner: they are deemed to get the cooperation in motion again in case and when (partial) delays are occurring. In some cases borders could also work as stimulus for cooperation between organisations.

In the theory of action, seven transitions are considered potentially critical for cross-border water management. These transitions and the possible consequences thereof are listed below:

1) Structure of public administration. The structure and functioning of public administration is a good indication of how a country is organized. Where organisations on both sides of the border work together and have no knowledge of the structure of public administration at the other side, they might not be able to step in their shoes and thus not be able to adapt to their way of thinking. Efficient cooperation will therefore be hampered and indignation could lead to dissipation of the cooperative partnership.

2) Organisation of water management. Should the initiator have no knowledge of the organisation of water management on the other side of the border, chances are that in the initial phase a considerable amount of time is wasted because consultations take place with parties who are not the final partners. It may also cause parties that were contacted at a later stage feel denied even though they are included in the partnership at that later stage.

3) Knowledge of administrative matters at the other participants. Because regional administrative matters on the other side of the border often fail to arrive through regular channels, it is difficult to keep up with the

97

administrative affairs and their effects at participants from the other side of the border.

4) Applied methods and techniques. Cross-border cooperation does not always guarantee that measuring methods, analytical and interpretive frameworks are compatible, because the individual parties must continue to comply with the relevant national / federal regulations. In some cases it is very difficult to compare measured and / or interpreted values.

5) Budgets to be spent. When available funds on both sides of the border vary considerably, this could become a problem for a balanced partnership.

6) Culture. Even though the physical distance between organisations on both sides of the border is fairly small, potential cultural differences could be more sizeable. Cultural differences are often very persistent and can have a strong negative impact on cooperation.

7) Language. Language problems can cause people to misunderstand. Language problems can also cause people to be cautious in maintaining the necessary contacts. Multilingual cooperation will always require extra time and sometimes money (translation costs, etc.).

Presented strategy Box 5.14 provides an impression of the presented strategy with respect to theme 8, addressing the effects of state borders. This strategy was developed using the boundary work concept and experiences from practice.

Box 5.14!Presented strategy with respect to theme 8 Boundary spanning strategy. This strategy can be summarized as ‘obtaining transparency, neutralizing and bridging where possible’. In other words, not to let the consequences of the critical transition get out of control, but provide transparency and subsequently work to neutralize the consequences and where possible even bridging them to ensure that the transition is no longer critical.

Example. The budgets to be spent are deemed as possible critical transition in the developed theory. When available budgets on both sides of the border vary considerably, this could become a problem for a balanced partnership. In the following summary of the presented tools, we are proposing 4 steps to achieve a solution for this situation. Step 1 concerns the transparency of things: 'Providing insight in the different budgets available and putting this out in the open, not letting it stay in the background'. Steps 2 and 3 relate to neutralize the differences in available budgets: 'Do we have recourse, for example, the participant with the smallest budget spending more hours or lower prices for services to hire? With the right arguments differences in budgets can sometimes be made more acceptable.' (step 2) or 'Are grants available, which would make the differences less of an issue.' (Step 3). Step 4 aims to actually overcome (bridge) the problem of "Agenda Setting on a higher level. Is it possible to support the participants with the lowest budget by providing them with more funds through the 'top approach' and the other partner(s)? " (step 4)

98

Presented tools Box 5.15 provides an overview of the presented tools with respect to theme 8, addressing the effects of state borders. The presented tools are solutions pioneers can choose when the aforementioned critical transitions in box 5.13 are current. The presented tools are developed from practical experience.

Box 5.15!Presented tools with respect to theme 8 Structure of public administration: 1 - (Making) summary available to the participants. Pro: message can be "tailored" and transferred at an early stage. Con: (too) easily obtained information might not 'stick'.

2 - Let participants find out for themselves. Pro: may increase participation. Con: can be counter-productive if participants get tangled up. After all, it is not their regular function to search and map these matters. This option is useful when cooperation is not really established yet, but the participants will have to 'warm up'. It also strongly depends on the motivation of the participants, as well as the question if suitable candidates are available to do the field work.

3 - Let participants inform each other. Pro: participants will hear from colleagues how things are arranged and can question each other directly. Con: often not easy to understand and colleagues are not specialized in transferring this kind of knowledge. This is irrespective of the fact that transfer of information between parties will also be affected by language; colleagues from other countries often prefer to present in their own language. Precondition for this approach is that a certain degree of cooperation already exists.

4 - A combined variety in which the options above are deployed depending on the situation.

Organisation of water management: 1 - (Making) summary available to the participants. Pro: message can be "tailored" and transferred at an early stage. Con: (too) easily obtained information might not 'stick'.

2 - Let participants inform each other. Pro: participants will hear from colleagues how things are arranged and can question each other directly. Con: often not easy to understand and colleagues are not specialized in transferring this kind of knowledge. Precondition for this approach is that a certain degree of cooperation already exists.

3 - Exchange of personnel. Pro: participants get an idea on how management of water is organized on the other side of the border. Added advantage is that people meet and get to know each other's organizations. Con: transfer of knowledge is limited to persons actually participating in the exchange if they do not convey their experiences.

4 - A combined variety in which the options above are deployed depending on the situation.

Knowledge of administrative matters at the other participants: 1 - Tapping into new channels of information. For example: reading local newspapers from the other side of the border. Using the internet.

2- Networking on the other side of the border, visiting meetings, getting to know people, being present. 3- Work on relationships with the other side of the border: making contact outside contextual meetings and expanding those into different levels within the organizations. Informal consultations at administrative level can also be very profitable.

4 - Even during regular meetings of the cooperative partnership, participants often make conscious or unconscious comments related to their own administrative situation. Be aware of this.

Applied methods and techniques: 1- Ensuring that transparency prevails; what's going on exactly? 2- Possibly run a joint pilot project in which the impact of the different methods will be investigated.

99

3 - Sampling, measuring and / or interpreting possible points at or along the border with two different methods. 4- Notify the designated authorities of the differences, in order to (eventually) reach harmonization.

Budgets to be spent: 1 - Provide insight in the different budgets to be spent. Make this open for discussion, do not keep it under the surface.

2 - 'Do we have recourse, for example, the participant with the smallest budget spending more hours or lower prices for services to hire? With the right arguments differences in budgets can sometimes be made more acceptable.'

3 - 'Are grants available, which would make the differences less of an issue.' 4 - Agenda setting on a higher level. Is it possible to support the participants with the lowest budget by providing them with more funds through the 'top approach' and the other partner(s)?

Culture: 1 - Making differences in culture open for discussion and properly positioned at an early stage. Positioning: cultural differences are nothing special, they are everywhere where organizations work together, as well as along the border. Cultural differences are not just tricky, they can also allow mutual learning, innovation or laughing about it together.

2 - Early spotting of people within the participating organizations who have genuine interest in dealing with other cultures. This last example may also be based on apparent hobbies or holiday destinations. This could possibly be people who do not participate directly in the cooperative partnership but who are able to influence those who directly participate in the cooperative partnership from within their organisations. These people can be used as anchor points throughout the process when cultural differences are likely to be critical for the further development of the cooperative partnership.

3 - Cultural differences can be very persistent, the pioneer and / or leader will often have no choice but to accept a solution which is acceptable to all participants but sometimes very impractical for themselves.

4 - A pitfall in cooperative partnerships with multiple participants is that the main focus is on cultural differences between organizations on both sides of the border while other types of cultural differences can sometimes have much bigger impact on the partnership.

Language: 1 - Language problems can be overcome to some extent. For example by distributing bilingual documents and providing interpreters during meetings.

2-In border areas, many people often have a feel for each other's language or dialect. In these cases it could be convenient to have everyone speak their own language or dialect.

3 - Should language problems lead to reluctance on the part of the participants to maintain the necessary contacts, address this as soon as possible. Is this really a language problem or are other things at stake? In the case of language difficulties, a joint approach for solutions needs to be taken. 4 - Someone who speaks two languages is not always capable of 'bilingual thinking'. For example, when process leaders are hired, it is imperative that they understand what participants are thinking. A combination of process leaders from both sides of the border may be a solution.

100

5.4 Relationship between theory and research questions

For each of the five research questions underlying this research (table 1.1), the relationship between theory and relevant research question is discussed in this chapter.

Research question I The first research question was: 'What phases can be distinguished in developing cross-border regional cooperation?'

In order to answer this question, a growth model describing the!development pattern!of cross-border regional cooperation was included in the developed theory. This growth model is displayed in figure 5.3 and identifies!five characteristic development stages. The model is derived from the growth model by Verwijmeren & Wiering (2007) and will not be further investigated in this research.

Research question II The second research question was: 'What are success and failure factors in developing cross-border regional cooperation?'

In order to answer this question two types of!success and failure factors were included in the developed theory. First in paragraph 5.3.2! generally applicable! success and failure factors in enabling the development of cross-border cooperation are described. These factors are based on the work by Huxham & Vangen (2006) and are not investigated in the present research. Secondly, scenario-specific success and failure factors are derived in paragraph 5.7. These factors are further examined using the case studies in chapters 6, 7 and 8.

Research question III The third research question was: 'How can cooperation processes!between organizations be initiated and managed?'

In order to answer this question the developed theory considers cooperation processes between organisations as changes initiatives. This means that stimuli for change or cooperation play a significant role, because they are necessary to facilitate cooperation. Management is basically done by monitoring, adjusting when necessary, monitor again, etcetera.

Adjusting change initiatives involving multiple organisations can sometimes be cumbersome. Therefore the choice was made to use elements from the theory for driving change in single organizations, in the developed theory. In addition, pioneers need to have knowledge on typical network-related strategies and cooperation-related themes that might become an issue when the cooperation process is initiated.

Elaboration of the above statements was done using a mix of sources from literature (Otto, 1996; Kuks & Bressers, 2001; Huxham & Vangen, 2006, De Bruin & Ten Heuvelhof, 2007) as well as practical experience. A more detailed description is found in paragraph 5.3.3 and is investigated further using the case studies described in chapters 6, 7 and 8.

Research question IV The fourth research question was 'How can we model cooperative partnerships for organisations?'.

101

To answer this question, four themes were proposed in the developed theory: establishing cooperative partnerships, further development of cooperative partnerships, addressing possible issues for joint policy and handling the impact of administrators. In the developed theory, for each of these themes, tools presented as model descriptions are offered to pioneers for use with the specific themes.

Elaboration of the above statements was done using a mix of sources from literature (Van der Molen, 2001; Korringa & van der Molen, 2005; Kaats e.a., 2006; Kaats & Opheij, 2008; Verwijmeren & Wieringa, 2007) as well as practical experience. A more detailed description is found in paragraph 5.3.4 - 5.3.7 and is investigated further using the case studies described in chapters 6, 7 and 8.

Research question V The fifth research question was: 'How can we address the effects of state borders?'

In order to answer this question, the developed theory uses the boundary work concept. This concept assumes that state borders are associates with different transitions and that some of these transitions can be critical for cooperation between organisations. This means that cooperation between organizations may be delayed (in part) at a given moment , if a critical transition at that time can not be neutralized or bridged. Pioneers fulfil the role of boundary spanner: they are deemed to get the cooperation in motion again in case and when (partial) delays are occurring. The pioneers will be able to use the strategy and the tools offered in the developed theory.

Elaboration of the above statements was done using a mix of sources from literature (Whetten, 1992; Huitema e.a., 2006; Bressers & Lulofs, 2010) as well as practical experience. A more detailed description is found in paragraph 5.8 and is investigated further using in case studies described in chapters 6, 7 and 8.

5.5 Preparing the developed theory for testing

Since direct evaluation of the sustainability of the theory cannot be done (see paragraph 3.3), we built in an intermediate step in which the developed theory is yet to be prepared for partial evaluation with real life situations. It will show that there are a number of scenario-specific issues that can lead to success and failure and can be considered scenario-specific success and failure factors as such. This will be described in the following two paragraphs.

5.5.1 Differentiating the developed theory

This above-mentioned intermediate step consists of differentiations for the developed theory into three more or less standard scenarios of cross-border regional water management. The differentiated version of the theory!acts as!interface!between the developed theory and living reality (see figures 3.1 and 5.1). Below the choice of three typical scenarios is explained.

Scenario selection In the developed theory, establishing and managing cooperation processes is approached as change initiative. Stimuli for change or cooperation therefore play an important role. The main stimuli are considered (box 5.4):

102

1. awareness of mutual opportunities; 2. policy and institutional pressures 3. problem pressure

Typical scenarios are scenarios fully compatible with one of these stimuli. When searching for these scenarios the framework as shown in figure 5.16 is applied.

Figure 5.16!Framework for defining typical scenarios

In this framework, the nature of the initiative to work together - top-down versus bottom-up - and the nature of the involvement of the participants - obligatory versus voluntary - is compared. This results in four scenarios. By projecting the major stimuli for cooperation in these scenarios, it becomes clear which ones lead to typical scenarios.

This appears to apply to the stimuli 'awareness of mutual opportunities' and 'policy and institutional pressures', making the bottom-left and top-right scenarios a one on one fit. These two scenarios are therefore used to conceive the differentiation of the developed theory. The top-left scenario is also used as a typical scenario for the differentiation. This scenario fits one on one when there are 'no (other) stimuli'. In summary, this yields the following three characteristic scenarios:

Scenario a (top left): this is the situation in which regional participants, as result of problem pressure on both sides of the border, participate voluntarily in a cooperative partnership, which is arranged top-down without stimuli for cooperation. This could for instance be periodic consultations, initiated by higher authorities, between regional partners from both sides of the border. In this scenario we assume the parties are working together based on the best efforts obligation and as long as there are no stimuli for change, no substantive issues are going to be realized. Should stimuli be introduced and efforts are set in motion to act on these stimuli, then a change of scenario!will take place.

103

Scenario b (top-right): this is the situation in which regional participants on both sides of the border are obliged to participate in a cooperative partnership, which is arranged top-down and in which policy and institutional pressure work as stimuli for cooperation3 This could for instance be compulsory cooperation within the framework of European legislation. We assume the parties in this scenario work together based on an obligation for results: in the case of European legislation, this means that the EU will require the result to comply with certain conditions and when these activities must be completed.

Scenario c (bottom-left): this is the situation in which regional participants on both sides of the border participate voluntarily in a cooperative partnership, which originated in the region and in which awareness of mutual opportunities works as a stimulus for cooperation. This could for instance be the possibility of linking cross-border area development to developments in the field of water management.

With regard to the lower right quadrant, we can say that this does fit certain stimuli for cooperation. In this research this is not included, since the stimuli in question are diverse and can be considered not important to the theory of action.

Approach In the differentiation, for each of these three scenarios assumptions are made with regard to which elements of the presented tools for the design of the cooperative partnerships (paragraphs 5.3.4-5.3.7) are important to the pioneer to ensure adequate management. "Management" in the sense of directing or influencing, and "adequate" meaning in the right direction and to a sufficient extent. Note: this implies that not all elements are important, but refers to those elements the pioneer can influence by means of his actions!

Paragraph 5.1 explains the division of the main process, the development of cross-border regional development, into three sub-processes. These three sub-processes are: - initiating and managing cooperation processes; - designing cooperative partnerships; - addressing the effects of state borders. The differentiation thus focuses on the second sub-process. The reason is that the first and third sub-process are considered less suitable for differentiation in this context. Differentiation of the first sub-process is expected to yield little information because one of the criteria for selecting the scenarios is part of this process: it involves the stimulus for cooperation (figure 5.17). Differentiation of the third sub-process is also expected to yield little information because no relationship is expected between the effects of borders and the applied scenarios.

104

Outcomes The outcome of the performed differentiation is listed in table 5.17 using the following notation: good management by the pioneer of limited importance: +, good management by the pioneer of average importance: ++, good management by the pioneer of major importance: +++.

Model Description Component Scenario a Scenario b Scenario c Figure 5.8 Orientation phase

Partner search phase Design Phase Fund-raising phase Realization phase

+ + + + +

+!+!

++!+!+

+++!+++!+++!+++!+++

Figure 5.9 Future side Hard side Soft side Resources side

+!+!+!+

+!+++!++!++

+++ ++

+++ ++

Figure 5.10 Communication phase Knowledge exchange phase Agenda setting phase Tuning phase Implementation phase

+!+!+!+!+

++!++!++!++!++

+++!+++!+++!+++!+++

Figure 5.11 Administrative realities Information delivery Personal considerations

+ + +

++ ++!++

+++!+++!++

Table 5.17 The results of the performed differentiation

The justification of the points of interest in table 5.17 is included in appendix 5.1.

!5.5.2 Scenario-specific success and failure factors

The implemented differentiation of the theory described in paragraph 5.5.1, provides insight into what issues!are important for pioneers to be well managed! in case of three different typical scenarios for cross-border regional water management. For each of the scenarios success and failure factors are derived, these are described below.

Scenario a For this scenario, the previous paragraph indicated that good or lesser management of the components is not of great importance. This is primarily due to the fact that as long as no stimuli for change are emerging, no substantive issues will be realized. Factors that are of importance in these situations, are:

a. Managing expectations. When the pattern of expectations participants have does not comply with the opportunities the cooperative partnership offers them, tension will arise. The task of the pioneer is to make participants aware of the possibilities, but also of the limitations a cooperative partnership in this situation may encounter.

b. Dimensions of the cooperative partnership. Once participants are aware of the possibilities and limitations of the cooperative partnership, as far as general agreements allow, mutual agreement on what level the

105

participating organizations will be represented and what activities the partnership will undertake, should take place.

c. The way differences are addressed. This could include cultural differences, differences in methods and techniques in the participating countries, differences in their budgets to be spent, but also language differences. In short: the differences as outlined in box 5.13.

d. Being alert to stimuli for change. In these situations it is important to be alert for possible stimuli for change, stimuli that arise due to new European legislation, but also stimuli that may arise by linking cross-border area development to the development of water management.

Exercising good or lesser management of the aforementioned points is deemed as success or failure factor in case of scenario a, in which managing expectations (a) and the dimensions of the cooperative partnership (b) are deemed as most important points.

Scenario b For this scenario the previous paragraph indicated that for a number of elements proper management is deemed of average importance and for one of them it is of major importance. These points include the following:

a. The way the organisation is governed. An important point in this scenario is that matters are organized in such a way that the required results can be delivered in time.

b. The way differences are addressed. This could include cultural differences, differences in methods and techniques in the participating countries, differences in their budgets to be spent, but also language differences. In short: the differences as outlined in box 5.13.

c. The way personnel deployment is arranged. In order to be able to deliver the required results, sufficient, qualified and motivated staff needs to be available!

d. The way availability of resources is arranged. To deliver the required results in time, the right tools need to be readily available.

e. The way possible issues for joint policy are addressed. In order to deliver the required results in a timely manner, possible issues for joint policy need to be known in time and also need to be 'rolled out' within the specified period.

f. The way administrators are involved. The administrators need to be involved in time and in the correct way, in order to be able to deliver the required results in a timely manner.

Being able to perform management of the forgoing points to a greater of lesser extent, is deemed as success and failure factor for scenario b, where the way the organization is governed (a), the way differences are dealt with (b) en the way possible issues for joint policy are addressed (e) are assessed as most important.

Scenario c For this scenario the previous paragraph indicated that for nearly all specific elements of the theory of action, proper management is deemed of major importance. These points include the following:

106

a. The way cooperation is established. The proverb "well begun is half done" applies, where 'well begun' represents performing an initial thorough orientation, finding the right partners, further development of plans and arranging the necessary finance. In short: the steps as outlined in figure 5.8.

b. The way further development of cooperation is managed. The key component in this respect is to ensure that 'all pawns know their moves and do it right'. It is also important to arrange the organization in such a way that everyone agrees and to ensure that the necessary resources are available.

c. The way differences are addressed. This could include cultural differences, differences in methods and techniques in the participating countries, differences in their budgets to be spent, but also language differences. In short: the differences as outlined in box 5.13.

d. The way possible issues for joint policy are addressed. In order not to miss any opportunities, possible issues for joint policy need to be known in time and also need to be 'rolled out' professionally.

e. The way administrators are involved. In order to achieve a stable working relationship and results that also will be endorsed by administrative managers, the managers involved need to be informed timely and properly.

Being able to manage the aforementioned issues to a greater of lesser extent, is assessed as success or failure factor for scenario c, where all points are deemed important .

General From the foregoing we can conclude that! the method for dealing with differences as a result of the state boundaries is deemed a factor for success and failure for all three scenarios. This is not surprising because this is in fact a universal success and failure factor (see paragraph 5.3.2). This factor will be considered as such in the rest of this book.

107

6 Case study A: Subcommittee Vecht-Dinkel Case study A concerns one of the seven regional sub-committees of the German-Dutch Standing Committee on Boundary Waters, namely the subcommittee Vecht-Dinkel and covers the period from 2000 until May 2008. This partnership has already been introduced in paragraph 2.2 and will be explained further in the introductory paragraph of the chapter at hand. The subcommittee Vecht-Dinkel is used in this research to gain insight in the quality and applicability of the theory of action differentiated for scenario a. Scenario a is defined in paragraph 5.5.1 as: 'The situation in which regional participants, as result of problem pressure, on both sides of the border, voluntarily participate in a cooperative partnership, which is arranged top-down without stimuli for cooperation. This could for instance be periodic consultations, initiated by higher authorities, between regional partners from both sides of the border. In this scenario we assume parties are working together based on the best efforts obligation and as long as there are no stimuli for change, there will be no substantial activities to be accomplished. Should the stimuli be introduced and efforts are set in motion to act on these stimuli, then a change of scenario!will take place.' Following the introduction are descriptions of the context and the fieldwork. The chapter concludes with a description of the results and the conclusions.

6.1 Introduction

The sub-committee Vecht-Dinkel was established in 1997 as result of a merger between the former subcommittees Vecht and Dinkel. Figure 6.1 displays the work area of the subcommittee. With the emergence of the new subcommittee the meeting frequency of the subcommittees Vecht and Dinkel was adopted. This meant at least one meeting a year and more often if desired. We will present an outlined overview of the history of the subcommittee first, because the ins and outs of the subcommittee during the research period can not be dissociated from the preceding period4.

Traditionally, subcommittees were strongly oriented on implementation. Until the late seventies, joint inspection of cross-border waterways and the annual determination of the water quality along the border, were the main activities.

The eighties have seen the emergence of new techniques, new approaches and broadening the scope. From snapshots to continuous sampling, from sampling at the border to the sampling of cross-border watercourses and from expanding interest in point-oriented to diffuse pollution sources.

The first attempts to achieve a more strategic approach, were implemented in the nineties. In this period, each of the three states participating in the subcommittee, had their own chairman. Mainly on initiative of these chairmen plans were established for the Vecht and the Dinkel to set up management plans containing the water management situation of that time, as well as the desirable future for the water management situation. The goal was then to be able to formulate and implement improvement projects. In case of the Vecht the envisaged draft document was completed, but the mutual ministries showed insufficient support for their implementation. In the case of the Dinkel the desired document

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!8 In this context, we have also interviewed the Dutch pioneer from the period preceding the research period.

108

never came to existence: Reputedly, German regional governments outside the subcommittee did not support it because of agricultural interests.

Figure 6.1 The location of the work area of the subcommittee (PGC, 1998).

In 2001 and 2002 another, more strategic, attempt was made within the already established subcommittee Vecht-Dinkel. This time the two Dutch water boards in particular were eager for an agreement on further cooperation. In order to reach agreements, the Dutch side had delegated the relevant dike wardens and deputy to the meetings of the subcommittee. The German side, however,

109

did not follow this example because strict arrangements prevailed regarding which organisations and more specifically, which administrative staff within these organisations, could take part in the subcommittee. The desired result therefore, was not achieved: the German administrative representatives did not have the authority to make commitments.

In 2005 the work group DeltaRhein was launched (see paragraph 2.2). Many of the issues discussed in the subcommittee until then, were taken over by this work group. DeltaRhein also offered a more suitable (in terms of their target ambitions), although compulsory, platform for maintaining and expanding the cross-border contacts to a number of important members from the subcommittee. The usefulness and necessity of the meetings of the subcommittee thus became frustrated. In 2006 this led to the decision to only have annual meetings when agenda items needed to be discussed. This arrangement, however, has not led to cancellation of any subcommittee meetings during the research period.

About pioneering Pioneering in the subcommittee Vecht and Dinkel, and later also in the subcommittee Vecht-Dinkel, was much more a mutual task in the nineties than it was during the research period. The pioneering role was performed jointly by the chairmen of the three states involved. This joint pioneering role went beyond preparing meetings of the subcommittee in mutual agreement; the aforementioned joint initiative to establish management plans for the Vecht and the Dinkel is an example of this achievement.

In the beginning of 2000, the interviewed pioneer took on chairmanship for the Dutch side, first unofficially as a replacement for his predecessor and from 2002 to May 2008 in an official role. With the arrival of the new Dutch chairman in 2000, the pioneering task seems to have shifted from a three-men job to a one-man job, with the new chairman on the Dutch side leading the way. The exact reason for this change is unclear, but several things are mentioned that might have played a part in this. Possibly the failed establishment of management plans for the Vecht and the Dinkel was the cause. Perhaps the fact that the subcommittee had to slim down as result of the arrival of the WFD, slowed down the other two chairmen. It's also possible that the element of compatibility between the three men decreased when the change on the Dutch side took place.

For the record, I would like to document that I am (was) not a member of the subcommittee Vecht-Dinkel.

6.2 Exploration of the context

The objective of the context exploration is two-fold. Firstly it contributes to answering the question on how the case at hand relates to being typified as 'scenario a'. Secondly we use the context exploration to gain insight in the circumstances surrounding the case at hand. For further description, detailing and 'colouring' of the context, we use the Contextual Interaction Theory by Bressers (see paragraph 4.5). This theory organizes the context and describes three lines along which influences from the context can take place. The thought behind deploying the Contextual Interaction Theory is that for the chosen approach for analysing data in this research, according to Blaikie (2005), it is the explicit

110

responsibility of the researcher to provide the reader with the correct impression of the contexts in question (compare closing sentence in chapter 3).

Specific context

Goals of the partnership The goals of the subcommittee Vecht-Dinkel are to discuss all relevant cross-border water management issues in her area during regular meetings, and to resolve these in a satisfactory way for both countries.

Available tools Tools mentioned in the Treaty are: the provision of information, sharing experiences, handling suggestions and complaints, dealing with questions regarding cross-border co-financing of measures and inspection of the boundary waters. The Frontier Treaty does not specify whether this list of tools can be regarded as exhaustive. The only thing mentioned in this context is that only the main committee is authorized for receiving and handling complaints and for making recommendations.

Available resources There are no specific resources made available for the subcommittee. This means that the members of the subcommittee have to defray the necessary means themselves. On the German side, the federal state is often the ultimate financier.

Current agreements on time The Frontier Treaty does not include any remarks on the frequency of meetings or the speed with which the subcommittee should perform its tasks. Article 68 only states at this point that sub-committees must deliver reports on their activities to the main committee.

Structural context

Social and administrative scale levels Regarding this point an impression of the different ways the German and Dutch public administration and water sector are constructed, was presented in paragraph 2.2. For more information we therefore refer to that paragraph.

Networks and its actors The most important network in this case study is the subcommittee Vecht-Dinkel, key players in this network are members of the subcommittee and the pioneer in particular. During the research period, the following organisations were members of the subcommittee (PGC, 1998): - From North Rhine-Westphalia: the Bezirksregierung Münster, the Kreis Borken and the city of

Gronau, with substitute members: the Staatliches Umwelt Amt (StUA) Herten and the Wasser-und Bodenverband Untere Dinkel.

- From Lower Saxony: the NLWKN, the Landkreis Grafschaft Bentheim and the Unterhaltungs- und Landschaftspflegeverband Nr. 114 Vechte.

- From the Netherlands: the province of Overijssel, Rijkswaterstaat (Directorate Eastern Netherlands), the Water Board Regge en Dinkel and the Water Board Velt en Vecht.

111

Problem perceptions and goal aspirations During the research period, no significant contextual issues were discussed in the subcommittee. The problem perception was not so much inspired by actual problems as on uncertainty and various target ambitions: the said uncertainty concerning the impact of the WFD on the position of the subcommittee and, at the beginning of the research period, the aforementioned difference in goal ambitions between the two countries.

Strategies and tools As stated, in the beginning of the research period the Dutch side has been trying to get the German side to join in a more strategic approach. The strategy used here was aimed at increasing the level of their own representatives. The assumption was to get the German side in on this strategy and reach the point where they would be able to get things done. However, this proved not to be the case. In the course of the research period, the subcommittee (as platform for regional cross-border consultation) -progressively - had to give way to the regional cross-border consultation within the scope of the WFD. The strategy that was chosen in this light, was aimed at keeping the door open as long as possible.

Organisations and resources for implementation During the research period, the work was performed mainly by the participating organisations themselves. Few resources were therefore required.

Broader context

Politics, economics, culture and technology From the perspective of the subcommittee Vecht-Dinkel, the research period can be considered a politically stable period. Major political phenomena for the subcommittee were the reconstruction of former Eastern Germany after the fall of the Berlin Wall in November 1989 and further formation of the European Union. Economically, the research period was a period of relative prosperity. The credit crisis in the financial markets started already during the research period, in the summer of 2007, but the escalation did not take place until after the research period beyond September 2008. In terms of technology we can assess that the state of technology in this period did not restrict the subcommittee in its functioning.

Influence from context

Cognitions Influences from context along the lines of cognitions, surely must have taken place during the research period. This is caused by the fact that some members have become closely involved in the German-Dutch consultations on the introduction of the WFD, and the others have not.

Ambitions In the beginning of the research period, when the Dutch side tried to get the German side involved in a more strategic approach, there have been influences from the context along the line of ambitions.

112

Resources In the first half of the research period, there have been influences from the context along the line of resources. During this period the German side had few financial resources due to the fact that the reconstruction of former Eastern Germany put a considerable amount of pressure on the available resources.

Combinations The influences from the context along the three lines has also occurred in combinations. In the beginning of the research period for instance, the Dutch side has been trying to get the German side to join in a more strategic approach. Regardless of whether the German side was prepared to go along in principle, the financial aspect also played a role in the fact that this approach did not get implemented. Another combination is the fact that after 2002 the Dutch side has not tried to take on a more strategic approach through the subcommittee Vecht-Dinkel and that they knew other cross-border regional partnerships were going to be established which might have more opportunity to implement this approach.

Conclusion context exploration

The objective of this exploration was not only to gain insight in the circumstances surrounding the case at hand. But also to enable a contribution to answering the question on how the case at hand relates to being typified as 'scenario a'. Scenario a is defined in paragraph 5.5.1 as: 'The situation in which regional participants, as result of problem pressure, on both sides of the border, voluntarily participate in a cooperative partnership, which is arranged top-down without stimuli for cooperation. This could for instance be periodic consultations, initiated by higher authorities, between regional partners from both sides of the border. In this scenario we assume the parties are working together based on the best efforts obligation and as long as there are no stimuli for change, no substantive issues are going to be realized. Should the stimuli be introduced and efforts are set in motion to act on these stimuli, then a change of scenario! will take place.' The context exploration shows that the subcommittee Vecht-Dinkel meets, in many respects, the definition of scenario a. The cooperative partnership was organized from the top, by the Standing Committee on Boundary Waters established in 1963 (see also paragraph 2.2). Alignment took place without the need for stimuli for cooperation - there were no memorable problems, a more strategic approach was not feasible and there was no obligation for results. The context exploration did not provide clarity on the question if participation in the subcommittee was voluntary for all members.

6.3 Field work design and results

The subcommittee Vecht-Dinkel is used in this research to gain insight in the quality and applicability of the developed theory differentiated for scenario a.

113

6.3.1 Field work design

General Due to the nature of the developed theory, it cannot be researched for 'accuracy' but it can be related to various cases for which it was intended (see paragraph 3.2). This is done through the concepts of quality and applicability: • "quality" in the sense that the theory a) is relevant for the issues and contexts presented in the case



Since direct evaluation of the quality of the theory could not be done, we introduced an intermediate step, in which the developed theory is yet to be prepared for exploration and partial evaluation. This intermediate step consists of a differentiation of the developed theory for three more or less standard scenarios of cross-border regional water management.

Structure With the use of the case study at hand on the subcommittee Vecht-Dinkel, the theory differentiated for scenario a is explored and partially evaluated. This was done to determine to which extent the theory would have been of value and to which extend it would have been applicable for the pioneer of the subcommittee Vecht-Dinkel. In the first two steps (see paragraph 3.3) the following takes place: - In the first step we examine the quality of the theory differentiated for scenario a, with the use of

the subcommittee Vecht-Dinkel. This step is intended to check if there is any reason to assume that the quality of the theory differentiated for scenario a, would be 'incorrect'. "Incorrect" in the sense that the theory bears no relevance to the issues and contexts which occurred in the cases or that the theory did not organize existing insights, nor generate new insights.

- In the second step, the pioneer of the subcommittee Vecht-Dinkel was directly questioned regarding the applicability using several questions. This provided a direct response on whether the theory differentiated for scenario a would have been applicable to the pioneer in the subcommittee Vecht-Dinkel, from his particular perspective.

Approach In this case study ten interviews were conducted divided over three rounds of interviews. The interviewees are listed in appendix 6.1 and in the subsequent interview rounds the persons consecutively interviewed were: - the pioneer of the subcommittee Vecht-Dinkel; - eight individual members of the subcommittee (four German and four Dutch members); - and again: the pioneer of the subcommittee.

Questionnaires with mostly closed questions were used in the first two rounds of interviews. Both these questionnaires were included in appendices 6.2 and 6.3. The preliminary results of the first two interview rounds, as well as a summary of the theory of action and the questions to be discussed in the

114

third round of interviews, were sent to the pioneer prior to this third interview round. The written material used in the third interview round concerns one integral document compiled for the case studies A, B and C and can be found in appendix 6.4. The final results of the first two rounds of interviews are included in appendix 6.5. The three rounds of interviews were held during the months of September and October 2009.

Interview rounds 1 and 2 The objective of interview rounds 1 and 2 was to examine if there is any reason to assume that the quality of the theory differentiated for scenario a, might be 'incorrect'. "Incorrect" in the sense that the theory bears no relevance to the issues and contexts which occurred in the cases or that the theory did not organize existing insights, nor generate new insights. Interview rounds 1 and 2 concern therefore the quality of the theory differentiated for scenario a.

In the first round the pioneer was interviewed. First, the pioneer was questioned on his vision on the objectives of cooperative partnership and to which extent these objectives have been important for his actions in this case. Next, the first three questions from paragraph 3.3 were discussed. In addition, a general exchange of views about the case took place.

In the second round, all eight participants were interviewed separately. To determine whether any differences in the responses of the pioneer and the participants may be associated with different objectives, the participants also have been asked about their views on the objectives of the cooperative partnership and to what extent these objectives were important for actions of the pioneer in this case. Just as in the first round, we then discussed the first three questions from paragraph 3.3. In addition, a general exchange of views about the case took place here as well.

Interview round 3 The objective of interview round 3 is to explore if the theory differentiated for scenario a would have been applicable for the pioneer of the subcommittee Vecht-Dinkel. Interview round 3 concerns therefore the applicability of the theory differentiated for scenario a.

In the third round the pioneer was interviewed again. During the interview, the preliminary results of rounds 1 and 2 of the interviews are discussed. Subsequently the fourth question from paragraph 3.3 was discussed with the pioneer, which is the question if the theory differentiated for scenario a would have been applicable for the pioneer.

6.3.2 Results of interview rounds 1 and 2

With the use of three tables, the results are discussed below. In these tables the pioneer is indicated with T (trekker) and the German and Dutch members of the subcommittee are indicated with D (Duits) and N (Nederlands). The following notation is used for the degree of importance: 3 equals 'major importance', 2 equals 'average importance', 1 is 'limited importance' and 0 equals 'no importance'. The degree of importance as the pioneer awards this, concerns the perceived importance this issue had on his own actions. The importance awarded by the participants, concerns the degree of importance they consider the pioneer should have awarded to this issue in his actions.

115

Targets To determine whether any differences in the responses of the pioneer and the participants may be associated with different targets, the targets were studied at first. This led to the outcome that, in a general sense, the interviewed participants considered the following targets of average or major importance: establishing alignment, preventing or possibly addressing disputes and establishing cross-border visions and/or management plans for the river basin. For taking each other into account during own activities and establishing cross-border investments limited or average importance was awarded. In a single case learning from each other or having fixed contact moments were mentioned as extra objectives by the participants. The targets of the pioneer were in line with those of the participants, with the exception of preventing disputes and addressing these when needed. This actual objective of the subcommittee (see paragraph 2.2) was considered of limited importance by the pioneer. The pioneer: "Disputes in this case were hardly occurring, and if they were to occur, this would have been a task for lawyers in stead of the pioneer"

Answers for question 1 from paragraph 3.3 Question 1 was: 'Various strategies can be used for initiating and driving cooperation processes (see box 5.4). At this point the theory is primarily based on the change strategies listed in box 5.5. Are these truly the strategies that matter in this respect?' Table 6.2 shows the estimates concerning the importance of the strategies referred to, for the actions of the pioneer.

Strategies T D D D D N N N N Connect 2 3 2 3 2.5 1.5 3 - - Facilitate 2 2 2 3 2 2 3 2 3 Inspire 2 2 1 3 2.5 1 3 2 1 Motivate 2 2 1 2 2 2 1 2 1 Persuade 2 1 2 2 2.5 2.5 0 2 2 Apply force 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 Other strategies - - - - - - - - -

Table 6.2 The importance of the strategies mentioned in box 5.5

Table 6.2 indicates that, in a general sense, the interviewed participants consider the first five strategies of importance to be deployed. The importance of connecting and facilitating is considered slightly higher than inspiring, motivating and persuading. Applying force on the other hand, is not seen as an important strategy. The estimate of the pioneer concerning the importance of the strategies for his own actions, is in line with the opinions of the participants. No other strategies were proposed.

The fact that applying force is not considered of importance, can easily be explained. Since the pioneer is not in any position to apply force, this is not a likely strategy.

Answers for question 2 from paragraph 3.3 Question 2 was: 'In this research, the developed theory was differentiated for three typical scenarios of cross-border regional water management. Are the consequential factors truly the factors that matter in this respect?' Table 5.17 indicates that the differentiation of the developed theory for scenario a does not provide any factors which would require adequate management. The conclusion in paragraph 5.2

116

suggests that for scenario a this is mainly due to the fact that there will be no realisation of substantial issues as long as there are no stimuli for change (see definition of scenario a). Other conclusions suggest that there are other factors which indicate that proper management does matter in situations as scenario a. These factors are: 1) managing expectations, 2) dimensions of the cooperative partnership, 3) being alert for stimuli for change and 4) the way differences are addressed. Table 6.3 shows the estimates concerning the importance of the first three factors, for the actions of the pioneer. The importance of the fourth factor is discussed in table 6.4.!

Important and influenceable issues T D D D D N N N N Managing expectations 3 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 Dimensions of the partnership 3 3 3 2 1 3 3 2 2 Being alert to stimuli for change 2 1 2 2 3 2 3 2 3 Other issues - - - - - - - - -

Table 6.3 The importance of the factors mentioned in paragraph 5.5.2

Table 6.3 indicates that, in a general sense, the interviewed participants consider all three issues of importance to the actions of the pioneer. The importance of managing expectations and dimensions of the cooperative partnership is awarded somewhat higher than being alert to stimuli. Both the pioneer and the participants have not proposed any other issues. The estimate of the pioneer concerning the importance for his own actions, is in line with the opinions of the participants. Yet something remarkable is going on here: the Dutch participants award the importance of 'managing expectations' and the importance of 'dimensions in the cooperative partnership' for the actual actions by the pioneer considerably lower than the pioneer himself. The pioneer awards two 3's (see table 6.3), where the Dutch participants do not go beyond seven 1's and a 2 (see appendix 6.5). For the better part, this is due to the unsuccessful attempts in 2001 and 2002, where administrators were deployed to obtain a more strategic approach in the subcommittee (see paragraph 6.1). On one hand the Dutch participants feel that the pioneer should have managed the expectations on the Dutch side more sufficiently and should have protected the Dutch delegation from itself, but on the other hand they also confess that the Dutch were focussing somewhat strongly on their own objectives and targets.

Answers for question 3 from paragraph 3.3 Question 3 was: 'Cross-border regional cooperative relationships could (partly) be stalled by potentially critical transitions based on differences on either side of the border. This theory describes seven transitions considered as potentially critical (see box 5.13). Are these truly the transitions that matter in this respect?'. Table 6.4 shows the estimate concerning 1) the importance of the differences to the actions of the pioneer and 2) the importance of the way these differences are addressed to the actions of the pioneer.!

Differences T D D D D N N N N How differences are addressed 2 2 3 3 1.5 3 3 2 3 In the structure of public administration 3 3 2 3 1.5 1 3 3 1 In the organization of water management 1 3 3 3 1.5 3 3 3 2 In knowledge of administrative issues 1 1 2 1 2 1 3 1 2 In applied methods and techniques 2 3 1 2 1.5 2 1 1 2

117

In budgets to be spent 2 2 1 3 1 2 3 0 2 In culture 1 1 2 3 1.5 2 3 3 3 In language 1 3 3 3 2 2.5 1 1 3 Other differences - - - - - - - - -

Table 6.4 The importance of the differences mentioned in box 5.13

Table 6.4 indicates that, in a general sense, the interviewed participants consider the way differences are addressed of importance to the actions of the pioneer. The importance of differences in the structure of public administration, in the organisation of water management, in culture and the differences in language are awarded higher than the differences in knowledge of administrative issues, in used methods and techniques and the differences in budgets to be spent. The pioneer awards the way differences are addressed in line with the opinions of the participants. In the individual scores, the pioneer awards lower than the participants in four cases, all of these were awarded 1 by the pioneer. In these four cases, the participants concur with the lower score only in the case of knowledge of administrative issues on the other side of the border, in the other three cases, the participants agree that the pioneer under-valued the importance for his own actions (see appendix 6.5). No other differences were proposed than the differences mentioned.

6.3.3 Results of interview round 3

In the third round the pioneer was interviewed again. As preparation for this interview, the preliminary results of interview rounds 1 and 2 and the theory differentiated for scenarios a, b and c, were sent to the pioneer.

Feedback on the picture emerging from interview rounds 1 and 2

The description below is the picture that emerged from interview rounds 1 and 2, as well as the response of the pioneer on that picture.

During the research period the pioneer in question was employed as policy maker by the province of Overijssel. During the merger of the former committees Vecht en Dinkel in 1997, he was already a member of both committees and subsequently was appointed secretary of the subcommittee Vecht-Dinkel. Besides being the secretary, in 2000 he was also unofficially, and later in 2002 officially, the chairman of the Dutch delegation. The pioneer has chosen to fulfil his role as an instigator and especially as inspirer for the German-Dutch contacts. He had no previous experience as a pioneer of a (cross-border) partnership, nor had he any process-based knowledge or experience.

