An analysis of the policy process of cross-border co-operation in Borderpark de Zoom-Kalmthoutse heide

THE NATURE OF CROSS-BORDER CO-OPERATION

An analysis of the policy process of cross-border co-operation in Borderpark “de Zoom-Kalmthoutse heide”

Petra Schmitz January 2005 AV 2005-04

THE NATURE OF CROSS-BORDER CO-OPERATION An analysis of the policy process of cross-border co-operation in Borderpark “de Zoom-Kalmthoutse heide”

January 2005

Petra Schmitz Registration number: 800213741080 Course: F 500-725 Supervisor: Drs. Mariëlle van der Zouwen Forest and Nature conservation Policy group Wageningen University The Netherlands

2

3

Preface When I started this thesis in March I didn’t know what it would bring me or where it would bring me. Now I know that in the first place it brought me a lot of knowledge. This knowledge was not only about interview techniques or theories but also about people, practice and cultures. I had many interesting interviews and conversations with people involved in the Borderpark which I really enjoyed. This thesis also gave me the change to participate in another, broader research about cross-border cooperation, which was very interesting and gave me new insights and ideas. In the last place it caused some sleepless night but also gave satisfaction. Where did this thesis bring me? It brought me in Brussels and Antwerp and in other places where I would not have been otherwise. It also brought me in a very nice nature area were I enjoyed walking, biking, being. In short: it brought me between walls, trees and people. Of course some people have to be thanked as well. In the first place I would like to thank all the persons I interviewed for their time, information and hospitality. I also thank the parkmanagement of the Borderpark, Marten Wiersma and Ignace Ledegen for their hospitality, help and co-operation and for giving me the possibility to use their area as case study. Last but not least, special thanks to my supervisor in Wageningen, Mariëlle van der Zouwen, who always gave me new energy and ideas to continue. Thanks to her I know policy is not boring but fascinating and varied.

Petra Schmitz January 2005

4

5

Table of contents PREFACE TABLE OF CONTENTS OVERVIEW OF TABLES AND FIGURES

SUMMARY

1

SAMENVATTING

3

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION

5

1.1 INTRODUCTION 1.2 PROBLEM STATEMENT, OBJECTIVE AND RESEARCH QUESTIONS 1.3 RELEVANCE OF THE RESEARCH 1.4 STRUCTURE OF THE THESIS

5 6 7 8

CHAPTER 2 THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK

9

2.1 INTRODUCTION 2.2 CHARACTER OF THE THESIS 2.3 THE CONFIGURATION APPROACH 2.3.1 INTRODUCTION 2.3.2 THE COGNITIVE DIMENSION 2.3.3 THE SOCIAL DIMENSION 2.3.4 CONFIGURATIONS AND AGGREGATES 2.3.5 MULTIPLE INCLUSION 2.4 A SHORT SUMMARY OF THE CONFIGURATION APPROACH

9 9 9 9 10 11 11 11 12

CHAPTER 3 METHODS

13

3.1 INTRODUCTION 3.2 THE CASE STUDY 3.3 SELECTION OF THE CASE 3.4 DATA COLLECTION 3.4.1 TRIANGULATION 3.4.2 METHODS AND SOURCES 3.5 DATA PROCESSING AND ANALYSIS

13 13 14 15 15 15 17

CHAPTER 4 CROSS-BORDER CO-OPERATION

18

4.1 INTRODUCTION 4.2 THE BORDERPARK IN A BROADER PERSPECTIVE 4.2.1 SOME NATIONAL, EUROPEAN AND GLOBAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICIES

18 18 18

6

4.2.2 ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE IN FLANDERS AND THE NETHERLANDS 4.3 BORDERPARK ‘DE ZOOM-KALMTHOUTSE HEIDE’ 4.3.1 HISTORY 4.3.2 ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE 4.3.3 OWNERSHIP 4.3.4 ECOLOGY 4.3.5 RECREATION AND EDUCATION 4.4 THE ACTORS 4.4.1 PUBLIC ORGANIZATIONS 4.4.2 PRIVATE ORGANIZATIONS 4.5 SOCIAL DIMENSION 4.5.1 INTRODUCTION 4.5.2 BIJZONDERE COMMISSIE 4.5.3 STUURGROEP 4.5.4 WORKING GROUP NATUUR EN WATER 4.5.5 WORKING GROUP VOORLICHTING, EDUCATIE EN RECREATIE (VER) 4.6 COGNITIVE DIMENSION 4.6.1 INTRODUCTION 4.6.2 BIJZONDERE COMMISSIE 4.6.3 STUURGROEP 4.6.4 WORKING GROUP NATUUR EN WATER 4.6.5 WORKING GROUP VOORLICHTING, EDUCATIE EN RECREATIE (VER) 4.7 CONCLUSION OF ANALYSIS

19 20 20 21 21 22 23 23 24 26 27 27 27 28 29 30 30 30 30 32 34 34 34

CHAPTER 5 SUCCESS OF CO-OPERATION

36

5.1 INTRODUCTION 5.2 THE CRITERIA AND HYPOTHESIS 5.3 BIJZONDERE COMMISSIE 5.4 STUURGROEP 5.5 WORKING GROUP ‘NATUUR EN WATER’ 5.6 WORKING GROUP VER 5.7 MULTIPLE INCLUSION 5.8 CONCLUSIONS

36 36 37 38 39 39 42 42

CHAPTER 6 DISCUSSION

44

6.1 INTRODUCTION 6.2 DISCUSSION ABOUT RESULTS 6.3 DISCUSSION ABOUT THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK 6.4 REFLECTION ABOUT USE OF CONFIGURATION APPROACH

44 44 45 45

CHAPTER 7 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

47

7.1 INTRODUCTION 7.2 CONCLUSIONS 7.3 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE BORDERPARK 7.4 GENERAL RECOMMENDATIONS 7.5 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH

47 47 48 50 51

REFERENCES

52

7

APPENDIX I, DEFINITIONS AND TRANSLATIONS

54

APPENDIX II, LIST OF INFORMANTS AND RESPONDENTS

56

APPENDIX III, TABLES WITH THE RESULTS FROM INTERVIEWS

57

APPENDIX IV, INTERVIEW INFORMANT

65

APPENDIX V, INTERVIEW RESPONDENT

70

APPENDIX VI, COMPOSITION OF BIJZONDERE COMMISSIE

74

APPENDIX VII, COMPOSITION OF THE STUURGROEP

75

8

Overview of tables and figures TABLE 1, SUMMARY OF MAIN CONCEPTS OF CONFIGURATION APPROACH

12

FIGURE 1, MAP OF BENELUX AND LOCATION OF BORDERPARK FIGURE 2, ORGANOGRAM OF THE ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE OF THE BORDERPARK FIGURE 3, OWNERSHIP IN THE BORDERPARK FIGURE 4, MAP OF THE BORDERPARK ‘DE ZOOM-KALMTHOUTSE HEIDE’ FIGURE 5, ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE OF THE BORDERPARK FIGURE 6, SCHEMATIC REPRODUCTION OF CONFIGURATIONS AND AGGREGATES

18

9

21 22 23 36 41

10

The nature of cross-border co-operation

1

Summary In the last few years people are beginning to realize that nature does not stop at the border; however in most cases our policy plans still do. For instance nature areas of national networks of neighbouring countries are often not connected very well and thus nature areas remain fragmented. This is not an optimal situation for nature. During this decade more and more attention is given to the importance of cross-border cooperation, which resulted in all kinds of initiatives. One example, on a European scale, is the Natura 2000 network with the goal to connect European nature reserves. To make these initiatives work cross-border co-operation between countries is an essential element. Because not much research has been done about cross-border co-operation in the field of nature the goal of this thesis is as follows: To analyse the policy process of cross-border co-operation in a case area and to determine its level of success, in order to give recommendations for improvement of cross-border co-operation. As case area Borderpark “de Zoom-Kalmthoutse heide” was chosen, situated on the border of the Netherlands and Flanders, between Roosendaal and Antwerp. The area was analysed by interviewing actors, by observation in the park and by conducting literature research. For analysing the data the configuration approach of Termeer appeared to be suitable. This approach offers a logical framework for the analysis of the process of cross-border cooperation. In the configuration approach two dimensions can be distinguished: a social dimension, in which is described who the actors are and how they interact, and a cognitive dimension, which describes what the actors think about certain issues. On the basis of these two dimensions configurations (or: coalitions) and aggregates were distinguished among the actors in the Borderpark. A configuration occurred when the social and the cognitive dimension were the same for a group of actors; in other words when a group of actors has the same ideas and goals and meets each other regularly. Aggregates occurred when only one of the dimensions was the same. Succeeding this analysis six criteria were defined with which the success of the cross-border co-operation was determined. After these analyses it is clear that there are many actors involved in the Borderpark: municipalities, water win companies, private owners, ministries, a province, nature managing organizations etc. Most of the actors are united in the highest board of the park, the Bijzondere Commissie. These actors often have different ideas and different goals: a different cognitive dimension. These differences can be found specifically between nature-oriented organisations, municipalities and private owners; sometimes they cause problems. Furthermore it can be said that the daily management of the park, the Stuurgroep, forms a very strong configuration of nature-oriented actors. They all have more or less the same ideas and they meet each other regularly. Within the Stuurgroep the co-operation is going very well, however, this is because certain actors are not present. Private owners and municipalities have different goals and are not present, consequently they have the idea that they do not really have an influence in the decision-making process. Besides this there is the park management that has a very important role in arranging meetings, coordinating projects, finding finances etc. In other words they are facilitating the co-operation. Regarding the cross-border aspect of the co-operation the Borderpark is doing very well. Unlike in other areas no problems arise between people or organizations because they come from a different country. A reason can be

1


2

that the co-operation in this area has been going on for a long time and of course language is not a barrier between Flanders and the Netherlands. In general the co-operation is going well but some points can be improved. A number of recommendations will be given for this. Some of the most important ones are to have more discussions and to meet more often with the Bijzondere Commissie. In this way actors will be more involved in the decision-making process. It is also recommended to maintain the park management and the current organizational structure as they are. A last important issue is to have contact about Natura 2000 regularly. Recommendations for cross-border co-operation in other nature areas are that both countries should be familiar with the goals and (differences in) policy of each other. Another very important issue is to make sure that all relevant actors are involved and that they meet each other regularly.

2


3

Samenvatting De laatste jaren realiseren steeds meer mensen zich dat de natuur niet ophoudt bij de landsgrens. Een buizerd vliegt van de ene kant van de grens naar de andere kant en water stroomt van het ene land in het andere. Toch stoppen beleidsplannen helaas vaak wel bij de grens. Vooral langs landsgrenzen, waar relatief veel natuur is, sluiten natuurgebieden niet goed op elkaar aan; hierdoor blijven natuurgebieden gefragmenteerd. Gedurende de laatste jaren krijgt grensoverschrijdende samenwerking op het gebied van natuur steeds meer aandacht. Dit resulteert in allerhande initiatieven. Een voorbeeld hiervan is het Natura 2000 netwerk, dat als doel heeft Europese natuurgebieden met elkaar te verbinden. Om dit, en soortgelijke initiatieven, te laten slagen is grensoverschrijdende samenwerking essentieel. Omdat er niet veel onderzoek is verricht op dit gebied is het doel van dit onderzoek als volgt: Het analyseren van het proces van grensoverschrijdende samenwerking in een case gebied en het bepalen van het succes hiervan met als doel het geven van aanbevelingen voor verbetering van grensoverschrijdende samenwerking. Als case gebied is gekozen Grenspark ‘de Zoom-Kalmthoutse heide’, gelegen op de grens van Nederland en Vlaanderen, tussen Roosendaal en Antwerpen. Bij de analyse van dit gebied zijn actoren geïnterviewd en heeft er literatuuronderzoek plaatsgevonden. Voor de analyse van de verzamelde data bleek de configuratie benadering van Termeer geschikt te zijn. Deze benadering biedt een logische manier om het proces van samenwerking te analyseren. In deze benadering worden twee dimensies onderscheiden, een sociale dimensie, waarin wordt beschreven wie de actoren zijn en hoe ze met elkaar omgaan, en een cognitieve dimensie, waarin de ideeën en doelen van de actoren naar voren komen. Op basis van deze twee dimensies worden configuraties (of: coalities) en aggregaten onderscheiden onder de actoren in het Grenspark. Een configuratie treedt op wanneer de twee dimensies voor een groep van actoren gelijk zijn, dus wanneer een groep actoren dezelfde ideeën en doelen heeft en elkaar ook regelmatig ziet. Een aggregaat ontstaat wanneer een van de dimensies overeenkomt. Onder andere aan de hand van de configuratie benadering zijn zes criteria gedefinieerd waarmee het succes van de samenwerking bepaald is. Na het gebied aan de hand van deze criteria geanalyseerd te hebben is duidelijk dat er veel actoren betrokken zijn bij het Grenspark: gemeenten, waterwinningbedrijven, particuliere eigenaren, ministeries, een provincie, natuur-beherende organisaties enz. De meeste van deze actoren zijn vertegenwoordigd in het hoogste orgaan van het park, de Bijzondere Commissie. Deze actoren hebben vaak verschillende ideeën en doelen, een verschillende cognitieve dimensie. Deze verschillen leiden soms tot problemen. Verder is uit de analyses naar voren gekomen dat het dagelijks bestuur van het park, de Stuurgroep, een sterke configuratie vormt van actoren die gericht zijn op natuur. Ze hebben allemaal min of meer dezelfde doelen en vergaderen regelmatig. Binnen de Stuurgroep verloopt de samenwerking goed, dit is echter omdat bepaalde actoren niet aanwezig zijn. Particuliere eigenaren en gemeenten hebben andere ideeën en zijn niet aanwezig in de Stuurgroep. Hierdoor hebben ze het idee dat ze niet echt invloed hebben op de besluiten die er genomen worden. Naast deze zaken is het park management erg belangrijk, zij regelen de vergaderingen, coördineren projecten, zorgen voor financiën etc. Met andere woorden: zij faciliteren de samenwerking. Het grensoverschrijdende aspect van de samenwerking is erg goed. In tegenstelling tot veel andere gebieden zijn er in het Grenspark geen problemen omdat mensen uit verschillende landen komen. In alle organisatorische commissies zijn Nederlandse en Vlaamse actoren aanwezig. Een reden

3


4

hiervoor kan zijn dat de samenwerking in het Grenspark al lang gaande is en natuurlijk is er ook geen taalprobleem tussen Vlaanderen en Nederland. In het algemeen is de samenwerking succesvol maar op sommige punten kan hij verbeterd worden. Hiervoor zijn een aantal aanbevelingen geformuleerd. De meest belangrijke aanbevelingen zijn om meer discussies te voeren en om vaker samen te komen met de Bijzondere Commissie. Hierdoor raken actoren meer betrokken bij het besluitvormingsproces. Samenhangend hiermee is de aanbeveling om in de Stuurgroep minder gedetailleerde discussies te voeren. Verder is het goed om het park management en de huidige organisatorische structuur te behouden zoals ze nu zijn. Ook is het belangrijk om regelmatig contact te hebben over Natura 2000, om ervoor te zorgen dat verschillen in implementatie duidelijk zijn en om eventuele problemen op te lossen. Naast aanbevelingen voor het Grenspark ‘de Zoom-Kalmthoutse heide’ is ook getracht om aanbevelingen te geven voor de samenwerking in andere grensoverschrijdende natuurgebieden. Belangrijk is bijvoorbeeld dat beide landen elkaars doelen en beleid(sstructuur) moeten kennen en accepteren. Ook dat alle relevante actoren betrokken zijn en regelmatig samenkomen is erg belangrijk.

4


5

Chapter 1 Introduction 1.1 Introduction Nature does not bother about borders. A buzzard is nesting on one side and foraging on the other side of the border. A fox is hunting everywhere and water flows from one country into another. Several of the most important natural areas are located along the national borders of a country. This is because these areas were, and sometimes still are, economically and politically not very interesting. So nature has been able to develop itself here relatively undisturbed (De Jong, 1999). Unfortunately in many other nature areas in Europe habitats are fragmented; this is disadvantageous for biodiversity and for the species that live here. When having many small ‘islands’ of nature in every country it is very difficult for plants and animals to migrate and reproduce themselves properly. MacArthur and Wilson (1963) have found that on smaller islands fewer species live then on bigger islands. Not only in a physical sense islands in nature can be distinguished, but also administrative- or policy ‘islands’ exist in Europe. Many countries have their own nature policy plans to protect and connect nature. However, because nature goes beyond borders, only national plans are not always sufficient. To realize protection and preservation of nature in Europe connections should be made on both the ecological and the administrative level. In order to realize these connections it is essential that countries collaborate. In the first place it is vital that the countries that work together have more or less the same goals and ideas because when two countries have totally different ideas about what is important; achieving something together is not easy. Another important point is that they meet each other regularly. When people of the two countries never meet, co-operating is difficult. An example of already existing co-operation between countries is "Aktion Gruenes Band/Actie Groene Band" which is a project along the whole borderline of Germany and the Netherlands that includes many smaller projects (NABU-NRW and Natuurmonumenten, 2003). The ‘Green Belt’ on the border of Finland and Russia and the ‘Friendship Nature Reserve’ along the same borderline are other examples in the northern part of Europe. The ‘Green Belt’ has the goal to establish a network of protected areas and the ‘Friendship Nature Reserve’ was established in 1989 in order to promote co-operation in nature conservation, research, tourism and education (Finnish Forest Research Institute, 2003). Also the cooperation between the German Bavarian Forest National Park and Sumava National Park in the Czech Republic is a good example of cross-border co-operation. Some other cross-border parks are the Maas-Schwalm Nette National Park in Germany and the Netherlands and Borderpark "de Zoom- Kalmthoutse heide" on the border of Belgium and the Netherlands. These initiatives illustrate that there is attention for cross-border co-operation. The last years people are, also in the field of nature policy, beginning to realize that they have to consider what is happening on the other side of the border. Policy makers have to take into account nature and nature policy across the border when making national plans. This is happening gradually and not only on the national level countries see the need for cross-border co-operation; also on a European level this is happening. More and more European policies are made and on many fields “Europe” is starting to play a more important role, also in the field of nature policy. Policies are being defined and consolidated in the European Union and then have to be incorporated in the national policies. This process is called Europeanization (Bulmer and Radaelli, 2004). European policies are getting more numerous all the time.

5


6

Examples are the Ministerial Conference on the Protection of Forests in Europe (MCPFE), which is recently held for the fourth time (www.mcpfe.org, 19th of September 2004), and the Natura 2000 network. This network consists of the EU Birds Directive (EU Directive 79/409/EEG) and the EU Habitats directive (EU Directive 92/43/EEG). The Birds Directive was signed in 1979 with the goal to protect all natural bird species and their habitats. The EU Habitats Directive from 1992 has the goal to ensure the biological diversity in Europe by protecting the natural habitats and flora and fauna. The two directives together have to establish a European network of nature areas: the so-called: Natura 2000 network. The overall aim of this network is to have good protection for habitats, plant- and bird species in Europe (Ministerie van de Vlaamse Gemeenschap, 2002). See also Box 1 and appendix I. To make of all these appointed areas a real network connections between countries have to be made, in other words: cross-border co-operation has to be realized. In short: cross-border co-operation is very important. Now not only on the national level but also international the importance and ecological necessity is recognized. This is shown by the initiatives between countries and by the many policies on the European level. These European policies all have to be implemented on the national level and offer a good framework and possibility for the realization of cross-border co-operation. Box 1, Habitats- and Birds directive (Natura 2000) Natura 2000 is the coherent network of protected nature areas, on the territory of the members of the European Union. It consists of all the areas that are protected under the Birds directive (1979) and the Habitats directive (1992). Not all areas are assigned by the member states yet. The realization of the Natura 2000-network is the corner stone of the EU policy for conservation and restoration of biodiversity. The European directives indicate what kinds of nature have to be protected. The areas that are part of the network are specific land- and waterzones (natural habitats) and areas of certain species (habitats of species). The goal is to ensure the survival of these natural habitats and habitats of plant- and animal species on the long term. Up till now more than 15.000 areas, with a total surface of more than 420.000 km2 (15 % of the EU territory), are proposed as Natura 2000 area by the member states. The European Commission contributes financially to essential protection measures of Natura 2000 areas, for example by the LIFE-program. Although primary focused on nature Natura 2000 also offers opportunities for other functions like recreation and tourism, (extensive) agriculture and forestry. Natura 2000 contributes to the well-being and the quality of life of the residents of the European Union. (www.minlnv.nl, 15th of September 2004, translated)

1.2 Problem statement, objective and research questions Problem statement Nature areas are fragmented and habitats in Europe are decreasing more and more (http://www.eu.int/eur-lex/nl/consleg/pdf/1992/nl_1992L0043_do_001.pdf, 15th of December 2004). This is disadvantageous for the biodiversity in these areas. Luckily several initiatives have been started to stop this; initiatives between countries as well as on a European level. But the number of initiatives is small, one example on a European level that is now up to date is the Natura 2000 network. To make this network work, connections between countries are vital, cross-border co-operation is vital. Unfortunately cross-border co-operation is not given the attention it deserves: not much is known about it and not much research is done about it 6


7

either. One of the few studies is from De Jong (1999) who extensively looked at the cooperation between Germany and the Netherlands in the Gelderse Poort area. This thesis is trying to reduce this lack of knowledge and thus to stimulate crossborder co-operation and the attention for it. In order to succeed in this the following objective and research questions have been formulated. Objective: To analyse the policy process of cross-border co-operation in a case area (1) and to determine its level of success (2) , in order to give recommendations for improvement of cross-border co-operation (3). Research questions: Research questions are formulated to find reach the research objective. Three main questions are formulated that cover one of the three parts of the research objective. The case area is Borderpark “de Zoom-Kalmthoutse heide” situated in the Dutch-Flemish border area. The reasons for this choice will be explained later. 1. How does the process of cross-border co-operation work in the Borderpark? a. What analytical framework can be used to analyse the process? b. What actors are collaborating and in what way? c. What are the ideas and views of the actors regarding the relevant issues? d. What are the characteristics of the park and the policy in the Netherlands and Flanders? 2. What is the level of success of cross-border co-operation in the Borderpark? a. What criteria can be used to determine the level of success of cross-border cooperation? b. What is the score for these criteria for the Borderpark? 3. What recommendations can be given for a successful cross-border cooperation? a. What recommendations can be given for the Borderpark? b. What recommendations can be given for other cross-border nature areas?

1.3 Relevance of the research With this thesis I would like to contribute to the knowledge about cross-border co-operation. This is important because in the first place not much research about cross-border cooperation, in the field of nature management, has been done. Since the introduction of the Natura 2000-network it is even more important to have more knowledge about cross-border co-operation, because in this way the network will really become a network and not just a collection of separate nature areas. Also in the field of landscapes and landscape protection cross-border co-operation is appearing and becoming more relevant. The European Landscape Convention, formulated by the Council of Europe in 2000, is stating in article 9 that countries “…..shall encourage transfrontier co-operation on local and regional level….” (Council of Europe, 2000). Alterra is, by order of the NatuurPlanBureau, currently carrying out a research about the ecological values of Natura 2000 areas and cross-border co-operation. This Alterraresearch is using a part of this thesis and some chapters will be written as well.

7


8

Researches providing more insight in the process of cross-border co-operation shall, without doubt, be useful in the future. More knowledge about cross-border co-operation hopefully will, in the long term, result in the success of future cross-border nature areas, the decrease of fragmentation and ecological ‘islands’ and the increase of biodiversity in Europe. From a scientific point of view this is an application of a theory, the so-called configuration approach. The elaboration of this theory can be useful for other people when analyzing a complex policy process in the future, especially a cross-border policy process.

1.4 Structure of the thesis This first chapter gave an introduction into the problem and after this in 1.2 the problem statement and the objective of this thesis were described and in paragraph 1.3 the relevance of the research. The second chapter will describe the theoretical framework that is used, the configuration approach of Termeer. In chapter three the methods that were used to collect the data are described. Also in this chapter the choice for the case area ‘de Zoom-Kalmthoutse heide’ is explained. In chapter four and five the results are given and the research questions 1 and 2 are answered. Subsequently in chapter six these results are discussed. In chapter seven conclusions and recommendations are given and at the same time the last research question is answered.

8


9

Chapter 2 Theoretical framework 2.1 Introduction Now that the objective and the research questions are determined a framework should be made, with which the data can be analysed. In paragraph 2.2 this framework will first be described in a broader context and in the following paragraph 2.3 this theoretical framework will be introduced and explained in detail. In 2.4 the important concepts of the theoretical framework will operationalised to make them useable for this thesis. Finally in paragraph 2.5 a summary of the theoretical framework will be given. In this chapter an answer will be given to research question 1a: ‘What analytical framework can be used to analyse the process? ‘

2.2 Character of the thesis There are many different ways to look at a process. Two different perspectives are the rational and the network perspective. The rational perspective acknowledges that the existence of different actors can influence the process but that the central actors in the end determine the course of the process (Van der Zouwen, 1998). This perspective also acknowledges different goals but the success of the process is measured from the central goal. The network perspective on the other hand has left the idea of the central actor who is very important, now all actors are important. Many different definitions of a network exist. A basic definition is: “a set of relatively stable relationships which are of non-hierarchical and interdependent nature linking a variety of actors, who share common interests with regard to a policy and who exchange resources to pursue these shared interests acknowledging that cooperation is the best way to achieve common goals” (Börzel, 1998: 254). The network perspective is best suitable to analyse cross-border co-operation, because in a cross-border cooperation there is not one central actor that controls the process. Furthermore all actors in both countries are mutual dependent. One country alone can not make a cross-border co-operation successful! Within the network perspective many different concepts can be distinguished. Two main concepts are 1) policy network as a typology of interest intermediation and 2) a policy network as a specific form of governance. In the first concept networks are power dependency relationships between the government and interest groups, in which resources are exchanged (Börzel, 1998: 256). In the other concept the policy network is a model to analyse nonhierarchical forms of interactions between public and private actors in policy-making (Börzel, 1998: 265) This thesis adopts the second concept because this resembles the situation in a cross-border co-operation best. One of the theories that is part of the network perspective, and use this second concept, is the configuration approach. This theory is developed till its present form by Termeer in 1991. The theory is used in this research and will be explained hereafter.

2.3 The configuration approach 2.3.1 Introduction In paragraph 2.2 it is explained why the network perspective is used. The network perspective is used to analyse processes in which many actors interact and in which they are mutualdependent. Within the network perspective different approaches and theories can be found. One of them is, as already said, the configuration approach. This approach offers a framework 9


10

for the analysis of complex (policy) networks. It is very important to clarify two considerations of this configuration approach. In the first place: the configuration approach assumes that reality is the result of interactions (Termeer, 1993: 24). People exchange individual realities and try to reach a common reality (Termeer, 1993: 24). In the second place studies that use the configuration approach focus on processes in which people show and exchange realities, develop opposite realities, negotiate etc. (Termeer, 1993: 27). This theory is very suitable for the analysis of the Borderpark “the Zoom-Kalmthoutse heide” because in this area a process of cross-border co-operation is going on with many different actors who all have own ideas and visions on nature conservation policy. In the first place there are of course the Dutch and the Belgian actors but also private owners, municipalities and nature organizations. All these actors have different ideas and they all interact in various ways. In these interactions they exchange their realities and try to reach a common reality, a common goal. This approach fully takes into account all these different ideas and interactions between the actors. It not only describes the different ideas and the ways in which interaction is taking place; it takes into account both dimensions and connects them. Thus the configuration approach provides a logical way to analyse the policy process and will be used to analyse the data in this research. Within the configuration approach different concepts are distinguished; for example continuous interaction, multiple inclusion, social dimension and cognitive dimension. All these important concepts will be explained in the following. 2.3.2 The cognitive dimension In the configuration approach the interactions between all the actors are the basis of the analyses (Termeer, 1993). An interaction is about the formation of relations and exchange of perceptions between actors (Van Dijk, 1989: 17 in: Termeer, 1993: 29). Actions of a certain actor are influenced by another actor and vice versa (Termeer, 1993: 29). One basic assumption of the configuration approach is that between the actors “continuous interaction” is taking place. This is an enlargement of the “double interact”. The double interact can be described as follows: an actor acts, gets a reaction from another actor and then acts again. In this way it is possible for an actor to value his action (Termeer, 1993: 29). The enlargement to ‘continuous interaction’ consists of the presence of a “third”, this can be a third actor, views of a third person or a third interaction rule that is participating in the interaction (Termeer, 1993: 30). In this way there is always the possibility for change. These changes keep the interaction going; a continuous interaction is always open for constructing and reconstructing (Termeer, 1993: 30). As already mentioned reality is the result of interactions. In processes of continuous interaction actors exchange their individual realities to reach a common reality which is the basis for further action (Termeer, 1993: 30). The cognitive dimension is about these individual realities, about what the actors are thinking. All actors have their own ideas, their own realities about their goals, the problems, the means to solve the problems, Natura 2000 etc. These different ideas or realities are called: “definitions of reality”. They refer to the way in which an actor perceives an issue or interprets a situation or topic. The basic consideration of the configuration approach is that the definitions of reality are the result of interactions (Termeer, 1993, De Jong, 1999: 26). All the definitions together form the cognitive dimension. By defining various definitions of reality the cognitive dimension of the process can be described. But first, what is an actor? An actor is an organization or individual that plays a role in the park or is in one way or another linked to it. In this thesis all the organizations and individuals that are included in the organizational structure of the Borderpark are considered as actors. Next to this, as already said, the definitions of reality have to be known. A way to find out what these definitions of reality are, is by asking the actors about it. In this research 10


11

definitions of reality will be constructed about for example the goals, the means to solve the goals, the problems and Natura 2000. Another way is to study policy documents and minutes of meetings that were held. By using these methods it is possible to find out the similarities and differences between the perceptions of all the actors and thus find configurations or aggregates and thus accurately describe the process of cross-border co-operation. 2.3.3 The social dimension Next to the cognitive dimension the configuration approach distinguishes a social dimension, The social dimension describes who the different actors are and how they interact. ‘The reality is the result of interactions’, but how can these interactions be characterized? The actors start a relation because they want to accomplish something and for this it is necessary to co-operate with the other actors; they are mutual dependent (Termeer, 1993: 32). The relations between the actors are created by interacting all the time, verbal as well as non-verbal; patterns of interaction start to arise. Simultaneously with the origination of interaction patterns also interaction rules start to originate (Termeer, 1993: 33). Interaction rules are rules that determine how the actors collaborate with each other (Termeer, 1993: 33). The rules are known by all the actors and are continuously made and changed in the interaction process (Termeer, 1993). In this thesis it is tried to find out the social dimension of the process of cross-border co-operation, to distinguish what interaction rules and –patterns exist between what actors. Examples of interaction rules are who is allowed to join, which role is expected from someone, how often meetings take place and the duration and character of these meetings. Next to information about the formal contacts it is also necessary to know if there are informal contacts between actors and if so between who, how often and about what subjects. 2.3.4 Configurations and aggregates In the literature about policy often a cognitive and a social dimension are recognised, but these two are seldom connected (Termeer, 1993: 34). One of the essential characteristics of the configuration approach is that these two are connected (Termeer, 1993: 34). The approach connects social and cognitive processes and with this it gives the possibility to analyse, in a logical way, the relevant factors within the policy process (De Jong, 1999: 19). For this connection the concept of social-cognitive configuration is used. This can best be described as a momentary impression in the social process of the construction of reality (Termeer, 1993: 34). In other words, the actors have continuous and intensive interactions ánd they have the same definitions of reality (Termeer, 1993: 34). A social-cognitive configuration is not always occurring. It also happens that only the interaction rules and -patterns match. The actors have made a set of interaction rules together and act up to these but their definitions of reality are different. This is called a social aggregate (Termeer, 1993: 34). If the actors have shared definitions of reality without having the same interaction rules, so without seeing each other (regularly) it is a cognitive aggregate (Termeer, 1993: 34). 2.3.5 Multiple inclusion The last concept of the configuration approach is multiple inclusion. This can be explained by the fact that an actor will never recognise himself in the definitions of reality of one single configuration but also in the realities of other configurations (Termeer, 1993: 35). An actor will also be involved in sets of interaction rules of other configurations (Termeer, 1993: 35). Thus he will always be part of more configurations. The result of this is that he will never be fully included in one single configuration but only partially. This phenomenon is called:

11


12

multiple inclusion (Termeer, 1993: 35). Inclusion is the level in which an actor acts and thinks in terms of one configuration (Termeer, 1993).