As a case study the subcommittee Vecht-Dinkel encompasses the period of 2000 to May 2008, which covers the period that the interviewed pioneer was the pioneer for this subcommittee. In terms of the growth model in figure 5.3, during the relevant period, the cooperation remained in phase 2 in creating transparency. Although getting further cooperation on the agenda was attempted in 2001 and 2002, this did not work.

It appears that the pioneer on the German side has built a good reputation: upright, persistent and professionally qualified. However, not everyone is as content about the performance of the pioneer in

118

that period. The failed attempts in 2001 and 2002 have caused some frustration for some of the actors involved on the Dutch side. This is reflected in a negative opinion about elements regarding the performance of the subcommittee during the research period. On one hand this also reflects on the reputation of the pioneer, on the other hand the Dutch side did endorse the uprightness, persistence and professional content expertise of the pioneer.

The pioneer has indicated that he agrees on the picture that is outlined above, in general sense.

Regarding the quality of the developed theory differentiated for scenario a

In paragraph 3.2 we defined the quality of the developed theory as "quality" in the sense that the theory a) is relevant for the issues and contexts presented in the case and b) potentially offers added value to the pioneers - added value in the sense that the theory will organize existing insights or will generate new insights. The preliminary results of interview rounds 1 and 2 apply to part a of this definition. The pioneer has seen the preliminary results and does not have any remarks. With respect to part b of the above-mentioned definition of the 'quality of the developed theory', we have asked the pioneer if the differentiated version of the theory offers him potential added value; added value in the sense that the theory will organize existing insights or will generate new insights. The pioneer indicates that the developed theory partly created order in things he already was aware of but that he also found some!eye-openers!in there. Major eye-opener was that in working with a partnership such as the subcommittee Vecht-Dinkel, inspiring participants was less important, but managing expectations of the participants definitely was.

Regarding the applicability of the developed theory differentiated for scenario a

In paragraph 3.2 we defined the applicability of the developed theory as "applicable" in the sense that the theory is a) comprehensible and b) recognizable - this in the sense that the pioneers are able to relate the contents of the theory to the aspects of the effective situations it applies to. With respect to part a of the above-mentioned definition of 'applicability of the developed theory', it seems that the pioneer has an excellent grip on the developed theory differentiated for scenario a. It also seems that the theory is recognizable for the pioneer, in the sense that he is able to relate the contents of the theory to the way thing are taking place in the subcommittee Vecht-Dinkel. Below we have used some examples to illustrate in which way the theory deliberately or sub-consciously was already applied to the case respectively could have been applied to the case.

Strategies used in the case in line with the developed theory Various strategies are presented in the developed theory, all aimed at initiating and managing cooperation processes (box 5.5). From interviews with the pioneer and the participants, it seems clear that many of these strategies have already been applied to the case (table 6.2). The developed theory also provides examples of the way these strategies can be applied (box 5.6). The pioneer indicates that some of the examples have already been applied in the subcommittee.

Insight in stimuli for change of essential importance The pioneer and the Dutch participants have been searching for possibilities to change. Change in the form of a more strategic approach of the management of the Vecht and the Dinkel. It would appear

119

that the! desire for! change was the leading consideration here, and thinking in terms of! stimuli for!change was of lesser importance. A Dutch participant: "All innovative initiatives get stuck in the bureaucratic/administrative red tape, which are quite different on both sides of the border. I'm not saying that there is no desire to cooperate, that is not the problem. But we are not able to properly connect at the right levels, which means that administrators were quick to throw in the towel. Maybe we should not want to link our plans for integrated cross-border management of the basin of the river Vecht with the boundary waters meetings. Maybe we should find a connection through urban planning, or recreation or economics, because through the boundary waters meetings, we are not getting what we need! We just took the wrong boat." A German participant: "From the beginning we indicated that we support the establishment of more strategic documents, but that we (at our level) do not have budgets for the implementation of projects. The Dutch had to negotiate this with the Bundesland themselves." Again the Dutch participant: "In 2001 and 2002 we used the commitment of our administrators to refresh the boundary waters meetings. This only succeeded partially and in later years led to increased withdrawal movements of administrators to top officials, while now we simply have our policy makers at the table. In my view, this is affected by the administrative decision-making processes on the German side. What we experience is that we can hardly get any German official at administrative level at the table and we mostly meet with officials who have relatively little authority for decision-making." Use of the developed theory could, in this case, have led to more focus on stimuli for change (see box 5.4). The conclusion would probably have been that there were no stimuli for change which could have led to the desire of the Dutch to engage in a more strategic approach. In the developed theory we have pointed out that in these cases, managing expectations and the dimensions of the cooperative partnership are of great influence (see paragraph 5.5.2: scenario a).

Why were expectations not managed in 2001/2002? Why did the pioneer not manage the expectations of the Dutch delegates in 2001 / 2002? Quiet frankly because he did not anticipate that the effort of the administrators would not work, as none of the Dutch delegates has anticipated either, according to the pioneer. A Dutch participant: "We were too full of our own desires and plans and could not relate to the problems of the other, we have not stepped into their shoes." Did the pioneer get in contact with German colleagues in the mean time? Yes he did, but that was mostly regarding content-related themes. The pioneer also indicates that he tends to focus on content more often and at the time of joining he did not possess all of the present knowledge and experience on the process. This might also be the reason that managing mostly took place based in content. A Dutch participant: "Within the subcommittee Vecht-Dinkel management mostly was founded on content rather than on the capabilities and interests of different partners." Using the developed theory could in this case have led to more focus on administrative issues and the habits on the other side of the border (see box 5.13).

Could the pioneer have known that involving administrators might lead to nothing? In a sense he could, according to a German participant: "In the subcommittee on the German side only officials were represented, this is because it is a meeting on implementation level ('Arbeitsebene'). The elected administrators on the German side should not partake, although an informal rule everyone knows this on the German side." However, during meetings and preparation, any signals regarding this

120

issue released from German side did not reach the pioneer. He indicates that he had not had time to examine the administrative issues and habits common at the other side of the border. For him this would have taken up a great deal of time, which he did not have. In the opinion of the pioneer, this was only suited for parties that already had many contact moments with colleagues on the other side of the border, such as the water boards. The pioneer: "During the time the treaty was signed, the provinces were in charge of water quality and because at that time water quality was the main issue, it is logical that the provinces were included in the Standing Committee on Boundary Waters and also ended up performing chairmanship on the Dutch side." "... If the Border Treaty had been drawn up ten years ago, I think the water boards along the German border would have fulfilled this role." Using the developed theory could in this case have led to more focus on administrative issues and habits on the other side of the border. In box 5.15 multiple suggestions are made to the way pioneers can induce more recognition.

Should the expectations of the participants have been managed better? The pioneer is convinced this should have been the case - managing expectations is something he strived after and therefore he awarded this in table 6.3 with a 3 point score. He does consider this more of a task for all members of the subcommittee than as a specific task for the pioneer. A hypothesis by the interviewer on managing the expectations of participants: "When the pattern of expectations participants have does not comply with the opportunities the cooperative partnership offers them, tension will arise. The task of the pioneer is to make participants aware of the possibilities, but also of the limitations a cooperative partnership in this situation may encounter." The pioneer on the hypothesis above: "I find it rather patronizing that the pioneer should have this task, I think if communications are satisfactory, the participants will have to find out for themselves." ... "Maybe it would have been a good idea to take that approach, but I am not the kind of person who addresses things in that way." Disregarding the specific views of the individual pioneers, it is made clear in the developed theory that managing expectations in these situations is of great importance (see paragraph 5.5.2, scenario a).

The way differences resulting from state borders were addressed in line with the developed theory The theory contains only one strategy for dealing with the effects of boundaries. This is the so-called boundary spanning strategy, which can be summarized as ‘providing transparency, neutralizing and bridging where possible’ (box 5.14). This strategy was applied in the subcommittee, particularly for the monitoring activities. Various tools are also presented in the theory, all aimed at dealing with the effects of boundaries. The pioneer can use the provided tools as suggestions for solutions, whenever cited critical transitions occur (box 5.15). Some of the presented tools were already applied in the subcommittee, especially in the area of the used methods and techniques. In the context of the work done by the subcommittee, over the years much was done to monitor the water quality along and across the border. Various comparison researches were conducted and appropriate attention was given to unravelling the occurring differences.

This concludes the examples on the applicability of the developed theory differentiated for scenario a. In response the pioneer feels that this version of the theory should be considered 'very useful'.

121

6.4 Conclusions

In this chapter we have tried to gain insight in the quality and applicability of the theory of action differentiated for scenario a. This version consists of three parts, which are: a. initiating and managing cooperation!processes!(not differentiated); b. designing cooperative!partnerships!(differentiated for scenario a); c. dealing with the!effects!of boundaries (not differentiated).

Based on the case study, we can present the conclusions below with respect to the quality and applicability of the theory of action differentiated for scenario a.

Conclusion regarding the quality of the theory differentiated for scenario a In order to obtain an impression of the quality of the theory differentiated for scenario a, questions 1 to 3 from paragraph 3.3 were explored using the subcommittee Vecht-Dinkel. Based on the results of this exploration we have found that! there is no reason to assume that the quality of the theory differentiated for scenario a might be 'incorrect'. "Incorrect" in the sense that the theory bears no relevance to the issues and contexts which occurred in the cases or that the theory did not organize existing insights, nor generate new insights.

Justification of the conclusion above and observations Below the justification of the conclusion is further elaborated and some observations are added at the same time.

Question 1 in paragraph 3.3 was: 'Various strategies can be used for initiating and driving cooperation processes (see box 5.4). At this point the theory is primarily based on the change strategies listed in box 5.5. Are these truly the change strategies that matter in this respect?'. Initially one tends to conclude that the results of the exploration of question 1 indicate that there is no reason to assume that this is not the case (see table 6.2 and further discussion). However, there are some more distinctions in this case and these are addressed in the observations below.

Observation 1: In the developed theory, the assumption is made that in order to bring cooperation to development, there must be a stimulus for cooperation. In this respect the theory distinguishes three major stimuli for cooperation (paragraph 5.4). In the case of the subcommittee Vecht-Dinkel there are no stimuli whatsoever. This has led to the situation where cooperation is 'frozen' in the development stage it has been in for years, namely stage 2 of the growth model in figure 5.3 (creating transparency) This image is actually congruent to the objective of the subcommittee. That objective is also aimed at preserving and maintaining harmony in the border region. In short: as cooperative partnership the subcommittee is aimed inward ('development of cross-border cooperation') and outward ('development of water ways in the border region') at conservation.

In the developed theory the assumption is made that there are six strategies which can be deployed to guide the cooperative process. From the interviews we can conclude that five of the six strategies in box 5.5, were used. Thus, change strategies are deployed and there is no evidence of a change process. Is this not odd? It might be at first glance, but there are two reasons why it is possible. Firstly, the subcommittee has indeed sought to achieve further cooperation and/or change and thereby applied the

122

change strategies. The fact that this did not work out and had a poor chance of succeeding to begin with, has no bearing on the outcome anyway. In the second place, the strategies are not exclusively!change!strategies. They can be deployed as such, but can also be used in other capacities. For example as an aid in creating transparency as it was done in the subcommittee by exchanging water quality data, drawing up cross-border water quality reports or building a cross-border model for calculating diffuse pollution along the Vecht

Observation 2: as question 1 already stated, the developed theory primarily assumes the change strategies as mentioned in box 5.5. In the developed theory, the assumption is made that the pioneers will also have to deploy network-related strategies in addition or in stead of those change strategies or that pioneers will have to 'tackle' typical cooperation-related themes as well (see box 5.4). In the case of the subcommittee Vecht-Dinkel it appears that this was not the case. Since the pioneer did not posses the necessary knowledge and experience, the chance of this happening was already very small.

Question 2 was: 'In this research, the developed theory was differentiated for three typical scenarios of cross-border regional water management. Are the consequential factors (text preceding table 6.3) truly the factors that matter in this respect?'. The results of the exploration in question 2 indicate that there is no reason to assume that this is not the case. The differentiation clearly shows that there are three issues deemed as important (see table 6.3) and the results of the interviews confirm this. However, the question is how substantial this confirmation is. Unlike the case studies discussed in chapters 7 and 8, we see that in the case of the subcommittee Vecht-Dinkel, no other issues were presented to the pioneer than those resulting from the differentiation. Therefore, we cannot disqualify that if this had been the case, the other issues would have been qualified important as well. The reason for not including this with regard to the subcommittee Vecht-Dinkel is due to the fact that the pioneer had no previous experience as pioneer for any (cross-border) cooperative partnership and did not posses any knowledge and experience on the process as a whole. It would therefore not make sense to engage in any reflecting discussion on the developed theory and its various differentiations.

Question 3 was: 'Cross-border regional cooperative relationships could (partly) be stalled by potentially critical transitions based on differences on either side of the border. This theory describes seven transitions considered as potentially critical (see box 5.13). Are these truly the transitions that matter in this respect?'. The results of the exploration of question 3 indicate that there is no reason to assume that this is not the case (see table 6.4 and discussion).

Conclusion with regard to the applicability of the theory differentiated for scenario a, from the perspective of the pioneer of the subcommittee Vecht-Dinkel. The developed theory differentiated for scenario a would have been applicable for the pioneer of the subcommittee Vecht-Dinkel. In the second part of paragraph 6.3.3 we have used some examples to illustrate in which way the theory differentiated for scenario a was already applied to the case respectively could have been applied to the case. Based on the definition used to establish the definition 'applicability of the theory' (see paragraph 3.2), it is required that the developed theory differentiated for scenario a is understandable and recognizable for the pioneer. Recognizable in the sense that the pioneer is able to relate the contents of the theory differentiated for scenario a to the

123

aspects within the subcommittee Vecht-Dinkel. During the interviews we found that for both aspects this seems to be the case.

125

7 Case study B: Work group DeltaRhein Case study B concerns the cross-border work group DeltaRhein and encompasses the period mid 2006 to 2008. This cooperative partnership has already been introduced in paragraph 2.2 and will be explained further in the introductory paragraph of the chapter at hand. The work group DeltaRhein is used in this research to gain insight in the quality and the icability of the theory of action differentiated for scenario b In paragraph 5.5.1 scenario b was defined as: 'The situation in which regional participants on both sides of the border are obliged to participate in a cooperative partnership, which is arranged top-down and in which policy and institutional pressure work as stimuli for cooperation. This could for instance be compulsory cooperation within the framework of European legislation. We assume the parties in this scenario work together based on anobligation for results: in the case of European legislation, this means that the EU will require the result to comply with certain conditions and when these results must be achieved. Following the introduction are descriptions of the context and the fieldwork. The chapter concludes with a description of the results and conclusions.

7.1 Introduction

In October 2000 the European Water Framework Directive (WFD) came into effect. In paragraph 2.2 we already mentioned that provisions are made for three consecutive periods of seven years each, for the measures to be carried out in the context of the WFD. The summary table below provides a more comprehensive view on how the first of these three periods is to be structured.

Term Results linked to the term December 2003 National and regional water laws must be adapted to the WFD. Cooperation at river basin

level is operational. December 2004 The characterization of the river basins and an analysis of the factors that impact and

burden these waters must be completed, including an economic analysis. December 2006 Monitoring programs, which serve as basis for water management, should be ready. December 2008 Management plans for the river basins are presented to the public. December 2009 Publication of the first management plans for the river basin. December 2015 Waters must have achieved "good status".

Table 7.1! Significant time frames for the implementation of the Framework Directive (EU DG Environment, 2002)

The first (exploratory) meetings between the ministries of North Rhine-Westphalia, Lower Saxony and the Netherlands took place in 2002/2003, aiming to get things started. This has led to the establishment of the! steering! group DeltaRhein in 2004. Figure 7.2 displays the work area of the steering groep. In order to prepare the meetings of the steering group, the regional organizations responsible for coordinating the implementation of the WFD met prior to these meetings. These were the Staatliches Umwelt Amt Herten, the NLWKN Meppen and the province of Overijssel (see figure 2.2). The latter party initially took on the role of initiator. In the second half of 2005, the Water Board Velt en Vecht started to participate in this cross-border regional consultation.

126

Figure 7.2 The location of the work area of the steering group (SGBP, 2009).

The cross-border regional consultation mentioned above did not have an official status and was referred to as ‘Informelles Arbeitsebene Treffen’ (Informal implementation meeting). After some time, these consultations were not only used for preparing the meetings of the steering group, but also for mutual exchange of information aimed at the implementation of the WFD. The consultation grew to such a role that, at work level, the need arose for a higher frequency than the frequency of two times per year when the steering group convened. In short, the informal consultation on 'Arbeitsebene' (implementation level) was provided with a second role and therefore also a broader raison d’être. Primarily on the Dutch side the desire arose to provide this consultation with a more formal status, in order to deepen this broader reason for existence, as well as being able to formalize the agreements made during the meetings.

The German participants in the steering group DeltaRhein, however, indicated that formalization of this informal consultation was not an option in its own right. This was due to the fact that another official regional level cross-border meeting structure already existed, viz. the subcommittee Vecht-Dinkel as described in chapter 6. The Dutch ministry then took the initiative to consult with the three leaders of the subcommittee in question and this meeting took place in March 2006 at the

127

Bezirksregierung in Münster. In this meeting it was agreed that from that moment on the subcommittee would only meet when the members indicated it was desirable and if they would provide agenda items. With this agreement the road was paved for the formalization of the informal meetings. The work group DeltaRhein was established in the summer of 2006, without much attention, and in the same summer the Dutch Ministry joined the work group as a pioneer.

Within the work group DeltaRhein constructive work was done during the period mid 2006 to late 2008. At the end of 2008 the draft for the requested joint management plan was therefore delivered as planned.

Personally I have been involved from mid 2005 as participant in the Informelles Abeitsebene Treffen (Informal implementation meeting) and as a member of the work group DeltaRhein.


The objective of the context exploration is two-fold. Firstly it contributes to answering the question on how the case at hand relates to being typified as 'scenario b'. Secondly we use the context exploration to gain insight in the circumstances surrounding the case at hand. For further description, detailing and 'colouring' of the context, we use the Contextual Interaction Theory by Bressers (see paragraph 4.5). This theory organizes the context and describes three lines along which influences from the context can take place. The thought behind deploying the Contextual Interaction Theory is that for the chosen approach for analysing data in this research, according to Blaikie (2005), it is the explicit responsibility of the researcher to provide the reader with the correct impression of the contexts in question (compare closing sentence in chapter 3).

Specific context

Goals of the cooperative partnership The purpose of the work group was to develop a common cross-border management plan for the DeltaRhein sub-basin area or, if this proved to be impossible, three coordinated national plans.

Available tools Important tools for achieving the management plan are (EU DG Environment 2002): national and regional water laws adapted to the WFD, the requirement for cooperation at river basin level, characterization of the sub-district, an analysis of the factors that impact and burden the waters involved (including an economic analysis) and monitoring programs, which serve as basis for water management.

Available resources As a coordinating party, the Dutch Ministry of Transport and Water Management has made resources available to process the data from the different countries and to actually establish a bilingual management plan. There were no specific resources made available for the work group DeltaRhein.

Current agreements on time The implementation of the WFD progresses along strict time frames, the most important of which are mentioned in summary table 7.1.

128

Structural context

Social and administrative scale levels Regarding this point an impression of the different ways the German and Dutch public administration and water sector are constructed, was presented in paragraph 2.2. For more information we therefore refer to that paragraph.

Networks and its actors The two major networks in this case study are the work group and the steering group DeltaRhein, key players in these networks are the members of both groups and the pioneer of the work group DeltaRhein in particular. Other major networks are the home networks of the three organizations coordinating the implementation of the WFD.

Problem perceptions and goal ambitions It has long been unclear! whether a shared cross-border management plan would actually come to existence. The German side initially was apprehensive of a joint management plan because they feared it would impose a lot of extra work on them. The Dutch officials had indeed ambition to come to a joint management plan. Only during the course of the research period, an agreement was reached and parties mutually decided to start drafting a joint management plan.

Strategies and tools The pioneers of the steering group and the work group DeltaRhein had only a small amount of tools to set the participants in motion and start drafting a joint management plan. In addition, the participants knew that there was a realistic fall-back scenario, namely achieving coordinated national plans. On the face, the pioneers of the two groups primary used a strategy that is tantamount to 'relieving' the German participants of possible additional work that might be imposed on them due to a joint management plan.

Organisations and resources for implementation During the research period, the work was performed mainly by the participating organisations themselves. Few resources were therefore required.

Broader context

Politics, economics, culture and technology From the perspective of the work group DeltaRhein, the research period can be considered a politically stable period. Economically, the research period was a period of relative prosperity. The credit crisis in the financial markets started already during the research period, in the summer of 2007, but the escalation did not take place until the end of the research period beyond September 2008 and was of little influence. As mentioned above, most of the events took place in a regional setting, where large parts of the work area were fairly peripheral regions compared to the larger political and economic centres. In terms of technology we can assess that the state of technology in this period did not restrict the work group in its functioning.

129

Influence from the context

Cognitions No influences from the context along the lines of cognitions, seem to have taken place during the research period.

Ambitions There have been some influences from the context along the line of ambitions. This happened during the wake of the elections in North Rhine-Westphalia in 2005. In May of that year the incumbent Social Democratic/Green coalition had to give way to a Christian Democratic/Liberal coalition. Within (most) German federal states such changes of government imply that top officials also will be replaced. In this particular case this happened only after six months, making the change of government in May 2005 and the resulting revised ambitions of the work group regarding the implementation of the WFD apparent in full onset only early 2006.

Resources

There have been some influences from the context along the line of resources. This was the case during 2008 when the German regional coordinators found themselves in a difficult situation when they had to submit the required measures to the region-based engineers and financiers, while it still was unclear whether the ministries would have budget available for the measures to be implemented by themselves.

Combinations The influences from the context along the three above-mentioned lines has not provided any combinations.


The objective of this exploration was not only to gain insight in the circumstances surrounding the case at hand. But also to enable a contribution to answering the question on how the case at hand relates to being typified as 'scenario b'. In paragraph 5.5.1 scenario b was defined as: 'The situation in which regional participants on both sides of the border are obliged to participate in a cooperative partnership, which is arranged top-down and in which stimuli for cooperation are introduced through policy and institutional pressure. This could for instance be compulsory cooperation within the framework of European legislation. We assume the parties in this scenario work together based on anobligation for results: in the case of European legislation, this means that the EU will require the result to comply with certain conditions and when these results must be achieved. The context exploration shows that the subcommittee Vecht-Dinkel meets the definition of scenario b. The cooperative partnership was organized from the top, by the ministries of the participating (federal) states (see also paragraph 2.2). Furthermore there was institutional pressure from the EU arising from the European Water Framework Directive, which functioned as stimulus for cooperation. In addition an obligation for results had been applied, namely a management plan for the river basin, coupled with specifications for products and time lines.

130

7.3 Field work design and results The work group DeltaRhein is used in this research to gain insight in the quality and applicability of the theory of action differentiated for scenario b.






Structure With the use of the case study at hand on the work group DeltaRhein, the theory differentiated for scenario b is explored and partially evaluated. This was done to determine to which extent the theory would have been of value and and to which extend it would have been applicable for the pioneer of the work group DeltaRhein. This takes place in two steps (see paragraph 3.3): - In the first step we examine the quality of the theory differentiated for scenario b, with the use of

the work group DeltaRhein. This step is intended to check if there is any reason to assume that the quality of the theory differentiated for scenario b, would be 'incorrect'. 'Incorrect' in the sense that the theory bears no relevance to the issues and contexts which occurred in the cases or that the theory did not organize existing insights, nor generate new insights.

- In the second step, the pioneer of the work group DeltaRhein was directly questioned regarding the applicability using several questions. This provided a direct response on whether the theory differentiated for scenario b would have been applicable to the pioneer in the work group DeltaRhein, from his particular perspective.

Approach In this case study ten interviews were conducted divided over three rounds of interviews. The interviewees are listed in appendix 7.1 and in the subsequent interview rounds the persons consecutively interviewed were: - the pioneer of the work group DeltaRhein; - eight individual members of the project (four German and four Dutch members); - and again: the pioneer.

131

Pre-structured questionnaires with mostly fixed questions were used in the first two rounds of interviews. Both these questionnaires are included in appendices 7.2 and 7.3. The preliminary results of the first two interview rounds, as well as a summary of the theory of action and the questions to be discussed in the third round of interviews, were sent to the pioneer prior to this third interview round. The written material used in the third interview round concerns one integral document compiled for the case studies A, B and C and can be found in appendix 6.4. The final results of the first two rounds of interviews are included in appendix 7.4. The three rounds of interviews were held during the months of September and October 2009.

Interview rounds 1 and 2 The objective of interview rounds 1 and 2 was to examine if there is any reason to assume that the quality of the theory differentiated for scenario b, might be 'incorrect'. 'Incorrect' in the sense that the theory bears no relevance to the issues and contexts which occurred in the cases or that the theory did not organize existing insights, nor generate new insights. Interview rounds 1 and 2 concern therefore the quality of the theory differentiated for scenario b.

In the first round the pioneer was interviewed. First, the pioneer was questioned on his vision on the objectives of cooperative partnership and to which extent these objectives have been important for his actions in this case. Next, the first three questions from paragraph 3.3 were discussed. In addition, a general exchange of views about the case took place.

In the second round, all eight participants were interviewed separately. To determine whether any differences in the responses of the pioneer and the participants may be associated with different objectives, the participants also have been asked about their views on the objectives of the cooperative partnership and to what extent these objectives were important for actions of the pioneer in this case. Just as in the first round, we then discussed the first three questions from paragraph 3.3. In addition, a general exchange of views about the case took place here as well.

Interview round 3 The objective of interview round 3 is to explore if the theory differentiated for scenario b would have been applicable for the pioneer of the work group DeltaRhein. Interview round 3 concerns therefore the applicability of the theory differentiated for scenario b.

In the third round the pioneer was interviewed again. During the interview, the preliminary results of the first two rounds of interviews were discussed. Subsequently the fourth question from paragraph 3.3 was presented to the pioneer, which is the question if the theory of action differentiated for scenario b would have been applicable for the pioneer.


With the use of three tables, the results are discussed below. In these tables the pioneer is indicated with T (trekker) and the German and Dutch members of the subcommittee are indicated with D (Duits) and N (Nederlands). The following notation is used for the degree of importance: 3 equals 'major importance', 2 equals 'average importance', 1 is 'limited importance' and 0 equals 'no importance'. The

132

degree of importance as the pioneer awards this, concerns the perceived importance this issue had on his own actions. The importance awarded by the participants, concerns the degree of importance they consider the pioneer should have awarded to this issue in his actions.

Targets To determine whether any differences in the responses of the pioneer and the participants may be associated with different targets, the targets were studied at first. This implied that, in a general sense, the interviewed participants and the pioneer considered the following targets of average or major importance:! implementing a new directive, achieving alignment between the three sub-areas, establishing one sub-area management plan,and! achieving sustainable cooperation between the regional parties. Achieving cross-border investments was considered none or of average importance by the participants and the pioneer deemed this of average importance. In a particular case, learning from each other or!building contacts were additional targets mentioned by the participants.

Answers for question 1 from paragraph 3.3 Question 1 was: 'Various strategies can be used for initiating and driving cooperation processes (see box 5.4). At this point the theory is primarily based on the change strategies listed in box 5.5. Are these truly the strategies that matter in this respect?'. Table 7.3 shows the estimates concerning the importance of the strategies referred to, for the actions of the pioneer.

Strategies T D D D D N N N N Connect 2 1 3 3 2 - - 2 - Facilitate 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 Inspire 1 1 2 3 1 - 2 1 2 Motivate 3 2.5 2 2.5 3 - 3 1 3 Persuade 3 2 3 3 3 2 3 2 2 Apply force 1 0 0.5 0.5 1 2 1.5 2 1 Other strategies - - - - - - - - -


Table 7.3 indicates that, in a general sense, the interviewed participants consider the first four strategies important or very important to be deployed, these are connect, facilitate, motivate and persuade. Inspire is mainly considered of limited to average importance to be deployed and applying force of limited importance. The estimate of the pioneer concerning the importance of the strategies for his own actions, is in line with the opinions of the participants. In appendix 7.4 we see that the participants concur with the opinion of the pioneer in general sense. No other strategies were proposed.

The fact that inspiring and applying force is considered of less importance can easily be explained. In this particular case, inspiring is less suited as strategy because the KRW has been instrumental in directing many aspects (product descriptions, completion dates) up front. Applying force has been deliberately avoided by the pioneer, due to the repetitive character of the relationship with regional participants. In case any coercion was necessary, the pioneer tried to route this 'upward' to the pertaining ministry.

133

Answers for question 2 from paragraph 3.3 Question 2 was: 'In this research, the developed theory was differentiated for three typical scenarios of cross-border regional water management. Are the consequential factors (paragraph 5.5) truly the factors that matter in this respect?'. Table 7.4 shows the estimate regarding the importance of the issues referred to, for the actions of the pioneer. Since the German participants did not have any administrators involved, they did not give any opinion on the way administrators are handled. In table 7.4 this is indicated with 'n.r.' - not relevant.

Important and influenceable issues T D D D D N N N N The way the organisation is governed 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 3 3 The way personnel deployment is arranged 2 1 2.5 2 3 - 2.5 3 2 The way availability of resources is arranged 2 3 3 1 3 2 2 2 2 The way possible issues for joint policies are addressed

3 3 3 2 3 2 2 2 2

The way administrators are involved 2 n.r. n.r. n.r. n.r. 2 2 2 3

Other issues - - - - - - - - - Table 7.4 The importance of the issues mentioned in paragraph 5.5

Table 7.4 indicates that, in a general sense, the interviewed participants consider all five issues mentioned important or very important to the actions of the pioneer. The importance of the way the organization is governed is explicitly deemed as very important. The estimate of the pioneer regarding the importance of issues mentioned for his own actions, is for most issues in line with the average estimate of the participants, only in case of the way possible issues for joint policies are addressed the pioneer awarded a somewhat higher score. Both the pioneer and the participants have not proposed any other issues.

With reference to the way availability of resources is arranged and the way possible issues for joint policies are addressed we see table 7.4 that the Dutch participants structurally seem to deem this aspect somewhat less important to the actions of the pioneer, than the German participants. This point was not examined further.

From appendix 7.4 we find that the participants tend to award a lower average score to all issues in table 7.4 for the actual actions of the pioneer, than the pioneer himself had awarded. This difference could have several causes. Perhaps the participants felt that the performance of the pioneer could have been better in certain areas. But it could very well be that the pioneer displayed a very relaxed impression for the participants, and therefore it might have seemed (in the perceptions of the participants) that these issues were not really important for him. Combinations of these factors can not be ruled out either. Below we will briefly summarize the way things are arranged, as concluded from the interviews, for each issue in table 7.4.

There is nothing specific to mention on the!way the organization was governed, everything was taken care of. The steering group DeltaRhein convened twice a year during the research period and the work group met four to five times. During the work group meetings all necessary agreements were made. During the time between meetings, often thematic bilateral or trilateral contacts took place.

134

The way possible issues for joint policies were addressed was important for the timely completion of the management plan. The patterns as depicted in figure 5.10 were in fact the course taken. Not all cited issues were finally included in the management plan. Sometimes issues were found not to be important, but sometimes they were dismissed during the agenda setting stage.

The way personnel deployment was arranged was primarily a task done by the regional participants. For the work group this was never a problem, apart from the fact that many of the staff involved had full schedules with all sorts of WFD-related activities. In order to compile the actual management plan, the pioneer hired a German agency.

The way in which resource availability was provided was clearly not of the highest priority for the pioneer. At this point the group has benefited greatly from the aforementioned employee of NLWKN who acted as a sort of shadow pioneer to ensure that issues such as websites, databases and so on were available in time.

Regarding the way administrators were involved we are referring to the involvement of regional and local administrators. Since the German side did not provide any regional and local administrators, this concerns only administrators from Dutch side. Originally, the pioneer involved these administrators through the RBO (Regionaal Bestuurlijk Overleg; Regional Administrative Council) on the Dutch side (figure 4.15, interface 3). Because the Dutch administrators wanted to be more directly involved, two of the border water boards joined the cross-border!steering!group DeltaRhein.

Answers for question 3 from paragraph 3.3 Question 3 was: 'Cross-border regional cooperative relationships could (partly) be stalled by potentially critical transitions based on differences on either side of the border. This theory describes seven transitions considered as potentially critical (see box 5.13). Are these truly the transitions that matter in this respect?'. Table 7.5 shows the estimate concerning 1) the importance of the differences to the actions of the pioneer and 2) the importance of the way these differences are addressed to the actions of the pioneer.!!

Differences T D D D D N N N N How differences are addressed 3 3 3 2 3 2 3 2 2 In the structure of public administration 2 2 3 2 1 2 1 3 3 In the organization of water management 2 2 3 3 2 2 2 2 2.5 In knowledge of administrative issues 3 2 3 3 3 2 3 2 3 In applied methods and techniques 3 2 2.5 3 3 3 2 2 3 In budgets to be spent 1 1 1.5 0 1 1 1 - 2 In culture 2 3 2 1 1 1 1 2 n.r. In language 2 3 3 2 1 2 3 3 n.r. Other differences - - - - - - - - -


Table 7.5 indicates that the interviewed participants think, in a general sense, that the way differences are addressed should have been of importance to the actions of the pioneer. Budgets to be spent and culture are considered of limited importance c.q. limited to average importance; the other issues of

135

average to major importance. The pioneer awards the importance of the way differences are handled for his own action, in line with the opinions of the participants. In appendix 7.4 we see that the participants concur with the opinion of the pioneer in general sense. No other differences were proposed than the ones mentioned in table 7.5.

The limited importance that is awarded to the way differences in budget to be spent are handled, can be explained in this specific case - during the research period, activities that were performed were mostly done by the participating organizations themselves. Therefore not many resources were needed (see the last part of the description of the structural context in paragraph 7.2).


In the third round the pioneer was interviewed again. As preparation for this interview, the preliminary results of interview rounds 1 and 2 and the developed theory differentiated for scenarios a, b and c, were sent to the pioneer.

Feedback on the image emerging from interview rounds 1 and 2

The description below is the image that emerged from interview rounds 1 and 2, as well as the response of the two project leaders on that image.

During the research period the pioneer was employed as policy coordinator and deputy basin coordinator for the Ministry of Transport and Water Management and as such responsible for coordinating the development of the management plan for the sub-basin area DeltaRhein. The pioneer possessed broad professional knowledge and the necessary administrative experience with working in complex international settings. In addition he had good contacts within the ministries involved, both on the Dutch and the German side.

As a case study, the work group DeltaRhein encompasses the period May 2006 to 2008, this is the period that the work group started up until the completion of the drafted management plan. With respect to the growth model in figure 5.3, we can state that the first four stages were accomplished during cooperation in the research period and the previous stage. The only remaining issues are the actual implementation of the measures described in the management plan.

It seems the pioneer established a good reputation on both sides of the border: upright, persistent and professionally qualified. The pioneer has chosen to fulfil his role as motivator and especially as process director for the 'main stream' of the German-Dutch cooperation. He did not think dealing with matters outside the main process was his task and maybe because of it, did not reserve time to do so. The pioneer was not a manager and any shortcomings on this point were compensated with his charming personality. In addition, the pioneer benefited from the fact that one of the work group members worked as staff for NLWKN and was actually very good in the things the pioneer wasn't. The pioneer was very hard to replace in the work group DeltaRhein, particularly due to his knowledge and his insight in what went on at steering group level.

Creation of the management plan for the river basin is sometimes reminiscent of on the road together process of the WFD. On the road together, but where to? Together towards a joint management plan?

136

Yes. And then on the road together to sustainable cross-border cooperation between regional parties? This is still uncertain. Characteristic of this last issue is that the parties involved did not go for a joint road map here, everyone just seemed to do what he or she thought was right. The pioneer did not really drive on this premiss either. He could have taken this on in a fairly direct way if he wanted, by presenting the participants early on with the question which joint route they wanted to pursue and in what way they wanted to make that happen. A somewhat more indirect approach could have been the exchange of personnel between the German and Dutch participants or actively encourage (organizing) regular or 'social events'.

And regional partners themselves? It seems that they have experienced the process as something that was meant to be and yielded many contacts across the border which were useful for expanding their own cross-border relationships. During the research period, the participants did not jointly engage in the question what the future developments are for cross-border cooperation in the region, after the management plan was completed in 2009. In this case it could be that this was hampered by the fact that the regional Rhine-East partnership had just begun to emerge in the Netherlands and therefore the Dutch, on collective level, had little attention for cross-border cooperation related to the WFD.

During the second interview with the pioneer it became clear that he was well aware of the importance of the development of a long lasting cooperation between regional parties. This is the reason he continually monitored decisions at ministry level to make sure that nothing would interfere with long lasting, sustainable cooperation between regional partners. With respect to other issues, the pioneer indicated that he agrees on the image that is outlined above, in general sense.

Regarding the quality of the developed theory differentiated for scenario b.

In paragraph 3.2 we defined the quality of the developed theory as "quality" in the sense that the theory a) is relevant for the issues and contexts presented in the case and b) potentially offers added value to the pioneers Added value in the sense that the theory will organize existing insights or will generate new insights. The preliminary results of interview rounds 1 and 2 apply to part a of this definition. The pioneer has seen the preliminary results and does not have any remarks. With respect to part b of the above-mentioned definition of the 'quality of the developed theory', we have asked the pioneer if the developed theory differentiated for scenario b offers him potential added value; added value in the sense that the theory will organize existing insights or will generate new insights. The pioneer indicate that for him the theory provides order in what he already knew.

In the interview, the pioneer indicates that he had not only read the articles on the developed theory differentiated for scenario b, but that he also familiarized himself with the differentiated versions for scenarios a and c. Mention of this fact is deliberately included here, because it will be referred to in paragraph 7.4, during the conclusion statements.

Regarding the applicability of the developed theory differentiated for scenario b

In paragraph 3.2 we defined the applicability of the developed theory as "applicable" in the sense that the theory is a) comprehensible and b) recognizable Recognizable in the sense that the pioneers are able to relate the contents of the theory to the aspects of the effective situations it applies to. With

137

regard to part a of the above-mentioned definition of 'applicability of the developed theory', we state that the pioneer indicated during the interview that he obtained excellent knowledge on the developed theory differentiated for scenario b, as well as for the differentiated version for scenarios a and c. It also seems that the theory is recognizable for the pioneer, in the sense that he is able to relate the contents of the theory to the way thing are taking place in the work group DeltaRhein. The remarks made by this pioneer on the developed theory: "I believe it is correct ... useful. I think it has nice things in it. Not too theoretical, not stilted, but more practical reminders in the sense of "hey, it's good to think about this or that." One often acts intuitively, but it is not bad when these practical tips are on hand to look at and say, oh yes, where are we in the process, have we taken care of "that"? And it's not super complicated, if it is too complicated it does not work anyway."

Below we have used some examples to illustrate in which way the theory deliberately or sub-consciously was already applied to the case respectively could have been applied to the case.

Importance of insight in stimuli for change already acknowledged in this case In the theory, the assumption is made that in order to bring cooperation to development, there must be a stimulus for cooperation (box 5.4). For the pioneer of the work group DeltaRhein, the importance of these types of stimuli is a no-brainer. The pioneer: "Primarily knows what is happening on the other side and then one step further - knows why the other party has interest in starting such cooperative partnership. Or why it is interesting not to do things, which could also be the case. If this is not clear for you, the case remains hopeless. We have all seen the examples."

Strategies used in the case are in line with the developed theory In the developed theory, various strategies are presented for initiating and managing cooperation processes (box 5.5). From interviews with the pioneer and the participants, is seems clear that many of these strategies have already been applied to the case (table 7.3). The developed theory also provides examples of the way these strategies can be applied (box 5.6). The pioneer initially indicates that some of these examples were already applied in the work group DeltaRhein, some moments later he provides an excellent example of how he used the 'Calimero-effect'* to motivate the participants into establishing a joint management plan for the river basin. (* Calimero was an Italian/Japanese cartoon figure in the early seventies; a charming, but hapless chicken, the only black one in a family of yellow chickens. He wears half of his egg shell still on his head. His credo was 'they are big and I am small, and that's not fair!') In this context, the Calimero-effect is that representatives of peripheral regions can easily be motivated to take up a joint effort to show the centre of power that they should not be ignored even if they are only peripheral regions. For the better part of the DeltaRhein area, we are dealing with mostly peripheral regions. The pioneer was aware of the emotions and was able to use this as a leverage to get everyone on the same page when it became clear that nowhere else in Europe parties were able to conceive a joint cross-border management plan.

The importance of the way the organisation is governed is already recognized in the case In the developed theory differentiated for scenario b, the assumption is made that designing cooperative partnerships has five factors of importance which need to be managed adequately (paragraph 5.5.2, scenario b). The two factors most important for adequate management are 1) the way the organisation is governed and 2) the way possible issues for joint policies are addressed. Some

138

quotes on the way the organisation was governed. The pioneer: "Several of the key milestones are constantly present in my thinking. Such as, 'if we want this, then at this moment we have to have this, and at that moment we have to have that'. At some point deadlines may not be feasible, but they remain a very central item I think, particularly as time frame for the realization of the management plan." A German participant on the pioneer: "I would like to characterize this pioneer as a highly target-oriented moderator." A Dutch participant on the pioneer: "I found the pioneer somewhat of a top-down type, with a directive style, so to speak. 'This is what we agreed upon, that's the bottom-line and this is the route we need to take!' And then there was always some option for adjustment..."

The importance of item 2 in the above-mentioned example, the way possible issues for joint policies are addressed, was already acknowledged in the case The pioneer: "The way possibly issues for joint policies are addressed is essential because if this is done inadequately, you might as well be flogging a dead horse. There were indeed themes that emerged and made the Dutch say "we absolutely want to talk about this" and I thought "yeah, you might want that, but I think Germany feels this is not that important". For example the HEN and SED waters issues, which deals with smaller ecologically valuable waters outside the official boundaries of the Water Framework Directive scope. In the Netherlands this lead to quite a discussion on how we had to deal with them. In Germany this was absolutely not an issue, besides, they had a slightly different classification which made it less of an issue. The opposite was the case in placing concrete measures on the agenda, in the beginning the German side was very instrumental oriented."

Strategy for addressing differences resulting from state borders was already applied in the case The theory contains only one strategy for dealing with the effects of boundaries. This is the so-called boundary spanning strategy, which can be summarized as ‘providing transparency, neutralizing and bridging where possible’ (box 5.14). This strategy invokes recognition for the pioneer and is therefore frequently used in the work group DeltaRhein. To illustrate this, an example is given of what happened in work group DeltaRhein when the status of water bodies on both sides of the border needed to be determined. Initially a number of differences were encountered. First of all it was examined where the differences really impacted the process and what the exact circumstances were ('transparency'). Subsequently, based on technical considerations, the differences impacting a number of locations were brought together ('bridging'). For the remaining locations, the differences were left as they were and an explanatory appendix was written in the management plan to this effect ("neutralizing").

Differences resulting from state borders were already used as stimulus in the case Box 5.13 of the theory states that differences resulting from state borders can, in some cases, also be used as stimulus. The pioneer indicates that for him, this was indeed the case. Closing question by the interviewer: "Are there other things that determined your actions as a pioneer?" The pioneer: "Well, let me just say: it's fun! I think that is something meaningful in the Netherlands. Cooperating across the border with the cultural differences out there, understanding the other party, the feedback you get on how we are doing as the Netherlands ... You get to look into all kinds of mirrors which is, in any case, very interesting and fun to participate in."

This concludes the examples on applicability of the developed theory differentiated for scenario a.

139

7.4 Conclusions

In this chapter we have tried to gain insight in the quality and applicability of the developed theory differentiated for scenario b. This version consists of three parts, which are: d. initiating and managing cooperation!processes!(not differentiated); e. designing cooperative!partnerships!(differentiated for scenario a); f. dealing with the!effects!of borders (not differentiated).

Based on the case study, we can present the conclusions below with respect to the quality and applicability of the theory differentiated for scenario b.

Conclusion regarding the quality of the theory differentiated for scenario b. In order to obtain an impression of the quality of the theory differentiated for scenario b, question 1 to 3 from paragraph 3.3 were explored using the work group DeltaRhein. Based on the results of this exploration we have found that! there is no reason to assume that the quality of the theory differentiated for scenario b, might be 'incorrect'. 'Incorrect' in the sense that the theory bears no relevance to the issues and contexts which occurred in the cases or that the theory did not organize existing insights, nor generate new insights.


Question 1 in paragraph 3.3. was: 'Various strategies can be used for initiating and driving cooperation processes (see box 5.4). At this point the theory is primarily based on the change strategies listed in box 5.5. Are these truly the change strategies that matter in this respect?'. The results of the exploration in question 1 indicate that there is no reason to assume that this is not the case (see table 7.3 and discussion). The following observation is placed: as question 1 already stated, the developed theory is primarily based on the change strategies mentioned in box 5.5. In the developed theory, the assumption is made that the pioneers will also have to deploy network-related strategies in addition or in stead of those change strategies or that pioneers will have to 'tackle' typical cooperation-related themes as well (see box 5.4). In the case of the work group DeltaRhein this seems not to have been an issue.

Question 2 in paragraph 3.3. was: 'In this research, the developed theory was differentiated for three typical scenarios of cross-border regional water management. Are the consequential factors (see paragraph 5.5) truly the factors that matter in this respect?'. The results of the exploration of question 2 indicate that there is no reason to assume that this is not the case (see table 7.4 and discussion). The following observation is made in this respect: in the interviews with the participants no other issues were presented to the participants than than those resulting from the differentiation (see table 7.4). Therefore, we cannot disqualify that if this had been the case, the other issues would have been qualified important as well. In the second interview with the pioneer there were however other issues discussed than the ones mentioned in table 7.4. On account of this, the pioneer did not find it necessary to contribute other issues than the ones mentioned in table 7.4.

140

Question 3 in paragraph 3.3. was: 'Cross-border regional cooperative relationships could (partly) be stalled by potentially critical transitions based on differences on either side of the border. This theory describes seven transitions considered as potentially critical (see box 5.13). Are these truly the transitions that matter in this respect?'. The results of the exploration of question 3 indicate that there is no reason to assume that this is not the case (see table 7.5 and discussion).

Conclusion with regard to the applicability of the theory differentiated for scenario b, from the perspective of the pioneer in the work group DeltaRhein. The developed theory differentiated for scenario b would have been applicable for the pioneer of the work group DeltaRhein. In the second part of paragraph 7.3.3 we have used some examples to illustrate in which way the theory differentiated for scenario b was already applied to the case respectively could have been applied to the case. Based on the definition for 'applicability of the theory' (see paragraph 3.2) it is required that the developed theory differentiated for scenario b is understandable and recognizable for the pioneer. Recognizable in the sense that the pioneer is able to relate the contents of the theory differentiated for scenario b to the aspects within the work group DeltaRhein. During the interviews we found that for both aspects this seems to be the case.

141

8 Case study C: The cross-border Vision on the Vecht Case study C concerns the cooperative partnership Cross-border Vision on the Vecht (Grensover-schrijdende Vechtvisie (GVV)) and encompasses the period mid 2006 until mid 2009. This cooperative partnership has already been introduced in section 2.3 and will be explained further in the introductory paragraph of the chapter at hand. The GVV project is used in this research to gain insight in the quality and applicability of the theory of action differentiated for scenario c. In paragraph 5.5.1 scenario c was defined as: 'The situation in which regional participants on both sides of the border participate voluntarily in a cooperative partnership, which originated in the region and in which awareness of mutual opportunities worked as a stimulus for cooperation. This could for instance be the possibility of linking cross-border area development to developments in the field of water management. Following the introduction are descriptions of the context and the field work. The chapter concludes with a description of the results and the conclusions.

8.1 Introduction

In September 2005, the management of!the Dutch part!of the river Vecht was transferred to the water board Velt & Vecht and Groot Salland. Figure 8.1 displays the situation of the river. During this transfer, the water boards have committed towards the other parties to attempt the establishment of a cross-border vision on the future of the Vecht. Within this framework the cross-border cooperative partnership Vision on the Vecht was established in 2007, the desired cross-border vision on the Vecht as well as the Vechtdal area was completed mid 2009. The Vision on the Vecht strives to achieve restoration of the river in 2050 and pursues sustainable development of the area adjacent to the river.

The core of the cooperative partnership consists of five German and three Dutch organizations. Cooperation was not enforced by law and is oriented on development. Legislation only plays a role regarding measures required to be implemented under European Water Framework Directive, which are an important basis for the restoration of river. Nevertheless, all parties partake completely voluntarily in cooperating around the Vecht, from an awareness of mutual opportunities.

The exploratory meetings on the possibility of a cross-border cooperation to reach a German-Dutch vision have taken place late 2006 and early 2007. The Water Board Velt & Vecht was the initiator for the meetings: the first meeting took place with the NLWKN in Meppen and the second one with the Landkreis Grafschaft Bentheim in Nordhorn (see figure 2.2). This has led to an agreement between the water board and the Landkreis on reaching a partnership for establishing the cross-border vision from the source to the river mouth. Through various bilateral contacts with potential participants, and a plenary session in June 2007 on the German side this eventually succeeded. The first meeting of the cooperative partnership took place in August 2007 in Coevorden.

In the spring of 2007 the search begun for a German and a Dutch agency who were able to jointly guide the establishment of this cross-border vision!modelled into a cross-border project agency. Then in April the contract for the first phase of the GVV project was granted to a combined German Dutch firm; this first phase lasted until September 2007.

142

Figure 8.1!Situation of the river Vecht (Renner e.a., 2009)

On October 16, 2007 the cooperative partnership made her first public statement. On that day various government and community oriented organisations were invited for an excursion along the Vecht organised by the project agency. The German delegates departed from the mouth of the river in the Netherlands, while the Dutch participants started at one of the sources of the Vecht in Germany. Both groups met at the end of the afternoon at the border village Laar along the Vecht. During a joint meal the plans were presented to a broad audience for the first time. The diagram below summarizes the project phases.

Phase 1 I Preparing overview April - September 2007 II Cross-border excursion October 2007 Phase 2 III Preparation, submission and approval Interreg application November 2007 - April 2008 IV First workshop of the German-Dutch steering group in the 04 June 2008

143

Millingerwaard V Further workshops and meetings of the G-D steering group

and the accompanying work groups September 2008 - March 2009

VI Elaboration of the Vision on the Vecht January - May 2009 VII Final Symposium 16 June 2009

Figure 8.2!Phasing of the GVV project (Renner e.a., 2009)

In my capacity as project coordinator, I worked closely with the staff of the project agency. Our activities partly overlapped and partly we pursued our own activities. For example, there was strong overlap in building and strengthening the formal and informal cross-border networks. The actual establishment of the document Vision on the Vecht and the accompanying program of implementation projects and project ideas was primarily the domain of the project agency, as well as the necessary consultations, workshops and idea elaboration. The preparation and establishment of the partnership has been mostly my work. Furthermore, my work mainly involved the continuation of the partnership after mid 2009 and all matters concerning the actual project.


The objective of the context exploration is two-fold. Firstly it contributes to answering the question on how the case at hand relates to being typified as 'scenario c'. Secondly we use the context exploration to gain insight in the circumstances surrounding the case at hand. For further description, detailing and 'colouring' of the context, we use the Contextual Interaction Theory by Bressers (see paragraph 4.5). This theory organizes the context and describes three lines along which influences from the context can take place. The thought behind deploying the Contextual Interaction Theory is that for the chosen approach for analysing data in this research, according to Blaikie (2005), it is the explicit responsibility of the researcher to provide the reader with the correct impression of the contexts in question (compare closing sentence in chapter 3).

Specific context

Goals of the cooperative partnership The GVV project aimed to reach a cross-border Vision on the Vecht, thus creating a framework based on a common vision for current and future projects and initiatives along the Vecht and the Vechtdal area. The second objective was to build and strengthen formal and informal networks across borders.

144

Available tools The European Water Framework Directive was an important tool for the GVV project. This was due to the fact that the arrival of the WFD introduced mandatory environmental goals. Pertaining to the Vecht these goals were aimed at re-introducing typical river processes such as meandering, sedimentation and erosion. To achieve this mostly the same kind of river improvement interventions were needed as in the case of the conversion to a semi-natural lowland river. In short: the arrival of the WFD inserted 'momentum for change'.

Tools of different setting were the national meetings of the accompanying work group, cross-border workshops with the German-Dutch steering group and research on the river conducted by a consortium of three institutes.

Available resources The available budget for this project was ! 300,000 and was composed of INTERREG IV-A funds (program Germany-Netherlands), funds from the German federal states of North Rhine-Westphalia and Lower Saxony, funds from the Dutch Investment Fund Rural Areas (ILG) and contributions from the eight organizations behind the GVV project.

Current agreements on time Originally, the GVV project intended to find an end date in mutual consultation, for the completion of the cross-border Vision on the Vecht. This intention was revised when it became clear that a new INTERREG-program was going to be released and a claim could be made. On those grounds, the GVV project was divided into two phases. In the first phase without external funding, an inventory of existing plans and projects in the German-Dutch Vechtdal area was made, as well as an inventory of the institutional setting. In the second phase with the help of external financing the actual vision and its associated implementation program was developed. The agreement with the Euroregion stipulated that the cross-border Vision on the Vecht had to be ready by mid 2009 and on June 16, 2009 The Vision on the Vecht was presented.

Structural context

Social and administrative scale levels Regarding this point an impression of the different ways German and Dutch public administration and water sector are constructed, was presented in paragraph 2.2. For more information we therefore refer to that paragraph.

Networks and its actors The major networks in this case study are 1) the cooperative partnership behind the GVV project, 2) the project agency for the GVV project, 3) the cross-border steering group, 4) the accompanying work group on the German side and 5) the Dutch cooperation program Ruimte voor de Vecht (Space for the Vecht). An overview of the process architecture of the GVV is given in figure 8.3.

145

Figure 8.3!Process architecture of the GVV project (Renner et al, 2009)

Ad 1. The cooperative partnership behind the GVV project. This cooperative partnership included Kreis Borken, Coesfeld and Steinfurt from the source area of the Vecht in North Rhine-Westphalia, Landkreis Grafschaft Bentheim and NLWKN (both from Lower Saxony) and the Dutch water boards Velt & Vecht and Groot Salland and the province of Overijssel. In the principal meeting Kreis Steinfurt also represented two other districts in the source area. The members of the principal meeting were all members of the board of directors or the management team of their organization and had a triple role, i.e. a) monitoring procedures in the project, b) being available for pioneers in case the support from their organizations was perceived as not optimal and c) preparing administrative approval of the final product. Secretarial responsibility on behalf of the clients was relayed to the water board Velt & Vecht, which also maintained the project coordination and the Landkreis Grafschaft Bentheim.

Ad 2. The project agency for the GVV project. The project agency supported the eight participating organisations during the process of drafting the documents produced. The project agency was staffed by two agencies, one from Germany and one from The Netherlands. The project leaders of both firms possessed experience in cross-border projects. Coordinating project leader was the Dutch project leader who had lived in the Netherlands for many years and was of German origin. Both project leaders were supported in their work by colleagues from their offices.

Ad 3. The cross-border steering group. Similar to the principal meeting being finally responsibility for the progress of the process, the cross-border steering group was held accountable for the contextual

146

part of the process. In the cross-border steering group over forty German and Dutch governmental and community-oriented organisations took part. The meetings of this steering group were set up as cross-border workshops at inspiring locations within and outside their work areas. The preparation, guidance and aftercare of these workshops was typically the domain of the project agency.

Ad 4. The accompanying work group on the German side. Between meetings of the cross-border steering group the German participants of the steering group and other German organizations met each other in the accompanying work group. At first they mainly invited governments, but in the course of the project more community-oriented organisations participated. These meetings were organized by the German branch of the project agency. During meetings subjects from the cross-border steering group were elaborated further and, occasionally, new ideas were generated by the project agency or were cultured.

Ad 5. The Dutch cooperation program Ruimte voor de Vecht (Space for the Vecht). In the second half of 2007, the province of Overijssel has taken the initiative on the Dutch side to establish a cooperation program in order to direct all current initiatives around the Vecht on the Dutch side more efficiently. In the first half of 2008 the Dutch consultative group for the GVV project and the Space for the Vecht program team merged with each other, since most of the participants were the same persons.

Problem perceptions and goal ambitions Typical of the plans for the Vecht is that very different problem perceptions exist as well as diverse goal ambitions. The extremes of this spectrum are what I call the 'believers' and 'non-believers'. The believers are the ones who want an almost natural river to be possible, think the cost will be manageable and safety will not be that much of an issue, while non-believers think that a semi-natural river - assuming this would be technically feasible - would be extremely expensive and probably irresponsible from the stand point of water safety.

A typical problem perception with respect to the GVV project is that this type of approach is not useful as long as the dimensions at basin level are not identified, a perception that some water managing organizations in the Dutch side believe in.

Strategies and tools The pioneers of the GVV project had only a small amount of tools to set the participants in motion and start drafting a joint management plan. In addition, participants in the project knew that they were able step out at any moment. This last point changed when grant funding was secured and appropriate signatures had to be entered.

Organisations and resources for implementation Major executing organizations in the GVV project were the two agencies staffing the project agency, and the water board Velt & Vecht as well as Landkreis Grafschaft Bentheim as leaders of the cooperative partnership behind the GVV project. The available project budget has already been discussed in the description of the specific context.

147

Broader context

Politics, economics, culture and technology From the perspective of the GVV project, the research period can be considered a politically stable period. Economically, the research period was a period of relative prosperity. The credit crisis in the financial markets started already during the research period, in the summer of 2007, but the escalation did not take place until the second half of the research period beyond September 2008 and was of little influence. In terms of technology we can assess that the state of technology in this period did not restrict the GVV project in its functioning.


Cognitions There have been two forms of influence from the context along the line of resources. Initially at the beginning of the research period, when awareness grew into the fact that the arrival of the WFD also brought 'momentum for change'.

Furthermore, in the first half of 2008 influence took place after the start of the Space for the Vecht cooperation program. In the beginning this places a rather disruptive influence on the creation of the cross-border Vision on the Vecht because many of the Dutch stakeholders lost overview and were sometimes irritated by the bad alignment of the two cooperation initiatives. Partly because procedural agreements with Germany had mostly been determined at the end of 2007, aligning the GVV project and the Space for the Vecht cooperation program was a difficult process that lasted almost one year.

Ambitions There were also some influences from the context along the line of ambitions. Early 2008, a major Dutch participant announced the ambition for more involvement in the key cooperative partnerships around the Vecht and therefore hired a process-oriented policy officer in the same year. This resulted in a positive impact on the GVV project.

Resources Influences from the context along the line of resources also took place. Partly to gain more commitment for participation in the GVV project internally, the German participants were particularly focussed on raising European grants. As already mentioned, this was successful and the project design, as well as the end date for the GVV project were adapted for this sake.

148

Combinations The influences from the context along the three above-mentioned lines has not provided any combinations.


The objective of this exploration was not only to gain insight in the circumstances surrounding the case at hand. But also to enable a contribution to answering the question on how the case at hand relates to being typified as 'scenario c'. In paragraph 5.5.1 scenario c was defined as: 'The situation in which regional participants on both sides of the border participate voluntarily in a cooperative partnership, which originated in the region and in which awareness of mutual opportunities worked as a stimulus for cooperation. This could for instance be the possibility of linking cross-border area development to developments in the field of water management.' The context exploration shows that the GVV-project meets the definition of scenario c. There was indeed voluntary participation to a cooperative partnership that emerged from the region, in which awareness of mutual opportunities leading to restoration of the river in combination with sustainable development of the Vechtdal area, worked as a stimulus for cooperation.

8.3 Field work design and results

The GVV-project is used in this research to gain insight in the quality and applicability of the developed theory differentiated for scenario c3






Structure With the use of the case study on the GVV-project at hand, the theory differentiated for scenario c is explored and partially evaluated. This was done to determine to which extent the theory would have

149

been of value and to which extend it would have been applicable for the pioneer of the GVV-project. This takes place in two steps (see paragraph 3.3): - In the first step we examine the quality of the theory differentiated for scenario c, with the use of

the GVV-project. This step is intended to check if there is any reason to assume that the quality of the theory differentiated for scenario c, would be 'incorrect'. 'Incorrect' in the sense that the theory bears no relevance to the issues and contexts which occurred in the cases or that the theory did not organize existing insights, nor generate new insights.

- In the second step, the project leaders of the GVV-project were directly questioned regarding the applicability using several questions. This provided a direct response on whether the theory differentiated for scenario c would have been applicable to project leaders in the GVV-project, from their particular perspective.

Approach In this case study ten interviews were conducted divided over three rounds of interviews. The interviewees are listed in appendix 8.1 and in the subsequent interview rounds the persons consecutively interviewed were: - the two project leaders of the GVV project; - eight individual members of the project (four German and four Dutch members); - and again: the two project leaders.

Pre-structured questionnaires with mostly fixed questions were used in the first two rounds of interviews. Both these questionnaires are included in appendices 8.2 and 8.3. The preliminary results of the first two interview rounds, as well as a summary of the theory of action and the questions to be discussed in the third round of interviews, were sent to the pioneers prior to this third round of interviews. The written material used in the third interview round concerns one integral document compiled for the case studies A, B and C and can be found in appendix 6.4. The final results of the first two rounds of interviews are included in appendix 8.4.

The three rounds of interviews were held during the months of September and October 2009. One of the participants interviewed was a Dutch administrator who should be considered as indirectly involved. For this person a number of questions were irrelevant. Because the role of pioneer for the GVV project was partly in my hands, the interviewed project leaders were not able to (completely) answer all questions in all cases. Wherever this occurred, in the current text, I have added my own experiences to the answers of the interviewed project leaders. Each instance of this addition is duly marked as such.

Interview rounds 1 and 2 The objective of interview rounds 1 and 2 was to examine if there is any reason to assume that the theory differentiated for scenario c, might be 'incorrect'. 'Incorrect' in the sense that the theory bears no relevance to the issues and contexts which occurred in the cases or that the theory did not organize existing insights, nor generate new insights. Interview rounds 1 and 2 concern therefore the quality of the developed theory differentiated for scenario c.

150

In the first round the pioneer was interviewed. First, the pioneer was questioned on his vision regarding the objectives of the cooperative partnership and to which extent these objectives have been important for his actions in this case. Next, the first three questions from paragraph 3.3. were discussed. In addition, a general exchange of views about the case took place.

In the second round, all eight participants were interviewed separately. To determine whether any differences in the responses of the project leaders and the participants may be associated with different objectives, the participants also have been asked about their views on the objectives of the cooperative partnership and to what extent these objectives were important for actions of the pioneer in this case. Just as in the first round, we then discussed the first three questions from paragraph 3.3. In addition, a general exchange of views about the case took place here as well.

Interview round 3 The objective of interview round 3 is to explore if the theory differentiated for scenario c would have been applicable for the pioneer of the GVV-project. Interview round 3 concerns therefore the applicability of the developed theory differentiated for scenario c.

In the third round the pioneer was interviewed again. During the interview, only the preliminary results of rounds 1 and 2 of the interviews were discussed. Subsequently the fourth question from paragraph 3.3 was presented to the pioneers, which is the question if the theory of action differentiated for scenario c would have been applicable for them.


With the use of three tables, the results are discussed below. In these tables the pioneer is indicated with T (trekker) and the German and Dutch participants are indicated with D (Duits) and N (Nederlands). The following notation is used for the degree of importance: 3 equals 'major importance', 2 equals 'average importance', 1 is 'limited importance' and 0 equals 'no importance'. The degree of importance as the pioneer awards this, concerns the perceived importance this issue had on his own actions. The importance awarded by the participants, concerns the degree of importance they consider the pioneer should have awarded to this issue in his actions.

Targets To determine whether any differences in the responses of the pioneer and the participants may be associated with different targets, the targets were studied at first. This presented as result that, in a general sense, the interviewed participants as well as the pioneer consider the following targets to be of average to major importance: arriving at a coherent target from source to mouth, establishing clear principles for area development along the river, creating sustainable cooperation between the parties in the German-Dutch Vechtdal area and developing concrete projects. Obtaining a grant for cross-border projects! was deemed of major importance by the German participants, but for the Dutch participants and the project leaders, it was seen as of lesser or average importance. The project leaders saw this as something for the future during the actual implementation of projects. However, they tried to pave the way for this subject within the GVV project. In some cases, participants mentioned additional objectives such as getting to know each other, facilitating the introduction of the WFD

151

projects, introducing development-oriented work and fuelling awareness for the border with the population.

Answers for question 1 from paragraph 3.3 Question 1 was: 'Various strategies can be used for initiating and driving cooperation processes (see box 5.4). At this point the theory is primarily based on the change strategies listed in box 5.5. Are these truly the strategies that matter in this respect?'. Table 8.4 shows the estimates concerning the importance of the strategies referred to, for the actions of the pioneer.

Strategies T D D D D N N N N Connect 3 3 2 - 3 3 - 3 - Facilitate 3 2.5 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 Inspire 3 3 2 3 3 2 3 3 3 Motivate 2 2.5 1.5 3 - 2 2 1 2 Persuade 2 2.5 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 Apply force 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 0 Other strategies - - - - - - - - -


Table 8.4 indicates that, in a general sense, the interviewed participants consider the five strategies of importance or major importance to be deployed and the sixth, applying force, of no real importance. The estimate of the pioneer concerning the importance of the strategies for his own actions, is in line with the opinions of the participants. In appendix 8.4 we see that the participants concur with the opinion of the pioneer in general sense. No other strategies were proposed.

The fact that applying force is not considered of importance, can easily be explained. Applying force is in this specific case not suited as strategy because the participants are voluntarily partaking in this cooperative partnership. Too much force would only lead to the possibility of participants withdrawing from the partnership.

Answers for question 2 from paragraph 3.3 Question 2 was: 'In this research, the developed theory was differentiated for three typical scenarios of cross-border regional water management. Are the consequential factors (paragraph 5.5) truly the factors that matter in this respect?'. Table 8.5 shows the estimate regarding the importance of the issues referred to, for the actions of the pioneer.

Important and influenceable issues T D D D D N N N N The way cooperation is established 3 3 3 3 3 2 3 3 3 The way further development is driven 3 3 2 3 3 3 2.5 2 3 The way possible issues for joint policies were addressed

3 2 2 3 3 2 3 3 3

The way administrators were involved 1 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 Other issues - - - - - - - - +

Table 8.5 The importance of the issues mentioned in paragraph 5.5

152

Table 8.5 indicates that, in a general sense, the interviewed participants consider all four issues mentioned of importance to the actions of the pioneer. The two project leaders indicate that the first three focus areas have been vital for their actions in this case. The fourth focus area was only of limited importance to the actions of the project leaders since it was primarily my responsibility. Involving the administrators was (very) important for my actions in this case and has been included as such in the results. In appendix 8.4 we see that the participants concur with the opinion of the (three) pioneers in general sense. The project leaders did not introduce other issues and only one participant mentioned making the presence of the project known to others as a possible issue.

Answers for question 3 from paragraph 3.3 Question 3 was: 'Cross-border regional cooperative relationships could (partly) be stalled by potentially critical transitions based on differences on either side of the border. The theory describes seven transitions considered as potentially critical (see box 5.13). Are these truly the transitions that matter in this respect?'. Table 8.6 shows the estimate concerning 1) the importance of the differences to the actions of the pioneer and 2) the importance of the way these differences are addressed to the actions of the pioneer.!

Differences T D D D D N N N N The way differences are addressed 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 In the structure of public administration 2.5 3 1 3 3 2 3 3 3 In the organization of water management 3 3 1.5 3 3 3 3 3 2 In knowledge of administrative issues 1 2 2 2 2 1 3 2 3 In applied methods and techniques 2 1 1 3 0 2 1 1 2 In budgets to be spent 1 3 3 3 3 2 3 2 3 In culture 3 3 2 3 3 2 3 3 3 In language 3 2 2.5 3 1 3 2 3 2 Other differences + - - - - - + - -


Table 8.6 indicates that the interviewed participants think, in a general sense, that the way differences are addressed should have been of major importance to the actions of the pioneer. In the case of used methods and techniques!this is deemed of limited c.q. of limited to average importance, in other cases of average to major importance. The estimate of the project leaders regarding the importance of the way differences are addressed with respect to their own actions, is in line with the opinion of the participants, with the exception of the differences in knowledge of administrative issues5! in used methods and techniques and the differences in budgets to be spent. The differences in knowledge of administrative issues and the differences in budgets to be spent can be explained in this specific case - these were of limited value for the actions of the project leaders because they were primarily my duties. Both were (very) important for my actions and have been included as such in the results. From appendix 8.4 we can conclude that, in a general sense, the participants estimate the importance of differences in used methods and techniques for the actions of the project leaders a bit lower than the project leaders themselves: 'of limited importance' versus 'of average importance'. This difference has

153

not been investigated further. From appendix 8.4 we can also see that, in a general sense, the participants agree with the (three) pioneers, in the case of the other differences mentioned in table 8.6.

As other differences the project leaders indicated differences in geographical size of the areas involved on both sides of the border and one of the participants also proposed differences in standards and values. For practical reasons I have added this last issue to the differences in culture, mentioned in table 8.6, . The first issue is further discussed in paragraph 8.4, under conclusions.


In the third round the pioneer was interviewed again. As preparation for this interview, the preliminary results of interview rounds 1 and 2 and the theory differentiated for scenarios a, b and c, were sent to the pioneer.

Feedback on the picture emerging from interview rounds 1 and 2

The description below is the picture that emerged from interview rounds 1 and 2, as well as the response of the pioneer on that picture.

The project leader on the German side is a very experienced consultant, already had the necessary experience in Dutch-German regional projects and understood the Dutch language to a reasonable extent. The Dutch project leader is an experienced consultant, did not have much experience with German-Dutch projects but is a native German, grew up in Germany but has lived in the Netherlands for several years. In short, he is not only capable of speaking fluent German and Dutch, but is also fluent in German and Dutch 'thinking'.

As a case study the GVV project covers mid 2006 to mid 2009, which is the period from the beginning to the presentation of the shared vision document. In terms of the growth model in figure 5.3, the cooperation went through the first four phases during the research period, which leaves the actual implementation of the cross-border vision.

Everyone seems to be content about the performance by the pioneers during that period. From the interviews we gather that interviewed participants considered the two project leaders and the project coordinator just as "three pioneers" with each their own tasks. The project agency is seen more as executive party and the project coordinator more as an extension of the principals.

The selection of the German-Dutch project agency and the way this agency performed, was considered very positive. The pioneers seem to have made good use of the fact that there were two nationalities in the pioneer team. Between the mutual cross-border activities, the two pioneers operated in their own 'homeland', enabling participants and pioneer to take leeway in working together and 'separated from the other side' to reflect and prepare for the next cross-border round.

The two project leaders have indicated that, in general sense, they agree on the picture that is outlined above.

154

Regarding the quality of the developed theory differentiated for scenario c.

In paragraph 3.2 we defined the quality of the developed theory as "quality" in the sense that the theory a) is relevant for the issues and contexts presented in the case and b) potentially offers added value to the pioneers - added value in the sense that the theory will organize existing insights or will generate new insights. The preliminary results of interview rounds 1 and 2 apply to part a of this definition. Both project leaders have seen the preliminary results and did not have any remarks. With respect to part b of the above-mentioned definition of the 'quality of the developed theory', we have asked the project leaders if the differentiated version of the theory offers them potential added value; added value in the sense that the theory will organize existing insights or will generate new insights. The pioneers indicate that for them the theory provides order in what they already knew. They assume that this is because they already had the necessary experience in cross-border cooperation projects. For people who lead such a project for the first time the theory offers sufficient overview of things they might encounter, according to the project leaders. However, they feel that the theory could increase its value significantly if more practical examples would be included.

Regarding the applicability of the developed theory differentiated for scenario b

In paragraph 3.2 we defined the applicability of the developed theory as "applicable" in the sense that the theory is a) comprehensible and b) recognizable - this in the sense that the pioneers are able to relate the contents of the theory to the aspects of the effective situations it applies to. With regard to part a of the above-mentioned definition of 'applicability of the developed theory', we state that the project leaders indicated during the interview that they obtained excellent knowledge on the developed theory differentiated for scenario c. It also seems that the theory is recognizable for both project leaders, in the sense that they are able to relate the contents of the theory to the way things are taking place in the GVV-project. Below we have used some examples to illustrate in which way the theory deliberately or sub-consciously has already been applied to the case respectively could have been applied to the case.

Importance of stimuli for change already acknowledged in this case In the theory, the assumption is made that in order to establish cooperation, there must be a stimulus for cooperation. The developed theory distinguishes the most important stimuli as (box 5.4): 1) awareness of mutual opportunities, 2) policy and institutional pressures and 3) pressure due to problem presence. On the importance of stimuli in the GVV-project, the project leaders say: "The expectation among participants was that all actors could achieve more together than any town or any association for themselves in their own field. If this expectation had not been present, voluntary participation would not have worked." In fact, not everyone in the GVV-project knew about the above mentioned stimuli, as a Dutch participant states: "Lesson 1 in area development: "there must be urgency". In the Vision on the Vecht there was no urgency, so I am surprised that this result was eventually achieved."

Strategies used in the case in line with the developed theory In the developed theory, various strategies are presented for initiating and managing cooperation processes (box 5.5). From interviews with the project leaders and the participants, is seems clear that many of these strategies have already been applied to the case (table 8.4). The developed theory also

155

provides examples of the way these strategies can be applied (box 5.6). The project leaders indicate that some of the examples have already been applied in the subcommittee, they indicate: "Introducing the results of river-related research is a form of persuasion. In the sense of 'yes, we can have that semi-natural river. And we can also demonstrate the best approach in achieving this'. "

For the introducing of the next four examples In the developed theory differentiated for scenario c, the assumption is made that designing cooperative partnerships has four factors of importance which need to be managed adequately. They are: 1) The way cooperation is established, 2) the way further development of the cooperation is managed, 3) the way possible issues for joint policies are addressed and 4) the way possible impact of administrators is handled (paragraph 5.5). The following four examples pertain to these factors.

The way cooperation has been established in line with the developed theory During the actual establishment of the GVV cooperative partnership, a method was used that is in line with the ’entrepreneurial cooperation’-version of figure 5.8. This is not surprising because I was the person who organized this and I applied figure 5.8 more or less intuitively. Initially (or: In the orientation phase) the idea was introduced for establishing a cross-border vision on the future. This was based on the idea that the establishment of such a vision would not only benefit cross-border management of the Vecht, but would also contribute to the socio-economic development of the Vechtdal area. Some insiders on both sides of the border discussed this idea, including who might be considered to be most appropriate partners for further development of this idea. Subsequently the idea was adjusted in certain areas, put on paper as a concept and provided with an initial estimate of the costs incurred. Subsequently (i.e. during the partner search phase) the concept was presented to eight potential candidates for the inner core of the cooperative partnership and agreements were made regarding the mutual approach. The next two steps (i.e.: the design phase!and!the fund raising phase) started around the same time in this case. The Water Board Velt & Vecht has made venture funding available for the provisional cooperative partnership in order to hire a Dutch-German combination of agencies who would be able to take on the project development process. This project agency has conceived an initial project plan and provided an estimate of actual costs incurred. This plan was ultimately implemented, the realization phase.

One of the Dutch participants noted that making venture funding available by the Water Board Velt & Vecht, is in his opinion a highly unique approach. For him this was one of the factors that made this project successful. For many other boards this would have been out of the question, in his opinion, since most administrators want all kinds of securities up front.

The way further development of cooperation in the case is managed in line with the developed theory During the further development of the GVV cooperative partnership, a method was used that is in line with figure 5.9. Again, this is not surprising because the model shown in figure 5.9 was the framework for the initial phase of the GVV project (see paragraph 1.1). In the GVV project, the left pillar of the model was chosen as a starting point: the search for individuals and / or organizations that were able to carry or maintain the cooperation. This is based on the idea that ultimately it will be the 'people' who have to do it. Next they moved along and reached the top pillar where the vision and strategy are discussed. "Where do we want to go all together, and how do we get there?", this is where the Vision

156

on the Vecht is aimed at. To effectively realize the vision, projects will need to be initiated that form the the basis for three implementation programs. These programs are part of the right pillar in the model, the design of work processes. The other element in the right pillar, organizational structure, has already been discussed in paragraph 1.3, the structure in the initial phase (figure 8.3). The pace of the implementation programs is dependent on the financial resources, which can be found at the bottom pillar. Again, we need to search for a certain balance between the four pillars, allowing the goal to be reached if nothing changes. And once again, as soon as change occurs in a pillar, patterns need to be run through again to find a new balance between the pillars, allowing the goal to be reached if nothing else changes.

The way possible issues for joint policies were addressed in the case seems to be in line with the developed theory The way possible issues for joint policies were addressed in the GVV cooperative partnership, seems to be in line with figure 5.10. During a variety of introductory sessions (i.e.: in the communication phase) and other more exploratory sessions (i.e.: the phase of knowledge exchange) various possible issues for joint policies were discussed and often deeper explored. The project agency took on a driving role in these sessions. Not all topics ultimately ended up in the vision, some subjects were simply not supported enough, while other subjects were ushered of the table by one or two participant (i.e.: the agenda setting phase). Ultimately the broad cross-border steering group (figure 8.3) needed to decide whether a proposal - modified or not - was to be included in the vision document (i.e.: continuation of agenda setting and aligning / developing joint policies). What remains is the actual implementation of the cross-border vision i.e. the implementation phase, this is to be initiated from 2010 to 2050.

The way possible impact of administrators was handled in the case in line with the developed theory The way the possible impact of administrators was handled in the GVV project, with respect to the partnership, is in line with figure 5.11 and 5.12. For the record: the tools mentioned were not developed until the end of the GVV project and were not used as such in the project. In the GVV project structure, the choice was made to deliberately leave administrators out. Not only to have freedom of movement as cooperative partnership, but also to benefit the end result. Nevertheless, there had to be some assurance that administrators were kept informed intermediately, providing sufficient support at administrative level for the vision that was going to be drawn up. This component was my responsibility within the pioneer team and it was difficult to keep on a steady track. Basically, the members of the principal meeting were responsible for informing and involving their own administrators (icon I lower right in figure 5.11), but this was not sufficient for all participating organisations. This was a reason for the pioneer to do something additional. But knowing what to do required insight in how the pertaining administrators perceived the project and its procedures as a whole (icon B top of figure 5.11) and if certain administrators had personal issues I should be aware of as pioneer (icon P lower left in figure 5.11). It soon became apparent that, while some German administrators in terms of travel time were located closer than the Dutch, information channels across the border were much less efficient than those from their own hinterland. To compensate, I arranged regular talks to catch up with some of the participants and also with the German branch of the project

157

agency. Mostly this would reassure me, but sometimes it was also reason to take action. These actions usually went through interface 4 and 5 from figure 5.12, in general along the top and in some cases along the bottom.

The way differences resulting from state borders were addressed in line with the developed theory The project leaders agree on the seven transitions that might be considered potentially critical for cross-border water management (box 5.13). The interviews show that all seven transitions were discussed in the GVV project and that all seven transitions were of importance for the actions of the pioneers. The theory contains only one strategy for managing the effects of borders. This is the so-called boundary spanning strategy, which can be summarized as ‘providing transparency, neutralizing and bridging where possible’ (box 5.14). This strategy was frequently used in the GVV project. In the interviews, the project leaders had some observations regarding the language used. In particular, the word "neutralize" held a negative connotation in their opinion, while the related actions sometimes are very positive. For example, if the pioneer wanted to neutralize cultural differences he could be teaching the participants to value the differences between their cultures, and to accept and respect them, thus preventing these from (no longer) hampering further development of the cooperative relationship. In the theory of action various tools are presented, all aimed at dealing with the effects of borders. The pioneer can use the provided tools as suggestions for solutions, whenever cited critical transitions occur (box 5.15). From the interviews we can see that various of the cited tools were applied in the GVV project. To illustrate this, we offer two examples. Example a. Shortly after the start of the GVV project, the launch of a new INTERREG Program was announced. The German side then proposed to slow down, because if there were no grants, only very limited resources could be made available from the Dutch side for the cooperative partnership. The interests of the Dutch participants not to slow down were substantial, to the point that they basically were prepared to proceed without funding and carry the bulk of the costs themselves. The Dutch side then feared that the German participants would bail out sooner when 'things would get rough', since 'it had not cost them anything anyway.' In short, a weakening of one the seven dimensions of Whetten (see table 4.10). The problem was!neutralized!by splitting the project into two parts and requesting grants for the second part. This not only provided a better balance in mutual expended funds, but all the partners involved with the application of the grant had to make a formal statement that they would not just take off intermediately. In short, fortification of the other dimensions of Whetten, or plain English: two birds with one stone! Example b. The rates for process management and advisory services are roughly thirty percent higher on the Dutch side than in Germany. In addition, the German participants are used to do many things on their own while the Dutch participants were more tailored to hiring flexible capacity. The result of this situation was that between the German and Dutch participants a difference in perception existed regarding the reasonableness of the costs incurred for the hiring of services. In order to deal with this a four-step approach was used on a number of occasions. Step 1 concerns the transparency of things: 'Providing insight in the differences in budgets to be spent and putting this out in the open, not letting it stay in the background'. Steps 2 and 3 relate to neutralize the differences in budgets to be spent: 'Do we have recourse, for example, spending more hours of the participant with the smallest budget or lower prices for services to hire? With the right arguments differences in budgets to be spent can sometimes become more acceptable.' (step 2) or 'Are grants available, which

158

would make the differences less of an issue.' (step 3). Step 4 aims to actually overcome (bridge) the problem "Agenda Setting on a higher level. Is it possible to support the participants with the lowest budget by providing them with more funds through the 'top approach' and the other partner(s)? " (step 4). Step 4 was not actually applied in the GVV project.

This concludes the examples on the applicability of the developed theory differentiated for scenario c.

8.4 Conclusions

In this chapter we have tried to gain insight in the quality and applicability of the developed theory differentiated for scenario c. This version consists of three parts, which are: g. initiating and managing cooperation!processes!(not differentiated); h. designing cooperative!partnerships!(differentiated for scenario c); i. addressing the!effects!of borders (not differentiated).

Since all facets of designing cooperative partnerships are of importance in the case of scenario c, the whole theory of action was discussed in this case study. Based on the case studies, we can present the conclusions below with respect to the quality and applicability of the theory differentiated for scenario c.

Conclusion regarding the quality of the theory differentiated for scenario c. In order to obtain an impression of the quality of the theory differentiated for scenario c, question 1 to 3 from paragraph 3.3 were explored using the GVV-project. Based on the results of this exploration we have found that! there is no reason to assume that the quality of the theory differentiated for scenario c, might be 'incorrect'. 'Incorrect' in the sense that the theory bears no relevance to the issues and contexts which occurred in the cases or that the theory did not organize existing insights, nor generate new insights.


Question 1 in paragraph 3.3. was: 'Various strategies can be used for initiating and driving cooperation processes (see box 5.4). At this point the theory is primarily based on the change strategies listed in box 5.5. Are these truly the change strategies that matter in this respect?'. The results of the exploration of question 1 indicate that there is no reason to assume that this is not the case (see table 8.4 and discussion). The following observation is placed: as question 1 already stated, the developed theory is primarily based on the change strategies mentioned in box 5.5. In the developed theory, the assumption is made that the pioneers will also have to deploy network-related strategies in addition or in stead of those change strategies or that pioneers will have to 'tackle' typical cooperation-related themes as well (see box 5.4). From the quotes below, it can be determined that this was the case in the GVV-project and that the pioneers have addressed this, at least partially, deliberately. Quote 1, the project leaders: "The expectation among participants was that all actors could achieve more together than any town or any association for themselves in their own field. If this expectation had not been present, voluntary participation would not have worked." Quote 2, a German participant: I feel the

159

project leaders raised possible issues for joint policies adequately, guided them well and always used pre-interviews as a basis. Basically we have always discussed 'konsensfähige' (consensus capable) subjects, even though some topics were completely new on the agenda. Quote 3, the project leaders: "As comment on table 8.5: Often multiple issues are addressed simultaneously. As a rule, focus is quickly directed to an issue that is of interest to all participants. But often one issue A might be more interesting for one participant and issue B might be interesting for another, so the pioneer needs to anticipate on that fact. Because ultimately, everyone will have to provide proof to the 'home front' that the important issues were handled as desired.

Question 2 in paragraph 3.3. was: 'In this research, the developed theory was differentiated for three typical scenarios of cross-border regional water management. Are the consequential factors (paragraph 5.5) truly the factors that matter in this respect?' The results of the exploration of question 2 indicate that there is no reason to assume that this is not the case (see table 8.5 and discussion). The following observation is entered here: since all facets of designing cooperative partnerships are of importance in the case of scenario c, the whole theory of action was discussed in this case study. This means that the answer for question 2 would not have been different, if more than the results of the differentiation were presented to the interviewees (as opposed to the answer to question 2 in case of the subcommittee Vecht-Dinkel as discussed in chapter 6).

Question 3 in paragraph 3.3. was: 'Cross-border regional cooperative relationships could (partly) be stalled by potentially critical transitions based on differences on either side of the border. The theory describes seven transitions considered as potentially critical (see box 5.13). Is there a reason to assume that these were not the correct choices?". The results of the exploration of question 3 indicate that there is no reason to assume that the results of the differentiation are not correct (see table 8.6 and discussion). The following observation is entered: when answering question 3, the project leaders proposed to add the difference in geographical size to the differences in box 5.13. However, this seems not to be necessary. The balance in importance both parties on either side of the border give to the cooperation is of much more importance than the balance in the actual size of the parties themselves (see Kaats e.a., 2005, paragraph 3.1 under 'entrepreneurial cooperation' and 'exploratory cooperation'). The difference in geographical size of the areas involved will therefore be classified as contextual factor.