2.4 A short summary of the configuration approach The configuration theory offers a framework for the analysis of complex (policy) networks. Two important considerations have to be clear. First, the reality is the result of interactions and second, the configuration approach focuses on processes between actors. An important concept in this approach is continuous interaction, this means that interaction between two actors is going on and on because of the influence of a third party, idea or interaction rule. The analysis is done by describing two dimensions. The first dimension is the social dimension; in this dimension it is described who the actors are, and in the second place, how they interact with each other. All the interactions and interaction rules are described. The other dimension is the cognitive dimension and describes what their definitions of reality are about certain issues. In the end these two dimensions are linked. If, for a number of actors, these two dimensions correspond these actors form a social-cognitive configuration. This means a momentary impression of continuous and intensive interactions of a group of actors that have the same definitions of reality. When a group of actors has the same definitions of reality it is called a cognitive aggregate. When only the interaction rules are equal it is a social aggregate. The last concept of the configuration approach is multiple inclusion, this means that an actor will never fully be included in only one configuration but he will also recognize himself in other configurations. In table 1 a summary of all the concepts is given. Table 1. Summary main concepts of configuration approach Concept Social dimension

Meaning Interaction rules –and patterns

Cognitive dimension

Definitions of reality of actors

Social aggregate

Actors have same interaction rules Actors have same definitions of reality Actors have same interaction rules and definitions of reality

Cognitive aggregate Configuration

12

Operationalisation Who is meeting who, how often, how long, about what subjects, informal contacts What are the perceptions of actors about: the goals, problems, solutions, Natura 2000, co-operation, Borderpark Actors meet each other often Actors have same ideas and perceptions about goals Actors meet each other regularly and have the same ideas and perceptions


13

Chapter 3 Methods 3.1 Introduction In this chapter the methodological issues are addressed. In 3.2 first different research strategies will be mentioned and also why the case study is chosen as the strategy for this research. The choice for the specific case, the Borderpark “de Zoom-Kalmthoutse heide”, will be thoroughly explained in paragraph 3.3. In the end the different sources and methods and the processing of the data that are used will be described and explained in 3.4 and 3.5.

3.2 The case study When performing a research one needs to have a certain research strategy. Many different strategies have been distinguished over time. Three well-known strategies are the survey, the experiment and the case study. All of them are suitable for a specific kind of research. In this research the question how cross-border co-operation works has to be answered. ‘Howquestions’ (…) are more explanatory and more likely to lead to the use of case studies (…) or experiments (Yin, 1994: 6). Furthermore the case study is preferred in examining contemporary events, but when relevant behaviours cannot be manipulated (Yin, 1994: 8). In our case contemporary events are examined and the behaviour of actors cannot be manipulated, therefore the case study is the best suitable strategy for studying a policy process in detail. It is possible to obtain a deep insight because only a few cases, and in this research only one, are studied. Now the case study will be described in more detail. In a case study the researcher tries to get a deep insight in one or several processes. Six characteristics of the case study are (Verschuren, 1995: 155): 1. a small number of research objects is researched 2. a case study goes more deep than broad 3. a labour-intensive approach 4. strategical selection of the case 5. qualitative data and methods 6. open observation, the process is studied in its ‘natural habitat’. In short: “A case study is an empirical inquiry that investigates a contemporary phenomenon within its real-life context, especially when the boundaries between phenomenon and context are not clearly defined” (Yin, 1994: 13). As with every strategy also the case study has advantages and disadvantages. Some advantages are that it is possible to get an integral picture of the case. The case study is much more flexible then for example an experiment. When something unexpected happens it is not so difficult to change. Another advantage is that outcomes of the research are more likely to be accepted by the people “in the field” because the methods used are more or less common and because the researcher is standing relatively close to the case study (Verschuren, 1995: 160). Of course also disadvantages can be found, for example that they are not very easy to generalise; because only few cases are studied it is hard to apply the results to other cases (Verschuren, 1995: 161). In other words: the external validity is not so high. In this research however, recommendations have been given not only for the Borderpark ‘de Zoom-Kalmthoutse heide’ but also for other cross-border nature areas. This was possible because only one case study is analysed and it was analysed in-depth. Thus a lot of knowledge is obtained, not only about the Borderpark but also about the process of cross-border co-operation in general. Furthermore

13


14

the respondents have read and criticised the interviews and discussions have taken place about the results. Next to this also the participation in another research gave more insight in other cases of cross-border co-operation.

3.3 Selection of the case Within the case study strategy different variants can be distinguished. The two that are most important are the single case study and the multiple case study. The first one is a study in which one case is taken into account whereas in the multiple case study more cases are analysed. The single case study is the one that will be used in this research. One reason for this is lack of time; another reason is that it is best to analyse one case in detail, because so few cases have been analysed in detail. Because of these reasons it is not possible to handle more than one case in this thesis. Two variants can be distinguished within the single case study. These two variants are called the holistic- and the embedded single case study (Yin, 1994: 41). The main difference is that in the embedded variant the case study involves more than one unit of analysis. In the holistic variant the global nature of a program or organization is analysed. In this thesis the global nature of the process of cross-border co-operation is analysed so the holistic single case study is the one that is used. For the selection of the case three criteria have been formulated; these criteria are: 1. The nature area has to be situated in two countries. The area has to be crossborder to be able to do research about cross-border co-operation. 2. Both sides of the national border have to be designated as Habitats- and/or Birds directive area (Natura 2000). This is important because an eventual influence of the Natura 2000 policy on cross-border co-operation should be visible. 3. Cross-border co-operation has to exist in the area already for some years. If people in an area are only just starting to co-operate it is very hard to say something relevant about the content and organization of the co-operation and finding enough information for a research is more difficult too. Now the three criteria are known an area can be searched that best matches them. 1. The nature area has to lie in two countries. Many nature areas exist in the Netherlands which border Germany or Belgium so the first criterion is not so difficult to meet. E.g. the areas that fall within the Actie Groene Band/Aktion Gruenes Band, Maastricht-Land van Herven-Ardennen, Canisvlietse Kreek, Bargerveen, Geuldal etc. 2. Both sides of the national border have to be designated as Habitats- and/or Birds directive area (Natura 2000). This criterion is more difficult to fulfil. Many areas along the border may be designated as Habitats- and/or Birds directive area but to find a nature area where both sides fall within Habitats- and/or Birds directive is more difficult. On the border of the Netherlands with Belgium and Germany 16 cross-border nature reserves can be found that are also designated as Habitats- and/or Birds directive area (http://www.minlnv.nl/natura2000/, 14th of April 2004). 3. Cross-border co-operation has to exist in the area already for some years. Often the Natura 2000 areas are situated next to each other but no actual cross-border co-operation exists, e.g. in Brunsummerheide and the Swalmdal. What also happens is that there is crossborder co-operation but this has only been going on for a short while and thus not much can be said about it, this is the case for example in the area Maastricht-Ardennes-Aachen. The area were the co-operation is most advanced is the Borderpark “de Zoom-Kalmthoutse heide”. So finally this last area, Borderpark ‘de Zoom-Kalmthoutse heide’, was chosen because it satisfied all the criteria best. The first criterion is clearly satisfied, because it is a 14


15

National Park that crosses the border of the Netherlands and Belgium, a Borderpark. The second criterion is also matched because on both sides of the border a nature area is designated as Habitats- and/or Birds directive area. In the Dutch part this is Ossendrecht (1746 ha), as Habitats directive area and the “Brabantse Wal” as Birds directive area. In the Belgian part the “Kalmthoutse heide” (2064 ha) is a Birds directive area and a Habitats directive area. The third criterion is also met because in the area has a long history of cooperation between the Netherlands and Belgium exists. The Borderpark is situated on the border of Belgium and the Netherlands, between the Dutch cities of Bergen op Zoom and Breda and the Belgian city of Antwerp. The park has many fens, moors, landdunes and vast forests. It is about 3750 ha in total and it has big nature-, landscape- and culture-historical values.

3.4 Data collection 3.4.1 Triangulation When using the case study strategy it is wise to use different sources and not only rely on one single source. The various sources are highly complementary and a good case study will therefore want to use as many sources as possible (Yin, 1994). By using multiple sources a researcher can investigate a broader range of different issues (Yin, 1994: 92). Another advantage is that ‘converging lines of inquiry” can be seen, this means trying to find out the same thing in another way. Any finding or conclusion in a case study is likely to be much more convincing if it is based on several different sources of information (Yin, 1994: 92). The use of different sources is called: sources-triangulation. Method-triangulation is another way to make the case study more accurate and valuable. These concepts were both used in the design of this case study. In the next paragraph the different sources and methods that were used will be described. 3.4.2 Methods and sources In this research three different methods have been used. They will be described hereafter. Together with the method also the sources that were used will be explained. Interviewing One of the most important and essential sources of case study information is the interview (Yin, 1994: 84). The type of interview used in this thesis is a focused interview in which a respondent is interviewed for a short period of time (Yin, 1994, p84). The persons were interviewed face to face for about one and a half hour and they were interviewed alone. Advantages of interviewing are that they are focused directly on the case study topic and are very insightful (Yin, 1994: 80). In interviews persons can function as sources in different ways (Verschuren, 1995). They can be for example informants, respondents or experts. Informants and respondents were used in this research. -informants give information about other persons or about processes or situations (Verschuren, 1995: 105). In this thesis two informants were interviewed, to get a better idea of the situation in the Borderpark. In the end another informant was interviewed to get a more detailed view about the working groups. (For the list of informants see Appendix II, for the complete interview guide see Appendix IV) -respondents give information about themselves (Verschuren, 1995: 105). Next to the informants 10 persons were interviewed as respondents; they were all representing organizations or parties that play an important role in the cross-border co-operation.

15


16

(For the complete list of the respondents see Appendix II, for the complete interview see Appendix V) The interviews should always be considered verbal reports only and thus subject to problems as bias, poor recall and poor articulation. So a good approach, as said before, is to combine interview data with information from other sources and methods (Yin, 1994: 85). In this research literature research and observation are other methods that were used. Literature research This method is complementary to interviewing. Many different sources can be exploited using literature research. In this research three sources were used: media, documents and scientific literature -Media; examples of ‘media’ can be newspapers, magazines, radio, television and email (Verschuren, 1995: 107). Advantages of this source are the high information density and the wide geographical range (Verschuren, 1995: 107). As media the internet site of the Borderpark, the site of the Ministry of LNV (Ministry of Agriculture, Nature and Food quality) and some other internet sites were used. Brochures and e-mails from the parkmanagement were used too, as well as the three monthly newsmagazine of the Borderpark. -Documents; the difference between media and documents is that in documents often an addressee is present whereas media have a public destination. Advantages of using this source are that they are easy to exploit, can be consulted as often as needed and are often available in abundance. This last advantage can also become a disadvantage when too many documents are available (Verschuren 1995: 111). Various documents were consulted, including the policy plan ‘Beheer en Inrichting’ (policy plan ‘Management and Organization’), various year reports and the long-term plan of the Borderpark. Next to these documents all the minutes and agendas of meetings of the Bijzondere Commissie (board of the park) and the Stuurgroep (daily management or Steering Committee) were read. Also some minutes of the working groups were read. Reading documents was done on two locations: in Wageningen (NL) and in Essen (B) in the office of the Borderpark. By sitting and reading in the office also the daily routine of the park was experienced so some participative observation was included here. - Scientific literature; next to media and documents also scientific articles and dissertations were read. An advantage is that it is possible to use the knowledge that is already present. Unfortunately there is not so much knowledge about cross-border cooperation available so the source ‘literature’ was mainly used for finding an answer to research question 1a, designing the theoretical framework. Observation: The last method that was used in this thesis is observation. Observation is a technique of data collection in which the researcher does observations on persons, situations, objects or processes (Verschuren, 1995: 119). One can distinguish two different ways of observation: participative observation and field observation. In this research mainly field observation was used. This can involve observations of meetings, factory work, classrooms etc. (Yin, 1994: 87). Observation was done when attending two meetings, one of the working group ‘Natuur en Water’ on the 26th of May and one of the Stuurgroep on the 23rd of June. By attending these meetings a better idea was obtained about the working of the Borderpark "de Zoom-

16


17

Kalmthoutse heide". Furthermore an excursion in the park was attended after the meeting of the working group ‘Natuur en Water’ and several bicycle and car rides were undertaken to see the park. Nature education centre “de Vroente” was visited as well.

3.5 Data processing and analysis From the interviews many useful data were obtained. A report was made of all the interviews. The reports with the informants were not further processed. The reports of the respondents were further processed, namely for each question one table was made in Microsoft Excel. All the answers to question 1 were put in one table, the answers to question 2 in another table and so on. For the complete tables, see Appendix III. In the analyses in chapter four these interviews are often referred to by numbers. The list of corresponding organizations can be found in appendix II. From literature study many data were obtained as well for example from the minutes of the Bijzondere Commissie and the Stuurgroep. These data were structured in a way that was clear what subjects had been on the agenda when and who was present at the meetings. The other information gathered by literature research was not structured further and the data from the observations were not processed either.

17


18

Chapter 4 Cross-border co-operation 4.1 Introduction This chapter presents the results of the analyses of the interviews in the Borderpark ‘de ZoomKalmthoutse heide’ and the results of the observations and literature research. Paragraph 4.2 will set the Borderpark in a broader perspective. In paragraph 4.3 a detailed description will be given about different aspects of the Borderpark like the ownership, ecology etc. Paragraph 4.4 will describe the (groups of) actors that are involved in the Borderpark. In the previous chapter 2 the configuration approach is described and also the social and cognitive dimension. What these two dimensions exactly are in the Borderpark will be described in paragraph 4.5 and 4.6 and in doing so the first research question will be answered: ‘How does the process of cross-border co-operation work in the Borderpark?’ In 4.7 finally some conclusions are drawn.

4.2 The Borderpark in a broader perspective 4.2.1 Some national, European and global environmental policies The Borderpark “de Zoom-Kalmthoutse heide” is for a number of reasons very important for nature conservation. The area is part of several national and international ecological networks. In the first place the Borderpark is connected to the Dutch Ecological Network (EHS) and to the Flemish Ecological Network (VEN), for a detailed explanation of these networks see appendix I. These networks are a means of connecting the important nature reserves within the Netherlands and Flanders. The Dutch part of the Borderpark is part of de EHS and the Flemish side is part of the VEN. The location of the Borderpark in the Benelux can be seen in figure 1.