Conclusion with regard to the applicability of the theory differentiated for scenario c, from the perspective of both project leaders of the GVV-project The developed theory differentiated for scenario c would have been applicable for both project leaders in the GVV-project. In the second part of paragraph 8.3.3. we used some examples to illustrate in which way the theory differentiated for scenario c was already applied to the case respectively could have been applied to the case. Based on the definition for 'applicability of the theory' (see paragraph 3.2) it is required that the developed theory differentiated for scenario c is understandable and recognizable for the project leaders. Recognizable in the sense that both project leaders are able to relate the contents of the theory differentiated for scenario c to the aspects within the GVV-project. During the interviews we found that for both aspects this seems to be the case.

161

9 Comparative analysis and conclusions

9.1 Case comparison

In order to explore the quality and applicability of the theory developed in this research, we have firstly differentiated this for three scenarios. The quality and applicability of these differentiated versions were then explored by means of the case studies described in chapters 6, 7 and 8.

The match between the scenarios and the cases used The first question concerning these three case studies pertains to the fact if the cases used for this research match the three scenarios for which the developed theory has been differentiated. In paragraph 5.5, the developed theory was differentiated for the following three scenarios:

Scenario a: this is the situation in which regional participants, as result of problem pressure, on both sides of the border participate voluntarily in a cooperative partnership, which is arranged top-down without stimuli for cooperation. This could for instance be periodic consultations, initiated by higher authorities, between regional partners from both sides of the border. In this scenario we assume the parties are working together based on the best efforts obligation and as long as there are no stimuli for change, no substantive issues are going to be realized. Should stimuli be introduced and efforts are set in motion to act on these stimuli, then a change of scenario!will take place.

Scenario b: this is the situation in which regional participants on both sides of the border are obliged to participate in a cooperative partnership which is arranged top-down and in which policy and institutional pressure work as as stimuli for cooperation. This could for instance be compulsory cooperation within the framework of European legislation. We assume the parties in this scenario work together based on an obligation for results: in the case of European legislation, this means that the EU will require the result to comply with certain conditions and when these activities must be completed.

Scenario c: this is the situation in which regional participants on both sides of the border participate voluntarily in a cooperative partnership, which originated in the region and in which awareness of mutual opportunities works as a stimulus for cooperation. This could for instance be the possibility of linking cross-border area development to developments in the field of water management.

From the results pertaining to the case studies at hand, described in the chapters 6 to 8, we have not found any indication that the cases used in the three case studies do not match the scenarios for which the theory was differentiated. The following observation is made for case study A: in scenario a we assume that regional parties on both sides of the border participate voluntarily in a cooperative partnership which is arranged top-down without stimuli for cooperation. Case study A does not explicitly indicate that participation to the subcommittee was completely voluntary, but the opposite cannot be shown either. It seems that parties involved became a member at a certain point in time and just stayed on. This question might not be relevant after all, because there was no indication during the interviews with German or Dutch participants that they intended to withdraw. Furthermore it showed

162

that the Dutch in particular, but the Germans as well (see paragraph 6.3.2 'Learning from each other), did find that there were advantages involved in being a member of the subcommittee.

Concerning the quality and applicability of the developed theory In the research, the quality of the developed theory has been defined as "quality" in the sense that the theory a) is relevant for the issues and contexts presented in the case and b) potentially offers added value to the pioneers - added value in the sense that the theory will organize existing insights or will generate new insights.

From the performed case studies, we can conclude that none of the three differentiated versions of the developed theory indicated that the quality of the pertaining differentiation would be incorrect. "Incorrect" in the sense that the theory bears no relevance to the issues and contexts which occurred in the cases or that the theory did not organize existing insights, nor generate new insights. However, there are some observations made in paragraphs 6.4, 7.4 and 8.4 pertaining this conclusion.

In addition we see from the performed case studies that in case of all three case studies, the differentiated version of the theory would have been applicable from the perspective of the pioneer in question. In the research, the applicability of the developed theory has been defined as "applicable" in the sense that the theory is a) comprehensible and b) recognizable - this in the sense that the pioneers are able to relate the contents of the theory to the aspects of the effective situations it applies to. This statement regarding the applicability of the three differentiated versions of theory does not span beyond the three cases described in the chapters 6 to 8 (see description of the research domain in paragraph 3.1).

By use of figure 3.1 (c.q. figure 9.1), the conclusion is drawn that the above-mentioned statement regarding the quality and applicability of the three differentiated versions of the theory, there is no reason to assume that the underlying theory would be incorrect. "Incorrect" in the sense that the theory bears no relevance to the issues and contexts which occurred in the cases or that the theory did not organize existing insights, nor generate new insights. This statement is not yet 'solidified' since it is only based on three different cases.

Answering the research questions When answering the five research questions in table 1.1, we have used a theoretical framework constructed of the developed theory of action as described in chapter 5 and as explored in chapters 6 to 8 using the described case studies, to establish quality and applicability.

The answers to the research questions are therefore compiled of further elaboration of the used framework as presented in chapter 5. We should however take into consideration the above stated observation regarding the less solid character of the statements pertaining to the quality of the theory and that what has been said about the applicability of the differentiated versions of the theory. These only apply to the cases used in chapters 6 to 8.

163

9.2 Relevance of the theory for practical use

From the previous paragraph, we see that in this exploratory research the body of evidence regarding the quality and applicability of the developed theory for practical use is fairly limited. However, this relevance can be increased by gathering additional evidence regarding the quality and applicability of the theory. In figure 9.1 the options for gathering additional evidence are shown as schedule of actions.

Figure 9.1 Options for gathering additional evidence on the theory

The process-structure (architecture) of the empirical part of the performed research as described in figure 3.1, can be recognized in figure 9.1. The performed research has shown that in the case of all three cases used in the research (case A, B and C) the differentiated version of the theory would have been applicable for the pertaining pioneer(s). However, this statement regarding the applicability of the three differentiated versions of the theory will not reach beyond these three cases (see paragraph 9.1). By exploring the quality and applicability of the differentiated versions of the theory (second last column on the right in figure 9.1) using other cases from the last column on the right in figure 9.1 (A1,.... and/or B1,.... and/or C1,...) we can increase the scope of the statements on the applicability of the differentiated versions of the theory. The same applies to obtaining evidence using other research

164

methods wherein more testing research is performed as opposed to exploration. Research methods in which users are questioned regarding the benefits or perceived benefits of the developed theory. Essentially, this process could conclude that for the three more or less standard scenarios of cross-border regional water management (a, b and c) the differentiated versions of the developed theory are applicable to various cases of cross-border regional water management that are consistent with these scenarios.

The performed research has shown that based on the case studies (for which we used the cases A, B and C), there are no indications to assume that the developed theory would be incorrect. "Incorrect" in the sense that the theory bears no relevance to the issues and contexts which occurred in the cases or that the theory did not organize existing insights, nor generate new insights. In paragraph 9.1 we mentioned that this statement is not 'solidified' enough. Two obvious routes can be followed to increase the scope of this statement. The first route is to include cases pertaining to other areas than German-Dutch border regions, in the exploration suggested in the paragraph above (A1,... and/or B1,.... and/or C1,....). For example, through my work I have been involved, since the beginning of 2009, with cross-border cooperation between regional water managing organizations in South-Africa, Swaziland and Mozambique who have joint responsibility for management of the Incomati River. As a case, the cooperative partnership surrounding the Incomati matches scenario b, which could classify the cooperative partnership surrounding the Incomati as case B1. Excerpts of the version of the theory differentiated for scenario b have been made available for the pioneers in the cooperative partnership surrounding the Incomati. Should the theory that is made available be applicable to the cooperative partnership surrounding the Incomati, then this will enhance the confidence in the quality of the developed theory.

The second route which could increase the scope of the statement regarding the quality of the developed theory, is to differentiate the developed theory for another scenario of cross-border regional water management, than the scenarios a, b and c in this research. Such scenario is depicted by scenario d, in the lower-right corner of figure 9.1, in which scenario d could be derived from the lower-right quadrant in figure 5.16. Should the developed theory differentiated for scenario d be applicable in cases similar to scenario d, then this would also enhance the confidence in the quality of the developed theory.

In this case we see that triangulation - additional 'evidence' from other research methods as mentioned above - can also enhance the confidence in the quality of the developed theory.

Implications for the selection of pioneers In paragraph 3.2 we stated that applicability in this context pertains to pioneers being able to (better) grasp what needs to be done in certain situations and are also able!to do so. This implies that for the three scenarios for which the developed theory was differentiated in paragraph 5.5, we can now compose profiles for the 'ideal' pioneer.

The three profiles displayed below are elaborated for the 'ideal' pioneer associated to the cases used in the chapters 6 to 8. During the interviews with the pioneers and participants involved, we have presented the profiles to them for evaluation and additional remarks (see appendix 6.4, 7.4 and 8.4)

165

Profile for the ideal pioneer in the case of the subcommittee Vecht-Dinkel (case study A): - he or she can motivate people - is able to handle mutual differences - has a realistic view on situations - is not afraid to confront people and - possesses a fair amount of professional knowledge

Profile for the ideal pioneer in the case of the work group DeltaRhein (case study B): - he or she is an experienced process manager - is able to handle mutual differences - can motivate people - possesses a fair amount of understanding in change - has experience with leading programs and projects in complex civil and administrative

environments, and - possesses sufficient knowledge regarding and insight in the industry, to be able to 'further'

possible issues for joint policies.

Profile for the ideal pioneer in the case of the cross-border Vision on the Vecht (case study C): - he or she is an experienced process manager - is able to handle mutual differences - can motivate people - possesses an extensive amount of understanding in change - has experience in establishing and managing further development of cooperative partnerships, - has experience with leading programs and projects in complex civil and administrative

environments, and - possesses sufficient understanding of the industry to be able to 'further' issues for joint policies in

the area of water and possibly area development to a next level’.

Appendices 6.4, 7.4 and 8.4 indicate that the pioneers in question, as well as the interviewed participants, agree on the main outlines on the profiles described. Opinions on the degree in which the pioneer should posses professional knowledge of the industry are somewhat divers - some pioneers and participants consider this (very) important, while others indicate that this knowledge could also be provided by the participants or someone supporting the pioneer.

The validity of the profiles described here does not reach beyond the three cases A, B and C, for which they were composed. By researching other profiles for cases in the column to the far right of figure 9.1 (A1,.... and/or B1....... and/or C1.....) one could most likely find profiles with a wider range of applicability. In principle this could lead to three profiles for each of the scenarios a, b and c.

Practitioners theory The developed theory is an theory of action, aimed at pioneers in cross-border regional cooperative partnerships. Huxham & Vangen (2006) refer to this theory as a practitioners theory, a theory for practical use. Otto (2000) also classifies this type of theory as practitioners theory.

166

The fact that a theory is intended to be used in practical situations by practitioners, does not deem such a theory an 'army manual' for practitioners. Huxam & Vangen are adamantly clear about this issue, they consider their own practitioners theory for managing cooperation between organizations (see paragraph 4.2.4) as a basis for the own interpretation of practitioners of the pioneering trade. This vision is based on the way Huxam & Vangen view managing cooperation: as an inexact art which requires a great deal of personal interpretation (paragraph 4.2.4).

Assuming this view on managing cooperation between organizations is founded, we can say that managing cooperation between organizations in cross-border situations can surely be considered an inexact art, in which we at least need some personal interpretation if not more than just that. This implies that the informal meaning of the developed theory is larger for practical situations than the formal meaning is. As long as the theory is used as basis for well-balanced practising of the pioneering trade, it will also be applicable to other kinds of pioneers than the ones who were discussed in the cases described in the chapters 6 to 8 of this research. As mentioned before in chapter 5, we are working on a version of this practitioners theory which is completely tailored to the practitioners that will work in this area.

Are there special points of attention the pioneers should observe when using this theory as basis for well-balanced practising of their job? Indeed, in my opinion there are two important points of attention: The first is in a more general sense - the developed theory is still in an infant stage and has not been explored much further by means of other cases. Therefore the pioneers will have to assume a critical attitude when working with the developed theory. The second point of attention is more specific and concerns the strategies which were used in the developed theory, aimed at starting up and driving cooperative processes (see box 5.4). Change strategies in box 5.5 are primarily being used and additionally network-related strategies are used as needed, as well as available knowledge on cooperative themes. This approach is the result of finding a good balance between the complexity of the matter on one hand and the applicability of the theory on the other. Pioneers must realize that at this point in time, the substantiation of this approach does not reach beyond the contents described in this research.

The implications for other sectors Can we use the developed theory for establishing and managing cross-border partnerships in other civil sectors besides water management? Based on the performed research we cannot provide any formal statements on this subject. In the section above we have however implied that the informal meaning of the developed theory is larger for practical situations than the formal meaning is. This means that using this theory as basis for well-balanced practising of the pioneering trade, it should be applicable to those pioneers who lead cross-border partnerships in various civil sectors. An example of this is included in appendix 9.1.

9.3 Final consideration on the research performed

In the last paragraph of this book we look back to the performed research and we reflect on its results.

167

The intention of the research was to develop a theory for practitioners of the pioneering trade. In that sense we succeeded, since the research provided a theory which might be -in my opinion- of valuable substance to the pioneers. Yet, the theory as I have proposed it in this book, will not evoke a great deal of enthusiasm among pioneers, simply because it is not accessible enough at this stage. Therefore we are already working on a more 'user-friendly' version of the developed theory.

And the developed theory itself, is this a product that 'is'? Honestly, I am not sure myself - as practitioner I think it is, but as scientist I am not so sure. This answer reflects the ambiguity which is embedded in this research and can be found one-on-one in the three main challenges of this research.

Before I started this research I was aware of the fact that cooperation between organizations can be complex in nature, not to mention cooperation across borders. The first challenge was to understand what is included in the play field of developing cross-border cooperative partnerships. Does the developed theory include everything that should have been considered for the description of the way cross-border regional cooperative partnerships can be developed and established? Probably not. I think it is an illusion to assume that unravelling this complex matter could succeed for the full 100%. Is the developed theory precise enough? That depends on the meaning of 'enough' in this context. I would like to define 'enough' as 'recurrent enough to provide conceptual focus', as Westley (2002) stated in paragraph 4.3.4.

The second challenge was to develop the theory, in terms of contents and structure, in such a way that it could be easily prepared for use in daily practice. While the question above on the precision of the theory can be seen as scientific approach, the chosen definition of 'enough' can be used to answer the question from the perspective of the pioneering practitioners It might prove that the scientific community would not consider this approach very precise, and people in daily practice will probably complain this theory is 'excruciatingly ' precise. A wise man and great scientist once said 'make it as simple as possible, but not simpler that that', and there we have the duality as mentioned above.

The third challenge was to present the developed theory as accountable in a scientific way. Due to the nature of the theory, it could not be researched for 'accuracy' but it could be related to various cases for which it was intended. This was done through the concepts of quality and applicability: In the performed research quality and applicability were explored and respectively illustrated by means of the three case studies.

The only missing part in the theory as it has been presented thus far, pertains to the legal forms that could have been used in cross-border regional cooperation. In the past few years there have been regular publication on this subject, by, among others, the Adviescommissie Water & de Commissie van Advies inzake de Waterstaatswetgeving (Advisory Committee for Water and Legislation on Water) (2007), Mostert (2007), de Raad voor het openbaar bestuur (The Council for Public Administration) (2008), Keessen e.a. (2008) and Gilissen & van Rijswick (2009). These publications suggest that possible applicable legal forms are dependent on joint legislation on cross-border activities in the countries involved. This is the reason that any unambiguous statements cannot be made on the suitability of legal forms. In the performed research we have therefore developed a

168

framework in support of finding the most suited legal form. This framework and an example of the way it can be implemented is included in appendix 10.1.

I am concluding this book with a quotation by one of the pioneers we interviewed. Why this quotation? Because it's typical for every day practice and signifies the possible perspective for the developed theory. The remarks made by this pioneer on the developed theory: "I believe it is correct ... useful. I think it has nice things in it. Not too theoretical, not stilted, but more practical reminders in the sense of "hey, it's good to think about this or that." One often acts intuitively, but it is not bad when these practical tips are on hand to look at and say, oh yes, where are we in the process, have we taken care of "that"? And it's not super complicated, if it is too complicated it does not work anyway."

169

Literature AcW/CAW, 2007. Bruggen bouwen; Nederlands waterbeheer in Europees en grensoverschrijdend perspectief. Gezamenlijk advies van de Adviescommissie Water (AcW) en de Commissie van advies inzake de waterstaatswetgeving (CAW) aan de Staatssecretaris van Verkeer en Waterstaat, 40 pp.

Agranoff, R. & M. McGuire, 2003. Collaborative Public Management; New Strategies for Local Governments. Georgetown University Press, Washington, D.C., 219 pp.

Allan, J.A., 1999. Avoiding war over natural resources. In: S. Fleming (Ed.) War and Water, ICRC Publication Division, Geneva.

Allan, J.A., 2001. The Middle East Water Question: Hydropolitics and the Global Economy, I.B. Tauris, London.

Allan, J.A., 2002. Waterresorces in semi-arid regions: real deficits and economically invisible and politically silent solutions. In: A.R. Turton and R. Henwood (Eds), Hydropolitics in the Developing World: A Southern African Perspective, African Water Issues Research Unit (AWIRU), Pretoria, South Africa, pp 23-36.

Axelrod, R. and R. Keohane, 1085. Achieving cooperation under anarchy: strategies and institutions. In: K.A. Oye (Ed), Cooperation Under Anarchy, Princeton University Press, NJ.

Bardach, E., 1998. Getting Agencies work together: The practice and theory of managerial craftmanship. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.

Bardach, E., 2001. Developmental dynamics: Collaboration as an emergent phenomenon. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 11(2), 149-164.

Batsleer, J. & S. Randell, 1991. Creating Common Cause: Issues in the Management of Interagency Relationships for Voluntary Organizations. In: J. Batsleer, C. Cornforth and R. Paton (Eds) Issues in Voluntary and Non-Profit Management, Wokingham: Addison-Wesley pp. 192-210.

Bennet, P., S. Cropper & C. Huxham, 1989. Modelling interactive decision: The hypergame approach, in: J. Rosenhead (red.), Rational Analysis for a Problematic World. Problem Structuring Methods for Complexity, Uncertainty and Conflict, West Sussex: John Wiley & Sons.

Bernstein, R. & J. Dyer, 1984. An Introduction To Political Science Methods. London: Prentice-Hall.

Blaikie, N., 2005. Designing Social Research; The Logic of Application. Cambridge: Polity Press.

Blockland, M.W., G.J. Alaerts, J.M. Kaspersma and M. Hare, 2009. Capacity Development for Improved Water Management. UNESCO-IHE/UNW-DPC, 338 p.

Boskma A.F. & M. Herweijer, 1988. Beleidseffectiviteit en casestudies: Een vergelijking van verschillende onderzoeksontwerpen. Beleidswetenschap, 2(1) 52-69.

Bressers, J.Th.A. & S.M.M. Kuks, 2001. Governance patronen als verbreding van het beleidsbegrip. Beleidswetenschap 15(1), 76-103.

170

Bressers, J.TH.A. & S.M.M. Kuks, 2003. Geïntegreerde regimes en duurzaam watergebruik van natuurlijke hulpbronnen. Beleidswetenschap, juli, 2003.

Bressers, J.TH.A. & S.M.M. Kuks (Eds.), 2004. Integrated governance and water basin management, ISBN 1-4020-2481-9 (hardcover) en ISBN 1-4020-2482-7 (e-book), Dordrecht, Boston, London: Kluwer Academic Publishers, pp. 1-265.

Bressers J.Th.A., O’Toole, L.J., Jr. and J. Richardson, 2005. Networks as models of analysis: Water policy in comparative perspective. In: H. Bressers, L.J. O’Toolr Jr. and J. Richardson (Eds.), Networks for water policy: A comparative perspective (pp. 1-23). London: Frank Cass.

Bressers, J.Th.A., 2009. From public administration to policy networks: Contextual interaction analysis. In: Stéphane Nahrat an Fréderic Varone (Eds.), 2009. Rediscovering Public Law and Public Administration in Comparative Policy Analysis. Berne: Haupt Verlag, pp. 123-142.

Bressers, J.Th.A. & K.R.D. Lulofs (Eds.), 2010. Governance and Complexity in Water Management; Creating Cooperation through Boundary Spanning Strategies. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing LTD: 224 p.

Bressers, J.Th.A., 2010. Samenwerking als strategie voor duurzaamheid: verbreden en verbinden. Redevoering 49-ste Dies Natalis Universiteit Twente. Enschede: 26 november, 2010.

Buttolph Johnson, J. & H.T. Reynolds, 2005. Political Science Research Methods. Washington: CQ Press.

Bundesgesetzblatt, Jahrgang 1963, Teil II. Ausgegeben zu Bonn am 25. Juni 1963.

Burnes, B., 2009. Managing Change; A Strategic Approach to Organisational Dynamics. Pearson Education Ltd.

Carius, A., G.D. Dabelko and A.T. Wolf, 2004. Water, conflict, and cooperation. Background paper for the UN Global Service Initiative expert workshop in cooperation with the Environmental Change & Security Project at the Woodrow Wilson Center for International Scholars, 2 June 2004, Washington, DC.

Coyle, D., 1999. The Weightless World, London: Capstone.

Cozijnsen A.J. & W.J. Vrakking, 2009. Handboek Verandermanagement; Theorieën en strategieën. Deventer, Kluwer, 2de druk, 248 p.

De Bruin, H. & E. ten Heuvelhof, 2007. Management in netwerken; Over veranderen in een multi-actorcontext. Derde geheel herziene druk. Den Haag: Uitgeverij LEMMA, 184 p.

De Caluwé, L. & H. Vermaak, 2006. Leren Veranderen; Een handboek voor de veranderkundige. Deventer, Kluwer, 295 p.

Dery, D., 1984. Problem definition in policy analysis, Lawrence, Kansas: University Press of Kansas.

Dyer, J.H. & H. Singh, 1998. The relational view: Cooperative strategy and sources of interorganizational competitive advantage. Academy of Management Review, 23, 660-679.

171

Edelenbos, J., R. Monnikhof and O. van de Riet, 2003. A Double Helix approach: a proposal to forge a better integration of analysis and policy development. International Journal of Technology Policy and Management, 3(1), 1-2.

Earle, A., A. Jägerskog and J. Öjendal, 2010. Transboundary Water Management; Principles and Practice. London/Washington: Earth Scan, 261 pp.

Eden, C., 1996. The Stakeholder Strategic Workshop. In: C. Huxham (ed.) Creating Collaborative Advantage, London: Sage pp. 44-57.

EU DG Milieu, 2002. De Kaderrichtlijn Water; In Ieder belang! Informatiecentrum (BU-9 0/11) Directoraat-generaal Milieu, Europese Commissie, Brussel. ISBN 92-8944-3042-7, 14 pp.

Feld, C. & O. Locker-Grütjen, 2007. River restoration in the IJssel catchment. In: Wiering, M & J. Verwijmeren (eds.), Many Rivers to Cross; Cross border cooperation in River Management. Delft: Eburon, 187 p.

Fall, J.J., 2009. Beyond handshakes: rethinking cooperation in transboundary protected areas as a process of individual and collective identity construction. Journal of alpine research, 2009, no. 2: 73-84.

Falkenmark, M. & A. Jagerskog, 2010. Sustainability of Transnational Water Afreements in the Face of Socioeconomic and Environmental Change. In: Earle, A., A. Jägerskog and J. Öjendal (Eds.), 2010. Transboundary Water Management; Principles and Practice. London/Washington: Earth Scan, p. 157 - 170.

Final report, 2005. Eindrapportage van het project Grensoverschrijdende Integrale Leerlingenzorg (GIL). Provinciebestuur Antwerpen en Fontys OSO.

Finn, C., 1996. Utilizing Stakeholder Strategies to Ensure Positive Outcomes in Collaborative Processes. IN: C. Huxham (ed.) Creating Collaborative Advantage, London: Sage pp. 152-165.

Friend, J., 1990. Handling Organizational Complexity in Group Decision Support. In: C. Eden & J. Radford (eds), Tackling Strategic Problems: The Role of Group Decision Support, London: Sage pp 18-28.

Galtung, J., 1996. Peace by Peaceful Means: Peace and Conflict, Development and Civilization, PRIO, Oslo, Norway.

Geldof, G.D., 2001. Omgaan met complexiteit bij Integraal Waterbeheer. Deventer: TAUW B.V.

Geldof, G.D., 2004. Omgaan met complexiteit bij Integraal Waterbeheer: Op weg naar interactieve uitvoering. Deventer: TAUW B.V.

Geurts, P., 1999. Van probleem naar onderzoek. Bussum: Uitgeverij Coutinho b.v.

Gieryn, T.F., 1983. Boundary-work and the demarcation of science from non-science: strains and interests in professional ideologies of scientist. American Sociological Review 48: 781-795.

172

Gillissen, H.K. & H.F.M.W. van Rijswick , 2009. Internationale en regionaal grensoverschrijdende samenwerking in het waterbeheer. Waterstaatreeks. Sdu Uitgevers b.v., Den Haag

Glacer, B. & Strauss, A., 1967. The discovery of grounded theory: strategies for qualitative research. Chicago: Aldine.

Goulding, C., 2002. Grounded Theorie:; A Practical Guide for Management, Business and Marketing Researchers. London – Thousand Oaks – New Dehli: Sage Publications, 182 p.

Graaf van de, H. & R. Hoppe, 1996. Beleid en politiek: een inleiding tot de beleidswetenschap en de beleidskunde. Coutinho, Bussum.

Gray, B., 1989. Collaborating; Finding Common Ground for Multiparty Problems. Jossey-Bass Publishers, San Fransisco London, 329 p.

Guston, D.H., 2001. Boundary organizations in environmental policy and science: an introduction. Internal organization 26: 1-35.

Hayes, J., 2010. The Theory and Practice of Change Management. Hampshire, Polgrave MacMillan, 3rd revised edition, 464 p.

Have ten, S., 2005. Het Boek Verandering; Over het doordacht werken aan de organisatie. Den Haag, Academic Service, 338 p.

Herweijer, M., 1990. De dynamiek van doelstellend gedrag, in: J.W. de Beus & P.B. Lehning (red.) Handboek Beleidswetenschap, Assen: Boom.

Hisschemöller, M. & R. Hoppe, 2001. Coping with Intractable Controversies: The case for Problem Structuring in Policy design and Analysis. In: Knowledge, Power, and Participation in Environmental Policy Analysis, M. Hisschemöller, R. Hoppe, W.N. Dunn, and J.R. Ravetz, eds., Transaction Publishers, New Brunswick and London, 47-72.

Howlett, M. & A. Maragna, 2006. How Big Is a Policy Network? An assessment Utilizing Data From Canadian Royal Commissions 1970-2000, in: Review of Policy Research, vol. 23 (2), p. 433-452.

Huitema, D, W. Egas, S. Hanegraaff, S. Kuks and K. Lulofs, 2006. Coupling strategies in water management. An exploration on the basis of literature study from policy science and related fields, VU-IVM W-06/24, November 2006.

Huitema, D. & S. Meijerink, 2009. Water Policy Entrepeneurs. A Research Companion to Water Transitions around the Globe. Edward Elgar Publisging, Cheltenham, 432 p.

Hughes, M., 2010. Managing Change; A critical perspective. Chartered Institute of Personnel & Development, 2nd edition, 480 p.

Huxham, C. & D. McDonalD, 1992. Introducing Collaborative Advantage, Management Decision, 30: 3 pp. 50-6.

Huxham, C & S. Vangen, 2006. Managing to Collaborate; The theory and practive of collaborative advantage. London: Routledge, 271 p.

173

Ietswaart, H., 2008. Samenwerken met de Duende-benadering. Scriptie post-doctorale opleiding Veranderkunde. Sioo, Utrecht.

Imperial, M., 2001. Collaboration as an implementation strategy: An assessment of six watershed management programs. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Indiana University, Bloomington, IN.

Imperial, M., 2005. Using collaboration as a governance strategy. Lessons from six watershed management programs. Administration & Society 37: 281-320.

Jägerskog, A., 2003. Why States Cooperate over Shared water: The Water Negotiations in the Jordan River Basin, Department of Water and Environmental Studies, Linköping University, Linköping, Sweden.

Janssen, J.A.E.B., 2004. Mein Rhein, dein Rhein – onze Rijn? Nederlands/Duitse samenwerking rond hoogwaterbescherming in het stroomgebied van de Rijn. Afstudeerscriptie Universiteit Twente.

Kaats, E.A.P., P.J. van Klaveren en W. Opheij, 2005. Organiseren tussen organisaties; Inrichting en besturing van samenwerkingsrelaties. Schiedam: Scriptum, 168 p.

Kaats, E.A.P & W. Opheij, 2008. Bestuurders zijn van betekenis; Allianties en netwerken vanuit bestuurlijk perspectief. Maarssen: Reed Business, 415 p.

Klapakian, J., 2004. Identity, Conflict and Cooperation in International River Systems, Ashgate, Alderwshot, UK.

Keessen A.M., J.J.H. van Kempen en H.F.M.W. van Rijswick, 2008. Transboundary river basin management in Europe; Legal instruments to comply with European water management obligations in case of transboundary water pollution and floods. URL, p. 35-56.

Keetman, W., 2006. Grensoverschrijdend Vechtwerk: op naar betere Nederlands-Duitse samenwerking met de KRW? In: H2O no 21, pp 17-19.

Keetman, W., 2007. Het nut van goede bestuurlijke netwerken in de stroomgebieden. In: H2O no10, pp 18-19.

Kickert, W.J.M., E.H.Klijn and J.F.M. Koppenjan, 1997. Introduction: A Management Perspective on Policy Networks. In Managing Complex Netwoks, ed. W.J.M. Kickert, E.H.Klijn and J.F.M. Koppenjan, London: Sage.

Kingdon, J.W. (1995). Agenda’s, Alternatives and Public Policies, New York: Harper Collins.

Kleijnen, R. (red.) & G. van den Broeck , 2004. Grensoverschrijdende Integrale Leerlingenzorg, een (re)actief proces. Antwerpen-Apeldoorn: Garant, 302 pp.

Kleijnen, R. (red.) & G. van den Broeck , 2005. Grensoverschrijdende Integrale Leerlingenzorg, een (pro)actief proces. Antwerpen-Apeldoorn: Garant, 397 pp.

Korringa, H. & J. van der Molen, 2005. Het dualiteitenkabinet; Over bestuurders, kaders en stoep-tegels. Assen: Koninklijke van Gorcum, 172 p.

174

Koppenjan, J.F.M. & E. Klijn, 2004. Managing uncertainties in networks: a network approach to problem solving and decision making. London: Routledge.

KNAW-commissie kwaliteitszorg, 2008. Kwaliteitszorg in de wetenschap. Van SEP naar KEP: Balans tussen rechtvaardigheid en eenvoud. Koninklijke Nederlandse Akademie van Wetenschappen, pp. 28.

Linden, R.M., 2002. Working Across Boundaries; Making Collaboration Work in Government and Nonprofit Organizations. Jossey-Bass, San Fransisco, 293 p.

Lulofs, K.R.D., J.Th.A. Bressers en S.M. Hanegraaff, 2007. De realisatie van de Noord en Zuid Meene. Deliverable voor BSIK Leven met Water project ‘Bestuurlijk Schakelen’. Enschede: Universiteit Twente, CSTM Series Studies and Reports nr.331, ISSN 1381-6357.

Lulofs, K.R.D. & F. Coenen, 2007. Cross border co-operation on water quality in the Vecht River Basin. In: Wiering, M & J. Verwijmeren (eds.), Many Rivers to Cross; Cross border cooperation in River Management. Delft: Eburon, 187 p.

Lulofs, K.R.D., J.Th.A. Bressers en A. Boeren, 2005. Schokgolven door het openbaar bestuur na ‘Enschede’. Utrecht: Uitgeverij Lemma BV.

Mandell, M.P., 1988. Intergovernmental Management in Interorganizational Networks: A Revised Perspective. International Journal of Public Administration 11(4): 393-416.

Mattesich, P & B. Monsey, 1992. Collaboration: What Makes It Work? (second edition). St Paul MN: Amherst H. Wilder Foundation.

McIntyre, O. 2010. International Water Law: Concepts, Evolution and Development. In: Earle, A., A. Jägerskog and J. Öjendal (Eds.), 2010. Transboundary Water Management; Principles and Practice. London/Washington: Earth Scan, p. 59-72.

McMillan, E., 2008. Complexity, Management And The Dynamics Of Change. London: Routledge 256 p.

Menahem, G., 1998. Policy Paradigms, Policy Networks and Water Policy in Israel. Journal of Public Policy 18(3): 283-310.

Mikhaylova, E., 2010. Existing educational programs in the field of cross border cooperation and management of border regions and possibilities of their development: Russian and European experience. International summer academy on Cross border cooperation and regional sustainable development in the European border areas on the EU immediate Neighborhood. August 22-27, Värska, Estonia.

Mollinga, P.P., 2010. Boundary work and the complexity of natural resources management. Crop Science 50: 1-9.

Mostert, E., 2007. Internationale waterschappen? Nut, noodzaak en alternatieven. Kort onderzoek voor de Commissie Advies Waterstaatswetgeving (CAW) en de AdviesCommissie Water (ACW). Rapport Technische Universiteit Delft.

175

Otto, M.M., 1996. Het besturen van veranderingsprocessen (p. 83-123). In Lemstra, W., C.J.N. Versteden en W.J. Kuijken (eds.): Handboek overheidsmanagement, tweede geheel herziene druk. Samsom H.D. Tjeenk Willink, Alphen aan den Rijn/Br

Oye, K.E., 1985 (ed.). Cooperation under Anarchy, Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ.

Pahl-Wostl, C., P. Kabat and J. Möltgen, 2008. Adaptive and Integrated Water Management; Coping with Complexity and Uncertainty. Springer Verlag Berlin Hiederlberg, 440 p.

Painter, B. & A. Menon, 2008. Enhancing the Potential for Integrated Water mangement in New Zealand through Adaptive Governance. In: Pahl-Wostl, C., P. Kabat and J. Möltgen, 2008. Adaptive and Integrated Water Management; Coping with Complexity and Uncertainty. Springer Verlag Berlin Hiederlberg.

Palmer, I., R. Dunford and G. Akin, 2008. Managing Organizational Change. McGraw-Hill Education Europe

Pemberton, H., 2003. Learning, governance and economic policy, in: British Journal of Politics and International Relations, vol. 5 (4), p. 500-524.

PGC, 1998. Atlas van de Nederlands-Duitse Grenswateren. Permanente Grenswateren Commissie.

Pichla, A., L. Boguta, W. Oolders and M. Wiering, 2007. Co-operation on the borders of the river Bug. In: Wiering, M & J. Verwijmeren (eds.), Many Rivers to Cross; Cross border cooperation in River Management. Delft: Eburon, 187 p.

Pigram, J.J., 2006. Australia’s Water resources; From Use to Management. CSIRO Publishing, Collingwood (Australia), 223 p.

Provan, K.G. & Milward, H.B., 2001. Do networks really work? A framework for evaluating public-sector organizational networks. Public Administration Review 61, 414-423.

Puri, S. & W. Struckmeier, 2010. Aquifer Resources in a Transboundary Context: A Hidden Resource? – Enabling the Practitioner to ‘See It and Bank It’ for Good Use. In: Earle, A., A. Jägerskog and J. Öjendal (Eds.), 2010. Transboundary Water Management; Principles and Practice. London/Washington: Earth Scan, p. 73-90.

Raad voor het openbaar bestuur, 2008. Besturen over grenzen; opgave voor alle bestuurslagen. Advies aan de minister van Binnenlandse Zaken en Koninkrijksrelaties, 113 pp.

Renner, T., D. Janssen en J. Knies, 2009. Grensoverschrijdende Vechtvisie: de Vecht, een grenzeloze halfnatuurlijke rivier. Of in het Duits: Grenzüberschreitende Vechtetal-Strategie: die Vechte, ein grenzenloser lebendiger Fluss. Gezamenlijke rapportage DHV en NWP in respectievelijk Amersfoort en Oldenburg.

Rotmans, J., 2006. Transitiemanagement; sleutel voor een duurzame samenwerking. Assen: Koninklijke van Gorcum, 243 pp.

176

Rotmans, J., R. Kemp, M.B.A. van Asselt, F. Geels, G. Verbong en K. Molendijk, 2000. Transities & Transitiemanagement: de casus van een emissiearme energievoorziening. International Centre for Integrative Studies (ICIC), Maastricht.

Sabatier, P.A., Focht, W., Lubell, M., Trachtenberg, Z., Vedlitz, A. and Matlock, M., 2005. Swimming Upstream; Approaches to Watershed Management. MIT Press, Cambridge London, 327 p.

Salamé L. & P. van der Zaag, 2010. Enhanced Knowledge and Education Systems for Strengthening the Capacity of Transboundary Water Management. In: Earle, A., A. Jägerskog and J. Öjendal (Eds.), 2010. Transboundary Water Management; Principles and Practice. London/Washington: Earth Scan, p. 59-72.

Schon, D.A., 1983. The reflective Practitioner, How Professionals Think in Action, New York: Basic Books.

SGBP, 2009. Internationaal Stroomgebiedbeheerplan 2009-2015 Werkgebied Rijndelta. Ministerie van Verkeer en Waterstaat, Ministerie van VROM, Ministerium für Umwelt und Naturschutz (NRW) en Ministerium für Umwelt und Klimaschutz (NdS).

Skias S. & A. Kallioras, 2007. Cross border co-operation and the problem of flooding in the Evros Delta. In: Wiering, M & J. Verwijmeren (eds.), Many Rivers to Cross; Cross border cooperation in River Management. Delft: Eburon, 187 p.

Swanborn, P.G., 1982. Methoden van sociaal-wetenschappelijk onderzoek; Inleiding in ontwerpstrategieën. Meppel: Boom.

Swieringa J. & J. Jansen, 2005. Gedoe komt er toch; Zin en onzin over organisatieverandering. Scriptum Management, 101 p.

Teisman, G.R., 1992. Complexe besluitvorming. Een pluricentrisch perspectief op besluitvorming over ruimtelijke investeringen, Den Haag: VUGA.

Teisman, G.R., 2000. Models for research into decision-making processes: on phases, streams and decision-making rounds. Public Administration, 78(4), 937-956.

Tennekes, J., 1994. Communicatie en cultuurverschil. M&O 48(2): 130-143.

Traktaat, 1974. Overeenkomst tussen het Koninkrijk der Nederlanden en het ‘Land’ Nedersaksen in zake de Vecht en enig zijtakken. Tractatenblad van het Koninkrijk der Nederlanden, jaargang 1974, nr. 62.

Tropp, H., 2007. Water governance: trends and needs for new capacity development. Water Policy 9: 19–30.

Turton, A.R., 2003. The hydropolitical dynamics of cooperation in Southern Africa: a strategic perspective on institutional development in international river basins. In: A.R. Turton, P. Ashton and T.E. Cloete (eds.). Transboundary rivers, sovereignty, and development: Hydropolitical drivers in the Okavango River Basin, AWIRU and Green Cross International, Pretoria and Geneva, pp. 83-103.

Turton, A.R. & A. Earle, 2005. Posy-apartheid institutional development in selected Southern African international river basins. In: C. Gopalakrishnan, C. Tortajada and A.K. Biswas (eds). Water

177

Resources Management – Structures, Evolution and Performance of Water Institutions, Springer, Heidelberg, pp. 154-168.

Turton, A.R., H.J. Hattingh, G.A. Marel, D.J. Roux, M. Claassen and W.F. Strijdom (Eds.), 2007. Governance as a Triangle: Government – Society – Science in Transition. Springer Verlag, Berlin Heidelberg, 253 p.

Van de Riet, A.W.T., 2003. Policy analysis in multi-actor policy settings: navigating between negotiated nonsense and superfluous knowledge. PhD thesis, Technisch Universtiteit Delft. Delft: Eburon Publishers.

Van der Molen, J., 2001. Mag het ITCI meer zijn? Van customer intimacy naar omzetgroei. Scriptie postdoctorale opleiding voor Management Consultant (PDO-MC), Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam.

Van der Molen, J. & H. Emmrich, 2006. Informeel contact als bouwsteen voor internationale samenwerking (interview). Het Waterschap, 2006(8), 12-13.

Van der Molen, J. & H. Emmrich, 2007a.. Grensoverschrijdend samenwerken bij het beheer van de Vecht: onderweg naar morgen. Het Waterschap, 2007(6), 22-25.

Van der Molen, J. & H. Emmrich, 2007b. Grensoverschrijdende samenwerking in de regio. Nationale Conferentie Waterbeheer, 12-13 september, Rotterdam, The Netherlands, 7 p.

Van der Molen, J., & K.R.D. Lulofs, 2010. Guidance schemes for the boundary spanner. In: Bressers, J.Th.A. & K.R.D. Lulofs (Eds.), 2010. Governance and Complexity in Water Management; Creating Cooperation through Boundary Spanning Strategies. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing LTD.

Van der Molen, J., 2011. Crossing Borders; Een kader voor het tot ontwikkeling brengen van grensoverschrijdende samenwerking in watermanagement. University of Twente (Phd thesis), The Netherlands, 329 pp.

Van der Molen, J. & H. Ietswaart, 2012. Crossing Borders; Creating and managing cross-border regional alliances. Crossing Borders Academy (www.cb-academy.org), 103 pp (to be published).

Van Leussen, W. & E. van Slobbe, 2004. Implementation of the Water Frame Work Directive (WFD) in Delta Rhine; Comparison of the Approach and State of the Art in The Netherlands and Lower Saxony. Coördinatieburau Rijn en Maas (CRM), Arnhem, 52 pp.

Van Leussen, W., E. van Slobbe and G. Meiners, 2007. Transboundary Governance and the Problem of Scale for the Implementation of the European Water framework Directive at the Dutch-German Border. International Conference on Adaptive & Integrated Water Management. Basel, November 2007.

Van Leussen, W., 2009. De stroomgebiedbenadering. In: M. Hidding en M. van der Vlist (eds). Ruimte en Water – Planningsperspectieven voor de Nederlandse delta. Sdu Uitgevers, Den Haag: 49-68.

Van Leussen, W. van & K.R.D. Lulofs, 2009. Governance of Water Resources in the Netherlands. In H. Folmer & S. Reinhard (Eds.), Water Policy in the Netherlands. Integrated Management in a

178

Densely Populated Delta. Resources for the Future (pp. 171-184). Washington: Resources for the Future.

Verschuren & Doorewaard, 2007. Het ontwerpen van een onderzoek. Uitgeverij LEMMA, Den Haag, 327 pp.

Verwijmeren, J. en M. Wiering, 2007. Many Rivers to Cross; Cross border cooperation in River Management. Delft: Eburon, 187 p.

Warner, J.F. & M. Zeitoun, 2008. International relations theory and water do mix: a response to Furlong’s troubled water, hydro-hegemony and international relations. Political Geography, vol. 27, pp. 802-810.

Westley, F., 2002. The devil in the Dynamics: Adaptive Management on the Front Lines (p. 333-360). In Gunderson, L.H. & C.S. Holling (eds.). Panarchy; Understanding transformations in human and natural systems. Island Press.

Whetten, D.A., 1982. Issues in conducting research. In: Rogers, D.L. and D.A. Whetten (eds) Interorganizational coordination: theory, research and implementation. Iowa State University Press: Ames.

Wolf, A.T., 1998. Conflict and cooperation along international waterways. Water Policy, vol. 1, no. 2, pp. 51-65.

Wolf, A.T., K. Stahl and M.F. Macomber, 2003a. Conflict and cooperation within international river basins: the importance of institutional capacity. Water Resources Update, vol. 125, pp. 31-40.

Wolf, A.T., S. Yoffe and M. Giordano, 2003b. International waters: identifying basins at risk. Water Policy, vol. 5, no.1, pp 29-60.

Wolf, A.T., A. Kramer, A. Carius and G.D. Dabelko, 2005. Managing water conflict and cooperation. In: State Of The World: Redefining Global Security, World Watch Institute, Washington, DC.

Yin, R.K., 1984. Case study research: Design and methods. Beverly Hills.

Yin, R.K., 1989. Case study research: Design and Method (rev.edn). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

179

Summary

Introduction In August 2009, cross-border water management was the subject of the annual World Water Week in Stockholm. Many of the typical issues involved in cross-border water management, were discussed there at length. Among others, the relationship between cross-border water management and peace and development was one of the topics in Stockholm. Water disputes have occurred, but rarely seem to develop to greater conflicts, since this might put the use of the resource itself at risk (Wolf 1998). In cases of water scarcity, where the likelihood of disputes between states might be greater, there appears to be more evidence of cooperation. This cooperation is promoted and enhanced by institutions such as laws, agreements, organisations and customary practices. These formal or even informal institutions offer a platform where disputes can be discussed and be settled in good harmony and may lead to a sustainable development of shared water resources. This way, cross-border water ways can become the route for cooperation between states, which contributes to sustained social-economical development and regional integration (Earle e.a. 2010). Other topics in Stockholm were the necessity to educate different water-managers. Cross-border water management is based on an intricate combination of knowledge, politics and communications and therefore has so many facets that it is unrealistic to assume that managers themselves are able to control all these facets in detail. Water managers in the area of cross-border water management will therefore have to work together with skilled specialist colleagues and / or hired specialists. For the water managers themselves, a shift is needed from "-oriented to increasingly #-oriented managers (Salamé & Van der Zaag, 2010).

Thesis The thesis of this research reads: "In which way can cross-border regional cooperation be developed, within the framework of international water management?" Efforts to answer this question should pursue achievement of the following objectives: a) gathering scientifically based knowledge on the way cross-border regional cooperation can be developed, and b) providing a theoretic framework for the people who work in cross-border water management practice, in order to support them in developing cross-border cooperative partnerships.

Research questions Based on the thesis, five research questions have been formulated. Table 1 presents an overview of the research questions.

No. Research question I What phases can be distinguished in developing cross-border regional cooperation? II What are success and failure factors in enabling the development of cross-border regional cooperation? III How can cooperation!processes!between organizations be initiated and managed? IV How can we model the cooperative partnerships for organisations? V How can we address the effects of state borders?

Table 1!Overview of research questions

180

Defining the research area This research focuses on cross-border regional cooperation within the framework of international water management. Three levels of cooperation are distinguished - cooperation at!operational!level, at!policy! level and at!organizational! level. This research is primarily focussed on cooperation at policy level.

The term cross-border!regional!cooperation indicates the mutual cooperation between water managers on both sides of the border and sometimes the relationship of these water managers with other stakeholder organisations in the region. We are addressing cross-border cooperation between organisations with a regional orientation and not cooperation between organisations with a national or an international orientation dealing with cross-border cooperation between regions. However, this does not imply that organisations with a national or an international orientation can not be involved in cross-border cooperation in the region.

Cross-border cooperation as referred to in this research may have different underlying motives. Depending on the motive, there usually is an organisation or a person who feels responsible, or is made responsible for the development of the cooperation. In pursuance of the terminology and current practices, we will use the term pioneer as a kind of collective term for persons involved in the!development of cooperative partnerships between organisations and thereby driving, to a greater or lesser extent, the direction of this development.

The nature of the theory developed In answering the research questions we will be using a theoretical framework. This framework is presented as a theory of action for creating and managing cross-border regional cooperation and is intended to be used by pioneers of cross-border regional cooperative partnerships. This Crossing Borders Theory is not a conventional theory connecting cause and consequence, nor does it posses predictive qualities! As mentioned before, the theory developed is intended as support for pioneers in the area of cross-border regional water management in their efforts to establish and manage cross-border cooperative partnerships. It is common practice to use decision-support systems when dealing with control aspects of water management. It gradually becomes clear, that due to the complex and dynamic character of water management processes, and cross-border processes in particular, an additional theory of action is needed. Theory of action aimed at cooperative aspects of cross-border water management. Not an 'army manual' kind of theory, in terms of 'if this, do that...', but a flexible theory of action offering pioneers significant points of attention and options for each stage of cooperation. This is the purpose of the developed theory. The result is a system which is supportive of managing (and performing in the case of pioneers) complex and long term processes.

The structure of the developed theory During elaboration of the theory, the objective was to find a good balance between the complexity of the matter on one hand and the applicability of the theory on the other. This resulted in a theory divided into eight themes. In table 2 we see the broad structure of the developed theory. To the left we find the research questions and to the right we see the eight corresponding themes, including a short explanation of the themes in question.

181

Question Theme I. What phases can be distinguished in developing cross-border regional cooperation?

1. The development pattern. In the developed theory this is illustrated by using a growth model that distinguishes five successive characteristic stages of development.


2. Success and failure factors. The developed theory makes a distinction between generally applicable and scenario-specific factors. The latter factors are linked to the scenarios used to prepare the developed theory for evaluation.

III. How can cooperation!processes!between organizations be initiated and managed?

3. Initiating and managing cooperation processes. Principally, cooperation processes can be initiated and managed by approaching them as change processes. Stimuli for change are important in that respect. Adjustment can be very cumbersome, therefore the choice was made to use elements from the theory for managing and driving change processes in single organizations. In addition, pioneers will need to have knowledge on network-related strategies and cooperation-related themes that might become an issue once the cooperation process is initiated. 4. Establishing cooperative partnerships. The developed theory provides pioneers with a tool to establish this objective. 5. Further development of cooperative partnerships. The developed theory provides pioneers with a tool to establish this objective. 6. Addressing possible issues for joint policies. The developed theory provides pioneers with a tool to establish this objective.


7. Handling the impact of administrators. The developed theory provides pioneers with two tools to establish this objective.

Q. How can we handle the effects of state borders?

8. Addressing the effects of state borders. Borders between states or countries involve various transitions, for example in language, culture or the structure of public administration. In order to handle these, we use the so-called boundary work concept. The developed theory describes the transitions that are considered critical in relation to cross-border water management. We also provided tools for pioneers to use when these transitions become manifest.

Table 2 The overall structure of the developed theory

As mentioned before, during elaboration of the theory, the objective was to find a good balance between the complexity of the matter on one hand and the applicability of the theory on the other. In that respect we have divided the main process, which is enabling the development of cross-border regional cooperation, into three sub-processes: - initiating and managing cooperation processes; - designing cooperative partnerships; - addressing the effects of borders between states or countries. These sub-processes are closely connected and combine three different perspectives from which the main process is continuously to be observed or monitored. The three perspectives represent subsequently the process-oriented , organizational and cross-border aspects of developing cross-

182

border regional cooperation. In table 2, the above-mentioned three sub-processes are represented by questions III to V in the left column. These three questions represent in this sense the three above mentioned perspectives from which pioneers continuously need to look at the main process. Translated to the themes in the right column of table 2, this means that pioneers must, continuously and to a greater or lesser extent, be involved in handling the issues in themes 3 to 8 - as jugglers, who constantly need to keep six balls in the air. The other themes are not included? Yes they are, but in a different way. Themes 1 and 2 will serve more as reference for pioneers, and theme 9 is almost a derivative from the themes 3 to 8.

Research design Due to the nature of the developed theory, it cannot be researched for 'accuracy' but it can be related to various cases for which it was intended. This is done through the concepts of quality and applicability: • "quality" in the sense that the theory a) is relevant for the issues and contexts presented in the case



Three case studies were used to explore the quality and the applicability of the developed theory of action. Since direct evaluation of the quality of the theory could not be done, we introduced an intermediate step, in which the developed theory is yet to be prepared for exploration and partial evaluation. This intermediate step consists of differentiations of the developed theory for three more or less standard scenarios of cross-border regional water management.

Figure 3 is an overview of the process architecture of the empirical part of the research. Starting point in the figure is the developed theory. The interface with the presented cases are the differentiated versions of the developed theory. The theory was differentiated for the three scenarios (a, b and c). At the far right in the figure there are three cases in the area of cross-border regional water management which are reasonably consistent with the cited scenarios for which differentiation took place, these are the cases A, B and C.

183

Figure 3!Overview of the architecture of the empirical part of the research

Using the case studies we examined if the theory of action differentiated for scenarios a, b and c, would have been applicable for each of the pioneers in the pertaining cooperative partnerships. This was always performed in two steps, for example in case of scenario c: - During the first step, various parts of the theory of action differentiated for scenario c were

investigated, utilizing the case which is similar to a certain extent with scenario c, namely case C. This step is used to verify if there is reason to assume that the differentiated version of the theory of action would be incorrect. "Incorrect" in the sense that the theory bears no relevance to the issues and contexts which occurred in the cases or that the theory did not organize existing insights, nor generate new insights.

- In the second step, the pioneer in case C was directly questioned regarding the applicability using four questions. This provided a direct response on whether the theory of action differentiated for scenario c would have been applicable to pioneers in case C from their particular perspective.

If the aforementioned demonstrates that the theory of action differentiated for scenario c is applicable to the pioneer in case C, this does not say anything about the applicability of the theory of action differentiated for scenario c in other situations of cross-border regional water management. Before any statement can be made on the applicability of the theory of action differentiated for scenario c, many more cases that are reasonably consistent with scenario c should be investigated. The same reasoning applies to the scenarios a and b in relation to the cases A and B.

If case study C shows that there is no reason to suppose that the theory differentiated for scenario c would be incorrect, it does not present a qualification of the quality of the general theory itself. This

184

would justify the conclusion that based on case study C, there is no reason to assume that the general theory would be incorrect.

A similar conclusion may also be the result of case studies A and B, should these case studies be considered separately from the other two case studies. However, if one should consider case studies A, B and C combined, then the conclusion will shift somewhat, not to concluding 'there is no reason to assume the theory would be incorrect', but moving towards 'it seems that this theory is reasonably put together' and might be worth further consideration. This enables deeper insight in the quality of the developed theory and illustrates its applicability by means of the three case studies. Despite these results, further exploration will be necessary.

Exploration of the quality and applicability of the developed theory The quality and applicability of the differentiated versions of the theory were explored by means of three case studies, as indicated in figure 3. The pertaining cases were cooperative partnerships for cross-border regional water management and all originated in the German-Dutch basin of the river Vecht. Table 4 contains an overview of the scenarios and cases that have been used.

Scenario Case Scenario a: this is the situation in which regional participants, as result of problem pressure, on both sides of the border participate voluntarily in a cooperative partnership, which is arranged top-down without stimuli for cooperation.

The cross-border subcommittee Vecht-Dinkel

Scenario b: this is the situation in which regional participants on both sides of the border are obliged to participate in a cooperative partnership which is arranged top-down and in which policy and institutional pressure work as as stimuli for cooperation.

The cross-border work group DeltaRhein

Scenario c: this is the situation in which regional participants on both sides of the border participate voluntarily in a cooperative partnership, which originated in the region and in which awareness of mutual opportunities works as a stimulus for cooperation.

The project cross-border Vision on the Vecht

Table 4 Overview of the scenarios and cases that have been used

From the performed case studies, we can conclude that none of the three differentiated versions of the developed theory indicated that the results of the pertaining differentiation was not correct. There are however some observations made regarding this conclusion. In addition we see from the performed case studies that in case of all three case studies, the differentiated version of the theory would have been applicable from the perspective of the pioneer in question. However, this statement regarding the applicability of the three differentiated versions of the theory will not reach beyond the three cases in the case studies. By use of figure 3, the conclusion is drawn that the above-mentioned statement regarding the quality and applicability of the three differentiated versions of the theory, there is no reason to assume that the underlying theory would be incorrect. This statement is not yet 'solid' since it is only based on three different cases.

185

Answering the research questions When answering the five research questions in table 1, we used the developed theory of which the quality and applicability were explored by means of the before mentioned three case studies.

The answers to the research questions will therefore be compiled within the developed theory itself. We should however take into consideration the above stated observation regarding the less solid character of the statements pertaining to the quality of the theory and that what has been said about the applicability of the differentiated versions of the theory 'merely' applies to the cases used.

The relevance of the theory for daily use In this exploratory research, the body of evidence built regarding the quality and applicability of the developed theory for practical daily use is fairly limited. However, this relevance can be increased by gathering additional evidence regarding the quality and applicability of the theory. In figure 5 the options for gathering additional evidence are shown as schedule of actions.

The process-structure (architecture) of the empirical part of the performed research as described in figure 3, can be recognized in figure 5. The performed research has shown that in the case of all three cases used in the research (case A, B and C) the differentiated version of the theory would have been applicable for the pertaining pioneer(s). However, the statement regarding the applicability of the three differentiated versions of the theory will not reach beyond these three cases. By exploring the quality and applicability of the differentiated versions of the theory (second last column on the right in figure 5) using other cases from the last column on the right in figure 5 (A1,.... and/or B1,.... and/or C1,...) we can increase the scope of the statements on the applicability of the differentiated versions of the theory. The same applies to obtaining evidence using other research methods wherein more testing research is performed as opposed to exploration. Research methods in which users are questioned regarding the benefits or perceived benefits of the developed theory. Essentially, this process could conclude that for the three reasonably standard scenarios of cross-border regional water management (a, b and c) differentiated versions of the developed theory apply, and that these differentiated versions will be applicable for various cases of cross-border regional water management that correspond to these scenarios.

186

Figure 5 Options for gathering additional evidence on the theory

The performed research has shown that based on the case studies A, B and C, there are no indications to assume that the developed theory would be incorrect. "Incorrect" in the sense that the theory bears no relevance to the issues and contexts which occurred in the cases or that the theory did not organize existing insights, nor generate new insights. Previously we mentioned that this statement is not 'solid' enough. Two obvious routes can be followed to increase the scope of this statement. The first route is to include cases pertaining to other areas than German-Dutch border regions, in the exploration suggested in the paragraph above (A1,... and/or B1,.... and/or C1,....). Should this present evidence that the differentiated versions of the theory are also applicable to cooperative partnerships in cross-border regional water management elsewhere in the world, then this would enhance credibility in the quality of the developed theory. The second route which could increase the scope of the statement regarding the quality of the developed theory, is to differentiate the developed theory for another scenario of cross-border regional water management, than the scenarios a, b and c in this research. Such a scenario is shown as scenario d in the lower right part of figure 5. Should the developed theory differentiated for scenario d be applicable in cases similar to scenario d, then this would also enhance the confidence in the quality of the developed theory.

187

In this case we see that triangulation - additional 'evidence' from other research methods as mentioned above - can also enhance the confidence in the quality of the developed theory.

Practitioners theory The developed theory is an theory of action, aimed at pioneers in cross-border regional cooperative partnerships. The common name for these theories is practitioners theory or theory for practical use. The fact that a theory is intended to be used in practical situations by practitioners, does not deem such a theory an 'army manual' for practitioners. Huxam & Vangen (2006) are adamantly clear about this issue, they consider their own practitioners theory for managing cooperation between organizations as a basis for the own interpretation of practitioners of the pioneering trade. This vision is based on the way these authors view managing cooperation: as an inexact art which needs a great deal of interpretation from the practitioner. Assuming this view on managing cooperation between organizations is founded, we can say that managing cooperation between organizations in cross-border situations can surely be considered an inexact art, in which we at least need some personal interpretation if not more than just that. This implies that the informal meaning of the developed theory is larger for practical situations than the formal meaning is. As long as the theory is used as basis for well-balanced practising of the pioneering trade and further improvement by experiences and learning processes, it will also be applicable to other kinds of pioneers than the ones who were discussed in the cases used in this research. In the first half of 2012, we will be issuing a user-oriented version for pioneers who want to know more about the developed theory.

Are there special points of attention the pioneers should observe when using this theory as basis for well-balanced practising of their job? Indeed, there are two important points of attention: The first is in a more general sense - the developed theory is still in an infant stage and has not been explored much further by means of other cases. Therefore the pioneers will have to assume a critical attitude when working with the developed theory. The second point of attention is more specific and concerns the strategies which were used in the developed theory, aimed at starting up and driving cooperative processes (see table 2, point III). Change strategies are primarily being used and additionally network-related strategies are used as needed, as well as available knowledge on cooperative themes. This approach is the result of finding a good balance between the complexity of the matter on one hand and the applicability of the theory on the other. Pioneers must realize that at this point in time, the substantiation of this approach does not reach beyond the contents described in this research.

Conclusion This summary is concluded with a quotation by one of the pioneers we interviewed. Why this quotation? Because it's typical for every day practice and signifies the possible perspective for the developed theory. The remarks made by this pioneer on the developed theory: "I believe it is correct ... useful. I think it has nice things in it. Not too theoretical, not stilted, but more practical reminders in the sense of "hey, it's good to think about this or that." One often acts intuitively, but it is not bad when these practical tips are on hand to look at and say, oh yes, where are we in the process, have we taken care of "that"? And it's not super complicated, if it is too complicated it does not work anyway."

189

About the author Jan van der Molen is a senior policy & strategy advisor in Waterschap Velt & Vecht, a regional public water board located in the Northeast area of the Netherlands. Before he joined Velt & Vecht in 2005, he was partner in a management-consulting firm. Over the years he has been involved in various cross-border partnerships within and outside Europe. He is the creator of the Crossing Borders theory, for which the University of Twente awarded him a PhD in Management & Governance. In addition, he regularly authors publications on the subject of cross-border cooperation and teaches several postgraduate programs. He is a member of the Dutch Order of Organizational Experts and the Dutch Association of Public Administration.

191

Appendices

192

3.1 Composition of the expert panel based on area of expertise

Cross-border water management in the region - Prof. dr. ir. Wim van Leussen

Organisation Ministerie van Verkeer en Waterstaat (Ministry of Transport and Water Management) Function Senior Policy Official Water Safety Details Part-time Professor River Basin Management at the TU Twente

- Ir. Wietske Keetman

Organisation General Court of Auditors (until September 2008: Union of Water boards) Function Researcher; however, is an expert panel member as private person Details Has been portfolio-manager for Cross-border Water Management at the Union

of Water Boards (Unie van Waterschappen) until September 2008 Theory of action

Managing change processes

- Prof. dr. Miel M. Otto

Organisation none Function Emeritus professor Details Until 2006 professor Managing Change Processes for the post-doctoral (post

PHD) education for Management Consultant at the VU Amsterdam

- Hans Korringa CMC MMC Organisation Independent Consultant Function Organisation consultant Details Portfolio Manager Professionalizing in the board of the Dutch Order of

Organizational experts and advisers

Designing cooperative processes

- Dr. Edwin Kaats Organisation Twynstra Gudde, Amersfoort Function Organisation consultant Details Co-author of the book ‘Organiseren tussen organisaties; inrichting en

besturing van samenwerkingsrelaties' (Scriptum, 2005) (Organising between organizations; establishing and managing cooperative relationships)

- Drs. Folkert R. van der Meulen

193

Organisation Investment and development corporation for Northern Netherlands (NV NOM), Groningen

Function Manager Development department Details Experience expert in the area of establishing and managing further

development of cooperative partnerships Addressing the effects of borders

- Dr. Mark Wiering Organisation Radboud University Nijmegen Function Senior researcher Details Co-author of the book ‘Many Rivers to Cross. Cross border co-operation in

river management' (Eburon, 2007). - Drs. Bettina Fabich

Organisation DENIES, Duits-Nederlands Servicecenter voor taal en communicatie (German -Dutch service centre for language and communication). Oldenburg (Germany)

Function Director Details Principle for DENIES is that barriers in communication, such as differences in

language and culture, should not be inhibitors, but - especially in the Dutch-German context - should also serve as source of synergy effects.

Cross-border management of the Vecht in the future - Dr. Erik Mostert

Organisation TU Delft Function Researcher Details Combined responsibility for the research ‘Internationale waterschappen? Nut,

noodzaak en alternatieven’ (International water boards? Usefulness, necessity and alternatives) written in conjunction with the 2007 advisory document ‘Bruggen bouwen; Nederlands waterbeheer in Europees en grensoverschrijdend perspectief’ (Building bridges; Dutch water management in European and cross-border perspective’ by the Water Advisory Committee (AcW) and the Advisory Committee on Water Management Legislation (CAW).

- Dr. Johan Mekkes

Organisation NHL, Leeuwarden & NV NOM, Groningen Function Lecturer Entrepreneurship and risk financing Details Experience expert regarding starting up development-oriented organizations.

194

3.2 Summary of substantive responses from the expert panel Most members of the expert panel did not use the answer form, but did follow the main outlines.

The contents of the theory of action and the way the theory is structured are both recognized from scientific perspective as well as practical views of the pioneers in the cooperative partnerships. Most of the panel members involved can therefore concur with the contents and the structure of the theory of action.

There are however some questions and observations made with regard to the theory of action and its derivatives. These questions and observations can be found in the following section, as they were submitted by the panel members with respect to the theory of action and its derivatives.

1) What exactly do we mean when referring to the 'theory of action'? Many theories in the field organizational management and change are aimed at acting and methods of problem solving, as is the jargon of this theory of action. Some may insist that a good theory is practical. Response: in the current chapters 1 and 3 this approach is explained in more detail.

2) The text does not validate that the context in which changes take place within organizations, can be an inspiration for developing cooperative partnerships between organisations. Response: In the current chapter 4 this issue is addressed.

3) Developing cooperative partnerships is, by itself, an iterative process and application of the phase theory does not make this clear in the text. Response: In the current chapter 4 this issue is addressed in more detail.

4) In the examples within the text (which are qualified as very interesting) the situation of cooperation is often identified as representing one basic form. One panel member indicates that it might be interesting to see certain examples as being in development from one basic form to the next. In his daily practice he regularly sees cooperative partnerships develop from exploratory to entrepreneurial. Recognizing this transformation is for him an important part of the framework in which pioneers operate within the cooperative partnerships. Response: in the current chapter 4 this is addressed in more detail.

5) One of the panel members has indicated that the model described in figure 5.8, on driving the establishment of cooperative partnerships, is not taking sufficient time to address the phase in which the contents en scope of the project is developed. The panel member in question suggests that the foundation of this phase should be the initiators. They are the basic coalition moving into the orientation phase. They will take care of the basic design of the project. Part of this process is an analysis of competencies. This will answer the question if more participation is needed in the project, regardless of the status of this involvement. That is a whole different story: will they be involved as partners, or more distant suppliers of certain competencies. Then the project plan can be completed and used to apply for funding. 'But I do realize that this concerns a number of loops that need to be built into the model and that there are different ways to highlight those', according to the panel member. Response: part of these remarks is copied into the current chapters 4 and 5.

195

6) The theme 'interests' does not get enough attention. Between the lines we do see flurries of reference, but it should be getting a lot more attention within the context of these alliances and networks. Since interests are detrimental to the range of actions by the cooperating partners involved, as well as the pioneers of cooperative partnerships, this is of the highest importance. We are not only referring to collective interests of organizational interests, but also personal interests. Response: Interests, collective and individual, are most certainly part of the developed theory, e.g. as seen in figure 5.11. There must be no misunderstanding here, in the current chapter 5, the theme 'interests' is therefore addressed even more explicitly as was the case previously. In addition, in chapter 4 we refer to the impact of collective and individual interests as well.

7) The 'managing out' process by Westley in chapter 4, would have to be considered a much broader orientation than the focus area 'managing the establishment of cooperative partnerships', or not? Are there more environmental variables that should be grouped within this focus area? Could, for example, the coming elections be of influence on the timing? Response: The 'managing out' process by Westley in chapter 4, would most certainly have to be considered a much broader orientation than the focus area mentioned here, but this is caused by looking at the the changes as part of description of the context within the theory of action. In the current chapters 4 and 5 this is addressed in more detail. The example of the elections is being addressed in chapter 7, in which the influence of the elections in German federal state North Rhine-Westphalia is described in relation to the implementation of the European Water Framework Directive.

8) Which springs to attentions is that the pioneer needs to posses a large number of qualities and it almost seems he can do this as a solo player - I don't think so. Response: Correct, the current chapters 4 and 5 indicate that the pioneers cannot do this by themselves, but that they are expected to be the ones that have the overview and that they know which buttons need to be pushed and when. Paragraph 9.2 elaborates on the fact that the pioneer does not need to be able to do everything.

9) The differences along the border, the limitations that are caused by them and possible solutions for these limitations are mapped out very well. The only thing that is missing might be the positive effects caused by these same differences. Response: In the current chapters 4 and 5 this is addressed in even more detail.

10) In chapter 5 the theory of action is differentiated for three scenarios. The question is, should there be such a distinction for the perspective of action of the pioneers in the cooperative partnerships. It does make a difference if one is operating in a voluntary or in a forced situation, but experience will learn that it is mostly of importance for the analysis (one needs to be able to recognize) but in fact there is no huge impact on the various actions (one is still in the process of analysing interests, creating negotiation room en influencing relationships and agreements). When the scenarios are of more importance to the framework of actions, then there needs to be deeper explanation and more established justification. Response: In the current chapter 5 this issue is addressed.

196

11) In figure 5.16, the lower right quadrant is written in the text. Arguments for this omission is not clear and certainly not satisfactory. Response: In the current chapter 5 this issue is addressed in more detail.

12) In general I think the theoretical framework is useful. The choice of four dimensions is plausible and it adds up to a well defined reference framework. In light of the developed scenarios, the framework also offers sufficient options for situational solutions. Disadvantage of the whole is its complexity. Internalizing this way of thinking by the pioneers, could take some time and effort. Response: In chapters 5 and 9 the explanation is given that the developed theory will be made more accessible for the pioneers, by means of a handbook.

13) Cross-border cooperation is an extremely captivating subject and its direct relationship with daily work makes it even more interesting. My complements for this developed practical theory of action. By taking this step by step, a complicated process is carefully being rendered into reality. Response: Good to hear.

In addition to the questions and comments above, the members of the expert panel also offered some suggestions for referencing literature and in the further development of this thesis, these suggestions were put into effect.

197

3.3 Research protocol used when conducting the interviews

Introduction

My name is Jan van der Molen. I was born in 1958 and have been employed since 2005 as Policy and Strategy Advisor at Water Board Velt & Vecht in Coevorden. In 2006 I started a promotional research into the way cross-border regional cooperative partnerships (can be) develop(ed) within the framework of cross-border water management Promotor and co-promotor are prof. dr. Hans Bressers and dr. Kris Lulofs from the University of Twente. Water Board Velt & Vecht supports the research I hope to complete in 2010. Background of the research

Water does not confine itself to borders of countries and is an important resource for many parties involved. In short: al the more reason for all of these parties on both sides of the border to align wishes and possibilities with regards to managing these mutual resource. Yet, these cooperative partnerships do not always originate on their own and that is exactly the essence of this research. Which situations will stimulate this cooperation between regional partners on both sides of the borders? And what is the best way to initiate these situations of cross-border cooperation? And what does this mean for the pioneers or leaders of these cooperative partnerships? Relatively little is known on these questions. Objective of the research

The scientific objective of this research is to gather knowledge on how regional cooperative partnerships (can be) develop(ed), primarily in case of cross-border water management and secondarily in other sectors. Practically the objective of this research is to provide Water Board Velt & Vecht as well as other parties involved in cross-border management of the Vecht, insight in the way this management can be organized best for the future. Research question and focus

The better part of the research questions are general and the other part is more specifically aimed at the pioneers and/or leaders of the cross-border regional cooperative partnerships. General considerations are to determine which stages characterize the development of these cooperative partnerships and what are the success and failure factors involved? Specifically aimed at pioneers and/or leaders of cross-border cooperative partnerships are questions concerning which strategies are suited for these circumstances and what does the general theory of action for them look like, as well as the fact if this could be applied to other areas than water management? Furthermore, these research questions are aimed at the future management of the river Vecht - what would be the most suited cooperative model for future cross-border management of this river and which factors are important for successfully managing this river in the years ahead?

198

Approach of the research

In order to answer the questions formulated in the research, we have developed a theory of action, which can be used by the pioneer and/or leaders to establish and further develop cross-border regional cooperative partnerships. The theory of actions does not assume inclusiveness and is constructed from four focus areas. In addition an assumption is made for the most suited model for future cooperative management of the river Vecht and the factors that are important for this cooperative model in terms of successful management in the future. In order to obtain an impression regarding the extent of elaboration of the theory of action and the assumption of the suitability of the cooperative models, a panel of experts has been presented with the question if these requirements have been fulfilled sufficiently.

As the description already suggests, the developed theory of action is foremost a theory intended to be put to use and not necessarily a scientific theory that needs substantiation and proof. Therefore we have aimed primarily at illustrating the applicability of this theory in this research. This is done by using a number of practical cases, which are cases from my direct work environment. Due to the fact that these cases are derived from my immediate work environment and since these cases have inspired me to develop this theory of action, there can be no doubt that the amount of prior knowledge I have regarding these cases is substantial. Using these cases would therefore not have been appropriate for justifying the accuracy of the developed theory. This disadvantage need not to be an issue because in this research the accuracy of the developed theory was not to be proven but this research aims at illustrating its applicability. The following cases were used: - the German-Dutch Standing Committee on Boundary Waters; - implementation of the WFD in DeltaRhein-Ost; - establishment of the German-Dutch Vision on the Vecht.

In order to maximize my prior knowledge and yet to remain as objective as possible, three rounds were chosen as working method for the case studies. - In the first round, the pioneer and / or leader of the cooperative partnership at hand were presented

with a number of situations that occurred during the course of the cooperative partnership and were illustrative for the applicability of the theory of action. In consultation with the pioneer and / or leader, the choice is made concerning the situations to be investigated further within the case studies. The pioneer and / or leader is presented with the question why he / she acted in a certain manner in these selected situations. What we are looking for in these are the arguments for action.

- In the second round a number of delegates of the cooperative partnership in question, are interviewed. For each of the case studies, a questionnaire with mostly fixed questions was compiled. This questionnaire is used as guide for discussing the situations derived from the selection discussion with the pioneers and / or leaders in the first round. What was the experience these delegates found in the selected situation, did the cooperative process bring them what they expected, how did they feel about the role of the pioneer and / or leader in these situations and should he / she have taken a different approach, and if so, how?

- In the third round, the results of the second round were fed back to the particular pioneer and / or leader in an open discussion. The theory of action was sent to the pioneer and / or leader prior to

199

this discussion, enabling him / her to prepare for this interview with respect to the theory of action. Together with the pioneer and / or leader, we explore a) to what extent the theory of action is complementary to their actions and b) if the theory of action clarifies the experiences and / or remarks of the respondents in the second round and c) if the theory of action provides insights that would have lead them to making other choices in retrospect, would he / she have had this theory at their disposal.

In this manner, the applicability of the theory of action is illustrated.

In two of the three case, which are the implementation of the WDF in DeltaRhein-Ost and the establishment of the German-Dutch Vision on the Vecht, the respondents were also questioned regarding their vision on the future management of the river Vecht.

In order to explore if the theory of action would also have been applicable to other contexts than water management, a secondary analysis will be performed on a case within a different context than water management. The essence of protocol

- The information provided to the researcher will only be used for the purposes of this particular research. The interviews will be recorded and will only be used for the purpose of analysis.

- When the information is published, all efforts will be made to ensure that these cannot be traced to the source unless the source provided permission to do so.

- Within a case, the insights obtained as well as the experiences and perception of the participants may be exchanged. Outside the case, anonymity and confidentiality will be exercised.

- In each case the concept is conceived and then presented to the interviewees involved. The interviewees involved will be able to indicate if factual errors are found. Factual errors will be adjusted, analysis and conclusions are the responsibility of the researcher.

- The members of the expert panel and the interviewees will make all efforts to make a success of the research, just as the researchers will make all efforts to perform their research as thorough as possible.

What will the research provide to all involved

For science Knowledge on how regional cooperative partnerships (can be) develop(ed), primarily in case of cross-border water management and secondarily in other sectors.

For pioneers and / or leaders of cooperative partnerships A theory of action regarding the establishment and (further) development of cross-border regional cooperative partnerships, in the area of cross-border water management and in the future possibly also for other sectors.

For parties involved in management of the Vecht Insights in the best way cross-border management of the river Vecht can be organized for the future.

200

For the researcher Professional deepening and promotion On the researcher and (co) promoter

The researcher Jan van der Molen (1958) studied Tropical Land Development at the Landbouw Universiteit Wageningen and completed his post-academic degree as Management Consultant at the Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam in 2001. Since 2005 he is employed by the Water Board Velt & Vecht in Coevorden as Policy and Strategy Advisor. As such he is involved in various cross-border cooperative partnerships. He regularly publishes and works as a teacher for two post-academic courses.

The promotor Prof. dr. Hans Bressers is professor of Policy Studies and Environmental Policy at the Faculty of Management and Governance of the University of Twente in the Netherlands.

The co-promotor Dr. Kris Lulofs teaches Public Administration and is a senior researcher at the Faculty of Management and Governance of the University of Twente.

201

5.1 Substantiation of the indications of importance in table 5.17 When estimating the importance of good management the following formula is used:

importance of good management = importance of the component x detrimental risk of insufficient management

The following scale was used for both the "importance of the part itself" as the "detrimental risk of insufficient management":

major: 3 points, average: 2 points, limited: 1 point, and 'none': 0 points

The results of the above formula are interpreted as follows:

7-9 points good management of major importance 4-6 points good management of average importance 1-3 points good management of limited importance 0 points good management of no importance

Below you will find an explanation of the estimated importance of good management in relation to the individual components of the tools presented in figure 5.8 to 5.11.

Figure 5.8: orientation phase. Pertaining to scenario c, which is a hybrid of exploratory and enterprising cooperation (see box 5.7), the importance of the orientation phase is deemed major: a thorough, initial orientation of the presented idea and the possible partners to involve, prepares a good foundation for the future. Pertaining to scenario b, exploratory cooperation is in place and its objective and potential participants are generally known in advance, the importance of the orientation phase is therefore deemed limited. For scenario a, exploratory cooperation is also in place, however the joint interest and potential participants are not known in advance. Pertaining to scenario a, the importance of the orientation phase, is therefore deemed average. Pertaining scenario c, the risk factor of insufficient management is deemed major: if the initial thorough orientation on the idea and the possible partners to be involved does not take place, a good idea may not be appreciated, bad ideas may get too much attention, or the wrong partners are approached during the partner search phase. In scenario b, the detrimental risk of failure is deemed limited, because the joint interest and potential participants are generally known in advance and the participants are obliged to perform. With respect to scenario a, we find that as long as there are no stimuli for change, no substantive issues are going to be realized, which implies that the detrimental risk of failure generally will be limited. (Calculation method: a=2 (2x1), b=1 (1x1) en c=9 (3x3)).

Figure 5.8: Partner search phase. In case of scenario c, where there is a hybrid of exploratory and enterprising cooperation (see box 5.7), the importance of the partner search phase is deemed major: finding the right partners, reaching a (preliminary) cooperative partnership and the correct description of the project prepares a good foundation for the future. Scenario b contains exploratory cooperation and the importance of the partner search phase was deemed major: establishing a new cooperative partnership with the appropriate participants is an essential step towards the future. Scenario a also contains exploratory cooperation, the importance of the partner search phase is seen here as average:

202

when the final group has a slightly different composition than anyone had initially anticipated, it will still work out. In the case of scenario c the detrimental risk of insufficient management is deemed major: consultations needs to take place with the right partners otherwise the preliminary cooperative partnership or a good project description might not be achieved and the whole project could 'run dry'. In scenario b, the detrimental risk of failure is deemed limited, because the joint interest is generally known in advance and the participants are obliged to perform. With respect to scenario a, we find that as long as there are no stimuli for change, no substantive issues are going to be realized, which implies that the detrimental risk of failure generally will be limited. (Calculation method: a=2 (2x1), b=3 (3x1) en c=9 (3x3)).

Figure 5.8: Design phase In case of scenario c, where there is a hybrid of exploratory and enterprising cooperation (see box 5.7), the importance of the design phase is deemed major: defining plans into projects and estimating the feasibility of the plans in terms of contents and funds, is an essential step towards the future. Scenario b contains exploratory cooperation and the importance of the design phase was also deemed major: establishing a program with projects and initiatives is an essential step towards the future. Scenario a also contains exploratory cooperation, the importance of the design phase is seen here as average: when the final program with projects and initiatives is slightly different than anyone had initially anticipated, it will still work out. In scenario c, the detrimental risk of inadequate management is deemed major: as long as plans are not defined in projects and their feasibility is not established, it remains difficult to reach definitive mutual agreements. In scenario b, the detrimental risk of inadequate management is deemed average: despite the advanced knowledge of common interests and parties participate on the basis of an obligation for result, the pioneer will have to maintain a reasonable degree of coordination towards the program of projects and initiatives. With respect to scenario a, we find that as long as there are no stimuli for change, no substantive issues are going to be realized, which implies that the detrimental risk generally will be limited. (Calculation method: a=2 (2x1), b=6 (3x2) en c=9 (3x3)).

Figure 5.8: Fund-raising phase. The fund-raising phase was assessed of major importance for all three scenarios: securing funding for the plans is seen as a major step forward in all three scenarios. Scenario c, containing a hybrid of exploratory and entrepreneurial cooperation (see box 5.7), also relates to the possibility of using a risk-funding to exploit the momentum for cooperation when this situation presents itself. This is not an issue in the case of scenarios b and c, where we see exploratory cooperation. In the case of scenario c is the detrimental risk of insufficient management is deemed major: until funding of the plans is not settled, nothing can be established. In scenario b, the detrimental risk of failure is deemed limited because the parties are obliged to participate based on an obligation for result. With respect to scenario a, we find that as long as there are no stimuli for change, no substantive issues are going to be realized, which implies that the detrimental risk generally will be limited. (Calculation method: a=3 (3x1), b=3 (3x1) en c=9 (3x3)).

Figure 5.8: Realization phase. The realization phase for all three scenarios is deemed as being of major importance: without implementation of the project, there is no project outcome.

203

In the case of scenario c the detrimental risk of insufficient management is deemed major: after all, the participants in this case are working together on a voluntary basis. In scenario b, the detrimental risk of failure is deemed limited, because the objective is generally known in advance and the participants are obliged to participate based on an obligation for result. With respect to scenario a, we find that as long as there are no stimuli for change, no substantive issues are going to be realized, which implies that the detrimental risk generally will be limited. (Calculation method: a=3 (3x1), b=3 (3x1) en c=9 (3x3)).

Figure 5.9: Future side. The future side for all three scenarios is assessed as being of major importance: should the objective not be clear in any way, the cooperative partnership could deviate from its direction or the whole process will take too long and the partnership will fall apart. In the case of scenario c the detrimental risk of insufficient management is deemed major: the objective is not defined in advance and the participants in this case are working together on a voluntary basis. In scenario b, the detrimental risk of failure is deemed limited, because the objective is generally known in advance and the participants are obliged to participate. With respect to scenario a, we find that as long as there are no stimuli for change, no substantive issues are going to be realized, which implies that the detrimental risk generally will be limited. (Calculation method: a=3 (3x1), b=3 (3x1) en c=9 (3x3)).

Figure 5.9: Hard side. The importance of the hard side by itself is deemed as major in the case of scenario b, where the cooperation should be organized to comply with the obligation of result and especially with the accompanying schedule. In case of scenarios a and c there is average importance: this concerns mainly the choice of an organizational structure acceptable and functional for everyone. The detrimental risk of insufficient management is deemed major in scenario b: if things are not well organized, the required result will not be delivered in time. In scenario c is the detrimental risk of failure is deemed average: if the chosen organizational structure does not 'fit' it may cause irritation. With respect to scenario a, we find that as long as there are no stimuli for change, no substantive issues are going to be realized, which implies that the detrimental risk generally will be limited. (Calculation method: a=2 (2x1), b=9 (3x3) en c=4 (2x2)).

Figure 5.9: Soft side. The soft side was deemed of major importance for all three scenario's: eventually people will need to take care of things that need to be done, and they have to want to do it, as well as be able to do it. In the case of scenario c the detrimental risk of insufficient management is deemed major: work is done voluntary and therefore the cooperative partnership can easily fall apart when people are not delivering what they should. In scenario b, parties are obliged to participate based on an obligation for result. Less engagement, but once people drop out they are not reconsidering. Replacement or hiring external capacity will than be the obvious course of action. The detrimental risk of failure is assessed as average. With respect to scenario a, we find that as long as there are no stimuli for change, no substantive issues are going to be realized, which implies that the detrimental risk generally will be limited. (Calculation method: a=3 (3x1), b=6 (3x2) en c=9 (3x3)).

Figure 5.9: Resources side. This side is partly linked to the fund-raising phase of the 'creating cooperative partnerships' module. Here, however, we are also addressing resources such as a dedicated

204

website for the cooperative partnership, the use of databases or the use of mathematical models. Based on this type of resources, the resources side was assessed as being of moderate importance for all three scenarios. In the case of scenario b and c, the detrimental risk of insufficient management was deemed average: if the correct resources are not available at the right time, this might be inconvenient but usually not insurmountable. With respect to scenario a, we find that as long as there are no stimuli for change, no substantive issues are going to be realized, which implies that the detrimental risk generally will be limited. (Calculation method: a=2 (2x1), b=4 (2x2) en c=4 (2x2)).

Figure 5.10: Communication phase. The communication phase was deemed of major importance for all three scenarios: after all, this is the stage were possible joint policy issues arise. In the case of scenario c, the detrimental risk of insufficient management is deemed major: this is in fact no indication of which issues should be discussed. In scenario b this usually is the case, and the detrimental risk of failure for b is therefore assessed as being average. With respect to scenario a, we find that as long as there are no stimuli for change, no substantive issues are going to be realized, which implies that the detrimental risk generally will be limited. (Calculation method: a=3 (3x1), b=6 (3x2) en c=9 (3x3)).