Figure 1, map of Benelux and location of Borderpark

Another ecological network of which the Borderpark is a part is the Natura 2000 network, the European network of nature reserves. In the Dutch part the area called ‘Ossendrecht’ (1746 ha) is registered as Habitats directive area and the ‘Brabantse Wal’ as Birds-directive area. ‘Ossendrecht’ is registered for the habitat types heather with Calluna and

18


19

Genista (2310), stagnant water with Littorelletalia uniflorae and/or Isoëto-Nanojuncetea (3130) and humid heather with Erica Tetralix (4010). The ‘Brabantse Wal’ is designated for the bird species wood lark (Lullula arborea, boomleeuwerik), European nightjar (Caprimulgus europaeus, nachtzwaluw), black woodpecker (Dryocopus martius, zwarte specht) and honey buzzard (Pernis apivorus, wespedief). In the Belgian part the ‘Kalmthoutse heide’ (2064 ha) is a Birds directive area and a Habitats directive area. This area is registered for the habitat types open grassland with Corynephorus spp. and Agrostis spp. on landdunes (2330), oligotrophic waters with Littorelletalia uniflorae (3110), stagnant water with Littorelletalia uniflorae and/or Isoeto-Nanojuncetea (3130), humid heather with Erica Tetralix (4010) and dry European heather (4030). The Directives are differently implemented in the Netherlands and Flanders and this is sometimes a problem (interview 2). In the Netherlands the Birds- and Habitats directive are implemented in the Flora- and Fauna Act (Flora en Fauna wet). In Flanders the two directives have been implemented in the new Natuur Decreet (Nature Decree) from 2002 (Ministerie van de Vlaamse Gemeenschap, afdeling Natuur, 2002). Finally the Borderpark is appointed is a Ramsar area. This means it is a protected water area, a wetland area where special protection is given to waterbirds (Grenspark, 1999: 11). The Borderpark is an important area on the local and national scale but also world wide! 4.2.2 Organizational structure in Flanders and the Netherlands In the Netherlands the Ministry of LNV is responsible for developing the nature policy for the whole of the Netherlands. The 12 provinces have to implement these policies. The management of nature is done by the owners, often site managing organisations like Staatsbosbeheer, Natuurmonumenten and the ‘Provinciale Landschappen’ (www.minlnv, 29th of September 2004). They have an important role, through their ownership and management, in the implementation of nature policy (De Jong, 1999:102). The municipalities in the Netherlands receive more and more responsibilities. One of the main policy concepts in the Netherlands nowadays is the Dutch Ecological Network (EHS) which aims to connect nature reserves in the Netherlands. The ministry of LNV made the framework and the provinces have bound the areas in the EHS. The municipalities have to include these areas in their zoning plans, which are then managed by site managing organisations. Belgium is divided into three districts, the Walloon, the Flemish and the Brussels district. Each district has own policies and powers. Since 1988 the environmental and nature conservation policy is a task of the districts (Van Veen, 2003 p. 51). The case area is situated in the Flemish district. In this district the policy and management of nature are not separated, like in the Netherlands, but all is done by the Ministry of the Vlaamse Gemeenschap, department of nature. The first nature conservation legislation for Belgium was made in 1973. In 1998 the old nature legislation of 1973 was, in Flanders, replaced by the new Nature Decree (Van Veen, 2003: 50). This decree was again renewed in 2002 and in this decree also the Birds –and Habitats directive are implemented. Other initiatives in the Nature Decree are the VEN, a Flemish network of nature sites, and the IVON, which has to support the VEN and consists of areas of nature interwoven with other functions (Van Veen, 2003 p. 52). The provinces are not so important in Flanders (interview 5) because they don’t have so many tasks and powers. The influence of municipalities is growing due to the policy of decentralisation of the government (Van Veen, 2003. p. 51). In Flanders mayors are chosen and a chosen mayor more often implements political decisions, despite resistance in other parts of society.

19


20

4.3 Borderpark ‘de Zoom-Kalmthoutse heide’ 4.3.1 History To understand the history of the park it is wise to first explain a bit about the Benelux. The Benelux was in the first place a co-operation between Belgium, the Netherlands and Luxemburg with the goal of liberalization of trade. Later this goal was expanded to include other goals as well (http://home.wanadoo.nl/republikeinen/benelux.html, 14th of October 2004). The Benelux works at cross-border co-operation on different levels, along the borderline itself, in the Benelux and in Europe (interview 5). In 1982 the ‘Benelux Overeenkomst op het gebied van natuurbehoud en landschapsbescherming’ (Benelux Agreement in the Field of nature conservation and landscape protection) was signed (Benelux reader). One of the issues in this agreement was the protection of cross-border nature areas. This agreement gives the ‘Comite van Ministers’ (Committee of Ministers) of the Benelux the possibility to define cross-border parks and to install a ‘Bijzondere Commissie van Overleg en Advies’ (Special Commission of Consultation and Advice) (Secretariaat-Generaal, 2004). In 1983 the Secretariaat-Generaal of the Benelux Economische Unie took, within the framework of the Benelux agreement, the initiative to propose the area ‘de ZoomKalmthoutse heide’ as cross-border park (Hoofdrapport Beleidsplan ‘Beheer en Inrichting’, 1999). So already in the eighties the idea of cross-border nature areas was present. In order to become recognised as a National Park in the Netherlands the whole area was included in the Dutch structure of National Parks. Before the appointment as National Park a feasibility study had to be done. This was done by the Dutch commission Kleisterlee (voorlopige commissie Nationale Parken), a commission under the Ministry of LNV that had the task to appoint national parks for all the characteristic ecosystems in the Netherlands (interview 9). The Borderpark was one of the possible areas and 1987 a feasibility study was started here that lasted until 1991. The commission Kleisterlee was assisted in this by a consultation group in which also Flemish partners were involved, for example the Ministry of the Vlaamse Gemeenschap (interview 8). After the feasibility study a ‘Bijzondere Commissie van Overleg en Advies’ was established in 1992 and the area became “Nationaal park in oprichting”. The Bijzondere Commissie had the task to make a management plan for the park. To realize this management plan an EU-INTERREG 2a project was applied for and granted (interview 10). The project was running from 1996 until 2001 (Secretariaat-Generaal, 2004). Realising this management plan took a long time and it was ready only 1999. This was partly due to all the different owners and ideas in the area that had to be taken into account. Then also the need for a new Bijzondere Commissie occurred and this was established in September 2001. The policy plan ‘Beheer en Inrichting’ was accepted by the responsible Dutch and Flemish politicians and a decree was signed by the ‘Comite van Ministers’ in which the Borderpark “de Zoom-Kalmthoutse heide” was officially established as a Borderpark in 2001 (www.minlnv.nl, 13th of April 2004). Promises were done at this time by the Flemish and Dutch governments that both would finance 50% of the Borderpark, meant for the parkmanagement and additional management. This money came on top of the regular subsidies. Until 2003 the park was incorporated under the Benelux Economische Unie but it became clear this was not very practical. An organization was needed in the area and the Benelux was too far from the Borderpark (interview 5). So in order to avoid having to establish another corporate body (interview 6) BENEGO became incorporated in 2003. BENEGO is the ‘Belgisch Nederlands GrensOverleg’ (Belgian Dutch Border Meeting) and it is a co-operation of 26 Dutch and Belgian municipalities along the national border. Its tasks are to improve cross-border co-operation in general and to solve bottlenecks in the cooperation (interview 6). 20


21

4.3.2 Organizational structure BENEGO is officially the highest body in the Borderpark, but in practice the Bijzondere Commissie make the decisions. This Bijzondere Commissie has to approve of the budget, the account, the year planning of the park etc. In this board both Dutch and Belgian parties (seventeen in total) participate and decide about the policy and management of the park. Next to the members a chairman and four advisors also present. All actors are mentioned in paragraph 4.5.2 and appendix VI. Next to the Bijzondere Commissie another board exists, this is the Stuurgroep. This is more or less the daily management of the park. It receives mandates from the Bijzondere Commissie for various issues and prepares the issues for the agenda of the Bijzondere Commissie meetings. It is working on the execution of plans and projects in the Borderpark. The Stuurgroep meets more often than the Bijzondere Commissie, about 6-8 times a year. It consists of 9 member organizations and a chairman. All participating actors are mentioned in paragraph 4.5.3 and in appendix VII. Then two working groups exist, ‘Natuur en Water’ (Nature and Water) and ‘Voorlichting, Educatie en Recreatie’ or ‘VER’ (Information, Education and Recreation). These groups give advice to the Stuurgroep and Bijzondere Commissie. In figure 2 the structure of the Borderpark is simplified. The parkmanagement, finally, is coordinating all these administrative bodies. The management, consisting of two persons, coordinates the Bijzondere Commissie meetings, Stuurgroep –meetings and working group meetings. Furthermore they prepare policy by writing proposals, letters, memo’s etc. They also coordinate the implementation of projects. It is more or less floating over all four bodies. This organizational structure will be used in 4.5 and 4.6 to analyse the social and cognitive dimension of the process of co-operation. Each group, all four ‘commissions’ will be described and analysed separately. Bijzondere Commissie

Stuurgroep

Working group N&W

Working group VER

Figure 2, organogram of the organizational structure of the Borderpark

4.3.3 Ownership The ownership of the whole area is very divers. Parts are owned by a municipality, other parts by nature managing organizations or by farmers and private owners. The municipality of Kalmthout owns a large part of the Kalmthoutse Heide (moors of Kalmthout), about 1000 hectares. This area, which is a Nature Reserve in Flanders, is managed by the Ministry of the Vlaamse Gemeenschap (Ministry of Flemish Community), department of nature. Other parts of the Borderpark are managed, as already said, by nature managing organizations, Staatsbosbeheer owns and manages 150 ha and Natuurmonumenten 21


22

manages 450 ha. Furthermore many private owners live in the Borderpark. About 175 small owners have less then 2 ha each and five big private owners together own about 1480 ha. Thus private owners have about half of the total land area in the Borderpark. For a schematic view of the ownership see figure 3. Ownership in Borderpark 6%

28%

4%

50% 12%

Mun. Kalmthout/VG, dep. Nature

Staatsbosbeheer

Natuurm onum enten

Private owners ( 50-700ha) # 6

Private owners (< 2 ha) # 175

Figure 3, ownership in the Borderpark

4.3.4 Ecology The current landscape in the Borderpark is determined by the coversand which is deposited in the area. It consists amongst others of sand dunes and valleys in which fens originated. Due to human interventions the open heather disappeared and forests became more numerous the last two centuries (Hoofdrapport BIB, 1999). The dynamics between heather, sand and forest are a very important characteristic of the landscape, especially in nature reserve the Kalmthoutse heide. Nowadays one can find a lot of heather again in the Borderpark, which is of international importance: both Ossendrecht and the Kalmthoutse heide are appointed as Habitats directive area for, amongst other habitats, heather. Many characteristic and valuable plant species occur in the dry and humid heather vegetation and in the fens. The management of heather is done mainly by grazing of sheep. On a small area grazing is done by goats and galloways. Other nature management measures are mowing and cutting sods, removing forest and maintaining the fens. Next to heather many forests are in the area too, about 50%, mainly young and coniferous forest. Nature value is realized by the vastness of the forests, of which many bird species can benefit. Timber production is not very common because the profits are low. The management of the forest is mainly traditional but different owners have different accents in their management. Not only forests and heather but also agriculture is present in the Borderpark. The agricultural fields are mainly grasslands and will be managed, in the future, extensively. At this moment sometimes the agriculture is still too intensive and acidification occurs. One of the main ecological problems in the area is the drying out of the area. Another problem is the eutrophic situation in certain parts of the area. These and other problems will be described in more detail in paragraph 4.6. A map of the park can be seen in figure 4

22


23

Figure 4, map of the Borderpark ‘de Zoom-Kalmthoutse heide’

4.3.5 Recreation and education Within the Borderpark, the Kalmthoutse Heide area is a very famous area and it attracts many visitors, especially from Flanders, they mainly walk, bike and ride horses. On the Dutch side not so much recreation takes place. A reason for this is that the Borderpark is not so well known in the Dutch part, another reason is that on this side many private estates are situated and most of these areas are not accessible for visitors, some of them are but walking routes are not present. As a result the recreation pressure on the Flemish side/the Kalmthoutse heide is too big. Regulating measures are needed in the future so that the problem can be handled. Next to recreation also education is a point meriting attention in the park. Nature education centre “de Vroente”, located on the Flemish side of the park, is the main information and starting point of visitors. In this centre many educational activities take place. Schools visit the centre often. On the Dutch side not so much education activities are taking place yet.

4.4 The actors In and around the Borderpark numerous actors are active. Each actor has his own ideas, interests and contacts. Below a short description of the relevant actors for this research is given. All the actors are divided in public and private actors and public actors are subdivided into different levels.

23


24

4.4.1 Public organizations Supra national level Secretariaat-Generaal Benelux Economische Unie The Benelux was in the first place a co-operation between Belgium, the Netherlands and Luxemburg with the goal of liberalization of trade, later other goals were included as well, like nature protection. The Benelux works at cross-border co-operation on different levels, in the border area itself, in the Benelux and in Europe. In 1982 the ‘Benelux Overeenkomst op het gebied van natuurbehoud en landschapsbescherming’ (Benelux Agreement in the Field of nature conservation and landscape protection) was signed. One of the issues in this agreement was the protection of cross-border nature areas. According to this agreement the Benelux took the initiative for realizing the Borderpark. The Benelux is represented in the Borderpark in the Bijzondere Commissie, the Stuurgroep and the working group ‘VER’. BENEGO BENEGO is the ‘Belgisch Nederlands GrensOverleg’ (Belgian Dutch Border Meeting) and it is a co-operation of 26 Dutch and Belgian municipalities along the national border. Its tasks are to improve cross-border co-operation in general. It is officially the highest body in the organizational structure of the Borderpark. BENEGO is represented in the Bijzondere Commissie, the Stuurgroep and the working group ‘VER’. National level Minstry of LNV (NL) The Ministry of LNV (Agriculture, Nature and Foodquality) is the ministry in the Netherlands that is responsible for the management and protection of nature in the Netherlands. Because the Borderpark plays such an important role in national and international policies (EHS, VEN, Natura 2000) the Ministry of LNV has appointed the whole area as a National Park/Borderpark in the Dutch structure of National Parks. In these National Parks nature management, nature education and recreation arestimulated and promoted. The ministry also subsidizes the Borderpark and is represented in the Bijzondere Commissie and the Stuurgroep. Ministry of the Vlaamse Gemeenschap, department of nature (B) In the region of Flanders the department of nature is the one responsible for the protection and management in Flanders. The department is already for a long time the manager of a part of the Borderpark: Nature Reserve the Kalmthoutse Heide. It advises about nature protection and –development and manages the Nature Reserves. It also co-operates in the implementation of the VEN and other programmes and coordinates the implementation of international directives. The department of nature is present in the Bijzondere Commissie, the Stuurgroep and the two working groups. Ministry of the Vlaamse Gemeenschap, department of water (B) The quantity and quality of the water is in the Borderpark very important for nature. The department of water of the Vlaamse Gemeenschap plays an important role in the management of the water in the Borderpark and wants to realize an optimal amount of ground- and surface water with a good quality for humans and nature. The department of water is present in the Bijzondere Commissie and the working group ‘Natuur en Water’.

24


25

Ministry of the Vlaamse Gemeenschap, department of monuments and landscapes (B) The department of monuments and landscapes is responsible in Flanders for the conservation of monuments and landscapes. In the Borderpark it is part of the Bijzondere Commissie. Ministry of the Vlaamse Gemeenschap, department of forests and green (B) The ministry of the Vlaamse Gemeenschap, department of forests and green is managing forests, parks, fishing waters and fauna. It wants to integrate the recreative, the economical and the ecological role of forests and green. By providing knowledge about this they contribute to the Borderpark. This is done via the Bijzondere Commissie and the working group ‘Natuur en Water’. Ministry of Defense (NL) In the Dutch part of the Borderpark about 630 ha of heather and sand dunes is let to the ministry of Defense. This area is used for military activities and exercises. The activities have decreased a great deal already and will decrease further in future. The grounds are also valuable for nature; one walking route is already situated here and more walking routes will follow. The Ministry of Defense is present in the Bijzondere Commissie. Instituut voor Natuurbehoud (B) The ‘Instituut voor Natuurbehoud’ is a scientific institute of the Ministry of the Vlaamse Gemeenschap. Its task is to implement all scientific studies, researches and activities concerning nature protection. In the Borderpark it is present in the Bijzondere Commissie. Regional level Province of Noord-Brabant (NL) The province of Brabant is the province in which the Dutch part of the park is situated. An important task of the province is the concern for nature. The province tries to improve the quality of nature and of the landscape. One means is by realizing the EHS but are management by municipalities, ‘waterschappen’, farmers and volunteers is also important. Another responsibility is the implementation of the Flora- and fauna law, the Forest Law and the Nature protection Law and the province is also responsible for the issuance of licenses for the winning of drinking water. The organization is present in the Bijzondere Commissie, the Stuurgroep and the working group ‘Natuur en Water’. Waterschap Brabantse Delta (formerly Het Scheldekwartier) (NL) The quantity and quality of water is very important in Borderpark ‘de Zoom - Kalmthoutse Heide’. Watermanagement is very important and in the Netherlands the Waterboard Brabantse Delta (Waterschap) plays an important role in this. The Waterschap is present in the Bijzondere Commissie and in the Working group ‘Natuur en Water’. Local level Municipality of Kalmthout (B) The Belgian municipality of Kalmthout is closely connected with the Borderpark because she owns a big part of the Kalmthoutse heide (which is managed by the department of nature). The municipality of Kalmthout is represented in the Bijzondere Commissie by the mayor and also in the working group ‘VER’ and the working group ‘Natuur en Water’.

25


26

Municipality of Essen (B) The Belgian municipality of Essen has a small, but important, part of the Borderpark. This is the place where drinking water company Pidpa has her pumpstation. The municipality of Essen is represented in the Bijzondere Commissie by the alderman and also in the working group ‘VER’ and in the working group ‘Natuur en Water’. Municipality of Woensdrecht (NL) The Dutch part of the Borderpark is entirely on the territory of the Dutch municipality of Woensdrecht. This municipality works hard to develop nature and at the same time recreation. Also on their territory the winning of drinking water is done by drinking water company Evides. The municipality of Woensdrecht is represented in the Bijzondere Commissie by the mayor and also in the two working groups. 4.4.2 Private organizations Staatsbosbeheer (NL) The Dutch Staatsbosbeheer (State Forest Service) is an independent administrative body, so it is not totally private. At this moment Staatsbosbeheer is doing a lot more then just managing the forests of the Dutch state. It is now managing many valuable nature reserves as well. In the Borderpark this are the ‘Staartse Duinen’ and ‘Kortenhoeff’. The current management of Staatsbosbeheer is not only focused on timber production but also on nature and recreation. Staatsbosbeheer in represented in the Bijzondere Commissie, the Stuurgroep and the two working groups. Natuurmonumenten (NL) The Dutch Natuurmonumenten is a nature managing organization, an independent association that realizes that co-operation is needed to achieve results for nature and landscape. Natuurmonumenten wants to realize results by buying and managing nature areas. Natuurmonumenten manages a couple of hundreds of hectares in the Borderpark and is advisor of the Bijzondere Commissie and the Stuurgroep. Furthermore it takes part in the two working groups. Private owners The Borderpark houses many private properties. Some of them are very big and some very small. The bigger areas are between 50 and 700 ha and are owned by a family for many ages. The advantage of these big areas is that here no cultivation or reallocation of land has taken place. Another 175 small pieces of land (less than 2 ha) are owned by private owners. The Borderpark advises all of them and they also participate in the Bijzondere Commissie. Some private owners are a bit skeptical about the Borderpark and everything connected with it. Not all properties are open to the public yet, although some are. Pidpa (B) and Evides (NL) The drinking water companies on the Dutch and Flemish side are respectively Pidpa and Evides (formely Delta). The drinking water companies have wells where they win drinking water, both on the Flemish and the Dutch side. They are not a member of the Bijzondere Commissie but they are involved in the working group ‘Natuur en Water’ where they try to find alternatives together with the other organizations to solve the problems in the park.

26


27

Park management The management of the park consists of two persons. These two people coordinate the Bijzondere Commissie and the Stuurgroep and they also lead various projects. Each of them is chairman of one of the working groups. They are employed by BENEGO but they are independent of any organization.

4.5 Social dimension 4.5.1 Introduction The social dimension describes, in short, who the actors are and how they interact. Questions like: how often meetings are held and how long they take, what is the character of the meetings and who is meeting who, are addressed. The Bijzondere Commissie, the Stuurgroep and the working groups together build the organizational structure of the park. All these bodies have their own social dimension, their own specific actors and interaction pattern so these bodies will be described separately. 4.5.2 Bijzondere Commissie Who: the 17 members, a chairman and advisors were appointed by the ‘Comite van Ministers’ of the Benelux when the park became officially recognised in 2001. The Bijzondere Commissie is at present under the chairmanship of Mr. H. Suykerbuyk, an independent chairman that was appointed by the Benelux Economische Unie in 2001 for 5 year (interview 2). Flemish members are the “Instituut voor natuurbehoud”, the Ministry of the Vlaamse Gemeenschap, main office, -department of nature, -department of monuments and landscapes, -department of forests and green and -department of water. Furthermore the mayor of the municipality of Kalmthout and the alderman of the municipality of Essen are Flemish members. Dutch members are the Ministry of LNV and the Ministry of Defence, the province of Noord-Brabant, Staatsbosbeheer, the mayor of the municipality of Woensdrecht and Waterboard ‘het Scheldekwartier’. Next to these organizations also three private owners are a member and four advisors are part of the Bijzondere Commissie, one of them is Natuurmonumenten. These organizations and individuals are now present in the Bijzondere Commissie, if important parties are missing in the future they would be asked to join (interview 10). One actor suggested allowing an organization that has a specific recreational view because everyone has recreational ambitions but there is no such expertise present (interview 12). How: In the meetings of the Bijzondere Commissie several subjects get a chance; for example approval of the budget and account, the planning for the coming year and the implementation of the policy plan. Also the ideas of municipalities and private owners are a subject and these do not always correspond with the goals of other organizations in the Borderpark (interview 1, 4). The exact meaning of the Birds- and Habitats directive is almost never explicitly talked about in Bijzondere Commissie meetings (interview 5, 7, 9). About these subjects that are on the agenda very often no big discussions are held anymore (interview 1). A lot of decisions are accepted in the way they are prepared but it would be good if there was more discussion (interview 9). The municipalities have the idea that everything is decided already in the Stuurgroep and one private owner has the idea that everything is decided already by the politicians (interview 13). They perceive the Bijzondere Commissie meetings merely as meetings where they are informed about what is going on. ‘The Bijzondere Commissie is a ratification body, it ratifies that what has been prepared by the Stuurgroep’ (interview 11). 27


28

To increase commitment the meetings are hosted by a municipality or other organization and then this organization gets a chance to presents its views on the Borderpark (interview 1, 8). Now all the members have had their say, each meeting has a theme. A general feeling is that the meetings have a surplus value because here all parties, also the municipalities and private owners, are present (interview 5, 8). The meetings are useful because it gives the parties that are not present in the Stuurgroep the chance to keep up to date (interview 2). A rule is also that, despite the differences between organizations, consensus should always be reached. The meetings are held 2 to 3 times a year and take less than two hours. The meetings are public although not often persons other than members are present (interview 2). The attendance varies and is high in general but not all the members are equally present. For example the Instituut voor Natuurbehoud, the Ministry of the Vlaamse Gemeenschap, department of monuments and landscapes and - department of water are not present so often. This is probably because they are not directly involved in the Borderpark. Also Mr. van Thillo, a private owner, is not present every time. The agenda of the Bijzondere Commissie is officially prepared by the Benelux Economische Unie, in practice the chairman and the coordinator also take part in this. Between the Dutch and Belgian municipalities no contact exists, except via the Bijzondere Commissie (interview 11). Dutch and Belgian private owners don’t have much informal contact either (interview 13). Most of the time the organizations meet in the Bijzondere Commissie and the important issues are handled here (interview 10). When actors meet in another meeting the Borderpark is not much talked about (interview 8). 4.5.3 Stuurgroep Who: the members on the Dutch side are Staatsbosbeheer, the Ministry of LNV and the province of Noord-Brabant. Flemish members are the Ministry of the Vlaamse Gemeenschap, main office and the Ministry of the Vlaamse Gemeenschap, department of nature. The province of Antwerp is not a member because it doesn’t have any authority about the Borderpark (interview 2). Other members are the Benelux Economische Unie and BENEGO. Next to the members there are the chairman and two advisors, one of these advisors is Natuurmonumenten. The municipalities and private owners are not a member because then the Stuurgroep would be as large as the Bijzondere Commissie (interview 1, 2). Many subjects in the Stuurgroep are not interesting for them and if they are there is a separate meeting or excursion held (interview 1). One municipality mentioned that it would be too much to be in the Stuurgroep, another one wouldn’t mind being more involved but doesn’t have the idea to miss much in this situation. How: The Stuurgroep is the daily management of the Borderpark. A large variety of subjects is discussed during the meetings. For examples the expansion of the park, solutions of specific (ecological) problems, water management, fauna management, finances, year plans and yearly reports and so on. The Birds-and Habitats directive are never explicitly talked about (interview 5, 7, 9). The meetings are perceived as useful (interview 5, 6). The members always try to reach consensus about all the issues (interview 2, 8). ‘The rule is that we try to reach consensus. When there is no consensus possible: item adjourned. When there is inconsensus most of the time we can work it out’ (Interview 2).

28


29

One of the respondents mentioned that the co-operation within the Stuurgroep was good but the effectiveness could be better. He suggests taking action more quickly, apart from the official meetings. ‘One should operate careful in everything but not too careful with the result that one doesn’t advance. (Interview 7) Other interaction rules of the Stuurgroep: it gathers around 6-8 times a year and meetings take about 2-3 hours. The meetings are not public (interview 2). The attendance is high and the presence of the actors is more or less equal. The agenda is prepared by the management of the park together with the chairman (interview 10). The Stuurgroep also prepares the agenda of the Bijzondere Commissie meetings (interview 6). The Stuurgroep is, just like the Bijzondere Commissie, at present under the chairmanship of Mr. Sukyerbuyk (interview 2). The actors in the Stuurgroep do meet or call each other sometimes, apart from the formal meetings but most of the time they meet in the Stuurgroep and then all the issues are discussed together (interview 10). When they meet in another context the Borderpark is often not much talked about (interview 8). Of course some actors have more informal contacts than others, for example the Ministry of LNV on purpose doesn’t have many informal contacts (interview 9) while the province of Brabant has more contacts and is involved in some local projects as well (interview 10). From the interviews it became clear that the co-ordinator of the Borderpark has most informal contacts, he encourages them and makes them unnecessary by taking initiative himself (interview 2). He has contact with many organizations and individuals and when needed he arranges a bilateral meeting, for example about the purchase of agricultural lands (interview 1). 4.5.4 Working group Natuur en Water Who: In this working group many different actors are involved, this are all the actors that are involved in water or in nature issues (interview 1). Actors are for example municipalities, nature managing organizations, waterwinning companies, water boards, ministries etc. This working group originated spontaneously already in the 90’s. In the first place it was only about nature later, in 2002, the issue of water was added (interview 1). How: subjects that are discussed are of course all related to water and nature (interview 10). The meetings are more informal and meant to bring consensus between the actors on both sides of the border (interview 10). Sometimes discussions arise also because differences exist between actors about various issues. For example differences between nature organizations and drinking water companies; the main objective of nature organizations is nature protection and the main interest of drinking water companies is above all a social one: providing society with drinking water (interview 3). This sometimes leads to big discussions but the drinking water companies keep coming to the meetings (interview 3). Some other interaction rules are that the working group meets about 3-4 times a year. The attendance varies according to the issues on the agenda and this agenda is made by the co-ordinator of the Borderpark who is also the chairman of the working group. In this working group some informal contacts exist between the Flemish members. They see each other more often then they see the Dutch members. A working group has a more informative character. They are meant to link what is happening outside the park and inside the park (interview 10)

29


30

4.5.5 Working group Voorlichting, Educatie en Recreatie (VER) Who: in this working group actors are involved that have something to do with education or recreation in the park, for example municipalities, VVV’s, staff of Nature Education Centre de Vroente, managers of Natuurmonumenten and Staatsbosbeheer, voluntary organizations, interest groups etc. 26 members are now active in this working group. How: the working group is discussing for example about facilities for recreation (interview 6), about educational facilities etc. Differences sometimes exist about recreation, particularly between municipalities and nature organizations. Municipalities are, more then nature organizations, in favour of many recreational facilities. The working group gathers around 3 to 4 times a year and its task is to advice the Stuurgroep and Bijzondere Commissie about education and recreation.

4.6 Cognitive dimension 4.6.1 Introduction In the previous paragraph the social dimension of the process of cross-border co-operation has been described. In this paragraph the cognitive dimension will be described. All actors have their own perceptions, their own definitions of reality about various subjects. These definitions are the result of the interactions and together form the cognitive dimension. This determines how an actor acts in a given situation. The definitions were determined using the interviews with the actors. In the following part the different definitions will be described following the same structure as in paragraph 4.5 First the Bijzondere Commissie, then the Stuurgroep and finally the working groups will be handled. 4.6.2 Bijzondere Commissie Goals All organizations that are involved in the park have subscribed to the policy plan ‘Beheer en Inrichting’ (interview 1), except the private owners. The main goal of the policy plan is: ‘to come, in a cross-border connection, to an integral vision focused on the conservation and where possible restoration and development of area-specific nature- and landscape values’ (Hoofdrapport Beleidsplan ‘Beheer en Inrichting’, 1999). Additional goals are recreation, education, fauna management and possibly timber production. Because the private owners didn’t sign the policy plan some private owners on the Dutch side have signed a statement of intention (intentieverklaring) in which they declare an intention to realize the goals of the Borderpark, they are not committed to anything. Although all actors within the Bijzondere Commissie have subscribed the policy plan or have signed a statement of intention, different ideas exist about what goals are most important. Many actors agree that the protection of nature is most important. Municipalities subscribe the nature management but also have to try to improve recreation in the park (interview 2). They have to reconcile nature and recreation (interview 2) and are supporters of a more intensive recreation (interview 11). The private owners often do find nature very important. Sometimes even so important, that they are opponents to recreation, at least at their property (interview 12, 13). Next to nature for the private owners also maintenance and supervision are important goals (interview 2) because their properties are often accessed without permission (interview 13).