Figure 5.10: Knowledge exchange phase. The knowledge exchange phase was assessed of major importance for all three scenarios: securing insight in the usefulness of joint policy is seen as a major step forward. In the case of scenario c the detrimental risk of insufficient management is deemed major: after all, there is no requirement to deepen possible issues emerging in the communication phase for further joint policy. In scenario b this usually is the case, and the detrimental risk of failure for b is therefore assessed as being average. With respect to scenario a, we find that as long as there are no stimuli for change, no substantive issues are going to be realized, which implies that the detrimental risk generally will be limited. (Calculation method: a=3 (3x1), b=6 (3x2) en c=9 (3x3)).

Figure 5.10: Agenda setting phase. The agenda setting phase was assessed of major importance for all three scenarios: forwarding policy issues to the phase in which the actual joint policy is developed into plans is seen as a major step forward. In the case of scenario c the detrimental risk of insufficient management is deemed major: after all, there is no requirement to forward the policy issues that were deepened in the knowledge exchange phase. In scenario b this usually is the case due to the obligation for results, and the detrimental risk of failure for b is therefore assessed as being average. With respect to scenario a, we find that as long as there are no stimuli for change, no substantive issues are going to be realized, which implies that the detrimental risk generally will be limited. (Calculation method: a=3 (3x1), b=6 (3x2) en c=9 (3x3)).

Figure 5.10: Alignment phase. The alignment phase was assessed of major importance for all three scenarios: in this phase the joint policy will eventually be developed. In the case of scenario c the detrimental risk of insufficient management is deemed major: after all, there is no obligation for results. In scenario b this is the case, and the detrimental risk of failure is therefore assessed as being average. With respect to scenario a, we find that as long as there are no stimuli for change, no substantive issues are going to be realized, which implies that the detrimental risk generally will be limited. (Calculation method: a=3 (3x1), b=6 (3x2) en c=9 (3x3)).

205

Figure 5.10: Implementation phase. The implementation phase was assessed of major importance for all three scenarios: in this phase the joint policy will eventually be developed. In the case of scenario c the detrimental risk of insufficient management is deemed major: after all, there is no obligation for results. In scenario b this is the case, and the detrimental risk of failure is therefore assessed as being average. With respect to scenario a, we find that as long as there are no stimuli for change, no substantive issues are going to be realized, which implies that the detrimental risk generally will be limited. (Calculation method: a=3 (3x1), b=6 (3x2) en c=9 (3x3)).

Figure 5.11: Administrative reality. Administrative reality in itself was assessed as being of major importance for all three scenarios: when the administrative reality entails that one of the participating parties explicitly does or doesn't want certain things and other participants have a different opinion, then this will affect the cooperation to a large extent. In case of scenario c the detrimental risk of insufficient management is deemed major: after all, there is no obligation to reach an agreement. In scenario b this is the case, and the detrimental risk of failure is therefore assessed as being average. With respect to scenario a, we find that as long as there are no stimuli for change, no substantive issues are going to be realized, which implies that the detrimental risk generally will be limited. (Calculation method: a=3 (3x1), b=6 (3x2) en c=9 (3x3)).

Figure 5.11: Information delivery. Information delivery is assessed as being of major importance for all three scenarios: administrators who are given an incorrect impression as result of the way they are informed and the actual information they receive, it can put strain on the way they conceive cooperation. In case of scenario c the detrimental risk of insufficient management is deemed major: after all, there is no obligation to reach an agreement. In scenario b this is the case, and the detrimental risk of failure is therefore assessed as being average. With respect to scenario a, we find that as long as there are no stimuli for change, no substantive issues are going to be realized, which implies that the detrimental risk generally will be limited. (Calculation method: a=3 (3x1), b=6 (3x2) en c=9 (3x3)).

Figure 5.11: Personal considerations. Personal considerations in itself are assessed as being of average importance for all three scenarios: should the individual administrator have personal reasons to explicitly want or does not want certain things and other administrators have a different opinion, then this will affect cooperation to a large extent. The impact in this case is less than in the case of administrative reality because this concerns an individual administrator and not the entire board of a participating organization. In case of scenario c the detrimental risk of insufficient management is deemed major: after all, there is no obligation to reach an agreement. In scenario b this is the case, and the detrimental risk of failure is therefore assessed as being average. With respect to scenario a, we find that as long as there are no stimuli for change, no substantive issues are going to be realized, which implies that the detrimental risk generally will be limited. (Calculation method: a=2 (2x1), b=4 (2x2) en c=6 (2x3)).

206

6.1 List of interviewees (case A) The predecessor of the pioneer

- Dhr. J. Laseur Province of Overijssel Zwolle Policy maker Water Member of the sub-committee Vecht c.q. Vecht-Dinkel from 1985-1999

The interviewed pioneer

- Dhr. dr. H.W.J. (Erik) van Dijk Currently: Independent consultant, as well as project manager at the Vereniging Kust & Zee (Waddenfondsproject Mosselwad) 1986 until May 2008: Province of Overijssel Zwolle Policy maker Water (1990-2008) Member of the sub-committee Vecht c.q. Vecht-Dinkel from 1995 until May 2008

The interviewed participants

- Dhr. G. Balder Currently: Pensioned Until 2006: Wasser- und Bodenverband nr. 114 Neuenhaus Geschäftsführer Member of the sub-committee Vecht c.q. Vecht-Dinkel from 1995-2006

- Dhr. W. Wolthuis Water Board Velt & Vecht Coevorden Dike warden Member of the sub-committee Vecht c.q. Vecht-Dinkel from 1991-2002

- Dhr. L. Hürink Currently: Vereinigung des Emsländischen Landesvolkes e.V. (VEL) Meppen Hauptgeschäftsführer (Chief executive)

207

Until 2009: Wasser- und Bodenverband nr. 114 Neuenhaus Geschäftsführer Member of the sub-committee Vecht-Dinkel from 2007-2009

- Dhr. W. Joosten Water Board Regge & Dinkel Almelo Secretary / director Member of the sub-committee Vecht-Dinkel from 2000-2004

- Dhr. P. van der Wiele Water Board Regge & Dinkel Almelo Account manager Germany Member of the sub-committee Vecht-Dinkel since 2003

- Dhr. H.J. Nolte Bezirksregierung Münster Münster Dezernent Member of the sub-committee Vecht c.q. Vecht-Dinkel since 1996

- Dhr. J.A. van Berkum Water Board Velt & Vecht Coevorden Manager Policy unit Member of the sub-committee Vecht c.q. Vecht-Dinkel from 1995-2002

- Dhr. M. Eberle Currently: Niedersächsisches Ministerium für Umwelt und Klimaschutz (Lower Saxony Ministry for the Protection of the Environment and Climate); Hannover Ministerialrat und Referatsleiter Until May 2008: Niedersächsischer Landesbetrieb für Wasserwirtschaft, Küsten-und Naturschutz (Lower Saxony State Corporation for Water Management and Conservation of Coast and Nature); Meppen Betriebsstellenleiter Member of the sub-committee Vecht-Dinkel from 2005 until May 2008

208

6.2 Questionnaire used in the first interview round (case A) Name : ……………………………………. Explanation This questionnaire is used for the case study on the German-Dutch Standing Committee on Boundary Waters (case study A). The case study in question is aimed at the way cross-border cooperation between regional parties in the subcommittee Vecht-Dinkel of the German-Dutch Standing Committee on Boundary Waters was managed between 2000 and May 2008. The case is used as an example of a situation in which regional participants on both sides of the border participate voluntarily in a cooperative partnership, which is arranged top-down without stimuli for cooperation. For clarity I would like to point out that this case study is aimed at the development of cross-border cooperative partnerships and it is not intended as evaluation of the way any of the organizations or persons involved have been functioning. The paragraph 'Anonymity and confidentiality' of the research protocol, discusses in detail what the approach for anonymity of the persons involved and confidentiality of the information obtained, consists of. Please answer the questions using the following rating scale. Of no importance 0 points

Of limited importance 1 point Of average importance 2 points Of major importance 3 points

Question 1a Below you will find a number of subjects that could be considered as (part of) the objective of this case. Can you indicate what degree of importance you would consider these subjects to have been for your actions in this case?

Possible parts of the objective of this case Importance Reaching alignment between partaking regional parties 0/1/2//36 Taking other participants into account when performing activities 0/1/2//3 Preventing disputes and should they arise, addressing disputes 0/1/2//3 Establishing cross-border visions and / or plans for managing the river basin 0/1/2//3 Establishing cross-border investments 0/1/2//3 Other subjects (please provide these and add a rating) 0/1/2//3

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!9 Please circle one of the four options

209

Question 1b In a case like this, many issues are important. As pioneer you might not be able to influence all of them. Below a number of subjects are listed which have been deemed important to this case and which can be influenced by you as pioneer. Can you indicate what degree of importance you would consider these subjects to have been for your actions in this case?

Important and influenceable issues Importance Managing expectations. When the pattern of expectations participants have does not comply with the opportunities the cooperative partnership offers them, tension will arise. The task of the pioneer is to make participants aware of the possibilities, but also of the limitations a cooperative partnership in this situation may encounter.

0/1/2//3

Dimensions of the cooperative partnership. Once participants are aware of the possibilities and limitations of the cooperative partnership, as far as general agreements allow, mutual agreement on what level the participating organizations will be represented and what activities the partnership will undertake, should take place.

0/1/2//3

The way differences were addressed. This could include the differences in the methods and techniques within the participating countries and also the various approaches in organizing water management in the participating countries, but also cultural differences and variations in budgets to be spent (in short the differences as described in question 1d).

0/1/2//3

Being alert to stimuli for change. In these situations it is important to be alert for possible stimuli for change, stimuli that arise due to new European legislation, but also stimuli that can be achieved: for example the opportunities that will arise when linking cross-border area development to the development of water management.

0/1/2//3

Other subjects (please provide these and add a rating) 0/1/2//3 Question 1c Being a pioneer for the cooperative partnerships means being able to handle various people and organizations. Many strategies are available to encourage people to take certain actions you feel are necessary. Below a number of strategies are described. Can you indicate what degree of importance you would consider these strategies to have been for your actions in this case?

Strategies Importance Connect. Connecting strategies are aimed at linking stakeholders which, if successful, leads to cross-contacts, work relationships, network relationships and more.

0/1/2//3


0/1/2//3

Inspire. Inspiring strategies, aimed at stimulating the imagination of those concerned, are often

210

used to influence the 'needs' of stakeholders, as well as to increase the imagination powers. Inspiring strategies are essentially bottom-up strategies.

0/1/2//3


0/1/2//3

Persuade. Persuading strategies are aimed at convincing those concerned with evidence and good argumentation. They will need to be convinced that the proposed steps, based on the analysis, are right. The approach is 'top-down' and 'tell and sell'.

0/1/2//3


0/1/2//3

Other strategies used (please provide these and add a rating) 0/1/2//3 Question 1d Being able to lead cross-border cooperative partnerships means being able to handle differences, particularly differences on both sides of the border between countries and/or federal states. Below seven of these possible differences are listed. Can you indicate to what degree these were of importance to this case?

Examples of differences Importance The structure of public administration. The structure and functioning of public administration is a good indication of how a country is organized. Where organizations on both sides of the border work together and have no knowledge of the structure of public administration at the other side, they might not be able to step in their shoes and thus not be able to adapt to their way of thinking. Efficient cooperation will therefore be hampered and indignation could lead to dissipation of the cooperative partnership.

0/1/2//3

The organization of water management. Should the initiator have no knowledge of the organization of water management on the other side of the border, chances are that in the initial phase a considerable amount of time is wasted because consultations took place with parties who were not the final partners. It may also cause parties that were contacted at a later stage feel denied even though they are included in the partnership at that later stage.

0/1/2//3

Knowledge of administrative matters at the other participants. Because regional administrative matters on the other side of the border often fail to arrive through regular channels, it is difficult to keep up with the administrative affairs and their effects at participants from the other side of the border.

0/1/2//3

Applied methods and techniques. Cross-border cooperation does not always guarantee that measuring methods, analytical techniques and interpretive frameworks are compatible, because the individual parties must continue to comply with the relevant national / federal regulations. In some cases it is very difficult to compare measured and / or interpreted values.

0/1/2//3

Budgets to be spent. When available budgets on both sides of the border vary considerably, this

211

could become a problem for a balanced partnership. 0/1/2//3 Culture. Even though the physical distance between organizations on both sides of the border is fairly small, potential cultural differences could be more sizeable. Cultural differences are often very persistent and can have a strong negative impact on cooperation.

0/1/2//3

Language. Language problems can cause people to misunderstand. Language problems can also cause people to be cautious in maintaining the necessary contacts. Multilingual cooperation will always require extra time and sometimes money (translation costs, etc.).

0/1/2//3

Other examples (please provide these and add a rating) 0/1/2//3 Question 1e Below the first outline of the profile for pioneers in cooperative partnerships, as this case entails, has been presented. Are you able to use the upper of the two 0/1/2//3-lists to indicate the importance of the characteristics in a case such as this one with respect to the pioneer? Are you able to use the lower of the two 0/1/2//3-lists to indicate the importance of the characteristics in a case such as this one with respect to your actions as pioneer?

Characteristics in the profile Importance He or she can motivate people 0/1/2//3

0/1/2//3 He or she can handle differences between participants 0/1/2//3

0/1/2//3 He or she has a realistic view on situations 0/1/2//3

0/1/2//3 He or she is not afraid to confront people 0/1/2//3

0/1/2//3 He or she possesses a fair amount of professional knowledge 0/1/2//3

0/1/2//3 Other characteristics (please provide these and add the degree of importance) 0/1/2//3

212

6.3 Questionnaire used in the second interview round (case A) Name : ……………………………………. Explanation This questionnaire is used for the case study on the German-Dutch Standing Committee on Boundary Waters (case study A). The case study in question is aimed at the way cross-border cooperation between regional parties in the subcommittee Vecht-Dinkel of the German-Dutch Standing Committee on Boundary Waters was managed between 2000 and May 2008. The case is used as an example of a situation in which regional participants on both sides of the border participate voluntarily in a cooperative partnership, which is arranged top-down without stimuli for cooperation. For clarity I would like to point out that this case study is aimed at the development of cross-border cooperative partnerships and it is not intended as evaluation of the way any of the organizations or persons involved have been functioning. The paragraph 'Anonymity and confidentiality' of the research protocol, discusses in detail what the approach for anonymity of the persons involved and confidentiality of the information obtained, consists of. Please answer the questions using the following rating scale. Of no importance 0 points


Question 2a Below you will find a number of subjects that could be considered as (part of) the objective of this case. Are you able to use the upper of the two 0/1/2//3-lists to indicate the importance of these subjects for you? Are you able to use the lower of the two 0/1/2//3-lists to indicate the importance of the subjects for the actions of the pioneer in the case of the sub-committee Vecht-Dinkel?

Possible parts of the objective of this case Importance Reaching alignment between partaking regional parties 0/1/2//378

0/1/2//3 Taking other participants into account when performing activities 0/1/2//3

0/1/2//3 Preventing disputes and should they arise, addressing disputes 0/1/2//3

0/1/2//3 Establishing cross-border visions and / or plans for managing the river basin 0/1/2//3

0/1/2//3


213

Establishing cross-border investments 0/1/2//3 0/1/2//3

Other subjects (please provide these and indicate the importance) 0/1/2//3 Question 2b In a case like this, many issues are important. The pioneer of the cooperative partnership might not be able to influence all of them. Below a number of subjects are listed which have been deemed important to this case and which can be influenced by the pioneer. Are you able to use the upper of the two 0/1/2//3-lists to indicate the importance of the subjects in a case such as this one with respect to the pioneer? Are you able to use the lower of the two 0/1/2//3-lists to indicate the importance of the subjects for the actions of the pioneer in the case of the sub-committee Vecht-Dinkel?

Important and influenceable issues Importance Managing expectations. When the pattern of expectations participants have does not comply with the opportunities the cooperative partnership offers them, tension will arise. The task of the pioneer is to make participants aware of the possibilities, but also of the limitations a cooperative partnership in this situation may encounter.

0/1/2//3 0/1/2//3

Dimensions of the cooperative partnership. Once participants are aware of the possibilities and limitations of the cooperative partnership, as far as general agreements allow, mutual agreement on what level the participating organizations will be represented and what activities the partnership will undertake, should take place.

0/1/2//3 0/1/2//3


0/1/2//3 0/1/2//3

Being alert to stimuli for change. In these situations it is important to be alert for possible stimuli for change, stimuli that arise due to new European legislation, but also stimuli that can be achieved: for example the opportunities that will arise when linking cross-border area development to the development of water management.

0/1/2//3 0/1/2//3

Other subjects (please provide these and add a rating) 0/1/2//3 Question 2c Being a pioneer for the cooperative partnerships means being able to handle various people and organizations. Many strategies are available to the pioneer in order to encourage people to take certain actions he or she feels are necessary. Below three strategies are described. Are you able to use the upper of the two 0/1/2//3-lists to indicate the importance of the strategies in a case such as this one for the actions of the pioneer? Are you able to use the lower of the two 0/1/2//3-lists to indicate the importance of the strategies for the actions of the pioneer in the case of the sub-committee Vecht-Dinkel?

214


0/1/2//3 0/1/2//3


0/1/2//3 0/1/2//3

Inspire. Inspiring strategies, aimed at stimulating the imagination of those concerned, are often used to influence the 'needs' of stakeholders, as well as to increase the imagination powers. Inspiring strategies are essentially bottom-up strategies.

0/1/2//3 0/1/2//3


0/1/2//3 0/1/2//3


0/1/2//3 0/1/2//3


0/1/2//3 0/1/2//3

Other strategies used (please provide these and add a rating) 0/1/2//3 Question 2d Being able to lead cross-border cooperative partnerships means being able to handle differences, particularly differences on both sides of the border between countries and/or federal states. Below seven of these possible differences are listed. Are you able to use the upper of the two 0/1/2//3-lists to indicate the importance of these examples for this case? Are you able to use the lower of the two 0/1/2//3-lists to indicate the importance of the examples for the actions of the pioneer in this case?


0/1/2//3 0/1/2//3


0/1/2//3 0/1/2//3

Knowledge of administrative matters at the other participants. Because regional administrative

215

matters on the other side of the border often fail to arrive through regular channels, it is difficult to keep up with the administrative affairs and their effects at participants from the other side of the border.

0/1/2//3 0/1/2//3


0/1/2//3 0/1/2//3

Budgets to be spent. When available budgets on both sides of the border vary considerably, this could become a problem for a balanced partnership.

0/1/2//3 0/1/2//3

Culture. Even though the physical distance between organizations on both sides of the border is fairly small, potential cultural differences could be more sizeable. Cultural differences are often very persistent and can have a strong negative impact on cooperation.

0/1/2//3 0/1/2//3


0/1/2//3 0/1/2//3

Other examples (please provide these and add a rating) 0/1/2//3 Question 2e Below the first outline of the profile for pioneers in cooperative partnerships, as this case entails, has been presented. Are you able to use the upper of the two 0/1/2//3-lists to indicate the importance of the characteristics in a case such as this one with respect to the pioneer? Are you able to use the lower of the two 0/1/2//3-lists to indicate the importance of the various characteristics for the actions of the pioneer in this case?

Characteristics in the profile Importance He or she can motivate people 0/1/2//3


0/1/2//3 He or she has a realistic view on situations 0/1/2//3

0/1/2//3 He or she is not afraid to confront people 0/1/2//3

0/1/2//3 He or she possesses a fair amount of professional knowledge 0/1/2//3

0/1/2//3 Other characteristics (please provide these and add the degree of importance) 0/1/2//3

216

6.4 Written materials used in the third interview round (case A, B and C)

1. Introduction As objective for my promotion, I have developed a theory of action for pioneers in cross-border regional cooperative partnerships. This theory is intended to provide pioneers some guiding principles for the establishment and further development of cross-border regional cooperative partnerships.

Pioneers obviously cannot do this by themselves, but they are expected to be the ones that have the overview and that know which buttons need to be pushed and when. Therefore the theory of action is not only comprised of what the pioneers theoretically should know and be able to do, but also of what actually matters in some featured cases of cross-border regional cooperative partnerships.

Theoretically pioneers need to know of and be able to understand three distinct facts, as listed below.

a. Conceptualizing cooperative partnerships is seen as an organizational challenge. Pioneers should therefore need to know how cooperative partnerships can be designed and should be able to manage them accordingly.

b. Cooperation will always be a human effort. Thus, pioneers need to know which strategies are available to enable participants to do what they need to do and be able to apply these strategies.

c. Everything mentioned in point a and b is applicable to cooperation in general, as well as to cross-border cooperation. However, in the area of cross-border cooperation there are also various differences on both sides of the border. Pioneers should therefore need to know which of the differences are influential and should be able to handle them accordingly.

Below is listed what the pioneers theoretically should know and be able to do.

2. Theoretically Tip: just keep reading the text below for now and do not start browsing the appendices that are referred to until the question to do just that is specifically presented. Ad a. Designing cooperative partnerships

Knowing. The way cooperative relationships can be set up is described in the theory of action, with reference to four areas of attentions. They are: - Managing the establishment of cooperative partnerships (paragraph 5.3.4); - Managing further development of cooperative partnerships (paragraph 5.3.5); - Managing the way possible issues for cooperation are addressed (paragraph 5.3.6) - Handling the impact of administrators (paragraph 5.3.7); For each of these areas of attention, the theory of action presents models that provide the pioneer with the insight needed. Most of the models provided have already been in existence for quite a while and have proven their use. Only in the case of the focus area 'handling the impact of administrators' the provided models have been newly developed.

217

Being able. Theoretically the pioneers should be able to divide their attention between all of the above-mentioned areas of attention, comparable with a juggler who divides his attention between the four balls he needs to keep in the air simultaneously. At the same time the pioneers need to be alert on the context in which everything is taking place and on possible changes from that context. Some pioneers do not only know how to handle changes from this context, but know how to utilize this as well. The theory of action presents the so-called model of contextual-interaction from paragraph 4.5, in which the context can be organized in a clear and apparent way.

Ad b. Cooperation will always be a human effort

Knowing. In the theory of action, the major strategies are discussed that are available to pioneers, in order for them to enable participants to do what they need to do. Box 5.5. provides an overview of the strategies in question.

Being able. Box 5.6 provides examples of the way the pioneers could apply these strategies.

Ad c. Addressing differences along the border

Knowing. The theory of action mentions the most significant differences along both sides of the border. Box 5.13 provides an overview of the differences in question.

Being able. In box 5.15 we can see which approach the pioneers could take for handling the differences in question, along both sides of the border. From the solution approach in these cases we can extract a strategy that could be summarized as ‘providing transparency, neutralizing and bridging where possible’.

Example. The budgets to be spent are deemed as possible critical transition in the theory of action. When available budgets on both sides of the border vary considerably, this could become a problem for a balanced partnership. In the overview, 4 steps for solution are proposed. Step 1 concerns the transparency of things: 'Providing insight in the different budgets available and putting this out in the open, not letting it stay in the background'. Steps 2 and 3 relate to neutralize the differences in available budgets: 'Do we have recourse, for example, spending more hours of the participant with the smallest budget or lower prices for services to hire? With the right arguments differences in budgets can sometimes be made more acceptable.' (step 2) or 'Are grants available, which would make the differences less of an issue.' (step 3). Step 4 aims to actually overcome (bridge) the problem "Agenda Setting on a higher level. Is it possible to support the participants with the lowest budget by providing them with more funds through the 'top approach' and the other partner(s)? " (step 4).

3. In practice So far I have been researching three cross-border regional cooperative partnerships, which are a) The Sub-committee Vecht-Dinkel of the German-Dutch Standing Committee on Boundary Waters (PGC), b) the AG DeltaRhein, operating for the benefit of the implementation of the European Water

218

Framework Directive (WFD) and c) the cooperative partnership for the cross-border Vision on the Vecht (GVV). In this paragraph I will provide the first feedback. The following legend will be used: of no importance: 0, of limited importance: 1, of average importance: 2, of major importance: 3. Ad a. Designing cooperative partnerships

In theory pioneers should be able to divide their attention, as the juggler would, between the four areas of attention as mentioned in paragraph 2 of this appendix. From the preliminary results of my research however, this seems not to be the case in practical situations.

In the case of the sub-committee Vecht-Dinkel is seems that none of the four areas of attention were of substantial significance. Various other areas of attention seemed to have taken their place and these are described in the table below.

Alternative areas of attention Importance Managing expectations. When the pattern of expectations participants have does not comply with the opportunities the cooperative partnership offers them, tension will arise. The task of the pioneer is to make participants aware of the possibilities, but also of the limitations a cooperative partnership in this situation may encounter.

3 Dimensions of the cooperative partnership. Once participants are aware of the possibilities and limitations of the cooperative partnership, as far as general agreements allow, mutual agreement on what level the participating organizations will be represented and what activities the partnership will undertake, should take place.

2 Being alert to stimuli for change. In these situations it is important to be alert for possible stimuli for change, stimuli that arise due to new European legislation, but also stimuli that can be achieved: for example the opportunities that will arise when linking cross-border area development to the development of water management.

2

Question for the pioneer of the subcommittee Vecht-Dinkel; What do you think of these preliminary results? Do these have meaning for you? Are these results reason for you to say that if you had known these beforehand, you would have handled things differently? And if so, which things? In the case of the AG DeltaRhein it seems that 3 out of 4 areas of attention were of real significance, whereby we can say that the way further development of the cooperation was managed was only considered to be of partial importance.

Areas of attention Importance

The way the organisation was organized (part of area of attention 2 (see figure 5.9)) 3 The way personnel deployment was organized (ditto) 2

219

The way availability of resources was organized (ditto) 2 The way possible issues for joint policies were addressed (area of attention 3)

3 The way administrators were involved (area of attention 4) 2

Question for the pioneer of the AG DeltaRhein; What do you think of these preliminary results? Would you like to go through paragraphs 5.3.4 thru 5.3.7 with us? Are you able to use the contents of these appendices to describe the way things were handled within the AG DeltaRhein, in addition to the examples already presented in the appendices? And if so, which? Are the contents of these appendices reason for you to say that if you had known these beforehand, you would have handled things differently? In the case of the cross-border Vision on the Vecht it seems that all four areas of attention were significant.

Areas of attention Importance

The way cooperation is established (area of attention 1). 3 The way further development of cooperation is managed (area of attention 2) 3 The way possible issues for joint policies are addressed (area of attention 3) 3 The way administrators are involved (area of attention 4) 3

Question for the pioneers of the German-Dutch Vision on the Vecht; What do you think of these preliminary results? Would you like to go through paragraphs 5.3.4 thru 5.3.7 with us? Are you able to use the contents of these appendices to describe the way things were handled within the the German-Dutch Vision on the Vecht, in addition to the examples already presented in the appendices? And if so, which? Are the contents of these appendices reason for you to say that if we had known these beforehand, we would have handled things differently?

220

Ad b. Cooperation will always be a human effort

From the preliminary results of my research we can distillate that in three of the cooperative partnerships we have investigated five of the six strategies mentioned in box 5.5 were of importance. The only exception is the directive strategy.

Strategies PCG WFD VV Connect 377 2 3 Facilitate 379 2 3 Inspire 2 1 3 Motivate. 2 3 2 Persuade 2 3 2 Apply force 0 1 0

Whether the examples provided in box 5.6 concerning the way the pioneers could have implemented the strategies were in fact used has not been investigated yet and this will be a subject for the second interview round with the pioneers. Question for all pioneers What do you think of the preliminary results on this issue? Would you like to go through the contents of box 5.6 with us? Do you recognize these examples? (also refer to the definitions of the strategies in box 5.5 if needed) Were the examples provided actually applied to your cases? And if so, which? Are you able to add other examples to this overview?

Ad c. Addressing differences along the border

From the preliminary results of my research we can distillate that in three of the cooperative partnerships we have investigated all of the differences mentioned in box 5.13 were of importance.

Differences PCG WFD VV Structure of public administration 2.5 2 3 Organization of similar sectors 2 2 3 Knowledge of administrative subjects 1.5 3 2 Applied methods and techniques 2 3 17: Budgets to be spent 2 1 3 Culture 2 2.5 3 Language 2 2.5 3

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!11 During further elaboration of this case, we have found that the preliminary assumption regarding this issue was too high and the 3 mentioned here should have been a 2. 12 During further elaboration of this case, we have found that the preliminary assumption regarding this issue was too high and the 3 mentioned here should have been a 2. 13 This assumption was changed to 2 during the third interview round, as advised by the interviewed pioneers.

221

Whether the solutions or possible solutions provided in box 5.15 were in fact used, has not been investigated yet and this will be a subject for the second interview round with the pioneers. Question for all pioneers What do you think of the preliminary results on this issue? Would you like to go through the contents of box 5.15 with us? Do you recognize these possible solutions? Were these possible solutions actually applied to your cases? And if so, which? Are you able to add other possible solutions to this overview? From the possible solutions provided in box 5.15 we can extract a strategy that could be summarized as ‘providing transparency, neutralizing and bridging where possible’, do you recognize this strategy? Some general questions for all pioneers: 1. When you look at the theory of action so far, what is your opinion? Has it created order in what

you already knew? Have you picked up new things from this? Altogether useful or not? 2. Could you imagine the contents of this theory of action as worthwhile curriculum for people being

educated (Graduate or Post-Graduate or PhD level students)? 3. Do you think the contents of this theory of action could also be applicable to other sectors than

water? If so, what are the sectors that come to mind?

222

6.5 Final results of the first two interview rounds (case A) Explanation: T = trekker (pioneer), D = deelnemer van Duitse zijde (German participant) and N = deelnemer van Nederlandse zijde (Dutch participant);

The upper part of the two 0/1/2//3-lines indicate the importance of the various subjects for the actions of the pioneer . The lower part of the two 0/1/2//3-lines indicate the importance of the various subjects according to the participants in question.

Rating: Of no importance 0 points Of limited importance 1 point Of average importance 2 points Of major importance 3 points

Questions 1a + 2a Possible parts of the objective T D D D D N N N N Obtaining alignment 3 3

2 3 3

2 2

2 2

3 3

3 3

3 3

3 3

Taking each other into account during own activities

2 1 2

3 2

2 3

2 2

0 1

1.5 2

1 1

1 1

Preventing and addressing disputes 1 2 2

2.5 2

2 1

3 3

- 2

3 1

1.5 2

1 2

Establishing cross-border visions and / or plans for managing the river basin

3 2 2.5

2 1

3 1

2.5 3

3 3

2 3

2 3

? 1

Establishing cross-border investments 2 1 2

? 1

2 1

1 1

1.5 1.5

1 3

1 1

0 1

Other issues - + - + - - - - - Questions 1b + 2b

Important and influenceable issues T D D D D N N N N Managing expectations 3 1

2 3 2

2 3

3 3

1 3

1 3

1 3

1 3

Dimensions of the partnership 3 2 3

2 3

2 2

1 1

1 3

1 3

2 2

1 2

Being alert to stimuli for change 2 1 1

2 2

2 2

3 3

1 2

1 3

1 2

1 3

The way differences are addressed 2 1.5 2

2 3

3 3

1.5 1.5

1.5 3

1 3

3 2

1 3

Other issues - - - - - - - - -

Questions 1c + 2c Strategies T D D D D N N N N Connect 2 -

3 2 2

1 3

2.5 2.5

1.5 1.5

- 3

- -

- -

Facilitate 2 1 2 3 2 2 2.5 1.5 1

223

2 2 3 2 2 3 2 3 Inspire 2 1.5

2 2 1

2 3

2.5 2.5

2.5 1

0 3

3 2

1 1

Motivate 2 0 2

2 1

2 2

2 2

2 2

2 1

2 2

1 1

Persuade 2 1 1

1 2

2 2

2.5 2.5

3 2.5

2 0

2 2

2 2

Apply force 0 1 1

? 2

0 0

0 0

0 0

0.5 0

0 0

0 0

Other strategies - - - - - - - - -

Questions 1d + 2d Differences T D D D D N N N N In the structure of public administration 3 2

3 2 2

2 3

2 1.5

1 1

3 3

2 3

1.5 1

In the organization of water management 1 3 3

3 3

2 3

1.5 1.5

2 3

3 3

2 3

2 2

In knowledge of administrative issues 1 1 1

2 2

1 1

1 2

0 1

1 3

1 1

1 2

In applied methods and techniques 2 3 3

1 1

2 2

1 1.5

1 2

3 1

2 1

- 2

In budgets to be spent 2 1 2

1 1

2 3

1 1

2 2

1 3

0 0

1 2

In culture 1 1 1

2 2

3 3

1.5 1.5

1 2

2 3

2 3

2 3

In language 1 2 3

3 3

3 3

2 2

1 2.5

2 1

1 1

2 3

Other differences - - - - - - - - - Questions 1e + 2e

Characteristics in the profile T D D D D N N N N Can motivate people 3

2 2 1

1.5 1.5

2 2

2 2

3 1.5

3 1.5

2 2

3 1

Is able to handle differences between participants

2 3

2 2

3 3

3 2

3 3

3 1.5

2 2

2 2

3 1

Has a realistic view on situations 3 2

2 2

3 3

3 2

2.5 2.5

2.5 1

3 1

3 2

3 1

Is not afraid to confront people 2 1

1 1

3 3

2 1

2 2

2 0.5

2 1

2 1

3 1

Has a fair degree of professional knowledge 1 3

2.5 3

1.5 1.5

2 2

2 2

1.5 3

1 1

2 3

2 2

Other aspects - - - + - - - + -

224

7.1 List of interviewees (case B) The interviewed pioneer

- Dhr. W. Mak Coördinatiebureau Stroomgebieden Nederland (CSN) Utrecht Deputy basin coordinator Pioneer of the work group DeltaRhein-Ost from mid 2006 to mid May 2009


- Dhr. J. Laseur Province of Overijssel Zwolle Policy maker Water Member of the work group DeltaRhein from 2006 to the present

- Dhr. dr. H.W.J. (Erik) van Dijk Currently: Independent consultant, as well as project manager at Vereniging Kust & Zee (Waddenfondsproject Mosselwad) 1986 until May 2008: Province of Overijssel Zwolle Policy maker Water (1990-2008) Member of the work group DeltaRhein until May 2008

- Dhr. W. Wolthuis

Water Board Velt & Vecht Coevorden Dike warden Member of the steering group DeltaRhein from 2006 to the present

- Dhr. P. van der Wiele Water Board Regge & Dinkel Almelo Account manager Germany Member of the work group DeltaRhein from 2008 to the present

225

- Dhr. G. Jasperneite

Bezirksregierung Münster Münster Dezernent Member of the work group DeltaRhein from April 2007 to the present

- Dhr. W. Piegsa Currently: Pensioned Until September 2008: Bezirksregierung Münster Herten Dezernent Member of the work group DeltaRhein from 2004 until May 2007

- Mevr. D. Altenhofen Niedersächsischer Landesbetrieb für Wasserwirtschaft, Küsten-und Naturschutz (Lower Saxony State Corporation for Water Management and Conservation of Coast and Nature) Meppen Betriebsstellenleiterin Member of the work group DeltaRhein from mid 2008 to the present

- Dhr. M. Eberle Currently: Niedersächsisches Ministerium für Umwelt und Klimaschutz (Lower Saxony Ministry for the Protection of the Environment and Climate) Hannover Ministerialrat und Referatsleiter Until May 2008: Niedersächsischer Landesbetrieb für Wasserwirtschaft, Küsten-und Naturschutz (Lower Saxony State Corporation for Water Management and Conservation of Coast and Nature) Meppen Betriebsstellenleiter Member of the work group DeltaRhein from 2005 until May 2008

226

7.2 Questionnaire used in the first interview round (case B) Name : ……………………………………. Explanation This questionnaire is used for the case study relating to the implementation of the WFD in the work area of DeltaRhein (case study B). The case study in question is aimed at the way cross-border cooperation between regional parties involved has been established in the work area at hand. The case study is applicable to the period of mid 2006 to 2008. This case is used as an example of a situation in which regional participants on both sides of the border participate voluntarily in a cooperative partnership, which is a arranged top-down and in which policy and institutional pressure work as stimuli for cooperation. For clarity I would like to point out that this case study is aimed at the development of cross-border cooperative partnerships and it is not intended as evaluation of the way any of the organizations or persons involved have been functioning. The paragraph 'Anonymity and confidentiality' of the research protocol, discusses in detail what the approach for anonymity of the persons involved and confidentiality of the information obtained, consists of. Please answer the questions using the following rating scale. Of no importance 0 points



Possible parts of the objective of this case Importance Implementation of a new directive 0/1/2//37; Reaching alignment between the three underlying sub-areas 0/1/2//3 Establishing one management plan for the river basin 0/1/2//3 Establishing sustainable cooperation between regional parties 0/1/2//3 Establishing cross-border investments 0/1/2//3 Other subjects (please provide these and add a rating) 0/1/2//3


227


Important and influenceable issues Importance The way the organisation was governed. An important point in this case was that matters were organized in such a way that the required results were delivered in time.

0/1/2//3 The way differences were addressed. This could include the differences in the methods and techniques within the participating countries and also the various approaches in organizing water management in the participating countries, but also cultural differences and variations in budgets to be spent (in short the differences as described in question 1d).

0/1/2//3 The way personnel deployment was organized. In order to be able to deliver the required results, sufficient, qualified and motivated staff needed to be available!

0/1/2//3 The way availability of resources was organized. To deliver the required results in time, the right tools needed to be readily available.

0/1/2//3

The way possible issues for joint policies were addressed. In order to deliver the required results in a timely manner, possible issues for joint policy needed to be known in time and also needed to be 'rolled out' within the specified period.

0/1/2//3 The way administrators were involved. The administrators needed to be involved in time and in the correct way, in order to be able to deliver the required results in a timely manner.

0/1/2//3

Other subjects (please provide these and add a rating) 0/1/2//3

Question 1c Being a pioneer for the cooperative partnerships means being able to handle various people and organizations. Many strategies are available to encourage people to take certain actions you feel are necessary. Below three strategies are described. Can you indicate what degree of importance you would consider these strategies to have been for your actions in this case?


0/1/2//3


0/1/2//3

Inspire. Inspiring strategies, aimed at stimulating the imagination of those concerned, are often used to influence the 'needs' of stakeholders, as well as to increase the imagination powers.

228

Inspiring strategies are essentially bottom-up strategies. 0/1/2//3


0/1/2//3


0/1/2//3


0/1/2//3



0/1/2//3 The organization of water management. Should the initiator have no knowledge of the organization of water management on the other side of the border, chances are that in the initial phase a considerable amount of time is wasted because consultations took place with parties who were not the final partners. It may also cause parties that were contacted at a later stage feel denied even though they are included in the partnership at that later stage.

0/1/2//3 Knowledge of administrative matters at the other participants. Because regional administrative matters on the other side of the border often fail to arrive through regular channels, it is difficult to keep up with the administrative affairs and their effects at participants from the other side of the border.

0/1/2//3 Applied methods and techniques. Cross-border cooperation does not always guarantee that measuring methods, analytical techniques and interpretive frameworks are compatible, because the individual parties must continue to comply with the relevant national / federal regulations. In some cases it is very difficult to compare measured and / or interpreted values.

0/1/2//3 Budgets to be spent. When available budgets on both sides of the border vary considerably, this could become a problem for a balanced partnership.

0/1/2//3

229


0/1/2//3 Language. Language problems can cause people to misunderstand. Language problems can also cause people to be cautious in maintaining the necessary contacts. Multilingual cooperation will always require extra time and sometimes money (translation costs, etc.).

0/1/2//3 Other examples (please provide these and add a rating) 0/1/2//3

Question 1e Below the first outline of the profile for pioneers in cooperative partnerships, as this case entails, has been presented. Are you able to use the upper of the two 0/1/2//3-lists to indicate the importance of the characteristics in a case such as this one with respect to the pioneer? Are you able to use the lower of the two 0/1/2//3-lists to indicate the importance of the characteristics in a case such as this one with respect to your actions as pioneer?

Characteristics in the profile Importance He or she is an experienced process manager 0/1/2//3


0/1/2//3 He or she can motivate people 0/1/2//3

0/1/2//3 He or she possesses a fair amount of knowledge about change 0/1/2//3

0/1/2//3 He or she has experience with leading programs and projects in complex civil and administrative environments

0/1/2//3 0/1/2//3

He or she possesses sufficient knowledge regarding and insight in the industry, to be able to 'further' possible issues for joint policies.

0/1/2//3 0/1/2//3

Other characteristics (please provide these and add the degree of importance) 0/1/2//3

230

7.3 Questionnaire used in the second interview round (case B) Name : ……………………………………. Explanation This questionnaire is used for the case study relating to the implementation of the WFD in the work area of DeltaRhein (case study B). The case study in question is aimed at the way cross-border cooperation between regional parties involved has been established in the work area at hand. The case study is applicable to the period of mid 2006 to 2008. This case is used as an example of a situation in which regional participants on both sides of the border participate voluntarily in a cooperative partnership, which is a arranged top-down and in which policy and institutional pressure work as stimuli for cooperation. For clarity I would like to point out that this case study is aimed at the development of cross-border cooperative partnerships and it is not intended as evaluation of the way any of the organizations or persons involved have been functioning. The paragraph 'Anonymity and confidentiality' of the research protocol, discusses in detail what the approach for anonymity of the persons involved and confidentiality of the information obtained, consists of. Please answer the questions using the following rating scale. Of no importance 0 points


Question 2a Below you will find a number of subjects that could be considered as (part of) the objective of this case. Are you able to use the upper of the two 0/1/2//3-lists to indicate the importance of these subjects for you? Are you able to use the lower of the two 0/1/2//3-lists to indicate the importance of the subjects for the actions of the pioneer in the case of DeltaRhein-Ost?

Possible parts of the objective of this case Importance Implementation of a new directive 0/1/2//37<

0/1/2//3 Reaching alignment between the three underlying sub-areas 0/1/2//3

0/1/2//3 Establishing one management plan for the river basin 0/1/2//3

0/1/2//3 Establishing sustainable cooperation between regional parties 0/1/2//3


231

0/1/2//3 Establishing cross-border investments 0/1/2//3

0/1/2//3 Other subjects (please provide these and indicate the importance) 0/1/2//3

Question 2b In a case like this, many important issues are present. The pioneer of the cooperative partnership might not be able to influence all of them. Below a number of subjects are listed which have been deemed important to this case and which can be influenced by the pioneer. Are you able to use the upper of the two 0/1/2//3-lists to indicate the importance of the subjects in a case such as this one with respect to the pioneer? Are you able to use the lower of the two 0/1/2//3-lists to indicate the importance of the subjects for the actions of the pioneer in the case of DeltaRhein-Ost?

Important and influenceable issues Importance The way the organisation was governed. An important point in this case was that matters were organized in such a way that the required results were delivered in time.

0/1/2//3 0/1/2//3


0/1/2//3 0/1/2//3

The way personnel deployment was organized. In order to be able to deliver the required results, sufficient, qualified and motivated staff needed to be available!

0/1/2//3 0/1/2//3

The way availability of resources was organized. To deliver the required results in time, the right tools needed to be readily available.

0/1/2//3 0/1/2//3

The way possible issues for joint policies were addressed. In order to deliver the required results in a timely manner, possible issues for joint policy needed to be known in time and also needed to be 'rolled out' within the specified period.