30


31

Problems Next to differences in goals also differences in perception of problems can be distinguished. When asked about the most important problems in the Borderpark almost all actors mention the problem of water, or better the lack of water in the Borderpark (interview 4, 9, 10, 12). Often heard was that the reason for this is water winning (interview 2, 5, 8). In the 70’s the decrease of the water level in the agricultural lands was getting serious, due to too much water winning (Wissels, nr 22, dec 2003, pg 4). Especially in the northern part of the park the lack of water is a problem. In the policy plan ‘Beheer en Inrichting’ this is an important issue. The actors in the Bijzondere Commissie agree that the main solution is to consult with the drinking water companies about this. ‘The water, despite everything, decreases. One should do everything to keep the area full of water’ (interview 1) Another problem that was often mentioned is recreation. Many found the recreation pressure at some parts of the park a problem (interview 4, 8, 9). Especially the pressure on the Flemish side is very high (interview 1, 2). The fame of the Flemish Nature Reserve the Kalmthoutse Heide is the main reason for this. Already before the Borderpark was established many people came to visit here. Parking places and infrastructure were developed and a Nature Education Centre is situated on the Flemish side since 1999. On the Dutch side the Borderpark is not very well known and thus most visitors visit the Flemish part. The municipality of Woensdrecht finds that the lack of visitors on the Dutch side is also a problem (interview 12) and for the municipality of Kalmthout it is a problem that the park gets less accessible for visitors (interview 11). In general all the actors agree that the big amount of visitors, especially on the Flemish side is a problem. As solution for this, different respondents mention zonation (interview 2, 4, 8, 9). By zoning the recreation pressure will be spreaded (interview 4). Visitors will be kept away from the vulnerable parts, for example the Kalmthoutse heide, and directed more towards other parts. This solution may be hard to implement because many private owners don’t want visitors on their property (interview 13). They find that when recreation has to take place on their property it should be bought (interview 13). Some Dutch owners have opened up their grounds however, because this is compulsory for obtaining subsidies from the Dutch Programma Beheer. Another possible solution for the recreation problem is enlargement of the Borderpark (interview 4). So about the ‘recreation-problem’, and especially about the solutions for this, many different opinions exist. Another problem mentioned is the acidification (interview 4,7,10) and resulting from this, changes in flora, for example the increase of grasses (interview 4,10). One reason is the air-pollution (interview 10) and another one is agriculture. A possible solution is the buying of agricultural lands (interview 10). This issue is not perceived as a problem by all actors as strongly. Borderpark and co-operation Organizations in the "Bijzondere Commissie" regard the Borderpark as positive. Especially nature-organizations see a lot of surplus value. Municipalities consider the park as positive too (interview 11, 12), the municipality of Kalmthout for example considers the park as a means of complementary financial support (interview 11). But not all aspects are considered positive. The residents of the municipalities are now sometimes restricted in their use of the park (interview 4, 12). For example horsemen and mountain bikers are forced to the exterior of the park (interview 6), swimming in the fens is nowadays prohibited. From their point of view not much has changed (interview 1, 10), they were visiting the Kalmthoutse heide and 31


32

they still are visiting the Kalmthoutse heide, but things have changed because now the Kalmthoutse heide is part of the bigger Borderpark. ‘It is and stays the Kalmthoutse heide’ (interview 10) This whole Borderpark is protected under various national and international policies like the EHS, the VEN and Natura 2000. One mayor has the idea that a part of the inhabitants regards the whole vulnerability, and thus protection and restriction of the park, as inconvenient (interview 12). Municipalities have to reconcile two interests, nature and recreation (interview 2) and this is not easy. On one hand municipalities regard the Birds- and Habitats Directives as positive, on the other hand as limiting for building projects and other municipal projects and goals (interview 11, 12). A surplus value of the co-operation is that now there is also contact with the Dutch neighbours and the possibility of funding from the EU (interview 11). What do the private owners think about the Borderpark? In the beginning many private owners had a lot of false ideas about the Borderpark (interview 1). They now keep a scrupulous eye on what is happening (interview 6), they sometimes see the measures of the Borderpark mainly as interfering with their own management (interview 11, 13). One of them doesn’t often attend to meetings of the Bijzondere Commissie anymore, because he finds the Borderpark inconvenient (interview 1). Also farmers often don’t approve of the Borderpark or the EU-Directives, because of the status as nature area they have a lot of restrictions, for example in fertilizing their lands (interview 2). ‘Private owners often look at their property in a different way then public administrations’ (interview 11) In general the private owners are hard to get involved (interview 9), but it would be good if they were (interview 10). One private owner finds it positive to be part of the Borderpark and the Bijzondere Commissie but mentions that one has a say in the matter only after the decisions have been made (interview 13). 4.6.3 Stuurgroep Goals The actors in the Stuurgroep agree with each other most of the time, about the main issues. They all agree that the protection of nature, like described in the policy plan, is the most important goal. Next to this actors often have other goals as well, most of the time they fall within the general goals of the policy plan. For example Staatsbosbeheer; this organization has, next to nature management and recreation, timber production as an important objective (interview 7). The Ministry of LNV finds education very important also (interview 9) and the province of Noord-Brabant has as objective to optimize the Birds- and Habitats directive areas. This is the only actor that explicitly states Natura 2000 as a goal (interview 10). Most actors do think Natura 2000 is a positive development, it gives extra impulses (interview 8), extra protection (interview 7) and is a possibility for European subsidies (interview 10). Overall a rather big consistency exists within the Stuurgroep, concerning the goals. Problems The ideas about what are the main problems in the area also correspond for the greatest part, just like the definitions of reality for the goals. Water is the most important problem, the lack of water (interview 4, 9, 10, 12). Partially it can partly be solved inside the park, partially it has to be solved outside the park (interview 9), for example by consultation with drinking water companies (interview 1, 5, 8); everyone agrees that this is very important. Another 32


33

problem is the recreation pressure in the Borderpark. Within the Stuurgroep everyone agrees, unlike in the "Bijzondere Commissie", that zonation is a good solution. Another possible solution is enlargement of the park (interview 4). Next to water and recreation also acidification is a problem (interview 4,7,10) and resulting from this, changes in flora (interview 4, 10). Also the fact that the ownership is cut into bits is a problem. Not everyone perceives these issues in the same way. A solution for these problems is the buying of agricultural lands (interview 10). In general it can be concluded that the members of the Stuurgroep more or less regard the same issues as a problem. Borderpark and co-operation Despite a lot of discussions and different opinions during the establishment of the Borderpark nowadays it is accepted by everyone (interview 1). All the actors in the Stuurgroep regard the park as positive (interview 5, 12). Issues can now be handled cross-border and this was formerly not possible (interview 4). Another advantage of the Borderpark is that it is an umbrella organization and represents everyone (interview 7). It is unique and can be an inspiration and example for other parks (interview 5, 8). ‘The Borderpark brings together the partners and is harmonsing management and policy’ (interview 8) ‘It is an international National Park. A nature area with important values’ (interview 7) Most actors are convinced of the surplus value of working together (interview 4, 5, 7, 8). Solving problems in your own area doesn’t always work because other, adjacent areas are of influence. The only way to reach something is to work together (interview 10). ‘You need everyone, everyone has his own responsibilities. You can’t do anything alone’ (interview 1) Staatsbosbeheer too finds that the co-operation is good but the effectiveness can be improved (interview 7). The Borderpark has more potential, now sometimes the process is too bureaucratic, too slow (interview 7). ‘Without co-operation no Borderpark’ (interview 1, 10) Of course differences exist between two countries, differences in the way of handling things (interview 7), in procedures and implementations (interview 8). Flanders works more officious whereas the Netherlands have a more strict way of working (interview 8), the structure of the policy is different and in the Netherlands finances are more difficult to get but once you get them it is sufficient (interview 6). But these differences don’t lead to problems in the co-operation (interview 7, 11). The Dutch and Flemish governments have a different way of working together and can learn from each other (interview 4) and it is important to show understanding for each others different way of working (interview 8). The big advantage of this Borderpark is that the parkmanagement is present to intervene if things seem to go wrong (interview 9).

33


34

4.6.4 Working group Natuur en Water Goals and problems In this working group the organizations are trying to have the best possible nature management and water management in the park. Some issues that are handled are the regulation of the management by grazing, forest management, mowing etc. Discussions about these issues also arise; another issue which leads to discussions is the water management. One of the goals of this working group is to improve the water quality and quantity in the park and there are several ways to do this. For example by filling in canals and changing conifers into deciduous forests to reduce evaporation (interview 4). Another solution is stopping with the winning of drinking water. Unlike the nature organizations, water winning companies of course don’t think stopping with winning is a solution. These two groups have different definitions of reality about the best possible solution. So alternatives have to be sought. One of the alternatives on the Dutch side is using the surface water. On the Flemish side the province of Antwerp has given the Flemish drinking water company Pidpa a permission saying that in 10 years the water winning can’t have an influence anymore in the Borderpark. So phasing the winning and at the same time finding another location for it is an alternative here (interview 3). ‘The problem of water cannot be solved instantly. It also demands a change of ideas from the water winning companies’ (interview 8). 4.6.5 Working group Voorlichting, Educatie en Recreatie (VER) Goals and problems The working group VER is of course mainly concerned with issues related to education and recreation and the general goal is to improve recreation and education. Discussions have been held in this working group about recreation. Discussions between nature organizations and organizations more focused on recreation, like municipalities and sports clubs. The first group sees the park as a nature area and the other group sometimes regarded the park as a recreation area (interview 3). Two groups with to different definitions of reality about the problems. However in a recently held study day about recreation monitoring (29-09-2004) none of the present people denied the central objective: ‘nature as core’ (de natuur als kern) (Wiersma, 2004). Recently also a ‘platform Grenspark-recreatie’ (platform Borderpark-recreation) has been established, next to the working group VER. Its goal is to consult with companies and organizations about the current developments of recreation in the Borderpark. All the organizations present more or less agree about the main goals and problems. Because of a lack of time however this working group has not been researched into detail.

4.7 Conclusion of analysis In this chapter an analysis has been given of the Borderpark ‘de Zoom-Kalmthoutse heide’. Many different aspects have been dealt with. The Borderpark has a long history and is an important nature area, regionally, nationally as well as globally. Within the Borderpark two areas are designated as Habitats-directive area and two as Birds-directive area. Despite this designation Natura 2000 is not an issue (yet) in the co-operation in the Borderpark, it is not much talked about. The ownership in the park is diverse and a remarkable thing is that a big part of it is owned by private owners. Recreation and education are present in the park and facilities are being developed to improve them. The big recreation pressure in some parts of the park is a problem, another problem is the lack of water in the park.

34


35

The organizational structure of the park consists of a Bijzondere Commissie (the formal board), a Stuurgroep (the daily management) and two working groups that give advice. The Bijzondere Commissie is the highest board that has to approve of all decisions and meets 2-3 times a year. The Stuurgroep meets very often (6-8 times a year) and in practice makes many decisions. The working groups give advice and are engaged in more practical issues. All these bodies consist of different actors with different ideas. Within the Bijzondere Commissie different definitions exist between nature organizations, municipalities and private owners, for example about recreation or supervision in the park. In the Stuurgroep all actors agree with each other very well and in the working group ‘Natuur en Water’ differences exist between nature organizations and waterwinning companies. The main difference here is about what is the best solution for the lack of water in the park.

35


36

Chapter 5 Success of co-operation 5.1 Introduction In chapter 2 a theoretical framework has been set up, the configuration approach, describing a social and cognitive dimension of the process of cross-border co-operation. This social and cognitive dimension is described in chapter 4 as interaction patterns, interaction rules and definitions of reality. The next step is to determine whether configurations and aggregates can be distinguished and then the level of success of the co-operation can be determined. This will be done in this chapter on the basis of criteria. The first one is derived from the social dimension and the next four from the cognitive dimension of the configuration approach. The sixth criterion was added because it was also considered a very relevant criterion for successful cross-border co-operation. These criteria are used to describe the co-operation in each administrative body. In paragraph 5.2 the criteria and a hypothesis for measuring successful cross-border co-operation are formulated. Configurations and aggregates will be distinguished and the first five criteria will be checked for the Bijzondere Commissie in 5.3, for the Stuurgroep in paragraph 5.4 and for the two working groups in 5.5 and 5.6. Multiple inclusion, the sixth criterion, will be discussed in 5.7 and in 5.8 overall conclusions will be drawn. In writing this chapter the second research question will be answered: ‘What is the level of success of crossborder co-operation in the Borderpark?’

5.2 The criteria and hypothesis Before formulating the criteria first the structure of the case area the Borderpark is briefly repeated. In the Borderpark four administrative bodies or commissions can be found. These are as already explained before, the organizational structure from figure 2 is repeated in figure 5. Bijzondere Commissie

Stuurgroep

Working group N&W

Working group VER

Figure 5, organizational structure of the Borderpark

36


37

It has to be determined whether the cross-border co-operation in the Borderpark is successful. It is assumed that the co-operation is successful when a configuration occurs; for a successful co-operation in the whole Borderpark thus in all four administrative bodies a configuration should occur. Furthermore it is also very important what actors are included in these configurations. That is included in the second part of the hypothesis. To measure the hypothesis six criteria, derived from the configuration approach, have been formulated. The hypothesis and criteria are: •

Hypothesis: successful cross-border co-operation exists when social-cognitive configurations occur in all ‘commissions’ and when all relevant actors are multiple included in the Bijzondere Commissie and the Stuurgroep

This can be measured by the following criteria: 1. The actors have to meet frequently, the actors should meet at least 3 times a year 2. The actors have the same definitions of reality about the main goals and problems 3. The actors have the same definitions of reality about the means to solve the problems 4. The actors have the same definitions of reality about cross-border co-operation 5. The actors have the same definitions of reality about the area 6. All relevant actors have to be multiple included in the Bijzondere Commissie and the Stuurgroep As already mentioned, in 5.3 to 5.6 configurations and aggregates will be distinguished and the first five criteria will be discussed for the four ‘commissions’ separately. In the end in paragraph 5.7 the sixth criterion, about multiple inclusion will be discussed for the whole Borderpark.

5.3 Bijzondere Commissie Of all the actors within the Bijzondere Commissie some regularly agree with each other and some do not. Different groups can be seen, or, to speak in terms of the configuration approach: one configuration and one cognitive aggregate. The configuration exists of all the nature-oriented organizations. As described in 4.6 they have corresponding definitions of reality. These nature-oriented organizations happen to be all the members that are in the Stuurgroep as well so this configuration is very strong because the Stuurgroep meets very often. Not only is the cognitive dimension the same, these actors also meet often, in the Bijzondere Commissie and the Stuurgroep. The configuration is called the configuration ‘Nature’. Next to the configuration ‘Nature’ another group with corresponding definitions can be seen: the three municipalities. Thus they form a cognitive aggregate. As seen in 4.6 they have the same definitions of reality; next to the goal nature the municipalities also give priority to recreation and accessibility. The problem of water is important to them but also recreation is one of the important problems. As solution for the recreation pressure and accessibility they see the opening of private grounds, under strict conditions. They want fewer 37


38

restrictions in the Borderpark and so do most inhabitants. Another common definition, which contradicts with the configuration ‘Nature’, is about Natura 2000. These EU-Directives are regarded by them as positive but as a limitation for building projects and other municipal objectives also. These three actors form the cognitive aggregate ‘Nature and recreation’. Furthermore in the Bijzondere Commissie some individuals, mainly private owners, can be distinguished who don’t belong to any configuration or aggregate because they all differ in their specific definitions. Score for criteria The first criterion, the actors have to meet at least three times a year, is not met. The Bijzondere Commissie has gathered once in 2002, three times in 2003 and until now once 2004. The second criterion is partly met because the members of the Bijzondere Commissie do have the same ideas about problems (lack of water and recreation as main ones) but their goals are not the same. Three groups with each a different main goal can be distinguished. In the first place the nature-oriented organizations, their main goal is nature. The second group consists of the three municipalities (Kalmthout, Woensdrecht and Essen) who find that next to nature, recreation is also very important. Finally, the private owners find nature and maintenance very important and in general recreation is not so important to them. The next criterion is: the definitions of reality about the solutions for the problems should correspond. Everyone agrees that the lack of water can be solved by certain management measures inside the park and communication with the drinking water companies. For recreation on the other hand each of the three groups has another solution. The nature-oriented groups are inclined towards zonation where certain areas are open for recreation whereas the municipalities would rather have more areas accessible for the public. Most private owners don’t want any recreation or walking route on their property. Thus three different solutions exist within the Bijzondere Commissie for the problem of recreation and the third criterion is not met. All actors see the surplus value of cross-border co-operation and know that they need each other to achieve something so the fourth criterion is met. The fifth criterion, the actors need to have the same definitions of reality about the Borderpark is not satisfied because different definitions about the Borderpark exist. Nature-oriented organizations find it merely positive while for the municipalities and private owners the Borderpark and the connected nature protection also brings restrictions. For example the Birds- and Habitats directive are protecting nature but also restricting other goals at the same time. A last remark, the distinction between these three groups is not the result from different nationalities. The municipalities, private owners and nature –oriented organizations from different countries agree with each other, the differences lie in the various ideas and points of view.

5.4 Stuurgroep In the Stuurgroep one cross-border configuration can be found that includes every actor, from the Netherlands and Flanders, in the Stuurgroep. This configuration is the clearest and strongest in the whole co-operation process in the Borderpark: the configuration ‘Nature’ (see figure 6). Score for criteria The first criterion is met: meetings are held around 6-8 times a year and take about 2-3 hours. During these meetings different subjects are discussed, from finances and yearplannings to more practical issues as expansion of the parks and the fighting of Prunus serotina. The 38


39

second criterion is met too because every actor gives priority to the goal nature and water and recreation are regarded by all as the most important problems. The members, whether they are Flemish or Dutch, also more or less agree about the way to solve these problems. Communication with drinking water companies is a solution for the lack of water and zonation of visitors is a good solution for the recreation pressure. So it can be concluded that criterion 3 is met. The fourth and fifth criteria are met because all the Dutch and Flemish members of the Stuurgroep regard the Borderpark as positive and they see the surplus value of the co-operation, they realize they need each other.

5.5 Working group ‘Natuur en Water’ After the Bijzondere Commissie and the Stuurgroep now the success of the two working groups will be determined. The working group ‘Natuur en Water’ has many members who meet each other regularly. So first of all a social aggregate can be seen. They meet, and have done so for a long time already, 3 to 4 times a year. Subjects that are discussed are all related to water and nature (interview 10). The whole working group is included in the social aggregate ‘Natuur en Water’ (see figure 6). Next to this social aggregate it is observed that two different groups exist with two different points of view, or interests. These interests are nature protection on one hand and water winning on the other hand. They are also mentioned in the paragraph before. Whether these two groups form configurations or aggregates can not be said because not enough is known about the definitions of reality and interaction rules of each actor to tell something about the cognitive dimension. Score for criteria In the working group ‘Natuur en Water’ the first criterion is met because the working group gathers 3 to 4 times a year. The group has been doing this for many years now because before the official structure of the Borderpark was established this working group originated spontaneously. The second criterion is, again, partly met. Everyone agrees the lack of water is a problem and that their goal is to stop this. But not all actors have the same idea about what is the best solution. Because nature organizations give priority to nature and the drinking water companies have of course the winning of drinking water as main priority these two groups have different solutions. Nature-organizations would like to stop the winning of drinking water but of course this is not a solution for the drinking water companies, they would like to find alternatives. Conclusion: the third criterion is not met. The fourth criterion is fulfilled because everyone knows co-operating is important to reach goals and solve the problems. This is also proved by the fact that the drinking water companies keep coming to the working group meetings (interview 3). Finally the fifth criterion, all actors have the same ideas about the area, this is also met because all the actors think the Borderpark is important and has to be protected and preserved.

5.6 Working group VER It is not clear whether in this working group a configuration can be found. But, because the working group meets regularly, it can be concluded that all the actors in the working group form a social aggregate: the social aggregate ‘VER’ (see figure 6). They gather around 3 to 4 times a year. Whether or not the co-operation in this group is successful cannot be said now.

39


40

Score for criteria The final administrative body in the park is the working group VER. Like the other working group the working group VER also meets 3 to 4 times a year and so the first criterion is met. About the other criteria unfortunately nothing can be said. Because the research was carried out from the point of view of nature and because of a lack of time not many actors from this working group have been interviewed.

40


41

Configuration ‘Nature’

Cognitive aggregate ‘Nature and recreation’

Bijzondere Commissie

Configuration ‘Nature’

Stuurgroep

Water Winning

Social aggregate ‘VER’

Natuur

Social aggregate ‘Natuur en Water’ Working group ‘Natuur en Water’

Working group ‘VER’

Figure 6, schematic reproduction of configurations and aggregates

41


42

5.7 Multiple inclusion In this paragraph the sixth criterion will be explained: ‘all relevant actors have to be multiple included in the Bijzondere Commissie and the Stuurgroep’. The concept of multiple inclusion was explained in chapter 2 but will be repeated shortly. Multiple inclusion means that an actor is always involved in more than one configuration or aggregate. He will never recognise himself only in the definitions of reality or interaction rules of one single configuration but also in those of other configurations (Termeer, 1993: 35). Thus he will always be part of more configurations. The result of this is that he will never be fully included in one single configuration but only partially. After this explanation the question of who are the relevant actors has to be answered. Of course this is a difficult question and the answer will never be totally without discussion. However, after having carried out such a detailed case study in the Borderpark, it is possible to determine who the most relevant actors are. The landowners and- managers are important and also the involved local, regional and national governmental organizations from the Netherlands and Flanders. Of course also the Benelux and BENEGO belong to the important actors. To fulfil the sixth criterion all these actors have to be included in the Bijzondere Commissie as well as in the Stuurgroep. When having a look at the Bijzondere Commissie it can be seen that here the Benelux and BENEGO are present, all the landowners and managers, as well as the governmental bodies like municipalities, provinces and ministries. In the Stuurgroep however not all of these actors are present; the three municipalities are not present and neither are the private owners. So these two groups are not multiple included, although they play an important role in the whole Borderpark. Only the actors from the Stuurgroep, in other words the configuration ‘Nature’, are multiple included. This means the sixth criterion is not fulfilled. The fact that the private owners and municipalities are not multiple included, are not included in the strongest configuration ‘Nature’, means that they do not have much influence on the decisions that are made. Because the Stuurgroep is the place where ‘it is happening’ and where, in practice, the decisions are made. Actors with different ideas are not included so the configuration only exists because certain actors are not present. The ‘nature-oriented’ definitions and ideas from this configuration return in many configurations and aggregates.

5.8 Conclusions From the analyses of the interviews and from the configurations and aggregates conclusions can be drawn about the success of the co-operation. In the Bijzondere Commissie all relevant actors are present and one cognitive aggregate and one configuration can be distinguished. The cognitive aggregate ‘Nature and Recreation’ consists of the three municipalities. These municipalities are in favor of stimulation of recreation in the park. The configuration ‘Nature’ consists of only nature-oriented actors. These nature-oriented actors are the same actors that are a member of the Stuurgroep so the configuration ‘Nature’ repeats itself here. This configuration is very strong because the actors meet each other often and because all have the same ideas. All actors in the Stuurgroep are included in this configuration so the co-operation is going well. However, as seen in paragraph 5.7, relevant actors like municipalities and private owners are not included whilst they should be. Then the co-operation in the Stuurgroep would be totally successful. When looking at the working group ‘Natuur en Water’ two groups with two different opinions can be seen; some actors are looking from the

42


43

point of view of nature protection and others find waterwinning more important. This difference is not strong enough to distinguish cognitive aggregates or configurations in the working group. A social aggregate can be seen though, that includes all actors. In the working group ‘VER’ also a social aggregate, which includes all actors, can be distinguished. Next to these general conclusions some other remarkable issues are pointed out below. 1. Whether or not the cross-border co-operation is successful is not easy to say. According to the hypothesis successful co-operation occurs in none of the four administrative bodies because in none of them a configuration occurs ánd all relevant actors are present. However, the cross-border aspect of the co-operation is going very well. All the configurations and aggregates are cross-border, actors from both countries are involved and whether they are Flemish or Dutch doesn’t matter. A reason for this can be that the co-operation in the park has been going on for a long time already and of course no language barrier exists between Flanders and the Netherlands. 2. One cross-border configuration is present in the Borderpark, one group of actors is cooperating successful in a cross-border way. However, in this group, where many decisions are made, only nature -oriented actors are present. The configuration only exists because actors with different ideas, like private owners and representatives of the three municipalities, are not included and thus not greatly involved in the decision making. 3. Ideas to protect and preserve nature are present in all configurations and aggregates. When looking at figure 6 it can be seen that nature-based definitions of reality are present in all levels in the Borderpark. Thus nature-protection is the most important issue in the Borderpark.

43


44

Chapter 6 Discussion 6.1 Introduction The results of chapter 5 will be discussed here. Two other researches will be compared to this research. In 1999 Diana de Jong promoted on her doctoral thesis about cross-border cooperation in a case area (the ‘Gelderse Poort’) in Germany and the Netherlands. The title is: ‘Tussen natuurontwikkeling en Landschaftsschutz. Social-cognitieve configuraties in het grensoverschrijdende natuurbeleid’. In her thesis she also used the configuration approach to analyse the process of cross-border co-operation. The second research is from Karin Bolle, in June 2004 she finished her thesis about cross-border co-operation along the German-Dutch border. In this thesis (‘Natuur zonder Grenzen! Kansen en knelpunten bij grensoverschrijdende samenwerking in natuurontwikkelingsprojecten langs de NederlandsDuitse grens’) she describes three case studies, one of her cases also was the ‘EVZ Millingermeer-Kandia/Gelderse Poort’ and the other two are Meinweg-Brachterwald and Natuurpark Rodebach/Roode Beek. In paragraph 6.2 the results of these two researches will be compared to the conclusions of this research. Then in 6.3 the theories used will be discussed and finally a critical review of the configuration approach is given in paragraph 6.4.

6.2 Discussion about results The main conclusion of chapter 5 was that the cross-border aspect of the co-operation is very good (because all configurations and aggregates in the Borderpark are cross-border). This is remarkable because in the ‘Gelderse Poort’, the case area of de Jong, many configurations were found but only one configuration was cross-border (De Jong 1999: 199). Reason for this might be that in the ‘Gelderse Poort’ German actors were already forming very strong configurations (De Jong 1999: 199) and thus other (cross-border) configurations could not easily arise. According to de Jong mutual dependency is an essential condition for crossborder co-operation (De Jong 1999: 221), but in the ‘Gelderse Poort’ the problem and the solution are constructed in such a way that cross-border co-operation is not perceived to be necessary (De Jong 1999: 209). In the research of Bolle (2004) it becomes clear that the actors in Germany on the one hand and in the Netherlands on the other hand form their own separate network (p. 90). In two cases of her research it can be seen that the cross-border aspect is relatively successful now (Bolle 2004: 120 and 145). In the Natuurpark Rodebach/Roode Beek the main reason for the success of the co-operation is the establishment of a project management (Bolle 2004: 145). A project management is very important because it keeps the co-operation going and takes care of many things like coordinating meetings, carrying out projects, finding funds etc. Bolle mentions this as a condition for success (Bolle 2004:90, 145). In the case of MeinwegBrachterwald some obstacles had to be conquered, one of them was differences in ideas about providing of subsidies and differences in national policies. Once the differences were dealt with, cross-border co-operation was more successful. One of Bolles recommendations is to have an organizational structure that consists of at least three levels, an official board, a daily management and working groups. In this way tasks can be divided and not much overlap takes place (Bolle 2004: 156).

44


45

Why is the cross-border part of the co-operation in the Borderpark ‘de ZoomKalmthoutse heide’ successful, why are the configuration and all the aggregates cross-border? A reason for this can be that, when the initiative for the Borderpark was taken, all relevant actors were gathered and among them no different perceptions did exist. From the beginning the actors have had the idea that they had to work together to achieve something, so there was a perception of mutual dependency. And in the Borderpark a parkmanagement is present. This, as Bolle (2004) mentions, contributes to the success because it keeps the co-operation going. Another reason for success is the organizational structure in the Borderpark ‘de ZoomKalmthoutse heide’, it consists of a board, a daily management and working groups. According to Bolle (2004) this kind of three level structure is successful.

6.3 Discussion about theoretical framework In this research, as well as in the research of De Jong, the configuration approach (Termeer, 1999) was used for the analysis of the process of cross-border co-operation. Bolle (2004) on the other hand used two different concepts to construct her theoretical framework. She used the ‘policy arrangements approach’ and the ‘policy network approach’. This last approach has great similarities with the configuration approach and more or less the same basis: policy is realized in interactions between actors and these actors are dependent on each other (Bolle 2004: 27). Around policy problems interaction patterns arise and together with these interactions also institutions arise (sets of rules that regulate common behavior) (Bolle 2004: 27). These institutions create an own reality which actors also adopt as reality (compare: definitions of reality). The ‘policyarrangements approach’ is the second one Karin Bolle used. It assumes that the institutionalization of policy arrangements is the result of the exchange between processes of social and political changes on the one hand and interactions between interested parties on the other hand (Bolle 2004, p 21). Concluding it can be said that for analyzing cross-border processes with many actors a network approach is suited in which interactions between actors are central and where is recognized that policy arises from these interactions. So using the configuration approach in this research turns out to be a good choice.

6.4 Reflection about use of configuration approach In this research the configuration approach was used and in this paragraph a short reflection about this use will be made. A first remark is about the configurations and aggregates that are distinguished. When an individual actor does not belong to a configuration or aggregate then this actor more or less is not taken into account. This was experienced as a deficit of the configuration approach. Furthermore in the configuration approach a configuration is formed when a number of actors has the same cognitive and social dimension. The configuration approach does not mention who should be present in the configurations or aggregates. If the goal of the research is to analyze a process it probably might not be a problem, in this case however the goal was not only to analyze the process but also to evaluate and give recommendations. It appeared to be very important in this case to know who is present in the aggregates and, especially, in the configurations. Finding configurations and aggregates is very easy in theory but in practice it appeared to be difficult. Determining the social dimension was not so difficult but the cognitive 45


46

dimension gave more problems. Whether a group of actors should be called a cognitive aggregate or not and what criteria should be used for this was sometimes a hard task. Despite some problems the configuration approach offered a good and logical framework to analyze and assess the process of cross-border co-operation in the Borderpark. Not in the least because five of the six criteria from chapter five were derived from the configuration approach. They were used to determine the level of success of the co-operation, which is an important part of this research.

46


47

Chapter 7 Conclusions and recommendations 7.1 Introduction In this chapter conclusions will be drawn which will, at the same time, answer the research questions. Also recommendations will be given for improvement of cross-border cooperation. First the research questions will be shortly repeated. 1. How does the process of cross-border co-operation work in the Borderpark? 2. What is the level of success of cross-border co-operation in the Borderpark? 3. What recommendations can be given for a successful cross-border cooperation? In chapter 4 the first and in chapter 5 the second research question have been answered. Final conclusions will be drawn about these two questions in paragraph 7.2. In the remainder of this chapter the third research question will be answered, recommendations will be given. In 7.3 recommendations specifically for the Borderpark and in 7.4 recommendations for the cooperation in general will be given. Finally, in paragraph 7.5 recommendations for further research will be done.