0/1/2//3 0/1/2//3

The way administrators were involved. The administrators needed to be involved in time and in the correct way, in order to be able to deliver the required results in a timely manner.

0/1/2//3 0/1/2//3

Other subjects (please provide these and add a rating) 0/1/2//3

Question 2c Being a pioneer for the cooperative partnerships means being able to handle various people and organizations. Many strategies are available to the pioneer in order to encourage people to take certain actions he or she feels are necessary. Below three strategies are described. Are you able to use the upper of the two 0/1/2//3-lists to indicate the importance of the strategies in a case such as this one for the actions of the pioneer? Are you able to use the lower of the two 0/1/2//3-lists to indicate the importance of the different strategies for the actions of the pioneer in the case of DeltaRhein-Ost?

232


0/1/2//3 0/1/2//3


0/1/2//3 0/1/2//3


0/1/2//3 0/1/2//3


0/1/2//3 0/1/2//3


0/1/2//3 0/1/2//3


0/1/2//3 0/1/2//3



0/1/2//3 0/1/2//3


0/1/2//3 0/1/2//3

233


0/1/2//3 0/1/2//3


0/1/2//3 0/1/2//3


0/1/2//3 0/1/2//3


0/1/2//3 0/1/2//3


0/1/2//3 0/1/2//3

Other examples (please provide these and add a rating) 0/1/2//3

Question 2e Below the first outline of the profile for pioneers in cooperative partnerships, as this case entails, has been presented. Are you able to use the upper of the two 0/1/2//3-lists to indicate the importance of the characteristics in a case such as this one with respect to the pioneer? Are you able to use the lower of the two 0/1/2//3-lists to indicate the importance of the various characteristics for the actions of the pioneer in this case?




0/1/2//3 He or she possesses a fair amount of knowledge about change 0/1/2//3

0/1/2//3 He or she has experience with leading programs and projects in complex civil and administrative environments

0/1/2//3 0/1/2//3

He or she possesses sufficient knowledge regarding and insight in the industry, to be able to 'further' possible issues for joint policies.

0/1/2//3 0/1/2//3


234

7.4 Final results of the first two interview rounds (case B) Explanation: T = trekker (pioneer), D = deelnemer van Duitse zijde (German participant) and N = deelnemer van Nederlandse zijde (Dutch participant);

The upper part of the two 0/1/2//3-lines indicate the importance of the various subjects for the actions of the pioneer . The lower part of the two 0/1/2//3-lines indicate how important the various issues have been according to the participants in question c.q. how important the various issues should have been for a pioneer in a case like this according to the participants in question.

Rating: of no importance = 0 points, of limited importance = 1 point, of average importance = 2 points and of major importance = 3 points. The reference n.r. can be read as 'not relevant'.

Questions 1a + 2a Possible parts of the objective T D D D D N N N N Implementation of a new directive 2 3

3 3 3

2 2

3 3

3 3

2 3

3 3

3 3

Reaching alignment between the three underlying sub-areas

3 2 2

3 3

2 2

0.5 3

3 3

3 2

1 2

2 2

Establishing one management plan for the river basin

3 2 3

3 3

2 3

1.5 3

2 2

3 2

3 3

1.5 3

Establishing sustainable cooperation between regional parties

3 - 2

2 3

2 3

- 3

1 3

2 1

1 2

2 3

Establishing cross-border investments 2 1 1

2 1

2 2

2 1

1 1

1 0

0 1

1 2

Other issues - + - - + - - - - Questions 1b + 2b

Important and influenceable issues T D D D D N N N N The way the organisation is governed 3 2

3 3 3

1 3

3 3

2 3

2 2

3 3

1 3

The way personnel deployment is arranged 2 1 1

2 2.5

2 2

2 3

- -

1 2.5

1 3

- 2

The way availability of resources is arranged 2 1 3

2 3

1 1

2 3

1 2

1 2

1 2

- 2

The way possible issues for joint policies are addressed

3 1 3

3 3

1 2

2 3

1 2

2 2

1 2

1 2

The way administrators are involved 2 n.r. n.r.

n.r. n.r.

n.r. n.r.

n.r. n.r.

2 2

1 2

- 2

2 3

The way differences are addressed 3 3 3

3 3

2 2

2 3

3 2

3 3

3 2

2 2

Other issues - - - - - - - - - Questions 1c + 2c

Strategies T D D D D N N N N

235

Connect 2 2 1

1 3

2.5 3

2 2

- -

- -

2 2

- -

Facilitate 2 2 2

2 2

3 2

2 2

2 2

2 2

2 2

3 3

Inspire 1 1 1

2 2

1 3

1 1

- -

1 2

1 1

2 2

Motivate 3 1 2.5

2 2

2.5 2.5

3 3

- -

3 3

2 1

2 3

Persuade 3 2 2

3 3

2.5 3

3 3

2 2

3 3

1 2

2 2

Apply force 1 0 0

0.5 0.5

0.5 0.5

1 1

2 2

0 1.5

2 2

1 1

Other strategies - - - - - - - - - Questions 1d + 2d

Differences T D D D D N N N N In the structure of public administration 2 -

2 2.5 3

2 2

2 1

2 2

1 1

3 3

3 3

In the organization of water management 2 - 2

3 3

1.5 3

2 2

2 2

2 2

2 2

2 2.5


3 3

2 3

3 3

3 2

3 3

3 2

3 3

In applied methods and techniques 3 - 2

2 2.5

3 3

3 3

1 3

3 2

2 2

3 3

In budgets to be spent 1 1 1

1 1.5

0 0

1 1

1 1

1 1

0.5 -

2 2

In culture 2 1 3

2 2

1 1

3 1

1 1

1 1

2 2

n.r. n.r.

In language 2 - 3

2.5 3

2 2

1 1

1 2

3 3

3 3

n.r. n.r.

Other differences - - - - - - - - - Questions 1e + 2e

Characteristics in the profile T D D D D N N N N He or she is an experienced process manager 2.5

2.5 2.5 2

3 2.5

2 1.5

2 3

3 3

1 2

3 3

2 3

He or she can handle differences between participants

3 3

2 2

2.5 2.5

2 2

2 2

2 2

3 3

3 3

3 3

He or she can motivate people 2 2

2 2

2 2

2.5 2

2 3

1 2

1 1

2 2

2 3

He or she possesses a fair amount of knowledge about change

3 3

2 2

2 2

2 2

2 2

1 2

3 3

2 2

2 2

He or she has experience with leading programs and projects in complex civil and administrative

3 2

2 2

3 1

2 2

2 2

2 2

2 2

3 2

3 3

236

environments He or she possesses sufficient knowledge regarding and insight in the industry, to be able to 'further' possible issues for joint policies.

3 3

2 1

2.5 1

2.5 3

2 3

2 2

3 2

2 1.5

3 3

Other aspects + + + + - - - + -

237

8.1 List of interviewees (case C) The interviewed pioneers

- Dhr. R. Renner Engineering agency DHV Amersfoort Project leader Netherlands, as well as General Project leader

- Dhr. D. Jansen NWP Planungsgesellschaft Oldenburg Project leader Germany


- Dhr. W. Wolthuis Water Board Velt & Vecht Coevorden Dike warden The administrator most directly involved with the GVV project

- Dhr. R. Schuiling Water Board Velt & Vecht Coevorden Secretaris-directeur Member of board of principals

- Dhr. H. van der Werf Province of Overijssel Zwolle Adjunct-hoofd eenheid Ruimte Member of cross-border steering group as well as member of board of principals until the end of 2007

- Dhr. H. Kloosterboer

Water Board Groot Salland Zwolle Coordinator Vecht Member of cross-border steering group from May 2008

- Dhr. H.W. Schwarz

238

Landkreis Grafschaft Bentheim Nordhorn Erster Kreisrat Member of board of principals as well as writer for German side

- Mevr. D. Altenhofen Niedersächsischer Landesbetrieb für Wasserwirtschaft, Küsten-und Naturschutz (Lower Saxony State Corporation for Water Management and Conservation of Coast and Nature) Meppen Betriebsstellenleiterin Member of board of principals from mid 2008

- Dhr. A. Schulze Elfringhoff

Kreis Steinfurt Steinfurt Amtsleiter Umweltamt Member of board of principals

- Dhr. M. Eberle Currently: Niedersächsisches Ministerium für Umwelt und Klimaschutz (Lower Saxony Ministry for the Protection of the Environment and Climate) Hannover Ministerialrat und Referatsleiter Until May 2008: Niedersächsischer Landesbetrieb für Wasserwirtschaft, Küsten-und Naturschutz (Lower Saxony State Corporation for Water Management and Conservation of Coast and Nature) Meppen Betriebsstellenleiter Member of board of principals until May 2008

239

8.2 Questionnaire used in the first interview round (case C) Name : ……………………………………. Explanation This questionnaire is used for the case study relating to the establishment of the German-Dutch Vision on the Vecht (case study C). The case study in question is aimed at the way cross-border cooperation between regional parties involved has been established in the work area at hand, and how further development was driven. Case study C applies to the period 2007 until mid 2009. This case is used as an example of a situation in which regional participants on both sides of the border participate voluntarily in a cooperative partnership, which originated in the region and in which awareness of mutual opportunities works as a stimulus for cooperation. For clarity I would like to point out that this case study is aimed at the development of cross-border cooperative partnerships and it is not intended as evaluation of the way any of the organizations or persons involved have been functioning. The paragraph 'Anonymity and confidentiality' of the research protocol, discusses in detail what the approach for anonymity of the persons involved and confidentiality of the information obtained, consists of. Please answer the questions using the following rating scale. Of no importance 0 points



Possible parts of the objective of this case Importance Arriving at one coherent target from the source to the mouth of the river Vecht 0/1/2//37= Establishing clear principles for land development along the river Vecht, from the source to its mouth

0/1/2//3

Creating sustainable cooperation between the parties in the German-Dutch Vechtdal 0/1/2//3 Developing concrete German, Dutch and cross-border projects 0/1/2//3 Obtaining subsidised funds 0/1/2//3 Other subjects (please provide these and add a rating) 0/1/2//3


240


Important and influenceable issues Importance The way cooperation is established. The proverb "well begun is half done" applies, where 'well begun' represents performing an initial thorough orientation, finding the right partners, further development of plans and arranging the necessary finance.

0/1/2//3 The way further development of cooperation is managed. The key component in this respect is to ensure that 'all pawns know their moves and do it right'. It is also important to arrange the organization in such a way that everyone agrees and to ensure that the necessary resources are available.

0/1/2//3 The way differences were addressed. This could include the differences in the methods and techniques within the participating countries and also the various approaches in organizing water management in the participating countries, but also cultural differences and variations in budgets to be spent (in short the differences as described in question 1d).

0/1/2//3 The way possible issues for joint policies were addressed. In order not to miss any opportunities, possible issues for joint policy need to be known in time and also need to be 'rolled out' professionally.

0/1/2//3 The way administrators were involved. In order to achieve a stable working relationship and results that also will be endorsed by administrative managers, the managers involved need to be informed timely and properly.

0/1/2//3 Other subjects (please provide these and add a rating) 0/1/2//3

Question 1c Being a pioneer for the cooperative partnerships means being able to handle various people and organizations. Many strategies are available to encourage people to take certain actions you feel are necessary. Below three strategies are described. Can you indicate what degree of importance you would consider these strategies to have been for your actions in this case?


0/1/2//3


0/1/2//3

241


0/1/2//3


0/1/2//3


0/1/2//3


0/1/2//3



0/1/2//3 The organization of water management. Should the initiator have no knowledge of the organization of water management on the other side of the border, chances are that in the initial phase a considerable amount of time is wasted because consultations took place with parties who were not the final partners. It may also cause parties that were contacted at a later stage feel denied even though they are included in the partnership at that later stage.

0/1/2//3 Knowledge of administrative matters at the other participants. Because regional administrative matters on the other side of the border often fail to arrive through regular channels, it is difficult to keep up with the administrative affairs and their effects at participants from the other side of the border.

0/1/2//3 Applied methods and techniques. Cross-border cooperation does not always guarantee that measuring methods, analytical techniques and interpretive frameworks are compatible, because the individual parties must continue to comply with the relevant national / federal regulations. In some cases it is very difficult to compare measured and / or interpreted values.

0/1/2//3

242


0/1/2//3


0/1/2//3 Language. Language problems can cause people to misunderstand. Language problems can also cause people to be cautious in maintaining the necessary contacts. Multilingual cooperation will always require extra time and sometimes money (translation costs, etc.).

0/1/2//3 Other examples (please provide these and add a rating) 0/1/2//3

Question 1e Below the first outline of the profile for pioneers in cooperative partnerships, as this case entails, has been presented. Are you able to use the upper of the two 0/1/2//3-lists to indicate the importance of the characteristics in a case such as this one with respect to the pioneer? Are you able to use the lower of the two 0/1/2//3-lists to indicate the importance of the characteristics in a case such as this one with respect to your actions as pioneer?




0/1/2//3 He or she possesses an extensive amount of knowledge about change 0/1/2//3

0/1/2//3 He or she has experience in establishing and managing further development of cooperative partnerships

0/1/2//3 0/1/2//3

He or she has experience with leading programs and projects in complex civil and administrative environments

0/1/2//3 0/1/2//3

He or she possesses sufficient insight in the industry, to be able to 'further' possible issues for joint policies.

0/1/2//3 0/1/2//3


243

8.3 Questionnaire used in the second interview round (case C) Name : ……………………………………. Explanation This questionnaire is used for the case study relating to the establishment of the German-Dutch Vision on the Vecht (case study C). The case study in question is aimed at the way cross-border cooperation between regional parties involved has been established in the work area at hand, and how further development was driven. Case study C applies to the period 2007 until mid 2009. This case is used as an example of a situation in which regional participants on both sides of the border participate voluntarily in a cooperative partnership, which originated in the region and in which awareness of mutual opportunities works as a stimulus for cooperation. For clarity I would like to point out that this case study is aimed at the development of cross-border cooperative partnerships and it is not intended as evaluation of the way any of the organizations or persons involved have been functioning. The paragraph 'Anonymity and confidentiality' of the research protocol, discusses in detail what the approach for anonymity of the persons involved and confidentiality of the information obtained, consists of. Please answer the questions using the following rating scale. Of no importance 0 points


Question 1a Below you will find a number of subjects that could be considered as (part of) the objective of this case. Are you able to use the upper of the two 0/1/2//3-lists to indicate the importance of these subjects for you? Are you able to use the lower of the two 0/1/2//3-lists to indicate the importance of the subjects for the actions of the pioneers in the case of the German-Dutch Vision on the Vecht?

Possible parts of the objective of this case Importance Arriving at one coherent target from the source to the mouth of the river Vecht 0/1/2//37>

0/1/2//3 Establishing clear principles for land development along the river Vecht, from the source to its mouth

0/1/2//3 0/1/2//3

Creating sustainable cooperation between the parties in the German-Dutch Vechtdal 0/1/2//3 0/1/2//3

Developing concrete German, Dutch and cross-border projects 0/1/2//3


244

0/1/2//3 Obtaining subsidised funds 0/1/2//3

0/1/2//3 Other subjects (please provide these and indicate the importance) 0/1/2//3

Question 2b In a case like this, many issues are important. The pioneer of the cooperative partnership might not be able to influence all of them. Below a number of subjects are listed which have been deemed important to this case and which can be influenced by the pioneer. Are you able to use the upper of the two 0/1/2//3-lists to indicate the importance of the subjects in a case such as this one with respect to the pioneer? Are you able to use the lower of the two 0/1/2//3-lists to indicate the importance of the various subjects for the actions of the pioneer in the case of the German-Dutch Vision on the Vecht?

Important and influenceable issues Importance The way cooperation is established. The proverb "well begun is half done" applies, where 'well begun' represents performing an initial thorough orientation, finding the right partners, further development of plans and arranging the necessary finance.

0/1/2//3 0/1/2//3

The way further development of cooperation is managed. The key component in this respect is to ensure that 'all pawns know their moves and do it right'. It is also important to arrange the organization in such a way that everyone agrees and to ensure that the necessary resources are available.

0/1/2//3 0/1/2//3


0/1/2//3 0/1/2//3

The way possible issues for joint policies were addressed. In order not to miss any opportunities, possible issues for joint policy need to be known in time and also need to be 'rolled out' professionally.

0/1/2//3 0/1/2//3

The way administrators were involved. In order to achieve a stable working relationship and results that also will be endorsed by administrative managers, the managers involved need to be informed timely and properly.

0/1/2//3 0/1/2//3

Other subjects (please provide these and add a rating) 0/1/2//3 Question 2c Being a pioneer for the cooperative partnerships means being able to handle various people and organizations. Many strategies are available to the pioneer in order to encourage people to take certain actions he or she feels are necessary. Below three strategies are described. Are you able to use the upper of the two 0/1/2//3-lists to indicate the importance of the strategies in a case such as this one for the actions of the pioneer? Are you able to use the lower of the two 0/1/2//3-lists to indicate the importance of the various strategies for the actions of the pioneer in the case of the German-Dutch Vision on the Vecht?

245


0/1/2//3 0/1/2//3


0/1/2//3 0/1/2//3


0/1/2//3 0/1/2//3


0/1/2//3 0/1/2//3


0/1/2//3 0/1/2//3


0/1/2//3 0/1/2//3



0/1/2//3 0/1/2//3


0/1/2//3 0/1/2//3

246


0/1/2//3 0/1/2//3


0/1/2//3 0/1/2//3


0/1/2//3 0/1/2//3


0/1/2//3 0/1/2//3


0/1/2//3 0/1/2//3

Other examples (please provide these and add a rating) 0/1/2//3

Question 2e Below the first outline of the profile for pioneers in cooperative partnerships, as this case entails, has been presented. Are you able to use the upper of the two 0/1/2//3-lists to indicate the importance of the characteristics in a case such as this one with respect to the pioneer? Are you able to use the lower of the two 0/1/2//3-lists to indicate the importance of the various characteristics for the actions of the pioneer in this case?




0/1/2//3 He or she possesses an extensive amount of knowledge about change 0/1/2//3

0/1/2//3 He or she has experience in establishing and managing further development of cooperative partnerships

0/1/2//3 0/1/2//3

He or she has experience with leading programs and projects in complex civil and administrative environments

0/1/2//3 0/1/2//3

He or she possesses sufficient insight in the industry, to be able to 'further' possible issues for joint policies.

0/1/2//3 0/1/2//3


247

8.4 Final results of the first two interview rounds (case C) Explanation: T = trekkers (pioneers), D = deelnemer van Duitse zijde (German participant) and N = deelnemer van Nederlandse zijde (Dutch participant);

The upper part of the two 0/1/2//3-lines indicate the importance of the various subjects for the actions of the pioneer . The lower part of the two 0/1/2//3-lines indicate how important the various issues have been according to the participants in question c.q. how important the various issues should have been for a pioneer in a case like this according to the participants in question.

Rating: of no importance = 0 points, of limited importance = 1 point, of average importance = 2 points and of major importance = 3 points. The reference n.r. can be read as 'not relevant'.

Questions 1a + 2a Possible parts of the objective T D D D D N N N N Arriving at one coherent target from the source to the mouth of the river Vecht

3 3 2

2 2

3 3

3 3

2 3

3 2

2.5 3

3 3

Establishing clear principles for land development along the river Vecht

3 3 1

- -

3 3

2 3

2 3

2 2

2 2

2 2

Creating sustainable cooperation between the parties in the German-Dutch Vechtdal

3 2 3

2.5 2.5

3 3

3 3

3 3

3 3

3 3

2 3

Developing concrete German, Dutch and cross-border projects

3 3 2

3 2

3 3

3 3

2 2

3 3

1 3

3 3

Obtaining grants or subsidised funds for cross-border projects

1.5 2.5 3

3 3

1 3

3 3

1 1

1 1

1 1

1 2

Other issues - + - - + - - + - Questions 1b + 2b

Important and influenceable issues T D D D D N N N N The way cooperation is established 3 -

3 3 3

3 3

3 3

2 2

3 3

3 3

3 3

The way further development is driven 3 3 3

2.5 2

3 3

3 3

2 3

3 2.5

2 2

3 3

The way possible issues for joint policies were addressed

3 2.5 2

2 2

2.5 3

3 3

2 2

3 3

1 3

2 3

The way administrators were involved 1 - 3

3 3

3 3

2 3

1.5 3

3 3

3 3

1 3

The way differences were addressed 2 3 3

3 3

3 3

3 3

3 3

3 3

3 3

n.r. 2

Other issues - - - - - - - - +

248

Questions 1c + 2c

Strategies T D D D D N N N N Connect 3 3

3 3 2

- -

3 3

2 3

- -

3 3

- -

Facilitate 3 3 2.5

3 3

3 3

3 3

3 3

3 3

1 3

n.r. 3

Inspire 3 3 3

2 2

3 3

3 3

2 2

3 3

2 3

3 3

Motivate 2 2.5 2.5

1.5 1.5

3 3

- -

1 2

2 2

1 1

n.r. 2

Persuade 2 2 2.5

1 1

3 2

2 2

1.5 2

2 2

2 2

2 2

Apply force 0 0 0

0 0

0 0

0 0

0 0

1 1

2 2

n.r. 0

Other strategies - - - - - - - - - Questions 1d + 2d

Differences T D D D D N N N N In the structure of public administration 2.5

3 3

1.5 1

2 3

3 3

2 2

3 3

3 3

2.5 3

In the organization of water management 3 3 3

1 1.5

3 3

3 3

2 3

3 3

3 3

2 2


2 2

2 2

1 2

1 1

3 3

1.5 2

- 3

In applied methods and techniques 2 1 1

1 1

3 3

0 0

2 2

1 1

0.5 1

n.r. 2

In budgets to be spent 1 - 3

3 3

3 3

3 3

2 2

3 3

2 2

3 3

In culture 3 3 3

2 2

3 3

3 3

1 2

3 3

3 3

n.r. 3

In language 3 2 2

2.5 2.5

2 3

1 1

2 3

2 2

2.5 3

n.r. 2

Other differences + - - - - + + - -

249

Questions 1e + 2e

Characteristics in the profile T D D D D N N N N Experienced process manager 1-2

3 3 3

2.5 2.5

3 3

3 3

2 3

3 3

2 3

n.r. 3

Is able to handle differences between participants

2 3

3 2.5

2.5 2.5

3 3

3 3

3 3

3 3

1.5 3

n.r. 3

Can motivate people 2 3

3 3

2 2

3 3

3 3

2 2

3 3

- 3

n.r. 2

Possesses an extensive amount of understanding in change

1 2

3 3

3 3

3 3

3 3

2 3

3 3

2 3

n.r. 3

Has experience in establishing and managing further development of cooperative partnerships

1-3 3

2.5 2

3 1

3 3

2 2

2 2

3 3

1.5 3

n.r. 3

Has experience with leading programs and projects in complex civil and administrative environments

1-3 3

2.5 2.5

2 2

3 3

3 3

3 3

3 3

2 3

n.r. 2

Possesses sufficient understanding of the industry to be able to 'further' issues for joint policies

3 3

1 1

0 0

3 3

3 3

1 1

1.5 2

2 2

n.r. 2

Other aspects + - - - + + + - -

250

9.1 Case study D: Cross-border Integral Student Support services

1 Introduction

At the end of the nineties/early 2000 the secondary school education system in Flanders (Belgium) and the Netherlands were in great need of broadening student support services. This was due to the fact that certain categories of students had a hard time moving through the system and that the percentage of drop-outs was growing.

In order to answer to these needs, many schools put more efforts in 'supporting' their students. Some schools started at 'the top' by establishing a mission or vision and translating this to the people who had to get the job done: the teachers in the classrooms. Others started at the operational persons and developed a vision from the workplace, translating this to daily educational practices.

For both approaches it is deemed important that the teachers involved would develop knowledge, understanding, skills and attitudes which they could subsequently deploy in educational practice and for guiding students. The teachers involved often took part in courses and training that would enhance their knowledge and skills, making them better equipped to handle students with educational and/or behavioural problems or to extend their knowledge on coordination and policies regarding support and care. However, many schools were not ready for the changes the teachers were supposed to initiate as result of the courses and training they had attended (Kleijnen & Van den Broeck, 2004 & 2005). This resulted in disappointment and disillusion of the teachers involved and they had either the choice of going back to the old style of working or leaving and finding other employment.

In order to change this, a three-year cross-border project started in 2002 aimed at supporting and developing integral student support services in schools for secondary education in Flanders and the Netherlands, the so-called GIL-project. Case study D pertains to the GIL-project, whereby the acronym GIL stands for Grensoverschrijdende Integrale Leerlingenzorg (Cross-border Integral Student Support services), during the period 2002-2005.

2 Description of the context

In the description of the context the Contextual Interaction Theory of Bressers (2009) is used, as referred to in paragraph 4.5. This theory organizes the context and describes three lines along which influences from the context can take place. The description of the context is derived of the two above-mentioned books by Kleijnen & Van den Broeck, unless otherwise noted.

Specific context

Objectives of the cooperative partnership. The objective of the GIL-project is to stimulate integral student support services in secondary schools in the Netherlands and Flanders. It is not specifically aimed at vulnerable students but at every student and it focusses on professionalization of teachers in offering adaptive education. In this process the board of directors and specialists are important supporters and facilitators. Within the GIL-project 'support and care' are seen as promoting the development of students as well as teachers.

251

Four Flemish and four Dutch schools participated in the project. In the years before the GIL-project, clear developments had been initiated in the Netherlands, in which schools were 'developing' and 'implementing' from their own context. During the same time in Flanders, the focus was mostly on quality assurance and measurement by means of self-evaluation. The approach of the GIL-project was to get the schools on both sides of the border in contact with each other and have them develop procedures and products that would enable 'learning exchange' which would otherwise not be possible within national borders.

Available tools. In each participating school the existing situation was the starting point. The existing support for students was thoroughly mapped out and evaluated in terms of quality measurements. Points for improvement were discussed and each school selected a specific development objective. It soon became apparent that certain schools had chosen the same route. These were brought in contact with each other during the second - and especially during the third - year. On these bilateral meeting days visions and developments were discussed and respective documents were mutually addressed.

By means of cyclic measurements based on self-evaluation as well process and product oriented evaluations, changes were adjusted and optimized. The products, developed tools and deliberations associated with the developments were made available for schools who wanted to use these insights. The two books by Kleijnen en Van den Broeck (2004, 2005) and the accompanying DVD and CD-rom are available for schools who want to follow similar pathways and take advantage of the development journey experienced by the participants of the GIL-project.

Available resources. The budget for this project was ! 600.000 and came partially from INTERREG III funding (border region Flanders-Netherlands, sub-region Benelux-Central region) and resources of the province of Antwerp and Fontys OSO (a higher education institute for continuing professional development in education), a department in Fontys University of Applied Sciences in Tilburg (Final report, 2005). The participating schools invested their hours into the project.

Current agreements on time. The project ran from April 2002 until October 2005.

Structural context

Social and administrative scale levels. In the current context Flanders is the northern state of Belgium with its own government and parliament and this was also the case in 2002 when the GIL-project started. Flanders and the Netherlands have similar structures in public administration with three governing layers: the state, the province and the municipality.

In Flanders the term 'educational net' is used to subdivide schools and in addition they work from the principle of 'organizing authority'. The organizing authority is the entity who has legal responsibility for the quality of the educational system. Furthermore we find two net(work)s: the public educational system and free education. The public educational system consists of public schools controlled by the state, province or municipality as organizing authority. In free education we find schools founded on ideological, religious or didactic backgrounds, organized by non-governmental entities. The Flemish Ministry of Education and Training is in charge of the quality of the education provided. Public schools are financed by the government, while free education schools are mostly subsidized by the government.

252

In the Netherlands the situation is fairly similar, with public and general-special schools. Public education is run by either the state or municipality as 'organizing authority', and not the province as in Flanders. In general-special education we find schools founded on ideological, religious or didactic backgrounds, organized by non-governmental entities. The Dutch Ministry of Education, Culture and Science is in charge of the quality of the education provided. Public schools are financed by the government, while general-special schools are mostly subsidized by the government.

Networks and its actors. The most important network in this case study is comprised of the parties involved in the GIL-project.

First of all these are the eight schools involved in the project. On the Flemish side these are the PITO (Provincial institute for technical education) in Mechelen, the PITO in Stabroek (near Antwerp), the Provincial Middle School in Stabroek and the PIVA (Provincial institute for leisure and food studies) in Antwerp. The Dutch contingent was the school for vocational education of the Terra Nigra in Maastricht, the VMBO (pre-vocational secundary education) of the Hooghuislyceum in Oss, the Vocational School of the Pius-X-college in Bladel and the OrthoPedagogic Didactic Centre St.-Michaël in Maastricht.

Other important actors were the financing and supporting stakeholders. As mentioned before, financial support was provided by INTERREG-III, the province of Antwerp and Fontys OSO, who also offers courses at the University of Antwerp. In addition to its role as financier, the Fontys University of Applied Sciences was also responsible for professionalising, development of materials and tools, as well as logistic support for the project (Final report, 2005).

And last but not least, we have the initiators of this cross-border cooperative partnership. These are one of the scientific employees of Fontys OSO and the former adjunct-director of the PITO Stabroek. They did not only initiate the implementation of the project but also held joint responsibility as project leaders. In case they needed support they were able to consult the scientific guidance group of the University of Antwerp and the Fontys University of Applied Sciences.

Problem perceptions and goal ambitions. The problem perception of the two initiators and those who sponsored their ideas was that the schools were not ready for the intended changes to be brought about by the teachers who had taken part in training aimed at broadening student support services, which resulted in teachers involuntarily going back to the old style of working or leaving and finding other employment. Goal ambition was to stimulate integral student support services in secondary schools in the Netherlands and Flanders.

The problem perceptions and goal ambitions of the participating schools were mainly related to their individual situations and were therefore reasonably divers. As far as problem perceptions and goal ambitions were concerned, there was no clear division between Flemish and Dutch schools.

Strategies and tools. Within the GIL-project two important strategic choices were eminent. First of all the choice was explicitly made to develop the project based on a profound vision on student support services. This implies that this explicit vision needed to be developed before the project started. Secondly, they opted to use the differences as foundation in order to be able to learn from each other

253

in the most optimal way possible. Choosing the cross-border approach is in fact a choice for a method to include (even) more differences.

Organisations and resources for implementation. Previously in this paragraph we mentioned that the participating schools had invested their hours as contribution to the project. The schools were intensively involved in the implementation of the project. Each school had an internal steering group consisting of teachers, support coordinators and management members who managed the development process and adjusted it whenever and wherever needed. Another important link in the implementation was Fontys OSO (a higher education institute for continuing professional development in education), a department in Fontys University of Applied Sciences.

Broader context

Politics, economics, culture and technology The selection policy for connecting schools to the GIL-project defined the broad context of the project. "Schools that will be connected to the project will be selected based on well-defined criteria such as specific learning status, high concentration of educational or behavioural problems or a large populations of non-native students. Comprehensive schools in which various learning levels are represented will also be addressed" (Final report, 2005). The last part of the nineties / early 2000 was in fact a prosperous and opportunity-rich time. This could also have contributed to the fact that students had a hard time moving through the system and that the percentage of drop-outs was growing, as students in these times tend to choose secondary education, sometimes as result of pressure by their parents. When it becomes clear that they are not in the right place, they will 'fall down' to technical or vocational education.


During the time span 2002 - 2005 there was no special influence from the context (Van den Broeck, oral information).

3 Further description of the case

The GIL-project was established with the help of two parallel implementation pathways, supported by scientific research. The first implementation path was aimed at effecting and following up on integral student support services within the different school structures. The duration was three years. The second implementation path was aimed at measuring the effects of the performance of the first path. The duration was also three years. Parallel to the two implementation pathways a mode 2 action-oriented research study was set up intended to support the processes scientifically (Final report, 2005). Figure 1 presents an overview of the project architecture.

254

Figure 1 Overview of the project architecture (Final report, 2005)

The results consisted of implementing, following up and evaluating actions related to student support services at the level of student, teacher and school policy.

In terms of the development characteristic described in figure 5.3, the cross-border regional cooperation within the context of the GIL-project is ranked in phase 2, exchange of knowledge for learning with and from each other.

About pioneering

In the case of the GIL-project, the pioneers were Flemish and Dutch. These roles were fulfilled by both project leaders, c.q. initiators of the project. The Flemish pioneer was the former adjunct-director of the PITO Stabroek and the Dutch pioneer was a scientific employee of Fontys OSO.

Some quotes from Kleijnen & Van den Broeck (2005)

"The GIL-project started in 2002 as result of the need for development of support and care. The cause and the objective were already described extensively... It may be obvious that establishing a project of this proportion not always took place smoothly; many considered this a cumbersome search for improvement. The resistance we met with should not be underestimated either."

255

"For three years, in eight Flemish and Dutch schools the objective of central focus on embedding student support for all students in secondary school systems, had been the subject of hard work. The development was mostly generated from the workplace or - in other cases - from the top and was always aimed at involving teachers. Support and care for students had to be brought back into the classroom. By means of personal development and the associated developmental research based on measuring effects, knowledge and skills were gained which aided in optimizing class participation.

Each school also had a team of 'specialists' available, who aimed their efforts at supporting teachers in their strive for improvement of the learning process and the socio-emotional development of their students.

It requires a tremendous amount of effort from all actors within a project that starts with the people who have to get the job done of promoting development that starts at 'workplace' level. In addition it also requires a considerable amount of time. Therefore we should see this project as initiating step to renewal and improvement. After three years we find stimuli and certain intentions that need further evolution.

Thanks to the GIL-project we were able to join in getting changes done. Within the project a great amount of time was spent on peer consultation (also called 'intervision'), exchange of experiences and careful research-oriented approaches. Schools soon found out that they were able to learn from each other. This need was answered by external meetings and bilateral school exchange programs."

"The efforts of all involved should be rewarded by exploring which generic patterns emerge and what the project could contribute to further development of knowledge and skills suitable to be used and benefited from by teachers. As so many have given their input (one day we will find out how many), we now have a host of materials to be conquered and all of it is for the honour and glory of the students for whom we have taking all these actions."

As referred to in the description of the field work in paragraph 8.4, case study D was also cause to interview the Flemish pioneer of the GIL-project. You will find some of his statements in the section below.

Some statements from the interview

The entire project plan was written together, as far as the contents and the financial part. It took a tremendous amount of work because neither of us had experience in project development and design, and in addition the prerequisites for INTERREG were extremely demanding. The advantage was that it made us think thoroughly and deeply on what we wanted to achieve and mostly on where the cross-border added value could be found.

Our motives as pioneers were divergent to say the least. I was oriented at work environment level, I wanted improvement in the organization within our own work environment. My fellow Dutch pioneer on the other hand took a meta-level approach, she wanted to find out how the quality of action research, developmental research of the workplace, would fit in.

256

Question: Did the start of the project include a joint statement declaring the intention of producing joint cross-border policies on integral student support services? Answer: Yes, but the joint and project-oriented element only resulted in layered results. Everyone was able to find their spot in the total picture and could see 'where can I go from where I stand now'.

The choice for a cross-border setting emerged for the sake of diversity within the framework, everything, both politics and cultures with respect to the educational worlds, were different. The entire structure of education is different, although we are close neighbours there is still no real comparison possible as far as educational organization is concerned. We are much more politically oriented than the Netherlands. Also more small-scaled. The schools are comparable in size, but the Netherlands are more associated in networks and what I found remarkable is that management in the Netherlands are outside of the schools, they have very little to do inside the schools. That would be unthinkable here, the door to the board room is always open.

Another pitfall was the language. When addressing people in other languages one needs to be more explicit, but we assumed that Flemish and Dutch were mutually understandable. And that turned out not to be the case at all, we had more cases of different interpretations of the same terms as we anticipated.

The meta-research done afterwards was preliminary aimed at the perception of the supporters. What are the options for managing when the developmental goals are first priority? Should you start at workplace level or from the supporter's view, and what would be the role of the teacher and the external supporter?

On cross-border added value

"Assuming that on both sides of the border similar activities take place regarding development and implementation of integral student support services, we have to conclude that the 'cultures' and school structures are very different. This is the added value of bilateral cooperation, in particular regarding broadening the vision on student support services, by learning about each other's specific solutions and developmental processes.

Schools, on both sides of the border, were able to learn from each other's development in the area of care and support and stimulating the educational learning processes. By peer consultation and reflection (in particular across borders), the schools were working on a learning organization that could provide direction and context to their own customized development.

Teachers from both countries who were intensively involved in renewal from day one of the project, became more professional in their actions and in thinking about student support services. They truly appreciated the fact that this took place in a joint framework.

4 Description of the fieldwork

In this research, case study D is used as first exploration on the applicability of the question if the developed theory of action could also be used in other sectors besides water.

257

4.1 Structure of the fieldwork

However, this exploration should be preceded by another question, namely if the GIL-project is at all suited in this respect. As described in paragraph 1.2, three levels of cooperation are distinguished, in accordance with Imperial (2005), which are cooperation at operational level, policy-oriented level and organizational level, and this research focuses mainly on cooperation at policy-oriented level. Therefore the initial question would be if the GIL-project involves cooperation at policy-oriented level. The answer to this question is a partial yes. The participating Flemish and Dutch schools did not actively pursue to achieve joint policies for integral student support services, but did develop - more or less - joint policies adjusted for the individual schools. The remaining part of the GIL-project could be considered cooperation at operational level.

Now that it is clear that the initial prerequisites are met, the first exploration can be done with the help of the GIL-project into answering the question if the developed theory of action would be applicable to other sectors than water. First we need to establish if case study D is similar to one of the three scenarios for which the theory of action was differentiated in paragraph 5.5. From the interview with the Flemish pioneer of the GIL-project described in the following paragraph, we can conclude that this seems to be the case. As cross-border regional cooperative partnership, the GIL-project appears to be highly similar to scenario c as described in paragraph 5.5.1: "the situation in which regional participants on both sides of the border participate voluntarily in a cooperative partnership, which originated in the region and in which awareness of more or less mutual opportunities works as a stimulus for cooperation."

The next question is the focus of the next paragraph and states: could the theory of action differentiated for scenario c have been applicable to the pioneers of the GIL-project. In order to answer this question, the Flemish pioneer of the GIL-project was interviewed, the information on the pioneer is available in appendix 9.2. The interview took place in November 2009 and was conducted along a previously sent questionnaire with appendices. The questionnaire is included in appendix 9.3.

If the GIL-project would not have been similar to one of the three scenarios for which the theory of action was differentiated in paragraph 5.5, then the GIL-project would not have been suited to be used for the first exploration into answering the question if the developed theory of action would be applicable to other sectors than water. In this respect it is interesting to obtain insight in the relevance of the scenarios used in this research in other sectors besides water .

In order to obtain this insight an interview was conducted with the 'Grensmakelaar' (comparable with an Ombudsman) who was assigned in 2009 by the Dutch Ministry of Interior Affairs and Kingdomrelations together with the Dutch Secretary of State for European Affairs. Assigning the 'grensmakelaar' was one of the proposals in the 2008 advisory document ‘Besturen over grenzen; Opgave voor alle bestuurslagen’ (Managing across borders; Challenge for all levels of government) by the Raad voor het Openbaar Bestuur (Dutch Council for Public Administration) addressed to both members of government. In the beginning of 2008. both members of government had already made agreements with the border regions to provide additional joint efforts to address bottlenecks in the area of cross-border cooperation. This should result in achieving concrete solutions whereby the state

258

would contribute its resources. The border regions subsequently listed their 'top 3' of bottlenecks as well as the opportunities they wanted to address within this framework. The result was a list with twenty-one bottlenecks. The members of government then assigned a Taskforce Cross-border Cooperation to start work on these bottlenecks.

The 'grensmakelaar' who was interviewed is also the chairman of the Taskforce and has an additional task of mediating in the cooperation between the Dutch border regions and the German and Belgian neighbours for the most urgent bottlenecks. The information on this 'grensmakelaar' can be found in appendix 9.2. The interview took place in December 2009 and was conducted along a previously sent questionnaire which can be found in appendix 9.4.

For both interviews the research protocol as added in appendix 3.3 was sent to the interviewees in advance. This protocol holds the agreements concerning the interview and the way the information is processed. Both interviews were recorded with a tape recorder.

4.2 Questions to be answered

In the interview with the Flemish pioneer of the GIL-project, all three components of the former version of the theory of action differentiated for scenario c, were discussed. They were: 1) designing the cooperative partnership, 2) dealing with the participants of the partnership and 3) addressing the differences along the border.

Ad 1. Paragraph 5.5.1 (see table 5.17) states that in the case of scenario c designing the cooperative partnership applies to all four of the areas of attention as referred to in the theory of action, whereby all four areas of attention are considered of great importance. These four areas of attention are: the way cooperation is established, the way further development of the cooperation is managed, the way possible issues for joint policies are addressed and the way possible impact of administrators is handled. In the interview, the pioneer was asked to what extent these or other areas of attention or factors have been important for her actions in this case. She was also asked if the juggler strategy and the contents of the four areas of attentions were recognizable for her with respect to the GIL-project.

Ad 2. Paragraph 5.3.3 originally stated that, regardless of the scenario in question, there are three types of strategies for dealing with the participants of the cooperative partnership. On account of case studies A, B and C this number was adjusted to the six strategies mentioned in box 5.5 In the interview, the pioneer was asked to what extent these six or other strategies have been important for her actions in this case. She was also asked to give her opinion on the practical guidelines from the theory of action (box 5.6) regarding the way pioneers can apply the various strategies when they have to deal with the participants in the cooperative partnership.

Ad 3. Paragraph 5.3.8 states that, regardless of the scenario in question, addressing differences along the border comes down to addressing seven possible differences along the border. These are differences in the structure of public administration, the organization of the sectors concerned, the knowledge of administrative issues, the applied methods and techniques, the budgets to be spent, and differences in culture and language. In the interview, the pioneer was asked to what extent these or other differences have been important for her actions in this case. She was also asked her opinion on

259

the practical guides presented in box 5.15 regarding the way pioneers can address the above-mentioned differences along the border.

The interview ended with the question whether the theory of action differentiated for scenario c, would have been applicable to the pioneers of this partnership. The approach for this question was based on the following four questions: "What are your thoughts on the theory of action as you have seen it until this point? Has it created order in what you already knew? Have you picked up new things from this? All together useful for pioneers of cooperative partnerships, or not?"

In addition to the questions above, the pioneer was asked if she considered the contents of the theory of action as useful learning material for people in training? Such as students or participants in post-academic courses.

During the interview with the 'grensmakelaar', he was asked about the relevancy of the scenarios used for the differentiation of the theory of action, for other sectors than water.

4.3 Results

Designing the cooperative partnership The pioneer indicates that three out of four of the areas of attention in paragraph 5.5.1 were matters of great importance to her actions in this case. The fourth area of attention, which is the way administrators are involved, was not of any influence at all because there was no elected administrator for the province of Antwerp nor any board members of the Fontys University or participating schools who were involved in the GIL-project in any supervisory functions. The steering group at the upper-right of figure 1 was working at content-oriented level. Basically the contents of the three areas of attention as mentioned above are surely recognizable and as far as the pioneer is concerned logical in its design. The juggler strategy is recognizable from the GIL-project. The pioneer did not indicate other matters regarding designing the cooperative partnership, than the ones mentioned above.

Dealing with participants in the cooperative partnership Of the six strategies mentioned in box 5.5, connecting, facilitating, inspiring and motivating were clearly present in the GIL-project. Persuading and applying force were not in order, the first did not fit an evolution from workplace-level and the latter was not applicable because all schools voluntarily participated. The examples in box 5.6 are highly recognizable for the pioneer. Several of the aforementioned examples are actually applied in the GIL-project. The pioneer was not able to give examples that were used in the case but were not yet included in box 5.6.

Addressing differences along the border Paragraph 5.3.8 states that, regardless of the scenario in question, addressing differences along the border comes down to addressing seven possible differences along the border. These are differences in the structure of public administration, the organization of the sectors concerned, the knowledge of administrative issues, the applied methods and techniques, the budgets to be spent, and differences in culture and language. From the interview we can conclude that differences in the organization of the educational sector, differences in the applied methods and techniques and differences in culture and in

260

language, all were aspects that were of influence in the GIL-project. During the interviews no other differences were proposed than those put forward.

The examples in box 5.15, of how pioneers might address those differences along the border, are significantly recognized by the pioneer. Several of the aforementioned examples are actually applied in this case. The pioneer was not able to give examples that were used in the case but were not yet included in paragraph 5.3.8. The strategy elaborated in paragraph 5.3.8 concerning providing transparency, neutralizing and bridging where possible is qualified by the pioneer as ‘clear’, in which the pioneer does indicate that bridging was not possible in the GIL-project because the pioneers did not have any influence on higher echelons.

Applicability of the theory of action The interview ended with the question whether the theory of action differentiated for scenario c, would have been applicable to the pioneers of this cooperative partnership. The approach for this question was based on the following four questions: "What are your thoughts on the theory of action as you have seen it until this point? Has it created order in what you already knew? Have you picked up new things from this? Altogether useful or not?"

Regarding the theory of action the pioneer indicates "… I do not want to be belittling, but these type of articles are often the best, not some unrelated story, but making the things that I intuitively knew already beforehand clear and explicit. Most certainly useful, a very clear and transparent story that makes it visible: this is the way it can work, provided you take the right steps."

Relevance of the used scenarios in other sectors Below is described, for each scenario for which the theory of action was differentiated, if these scenarios apply to other sectors than water, according to the daily practice of the interviewed 'grensmakelaar'.

Scenario a: this is the situation in which regional participants on both sides of the border participate voluntarily in a cooperative partnership, which is arranged top-down without stimuli for cooperation. This could for instance be periodic consultations, initiated by higher authorities, between regional partners from both sides of the border. In this scenario we assume parties are working together based on the best efforts obligation and as long as there are no stimuli for change, no substantial activities will be realized.

From the interview with the 'grensmakelaar' we can conclude that scenario a does not occur frequently in other sectors than water. This could be influenced by the fact that the 'grensmakelaar' mostly works on issues from the top 3 problem list as indicated by the border regions. To qualify for the top 3 there usually is a combination of stimuli for change and complicated problems for the regional parties involved.

There was no research into the possibility if scenario a occurs outside of the working environment of the 'grensmakelaar'. It is assumed that this does not occur frequently because scenario a implies that there is a cooperative partnership which is controlled from the top. Situations slightly similar to

261

scenario a, could be certain periodical consultations between regional parties or certain meetings in Euregion context.

Scenario b: this is the situation in which regional participants on both sides of the border are obliged to participate in a cooperative partnership which is arranged top-down and in which policy and institutional pressure work as stimuli for cooperation. This could for instance be compulsory cooperation within the framework of European legislation. We assume the parties in this scenario work together based on an obligation for results: in the case of European legislation, this means that the EU will require the result to comply with certain conditions and when these results must be achieved.

A scenario b-like setting occurs at least in the case of external safety and disaster control. In March 1992 the The Convention on the Transboundary Effects of Industrial Accidents was established in Helsinki by the Economic Commission for Europe of the United Nations (UN-ECE). The Convention mandates the Netherlands to inform Germany and Belgium on companies who might pose a risk for the population and the environment of the affected parties, and vice versa. Companies within the scope of this Convention are situated in a zone of fifteen kilometres of the border in case of airborne contamination, or within two average flow days in case of water carried contamination. This applies to large (high threshold) BRZO-companies (BRZO = Besluit Risico's Zware Ongelukken (Act on Risks of Major Accidents)). In the Netherlands circa forty of these high threshold companies are included in the Convention (www.infomil.nl).

The neighbouring countries must provide disclosure on the dangers and risks pertaining to possible cross-border consequences for man and environment. This concerns informing and involving municipalities and citizens of the neighbouring country during the procedures for licensing (where the latter group must be informed through pertaining governmental entities). In addition to these aspects, there must be disclosure on the way disaster control will take place. In order to comply as adequately as possible with the requirements of the Convention- i.e. preventing, preparing and avoiding accidents - it is necessary to establish cooperation between governments and governmental services at various levels. Requirements apply to the state, the border provinces, the regional emergency services and the pertaining municipalities and their services (www.infomil.nl).

Scenario c:! this is the situation in which regional participants on both sides of the border participate voluntarily in a cooperative partnership, which originated in the region and in which awareness of more or less mutual opportunities works as a stimulus for cooperation.

Scenario c-like settings seem to occur most frequently. In the case of the 'grensmakelaar', these are the situations in which potential cooperative partnerships do not become operational or existing cooperative partnerships cannot achieve their goals unless they can bridge or neutralize certain critical transitions (see box 5.14). Often these situations end up on the list of the 'grensmakelaar' because regional parties could not achieve this without help at national level. This applies to the following settings: a) cross-border regional labour market, b) cross-border education, c) cross-border public transportation, d) cross-border health care and e) cross-border crime prevention.

262

Ad a. Cross-border regional labour market. Border provinces strive to establish cross-border labour markets to provide for labour needs in their region, as result of growing higher demands by companies and knowledge institutes with regard to knowledge and skills of employees. This also requires cross-border coordination with respect to active cross-border exchange and conciliation on job offers, increased administrative simplification for border commuters and employers, and cross-border recognition of qualifications and diplomas.

Ad b. Cross-border education. A number of universities on both sides of the border would like to join forces in order to achieve a more exclusive Masters Program, which also would provide a positive contribution to the international location environment in the relevant border region. This would require joint and also cross-border coordination with respect to practices regarding enrolment, payment of tuition, accreditation of the programs and the degrees.

Ad c. Cross-border public transportation. The initiative for cross-border regional bus and train transportation originates from the decentralized transportation authorities. The Ministry of Transport and Water Management acts as facilitator, which means, based on well founded plans by the regional transportation authorities, the ministry will cooperate with positive intentions to achieve feasible and concrete improvements. In short: this requires cross-border regional transportation policies aimed at developing feasible and concrete plans.

Ad d. Cross-border health care To obtain a higher level of development two academic hospitals on both sides of the border would like to become one cross-border academic hospital. This would require, for example, cross-border coordination with respect to availability of hospital care, recognition of training, recognition of care programs and revenues from patients. Especially because this concerns academic hospitals, comprehensive coordination in a national context will be absolutely necessary. But in fact, the example represents a situation in which cross-border activities are established founded on the expectation that this will enhance developmental potential, such as cross-border care centres or cross-border (instructional) swimming facilities.

Ad e. Cross-border crime prevention. Border regions are more or less prone to cross-border crime. Both the police force and justice administrations in the border areas put in efforts to establishing cross-border cooperation at regional level. Here we also find that regional partners meet their limits where their regional authority and/or organizational power ends. The national authorities will however reposition their efforts at the directly responsible local and regional responsible entities, as soon as they have straightened out the bumps in the road. This too requires cross-border coordination at regional level.

In the interview, the 'grensmakelaar' regularly points out that often the assumption is made that once higher authorities act on the requests of regional parties, the desired results are like low hanging fruits. In daily practice it often turns out that once a bumps is straightened, the next one is just around the corner. The 'grensmakelaar' sees this as part of the territory: "when you're at sea and you can still see the horizon at the end of the day, it doesn't mean you did not make any progress!".

There was no research into the possibility if scenario b and c occurr outside of the working environment of the 'grensmakelaar'.

263

5 Conclusions

The question in this case study is whether the theory of action differentiated for scenario c, would have been applicable to the pioneers of this cooperative partnership. This question was explored along two routes.

a) In the first place the different parts of the theory of action differentiated version for scenario c were explored for a case complying with scenario c, namely the cross-border regional cooperative partnerships within the GIL-project. The reason for this approach was the assumption that the statement regarding the applicability of the theory of action differentiated for scenario c would have been stronger in the case of the GIL-project when the various parts of the theory of action differentiated for scenario c would be in line with the findings in this case.

b) Secondly the central question in this case study was presented directly to the pioneer using these four supporting questions: The supporting questions were: "What are your thoughts on the theory of action as you have seen it until this point? Has it created order in what you already knew? Have you picked up new things from this? Altogether useful or not?" This resulted in a direct response on whether the theory of action differentiated for scenario c would have been applicable to the pioneers of the GIL-project.

Ad a. From the results of this case study we can conclude that the different parts of the theory of action differentiated for scenario c are in line with the findings in the case at hand. As far as conclusions are concerned we can state that 1) there is no reason to adjust the theory of action differentiated for scenario c on specific parts, 2) the statement regarding the applicability of the theory of action differentiated for scenario c made in the next section (Ad b.) gathers mome ntum.

Ad b. From the results of this case study we can conclude that the essential question for this case study can be answered positively. With regard to conclusions we can state that the theory of action differentiated for scenario c could have been applicable to the pioneers during the implementation of the GIL-project. In the preceding sentence we deliberately used the words 'could have been', because this case study is different from the other three case studies in the sense that the participants and the second pioneer were not interviewed.

The single fact that in case of the GIL-project the theory of action differentiated for scenario c could have been applicable does not reveal anything about the possible applicability for other sectors than water. At this point, the conclusion with regard to the theory of action states that based on a preliminary exploration using case study D, there is no reason to assume that this theory could not also be applicable to other sectors than water.

Based on this brief exploration it seems that of the three scenarios for which the theory of action was differentiated so far, at least scenarios b and c occur in other sectors than water. Testing the applicability of the theory of action differentiated for both these scenarios in these sectors would therefore seem possible. The applicability of the theory of action differentiated for scenario a in other sectors than water could possibly be tested based on certain periodical consultations between regional parties or certain meetings in Euregion context.

264

9.2 List of interviewees (Case D) The interviewed pioneer

- Mevr. & G. van den Broeck Currently: PITO (Provincial Institute for Technical Education) Stabroek Director During 2002 - 2005: PITO (Provincial Institute for Technical Education) Stabroek Adjunct-director

The interviewed 'grensmakelaar'

- Dhr. W. van Gelder Currently: Ministry of Interior Affairs and Kingdomrelations / Ministry of Foreign Affairs The Hague Chairman Taskforce Cross-border Cooperation as well as 'Grensmakelaar' During 1992 - 2007: Province Zeeland Middelburg Provincial Governor

265

9.3 Questionnaire used during the interview with the Flemish pioneer (Case D)

Introduction

As objective for my promotion, I have developed a theory of action for pioneers,- in cross-border regional cooperative partnerships. This theory is intended to provide pioneers some guiding principles for the establishment and further development of cross-border regional cooperative partnerships.

Pioneers obviously cannot do this by themselves, but they are expected to be the ones that have the overview and that know which buttons need to be pushed and when. Therefore the theory of action is not only comprised of what the pioneers theoretically should know and be able to do, but also of what actually matters in some featured cases of cross-border regional cooperative partnerships.

Until this moment my research was limited to cross-border water projects. Using the GIL-project I would like to obtain a first impression on the applicability of the theory of action on other sectors than water. In the appendices of this document two water projects are used as examples, and one of them is considerably similar to the GIL-project, namely the project 'Establishment of the German-Dutch Vision on the Vecht'.

Evidently the theory of action assumes that the GIL-project took place within a specific context. The theory of action contains a model which can be used to explore the context and which also describes in what way the project is influenced from the context.

In addition the theory of action assumes that the pioneers who managed the GIL-project for three years, had to divide their focus on four areas of attentions. These areas are aimed at establishing cooperation between the group of eight schools as a whole and are a) establishing cooperation, b) ensuring that all parties involved were doing the right things, c) making sure the cooperative partnership as whole was maintaining the right track and speed, and last but not least d) involving associated administrators and board members.

In the theory of action, the way in which the pioneers divide their attention between four areas of attentions, is referred to as the 'juggler strategy', in analogy with the juggler who has to keep four balls in the air simultaneously.

Cooperation will always be a human effort. That is why the theory of action assumes that the pioneers had to put in every form of effort to keep the participants going and to keep the right course. Within the theory of action there are six strategies available for the pioneers as support for these efforts. There are also examples for each way the six strategies can be applied.

In the case of the GIL-project there was cross-border cooperation, and therefore the pioneers most likely had to deal with differences along the border. For this subject the theory of action distinguishes seven differences which the pioneers could be confronted with. These differences can have a negative

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!18 In this research the term pioneer is used as a kind of collective term for persons involved in the development of cooperative partnerships between organisations and thereby driving, to a greater or lesser extent, the direction of this development. In terms of origin, the pioneer could be originating from within that cooperative partnership, can be hired by the cooperative partnership or can be contracted from outside this realm.

266

effect on the cooperative process if they are not addressed in a timely manner. The theory of action also provides possible solutions and/or directions for solutions in case one or more of the differences mentioned are present within the project.

Questions

1) Is it correct to say that the schools involved have participated voluntarily in the GIL-project? Was there any national involvement in the project? What was the stimulus for cooperation for schools in the GIL-project?

2) The theory of action assumes that the pioneers who managed the GIL-project for three years, had to divide their focus on the four areas of attentions that were mentioned before. Were all four areas of attention mentioned in the GIL-project? Were there other, missing, areas of attention? How important was each area of attention for the success of the GIL-project? How important was each area of attention for the actions of the pioneers?

3) In the theory of action, the way pioneers must divide their attention is compared to juggling four balls. The pioneers have to keep the processes associated with the four areas of attention 'in the air', by switching from one to the other. Do you recognize this from the GIL-project?

4) Would you like to go through chapter 5 with us? Can you use the contents of this paragraph to describe parts of the practices within the GIL-project? And if so, which? Are the contents of this paragraph reason for you to say that if you had known these beforehand, you would have handled things differently?

5) Can you use box 5.5 to indicate if one or more of the six strategies mentioned there were mentioned in the GIL-project? And if so, which? Were there other strategies mentioned?

6) Can you use box 5.6 to indicate if one or more of the examples mentioned there were used in the GIL-project? Were there other examples mentioned?

7) Can you use box 5.13 to indicate if one or more of the seven differences mentioned there related to cooperation along the border were mentioned in the GIL-project? And if so, which? Were there other differences mentioned?

8) Can you use box 5.15 to indicate if one or more of the solutions and/or directions for solutions mentioned there were used in the GIL-project? Were there other solutions mentioned? Can you relate to the strategy of 'providing transparency, neutralizing and bridging where possible' as described in box 5.14?

9) Could you briefly describe the context of the GIL project based on the contextual interaction model as described in paragraph 4.5?

10) Could you indicate if and if so how influence from the context took place during the course of the project?

11) When you look at the theory of action so far, what is your opinion? Has it created order in what you already knew? Have you picked up new things from this? All together useful for pioneers of cooperative partnerships, or not? Could you imagine the contents of this theory of action as worthwhile curriculum for people being educated (Graduate or Post-Graduate or PhD level students)?

267

9.4 Questionnaire used during the interview with the 'grensmakelaar' (Case D)

Introduction As objective for my promotion, I have developed a theory of action for pioneers,. of cross-border regional cooperative partnerships at policy-oriented level. This theory is intended to provide pioneers some guiding principles for the establishment and further development of this type of cross-border regional cooperative partnerships.

Pioneers obviously cannot do this by themselves, but they are expected to be the ones that have the overview and that know which buttons need to be pushed and when. Therefore the theory of action is not only comprised of what the pioneers theoretically should know and be able to do, but also of what actually matters in some featured cases of cross-border regional cooperative partnerships. In my thesis I have therefore differentiated the general theory of action for three characterizing scenarios, referred to as a, b and c. These three scenarios are describe below:

Scenario a: this is the situation in which regional participants on both sides of the border participate voluntarily in a cooperative partnership, which is arranged top-down without stimuli for cooperation. This could for instance be periodic consultations, initiated by higher authorities, between regional partners from both sides of the border. In this scenario we assume parties are working together based on the best efforts obligation and as long as there are no stimuli for change, no substantial activities will be realized.

Scenario b: this is the situation in which regional participants on both sides of the border are obliged to participate in a cooperative partnership which is arranged top-down and in which policy and institutional pressure work as stimuli for cooperation. This could for instance be compulsory cooperation within the framework of European legislation. We assume the parties in this scenario work together based on an obligation for results: in the case of European legislation, this means that the EU will require the result to comply with certain conditions and when these results must be achieved.

Scenario c: this is the situation in which regional participants on both sides of the border participate voluntarily in a cooperative partnership, which originated in the region and in which awareness of more or less mutual opportunities works as a stimulus for cooperation. This could for instance be the possibility of linking cross-border area development to developments in the field of water management.

Up until recently my research was limited to cross-border water projects, such as joint establishment of cross-border management plans for river basins. With the aid of a cross-border cooperative project in the area of student support services involving four Flemish and four Dutch schools, I recently obtained a first impression on the applicability of the theory of action on other sectors than water. !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!19 In this research the term pioneer is used as a kind of collective term for persons involved in the development of cooperative partnerships between organisations and thereby driving, to a greater or lesser extent, the direction of this development. In terms of origin, the pioneer could be originating from within that cooperative partnership, can be hired by the cooperative partnership or can be contracted from outside this realm.

268

From the interview with one of the two pioneers of the project, I concluded that this cooperative partnership had many similarities with scenario c.

For me this means that I can explore the extent in which the theory of action differentiated for scenario c would have been applicable to this project. The question then arises if there are more situations of cross-border cooperation outside the water sector that comply with scenario c? And if so, which sectors do comply with scenario c? And in addition: what about the scenarios a and b?

Or do we find many other different scenarios of cross-border regional cooperative partnerships at policy-oriented levels outside the water sector? In that case I would like to try and differentiate the theory of action for those scenarios. In fact, these are the questions at stake.

I will also provide you with a short description of the theory of action in general. In this theory we assume that the pioneers need to divide their focus on four areas of attention. These areas are a) establishing cooperation, b) ensuring that all parties involved are doing the right contextual things, c) making sure the cooperative partnership as whole is maintaining the right track and speed, and last but not least d) involving associated administrators and possible board members.

In the theory of action, the way in which the pioneers divide their attention between four areas of attentions, is referred to as the 'juggler strategy', in analogy with the juggler who has to keep four balls in the air simultaneously.

Cooperation will always be a human effort. That is why the theory of action assumes that the pioneers had to put in every form of effort to keep the participants going and to keep the right course. Within the theory of action there are six strategies available for the pioneers as support for these efforts. There are also examples for each way the six strategies can be applied.

Because there is cross-border cooperation, the pioneers most likely have to deal with differences along the border. For this subject the theory of action distinguishes seven differences which the pioneers could be confronted with. These differences can have a negative effect on the cooperative process if they are not addressed in a timely manner. The theory of action also provides possible solutions and/or directions for solutions in case one or more of the differences mentioned are present within the project.

So far the preparatory information for the interview. Below the questions are listed again.

Questions

1) Does scenario c occur outside the water sector more often? If so, in which sector(s)?

2) Does scenario a occur outside the water sector? If so, in which sector(s)?

3) The same for scenario b.

4) Or do we find many other different scenarios of cross-border regional cooperative partnerships at policy-oriented levels outside the water sector?

269

10.1 Determining the appropriate legal form

1. Presented tools

Not only which legal forms are applicable but also which of these is most appropriate are questions that require answers beyond general notion. The answers to these questions will depend strongly on the context in which they are put forward. The most important contextual factor pertaining to the question which legal forms could be applicable, are the legal agreements between countries regarding cross-border activities. When asked which of the legal forms are most suitable!the present challenges!are an important contextual factor. Therefore, both questions will have to be addressed per situation. The framework in figure 1 which is developed based on practical experience, will provide pioneers with the tools to answer those questions. Starting point of the framework are the current, prevailing legislation between countries concerning cross-border activities pertaining to the situation, as well as the present challenges.

Figure 1!Framework supporting the choice of most appropriate legal form(s)

The possible applicable legal forms will be derived from joint legislation on cross-border activities in the countries involved. Should countries have no joint legislation on this point, then! non-legally binding forms of cooperation!and!cooperation based on a legal entity under private law of one of the two countries could still be possible . Cooperation based on a legal entity under public law will not be possible.

The desired legal form will follow from the present challenges. The desired legal form is applicable for achieving the present challenges. There is a possibility that multiple legal forms are applicable. It is also possible that!multiple parallel legal forms!are desired or that!with the passage of time other legal

270

forms!are desired. For determining the appropriate legal form literature can sometimes be referenced, in alternative cases present challenges and / or similar situations can be used as supporting argument.

By mirroring the desired legal form to the possible applicable legal forms, it will be clear!which form of cooperation is most appropriate!to address the present challenges.

An example of how the framework could be applied, can be found below, in which the most appropriate legal form for the realization of the cross-border Vision on the Vecht (paragraph 2.3) is determined.

2. The most appropriate legal form for realization of the Vision on the Vecht

Laws between countries (fig. 1, top left)

The Netherlands and Germany have mutually agreed on cross-border legal matters. A broad-based overview of the legal basis for regional cooperation between both countries and possible legal forms based thereon, was published in May 2008 as part of an advice (‘Managing across borders; Challenge for all levels of government’) from the Raad voor het Openbaar Bestuur (Council for Public Gouvernance) to the Ministry of Domestic Affairs.

This report indicates that cross-border regional cooperation between the Netherlands and Germany can be founded on three distinct legal foundations. These include: a. non-legally binding cooperation b. cooperation under private law c. cooperation under public law.

The legal basis for cooperation under public law between Dutch and German regional and local governments in the basin of the river Vecht consists of the so-called Anholt Agreement which was signed on May 23, 1991 between the Netherlands, Germany, North-Rhine Westphalia and Lower-Saxony. This agreement is one of twelve agreements that have been closed based on the so-called Spanish-Portugese Treaty which was agreed upon in 1980 and concerns the European Framework Agreement on cross-border cooperation between territorial communities or authorities. Based on this Framework Agreement! countries are able to close bilateral agreements on cross-border regional cooperation. Cooperation under public law in the area of cross-border regional water management refers to the 1960 Border Treaty as described in paragraph 2.2 (Rob, 2008).

Under the Anholt Agreement most of the organisations involved in the Vecht are authorized to enter the cooperative partnership. However, the water boards are excluded from the Anholt Agreement because they cooperate within the Standing Committee on Boundary Waters, referred to in chapter 2.2. The Anholt Agreement does however provide for the possibility, under certain conditions, to expand the competent organisations to work together with local or regional communities, other legal public entities, as well as private legal entities (Rob, 2008).

271

Below the various legal forms (see figure 1) are discussed related to the various sets of legal principles (Rob, 2008).

Non-legally binding forms of cooperation In case of non-legally binding cooperation, we find various 'legal forms' or better 'instances of cross-border cooperation', ranging from full informal cooperation to cooperation based on fully documented agreements. Informal cross-border cooperation is cooperation across the border stuck in a phase where juridification of processes is not or only slightly possible. Personal contacts are often leading. Flexibility often exists to a large degree, there may be ad hoc cooperation and new projects can be started continuously. The ad hoc nature does not guarantee structural cooperation. Cross-border cooperation based on documented agreements has more structure than full informal cooperation, but is not legally binding and is therefore not enforceable. In comparison: cooperation under private or public law is legally binding and is therefore enforceable. Non-legally binding cooperation is often focused on mutual disclosure, consultation and perhaps coordination of proposed measures. This type of cooperation does not produce a legal entity. An example of non-legally binding cross-border cooperation is the New Hanseatic Interregion (NHI). The NHI is an inter-regional cooperation between the Dutch provinces of Friesland, Groningen, Drenthe, Overijssel and the German states of Lower Saxony and Bremen, which operates under a joint declaration.

Cooperation under private law In the advice written by the Council for Public Governance, cooperation under private law is seen as organisations who are legal entities under the Dutch or German private law. As an example, the oldest known 'euregional' partnership called EUREGIO is registered on the German side as ‘eingetragener Verein (eV)’ (Registered Association), similar to the private foundation under Dutch law. However, the Dutch partners (mainly municipalities) are not formally part of the 'eV'; although they have no formal role, they do have right of speech because they fulfil half of all managerial posts in the 'Vorstand (Executive Board) and the Euregio Council (Governing Board ) and are represented in the General Assembly. The EUREGIO by itself therefore is no cross-border legal entity, the "eV" serves essentially as an umbrella entity but according to the law this only applies in Germany.

Cooperation under public law The Anholt Agreement establishes the foundation for cross-border cooperation under public law, containing a common arrangement in which 1) a public entity is established or 2) a common body is established or 3) no public entity or common body is established, also known as administrative agreement.

Public entity The public entity is the only one of these three entities that posses legal rights. The Anholt Agreement explicitly stipulates that legal right prevails of the contracting state or country where the seat of the public entity is established. This principle also applies to the legal position of the staff working for this public entity. The public entity shall consist of at least two functional units: a general and an executive board. The Anholt Agreement also provides some general rules that should be documented in the common arrangement. The public entity is not authorized to impose binding regulations or obligations, on third parties (citizens, companies, etc.) through general ordinances or decrees.

272

However, the decisions of the cross-border public entity are binding for the participating municipalities, who implement them under due observance of their national laws. As cross-border public body the independent (public) legal entity is also able to own property and manage their own capital, as well as hire staff for their own organisation. As result of the detailed management structure and regulations, this cross-border public legal entity is able to implement solid cross-border cooperation with structure and content. The following Dutch-German cooperative partnerships have established a public entity under the Anholt Agreement: the Ems-Dollard Region (EDR), the Euregion Rhine-Waal, the Euregion Rhine-Meuse-North and Eurode (Kerkrade and Herzogenrath).

Common body The Anholt Agreement requires that the mutual agreement on establishing a cross-border common body, should contain provisions on the task areas, the mode of cooperation within the common body and the seat of office. Where this seat is located determines the question of which domestic law applies. Unlike a public entity the common body has no legally established right. The Anholt Agreement explicitly states that the common body has no power to take decisions which bind the participants or third parties.

Administrative arrangement Finally, the Anholt Agreement permits the option of a common arrangement without establishing a public entity or common body, as far as this is allowed under domestic legislation. This scenario is especially suited for situations where one participant controls certain tasks in name of and according to instructions of other participants, but performing tasks for other participants in their name is explicitly prohibited. The common arrangement should also include rules on safeguarding participants when it comes to mutual liability towards third parties and the conditions to terminate the cooperation.

The European grouping of territorial cooperation (EGTC) The Council for Public Governance refers to the EGTC regulation adopted in 2006 as a novelty, in the sense that governments and agencies from various countries within the European Union now have an opportunity for the first time ever, to unite without signing of any ratified international agreement by national parliaments took place. However, Member States must give their approval for the members originating from their country. The EGTC is an additional form of cross-border cooperation under public law, established to promote the cross-border cooperation within the European Union. A limiting factor of cross-border cooperation under the EGTC Regulation is that the cooperative partnership in question should be aimed at spending of European funds or on a specific project implementation.

Tasks at hand

In the Vision on the Vecht, the future vision has been developed for the river Vecht and the area adjacent to the Vecht, the Vechtdal (valley). This future vision reads (see paragraph 2.3):

"High water and water discharge must be guaranteed, but at each possible location, the Vecht will be restored to a lively, semi-natural lowland river. Were possible, this semi-natural lowland river will have a chance to run freely in the winter flood plain. Distinctive river processes such a meandering, erosion and visible currents will be present.

273

The German and Dutch population of the Vechtdal has expressed their connection to the Vecht. This river is once again being established. Besides this, the Vecht can be more directly experienced due to its new features and improved access options, combined with preservation of the valuable cultural-historical structures. The recovery of the Vecht as semi-natural river, will in this case contribute to the socio-economical development of the Vechtdal.

In 2050 the Vecht will once again flow as a central river through the area, and everyone will be aware of the value of the Vecht and the Vechtdal. The German-Dutch Vechtdal, an area with charisma, authenticity, culture and history, is an area of profound storytelling."

Key stakeholders are citizens, agriculture, recreation, nature and water, as well as local and regional authorities on both sides of the border.

Desired legal form(s)

The explanation for figure 1 states that for determining the appropriate legal form, literature can sometimes be referenced and in alternative cases present challenges and / or similar situations should be used as supporting argument. In the present case literature can be used as references. The realisation of the cross-border Vision on the Vecht could be considered the type of transition process for which Rotmans has developed his!transition theory!(Rotmans, 2006). Additionally we will present some reasons why this is the case. In the first place, 'persistent societal problems' as Rotmans refers to, can be found; these are problems that originated as result of the inherent flaws in the system itself. Flaws in a system are barriers that prevent the system to perform optimally (water management is an example of a system in the Vechtdal where this occurs, other examples in the Vechtdal are spacing and agriculture). Secondly, the widespread and rapid environmental changes from outside force reorientation of thinking and acting (think of the impact climate change has on water management in the Vechtdal). Finally, there is a transition in direction where the government specifically looks for her new role in a complex network society (we see this very clearly in the example listed in chapter 8 for the cooperation program 'Ruimte voor de Vecht' (Space for the Vecht)). In short: we see multiple, complex problems (Rotmans, p.8) and therefore problems involving multiple sectors, containing multiple questions. These are the kind of problems for which the transition theory was primarily intended. Below we will further elaborate on the transition theory.

The transition theory (Rotmans, 2006) The transition theory states that the dynamic of long term structural societal changes can be described and explained through a transition concept. The transition concept is rooted in biology and population dynamics and has been known in several scientific domains for a long time. The transition concept is typically used describe and explain related issues in broad societal changes. In the transition theory, transitions are seen as structural changes in society, originating from interacting and mutually reinforcing developments in economy, culture, technology, institutions and nature and environment. Transitions or societal transformations are gradual changes spanning longer periods of time, at least one generation (25-50 years). The fact that transitions require more time is due to existing boundaries, barriers, institutions and relationships being broken down.

274

Transitions have three dimensions, which are time, scale and nature of the change. These three dimensions are considered successively using a multi-phase transition concept, a multi-level transition concept and a lemniscate transition concept (the latter concept is derived from research on the behaviour of ecosystems). When the aforementioned multi-phase, multi-level and lemniscate transition concepts are linked together, the pattern shown in figure 2 emerges.

Figure 2 The various phases of a transition (Rotmans et al, 2000)

Classification of the different phases will convey a view on direction and speed of the transition, and the extent of the size of changes in the system. Thus providing support for answering the question which phase the transition is going through. In this light we should express two reservations. First of all, there is great uncertainty and complexity making the degree of predictability of the course of a transition in time relatively small. However, predictability is not an end in itself, what matters is that a desired final direction of a transition is indicated and adjusted if necessary. And secondly, it seems the transition curve follows a smooth line, but that is deceptive. In reality, unexpected and intermittent events occur that lead to abrupt changes in society.

In the pre-development phase of a transition, the existing regime often operates as an inhibiting factor: it wants to preserve the existing norms and values, as well as improving existing technologies and current policies. Therefore, the strategy of the existing regime is focused on eliminating new and threatening developments. The! take-off phase! of a transition is achieved when a modulation of the development direction occurs at micro, meso and macro levels. This is often caused by a series of internal and external disturbances as a result of the many efforts to change the system in the pre-development phase. This means that certain innovations at micro level, for example in terms of behaviour, policy or technology may be reinforced by changes at macro level, for example in terms of

275

changes in world view or in macro policies at a global level. So outbreaks (emergent developments) on a micro level might find fertile soil at macro level. But it can also be reversed: a breakthrough at macro level can lead to a series of adaptive and related initiatives at micro level.

During the!acceleration phase!a series of unstoppable and irreversible developments are created, due to interaction of various forces providing feedback in the same direction. At this stage, the regime has a facilitating role by inserting and applying large amounts of capital and innovation. The regime changes as a result of three developments: downward pressure from macro level, upward pressure from the micro level, and progressive insights through self-examination and introspection. Many things change rapidly in this phase, some are even irreversible, which puts tremendous pressure on the existing regime. In this unstable phase, the existing regime must engage in an almost hopeless battle with rebel representatives of the emerging new regime. Gradually the existing regime is broken down and replaced by a new regime. In the stabilization phase the acceleration will diminish and the new order and structure will be built up under the new regime. This, however, is not an ending of the transition, on the contrary, this is the new dynamic balance. Over time, resistance against the new (now current) regime may grow, which can form the seeds for a new transition.

Transition Management Rotmans also discusses the!extent to which!broad social renewal processes can be driven as transition. Transitions are not blueprints following fixed routes and deterministically record what will happen. Rather, they are evolutionary processes that highlight possible development paths, of which direction and pace can be influenced and adjusted. In other words, transitions cannot be driven (managed) in terms of complete control and management, uncertainties are too large and there are too many surprises for this to take place. But transitions can be managed in terms of influence, adaptation and adjustment. In other words, the direction and speed of a transition can indeed be affected. In practice this means creating a social climate in which social innovation can flourish through the right initiatives at the right time. Transition management cannot be cemented into a well-defined roadmap, which is contrary to the co-evolutionary foundation for transition management. Yet, in Rotmans' book some form of ‘phased (steps) plan’ is presented, not as blueprint of steps to be followed, but as roadmap for the search process that needs to be followed. The steps in the transition process are visualized in figure 3.

276

Figure 3 The transition process in steps (Rotmans, 2006)

Through a process of practical learning and learning by learning, knowledge is systematically developed for use in the next round of transitions. This creates a process of continuous learning, experimenting, experiencing, foresighting, feedbacking, learning etc. This results in a gradual adaptation of agendas, perspectives, transition-end images, transition paths and experiments.

To complement what has already been said, a number of quotations from Rotmans (2006) is added below.

1. "Transition management is new, because it includes a new management paradigm, but is also intended to complement to current policies. It is not so much a breach in trends, but more framing the current policy in a long-term sustainability perspective. "

2. "The current policy is based on certainties rather than uncertainties. Uncertainties are still seen as a problem rather than a fact. Because alleged certainties are often false certainties in practice, they will boomerang back as surprises. These surprises, however, are manifestations of increased complexity and thus no real surprises. Transition management assumes uncertainty and uses transition experiments to figure out the nature of these uncertainties. What uncertainties are structural (permanent) and which can be reduced? The assessment of uncertainties changes during the transition process, partly based on learnings through experiments. The adaptive character ('adjusting') of transition management is therefore of great importance: a continuous review of

277

final images and underlying objectives in the light of what has been learned during the transition process. "

3. "Transition management focuses primarily on the so-called 'trendsetters' (or leaders). This group of innovators and risk takers will be most inclined to make new discoveries, take or follow new initiatives or develop alternatives. The regular 'polder' consultations on the other hand, focus on interaction with a large group of established parties. These are different processes with different interests and objectives: they can harm each other, but this is certainly not necessary. Careful design of the transition process can prevent "trendsetter" to be slowed down, while the "followers" feel that they are counteracted or need to keep up too much".

4. "Long-term innovation processes often receive very little buy-in. The general public does not see the value and need for system innovation until faced with symptoms of unsustainability in these systems, e.g. as calamities in the areas of water management and agriculture. The necessary buy-in can also be spread over a longer period of time, and is not a prerequisite in the early stages. Starting the transition process with participants who are open to it, the so-called 'sympatics', makes more sense in those cases. This will enable relatively quick results and results for practical use can be disseminated to a wider audience. Developing a broader buy-in will grow gradually and will become really important once the transition process is set in motion. Political buy-in however, is necessary in terms of legitimacy of the continuing of the transition processes".

5. "It is important to initially select participants based on their individual qualities, skills and innovative ideas. Often participants are sought from influential organisations, institutes and companies. But in general such influential institutions are part of the establishment hampering (consciously or unconsciously) the innovation. Having the current regime (establishment) sneak into the arena is almost inevitable, but it is certainly not the intention that the regime against which the transition is set in motion, should dominate the transition. This is a constant threat, especially when representatives of institutions are substituted on certain occasions. A transition process by itself is not an institutional process but a network process.

6. "A network is a relatively open system that connects a number of relatively closed systems. The latter can be individuals, groups, organisations or institutions. These units must adapt to the increasingly complex society and networks should enable them to do so. In other words, networks are used to increase the adaptive capacity of an individual, a corporation, an organisation or an institution. There are three linked processes of importance, these are interaction, variation and selection. After all, networks are well suited for interaction and contribute to intensification thereof Increasing interaction can lead to more variation. ... An individual will have to direct his own actions, so to speak, on one hand to make the right choices and on the other hand to be 'attractive' enough to be selected by the networks. Network society implies therefore: select and be selected. This subsequently implies an intrinsically higher individual vulnerability than in a traditional and vertically organized society, because in a network society more reliance will be imposed on the self-directed ability of the individual itself". - "The network society requires therefore a different type of control, namely control at meso and micro level. Meso-level as a

278

bridge between macro-developments and niche developments, and at micro level through developing and promoting the self-directed ability of units within networks. "

In conclusion: The realization of the cross-border Vision on the Vecht can be considered a transition process such as defined in the transition theory. Such long-term transition process with a duration of 20-50 years will thrive best, at least in the short term, as non-legally binding cooperation. Ideally participants will sign a transition agreement or an ambition statement (Rotmans, 2006).

Most desired legal form(s)

As concluded previously, there are seven legal forms to be utilized in the realization of the cross-border Vision on the Vecht. They are: a. non-legally binding informal cooperation b. non-legally binding cooperation based on documented agreements c. cooperation based on a legal entity under German or Dutch private law d. cooperation based on a public entity e. cooperation based on a common body f. cooperation based on an administrative agreement g. cooperation based on an EGTC

Assuming the conclusion in last section of the previous chapter, we can say that legal form b, non-legally binding cooperation based on documented agreements, is at this point in time the most desired legal form. In the case of the cross-border Vision on the Vecht we are already seeing a non-legally binding cooperation, and the Vision on the Vecht document is there to function as ambition statement (see paragraph 2.3).

3. Evaluation of the outcome

Is this a plausible outcome? This question can be explored in two different ways: by researching the opinion of those directly involved regarding the proposed legal form, and by comparing the proposed legal form with legal forms that were selected in other situations. In order to obtain an impression of the opinion of a number of those directly involved regarding the proposed legal form, questions were presented to those directly involved in the Vecht who were interviewed in the case studies described in chapters 6 - 8 regarding the most appropriate legal form. From the answers to these question we can ascertain that at least this part of the people directly involved is considering non-legally binding cooperation as the future structure of cross-border cooperation around the Vecht, whereby cooperation under private or public law has no bearing according to the interviewees. In this research no active exploration was undertaken with respect to the selection of legal forms in other situations. Useful information on this subject was however received from the expert in the panel introduced in paragraph 3.2. He referred to a number of river basins in the US, as examples of reaching successful agreements (Chesapeake Bay, Delaware River Basin and Apalachicola-Chattahoocee-Flint River Basin). The expert indicates that in his opinion the mode of organization in these examples agrees with the proposed form of cooperation surrounding the Vecht in the present paragraph. Based on this, we can conclude that there is no reason to assume that the proposed legal form is not plausible.

279

To what extent does the proposed legal form connect to other cross-border cooperative partnerships within the river basin of the Vecht? These other cooperative partnerships were described in the chapters 2, 6 and 7, i.e. the sub-committee Vecht-Dinkel and the work group DeltaRhein. Of these, the sub-committee Vecht-Dinkel is designed as consultation entity with no special consequences for the management of the Vecht. If so desired, the sub-committee or its main committee can be enabled in the future to adjust existing agreements regarding management of the Vecht or to legally establish new agreements. The work group DeltaRhein is designed as consultation entity that does have special consequences for the management of the Vecht. In this work group the cross-border aspects of the management plan for the sub-river basin DeltaRhein were prepared and the intention is to be the coordinating body for cross-border alignment of the measures to be implemented as result of the management plan. Partially on account of these measures in question, being a major carrier for the realization of the cross-border Vision on the Vecht, it is imperative for all water managers involved -on both sides of the border - to remain actively involved in the work group DeltaRhein.

To what extent is the proposed legal form fitting for future expectations? This question was explored using the literature at hand. Partially due to the arrival of the European Water Framework Directive and the European Floods Directive, we have seen regular publications in recent years regarding the legal form of cross-border regional water management. An important document in this regard is the report ‘Bruggen bouwen; Nederlands waterbeheer in Europees en grensoverschrijdend perspectief’ (‘Building bridges; Dutch water management in European and cross-border perspective’) by the Water Advisory Committee (AcW) and the Advisory Committee on Water Management Legislation (CAW) from 2007, to the Secretary of State for Transport and Watermanagement. Research was done by Mostert (2007), in the context of this report, concerning the legal complexities of cross-border water boards and alternative options for to such water boards. Mostert recommended to keep regional cross-border cooperation non-legally binding whenever possible . He sees the coordination model, the model reflecting policy alignment and joint planning, as a suitable alternative. This model saves a lot of time and allows adaptation of the form of cooperation as per demand. Mostert assumes that formalization of cooperative partnerships is only necessary if staff is hired or powers are added. Partially as result of the above-mentioned report by AcW/CAW, Gilissen & van Rijswick (2009) have investigated the tools water managers have available to shape cross-border regional cooperation in a more structural way. One of the conclusion is that in the case of non-legally binding cooperation based on documented agreements special agreements can be signed for specific waterways along the border, on grounds of article 59 sub 1 of the Border Treaty from 1960, as referred to in paragraph 2.2. In the past, such an agreement has already been signed for the Vecht, which is referred to in section 2.2 as "the Treaty of 1974". Gilissen & van Rijswick also present an overview of the tools available to water managers for formalizing partnerships; this overview is broadly consistent with items c - g of the list of seven possible forms in the final section of this paragraph. The conclusion raised by Gilissen & van Rijswick on this point is that many tools are available and that each tool has its own (legal) character, with the inevitable associated advantages and disadvantages, and that a preference for a particular tool can therefore not be determined. This is because the choice of a particular tool depends to a large extent on the wishes of the parties appointed to cooperate. Based on the foregoing, we

280

conclude that there is no reason to assume that the proposed legal form does not fit future expectations.

!

the crossing borders theory - campanastan...4.3.4 the four-balls-concept and the metaphor of the...

Documents