7.2 Conclusions 1. How does the process of cross-border co-operation work in the Borderpark? In the park four administrative bodies exist. The Bijzondere Commissie is the highest body in the park; the Stuurgroep is the daily management, meets often and takes many decisions. This Stuurgroep meets often and all actors in this group are nature-oriented. Finally the two working groups, they give advice and take care of the more practical issues in the park. The park management consists of two persons that take part in the Stuurgroep as well, it plays an important role in finding finances, coordinating projects and keeping external contacts, in short: keeping the co-operation going. The park management is also coordinating all the meetings of the different bodies. In these meetings Flemish and Dutch actors have contact with each other regularly and their common aim is to carry out the policy plan ‘Beheer en Inrichting’. The cross-border aspect of the co-operation is going great. All actors in the different bodies often have different ideas and views, this sometimes hinders the co-operation. For example municipalities, private owners and nature organizations all have different ideas about recreation. Also about the problem of water different ideas exist which can delay certain processes. 2. What is the level of success of cross-border co-operation in the Borderpark? In the Borderpark different groups are present, like municipalities, private owners, nature managing organizations, ministries etc. All these organizations and individuals have different ideas and views and can be divided in configurations and aggregates according to the configuration approach. In the Bijzondere Commissie all relevant actors are present and within the commission one cognitive aggregate and one configuration are present. Because two groups can be distinguished, instead of one, not all ideas within the Bijzondere Commissie are the same and thus the co-operation can be improved on this aspect. The cognitive aggregate ‘Nature and recreation’ is present and consists of the three municipalities; next to nature protection their goal is as well to improve recreation. Next to this aggregate

47


48

also a configuration called ‘Nature’ can be found. This configuration consists of nature oriented actors that form a very strong configuration. This configuration repeats itself in the Stuurgroep and thus the actors meet often and their main goal is the same: nature. However, not all relevant actors are included in this configuration and because the configuration ‘Nature’ (Stuurgroep) has much influence in the Borderpark and decides about many issues, the fact that actors are left out means that they are left out in the decision-making process as well. This can lead to problems or delays. Finally, in each of the two working groups a social aggregate can be distinguished that includes all actors in these working groups. So all actors are meeting each other regularly, which is positive. But in both of these working groups differences of opinion exist about various issues. This is an aspect that can be improved to make the co-operation totally successful.

7.3 Recommendations for the Borderpark These recommendations are meant as suggestions to improve the cross-border co-operation in the Borderpark ‘de Zoom-Kalmthoutse heide’. The purpose of these recommendations is to try to have a configuration in every administrative body but at the same time be realistic about the situation in the Borderpark. It should be mentioned that the cross-border aspect of the cooperation is working very well already, especially compared to other areas. The configurations and aggregates are all cross-border, the actors are working together regardless of nationality. Many initiatives are continuously taken to improve the co-operation. The analyses of this research can provide a basis for improvement of the co-operation between the different actors. Recommendation 1: more discussions in Bijzondere Commissie The Stuurgroep, as already seen, has a lot of influence. Many discussions are held and in practice decisions are made here. In the Bijzondere Commissie these decisions are formally approved. In a good co-operation decisions are made by all relevant actors. Now in the Stuurgroep not all relevant actors are present as discussed in paragraph 5.4. According to the hypothesis the co-operation would be totally successful if all relevant actors were multiple included in the Stuurgroep and the Bijzondere Commissie. At this moment in the Stuurgroep mainly nature oriented organizations are present and no private owners or municipalities, although they play an important role. So they should be involved too. By including them in the Stuurgroep, different perceptions to base discussions upon will be present. It is probably very difficult to realize this recommendation because the configuration ‘Nature’ is strong and exists for many years already. The interaction rules are very fixed and to change them, to include more actors, would be very hard. However it might result in a better understanding with private owners and municipalities. Another option to involve all actors in decision-making is by not letting the Stuurgroep take the decisions in practice. Now in the Bijzondere Commissie actors that are not included in the configuration ‘Nature’ are present only to be informed about and approve of developments rather than to decide themselves. In situating the decision making process largely here all actors will be more involved and probably more discussions will arise here as well, which is positive. Now almost all issues are accepted without much discussion and it would be good if more discussions arose. By showing actors that their ideas are important and attended to the turnout and involvement will increase. It is recommended to have more discussions in the Bijzondere Commissie, consequently the decisions will really be supported by all relevant actors.

48


49

Recommendation 2: less detailed discussion in Stuurgroep This recommendation is connected with the previous one. If in the Bijzondere Commissie more decisions should be made and more discussions have to arise then the Stuurgroep should have less and less detailed discussions. The Stuurgroep does not have to prepare all the issues for the Bijzondere Commissie in too much detail but can leave room for more and longer discussions. Consequently the Stuurgroep-meetings would be shorter and the Bijzondere Commissie meetings longer. Recommendation 3: meet more often with Bijzondere Commissie The co-operation can be made even more successful when the ideas of actors correspond. This is not the case at the moment in the Bijzondere Commissie and in the working group ‘Natuur en Water’. In the Bijzondere Commissie now many different ideas exist; the configuration ‘Nature’, the cognitive aggregate ‘Nature and recreation’ and some individuals all have different definitions of reality. Although it can never be expected that everyone has exactly the same definitions and ideas a certain consensus of opinions should occur. A way to reach this is by meeting more often. By the frequenter interaction there will be a better understanding and each actor will influence the others and the definitions will, in the long run, become more alike. Recommendation 4: meet more often in the working group ‘Natuur en Water’ Also in the working group ‘Natuur en Water’, as already mentioned, the ideas of all actors do not correspond. Many issues are discussed and one of them is the problem of water. About the solution different ideas exist. They do not have to be the same in detail but they should correspond in general terms. Meeting more regularly will bring more understanding for each others ideas and the problems can, hopefully, be solved faster. The working group now meets 3 to 4 times a year but this number could increase. Recommendation 5: Natura 2000 Natura 2000 is getting more and more important in Europe. Also in the Borderpark: the greatest part of the park is appointed as Birds- or Habitat directive area. But in the meetings of the different groups of the Borderpark Natura 2000 it is not really an issue yet. To ensure a smooth implementation of the directives in the future it is recommended to have contact about it regularly. This is in order to make the differences in implementation clear and to observe and solve eventual problems resulting from this. Natura 2000 has a lot of potential, for example it gives the chance to apply for European subsidies (the LIFE-Nature program) and it is a good occasion to work on crossborder co-operation. It should be seen by all actors as an opportunity and not a threat. Recommendation 6: maintain park management As observed before the park management is doing a very important job. It stimulates and facilitates the co-operation. It is recommended to keep the park management as it is or if possible to extend it with more people to make the co-operation in the Borderpark even more successful. Recommendation 7: maintain current organizational structure In the current structure many important actors are represented and they meet each other regularly, in the Bijzondere Commissie, Stuurgroep or one of the two working groups. Although some things can be improved within the ‘commissions’ the current structure should be maintained because the co-operation in the park is going well. Having three organizational levels is a good and working concept.

49


50

7.4 General Recommendations Recommendations for other cross-border areas are not easy to give. All areas are different of course and not in all areas such an extensive administrative structure exists as in the Borderpark. The following recommendations are derived from the configuration approach and from other researches. Recommendation 1: be familiar with the (differences in) policy of both countries On both sides of the border the organizational structures and the policies are very different. To avoid problems these differences should be known. An overview should be made of the organizational structure and policies in both countries in order to define and even big differences. Problems can arise when the policy of the two countries does not connect, like in one of the cases of Bolle (2004: 119). Changing national policies is of course not possible for local authorities but knowing the differences is very important. Furthermore it would be good if the central governments would make more cross-border policy, this would stimulate crossborder co-operation on regional and local level and promote the progress of projects (Bolle 2004: 145). Recommendation 2: involve relevant actors in the co-operation It is very important that all actors that have a say in the area, (that own or manage land or can decide about it), are involved in the process in an early stage. When all relevant actors are involved in the decision making process it will not happen that decisions are made about actors that are not present. This was also proven in de Jong (1999 p.204). In the ‘Gelderse Poort’ the agricultural sector was not involved in the process, then supplementary consultation was needed and the policy process stagnated. Recommendation 3: meet with all relevant actors regularly It is not enough when all relevant actors are gathered, it is as important to see and talk to each other regularly. By talking with each other actors can learn and share each others ideas. This is an important condition for a successful cross-border co-operation. Recommendation 4: be familiar with ideas and goals of everyone and define one common goal Like the first recommendation was about getting to know each others policies it is also very important to know each others goals in the co-operation. When two countries work together and both have a totally different goal, or a totally different idea about co-operation this cooperation will never be successful. All actors should try to understand each others goals and together define one common goal and maybe even a common policy plan. Recommendation5: organizational structure with different levels and a project management To have an organizational structure with different layers is important (Bolle 1004: 156) so that the functions can be clearly divided and no overlap occurs in the tasks. Having a projectmanagement (or: park management) is a success factor in cross-border co-operation because this projectmanagement can keep parties together and be engaged in overall tasks like applying for subsidies. It facilitates the cross-border co-operation.

50


51

7.5 Recommendations for further research As already mentioned in the introduction not much is known about the subject of cross-border co-operation in the field of nature conservation yet. Not many researches have been done but luckily more attention is coming for the subject gradually. For example a research at this moment is being carried out by Alterra, Wageningen. They are working on cross-border cooperation in Natura 2000 areas (Van Wingerden et al., forthcoming). Despite the fact that cross-border co-operation gets more attention many questions still remain. A very interesting and relevant question is: why do people start with cross-border co-operation? Does ecological necessity lead to cross-border co-operation or are other motives more relevant? And: does cross-border co-operation succeed in conserving ecological values? Also questions about the exact role of Natura 2000 in cross-border co-operation are interesting. Natura 2000 has a lot of potential and it can be used to improve or maybe even to start cross-border co-operation in a certain area. Is Natura 2000, or European policies in general, stimulating or maybe hindering the co-operation? What are the differences in implementation of Natura 2000 between countries and do they hinder co-operation? A more general question would be: how can joint nature policies between two countries be made, and is this useful?

51


52

References Bolle, K. (2004), Natuur zonder grenzen! Kansen en knelpunten bij grensoverschrijdende samenwerking in natuurontwikkelingsprojecten langs de Nederlands-Duitse grens Faculteit van Maatschappij- en Gedragswetenschappen. Universiteit van Amsterdam, Amsterdam Börzel, T.A. (1998), ‘Organizing Babylon- On the different conceptions of policy networks’ in: Public Administration, Blackwell Publishers, Vol. 76, Summer 1998, p 253-273 Bulmer, S.J. and Radaelli, C.M. (2004), The Europeanisation of National Policy? Queen’s Papers on Europeanisation Council of Europe (2000), European Landscape Convention and Explanatory Report, Strasbourg De Jong, D.M. (1999), Tussen natuurontwikkeling en Landschaftsschutz. Sociaal-cognitieve configuraties in het grensoverschrijdende natuurbeleid. Eburon, Delft Finnish Forest Research Institute, METLA (2003), Koli Border Forum, Transfrontier National Parks and Biosphere Reserves in Europe. Suomen Kulttuurirahasto Argumenta, Koli Grenspark “De Zoom-Kalmthoutse Heide” (1999), Beleidsplan Beheer en Inrichting Grenspark “De Zoom-Kalmthoutse Heide” 1999-2014, Hoofdrapport MacArthur, R.H. and Wilson, E.O. (1963), ‘Equilibrium-theory of insular zoogeography’ in: Evolution, 17 (4): 373-& 1963 Ministerie van de Vlaamse Gemeenschap, Afdeling Natuur (2002), Natura 2000 in Vlaanderen. Een schakel in een Europees netwerk. Claes Printing, Brussel NABU Landesverband-NRW and Vereniging Natuurmonumenten (2003), Actie Groene Band, Duits-Nederlandse conferentie, Natuur zonder Grensen. NABU Landesverband-NRW, Vereniging Natuurmonumenten Secretariaat-Generaal Benelux Economische Unie, Beschikkingen Natuurbehoud en Landschapsbescherming

Benelux-Overeenkomsten

en

Secretariaat-Generaal Benelux Economische Unie, Afdeling REG (2004), De geschiedenis van het Grenspark ‘De Zoom-Kalmthoutse heide’ Brussel, SG/REG (2004) 79. Termeer, C.J.A.M. (1993), Dynamiek en inertie rondom mestbeleid. Een studie naar veranderingsprocessen in het varkenshouderijnetwerk, Vuga Van Veen, J. (2003), Natura 2000: A European plan on a local level Master thesis Catholic University of Nijmegen, Nijmegen Van der Zouwen, M. (1998), Grensgevallen, beleidsprocessen rond natuur- en landschapsbeleid in de Duits-Nederlandse Grensregio. DLO-Staring Centrum, Rapport 614, Wageningen, 52


53

Verschuren, P. and Doorewaard, H. (1995), Het ontwerpen van een onderzoek. Lemma BV. Utrecht. Wiersma, M. (2004), Verslag studiedag Recreatiemonitoring d.d. 24-9-2004. Essen Van Wingerden, W.KR.E., Van der Sluis, Th., van Dam, R.I., Schmitz, P., Kuipers, H. & Kuindersma, W. forthcoming. Natura 2000 Grensgebieden; Ecologische waarde en grensoverschrijdende samenwerking in Natura 2000 Grensgebieden. Alterra, Alterra rapport 1061. Wageningen Wissels, extra editie. Grenspark De Zoom-Kalmthoutse Heide. Nummer 22, december 2003. Pagina 4. Essen Yin, R.K. (1994), Case study research, design and methods Applied Social Research Methods Series, Volume 5, Sage Publications, London

Internetsources: http://www.eu.int/eur-lex/nl/consleg/pdf/1992/nl_1992L0043_do_001.pdf, 15th of December 2004 http://www.grensparkzk.nl, 15th of December 2004 http://www.minlnv.nl/natura2000/, 14th of April 2004 http://www.minlnv.nl/actueel/speech/2001/speech038, 13th of April 2004 http://www.mcpfe.org, 19th of September 2004 http://home.wanadoo.nl/republikeinen/benelux.html, 14th of October 2004

53


54

Appendix I, Definitions and translations Definitions Natura 2000: a coherent network of protected nature areas on the territory of the member states of the European Union. Habitats Directive: EU-directive from 1992 with the goal to protect natural habitats and habitats of protected species; to conserve the biological diversity in the European Union, (www.minlnv.nl, 29-9-2004) Birds Directive: an EU-directive from 1979 with the goal to protect all birds living in natural conditions on the territory of the EU and to manage their habitats (www.minlnv.nl, 29-92004) Ecologische Hoofdstructuur (EHS): a network of nature areas in the Netherlands where nature (plants and animals) has priority. The EHS can be seen as the backbone of the Dutch nature (www.minlnv.nl, 29th of September 2004) Translations Policyplan ‘Beheer en Inrichting’ Policy plan ‘Management and organization’ BENEGO (Belgisch Nederlandse Grens Overleg) Belgian Dutch Border Meeting Bijzondere Commissie van Overleg en Advies Special Board of Consultation and Advice Comité van Ministers Committee of Ministers Ecologische Hoofdstructuur (EHS) Dutch Ecological Network Kalmthoutse heide Moors of Kalmthout Ministry of LNV (Landbouw, Natuur en Voedselkwaliteit) Ministry of Agriculture, Nature and Food quality Ministry of the Vlaamse Gemeenschap Ministry of the Flemish Community Secretariaat-Generaal of the Benelux Economische Unie Secretariaat-Generaal of the Benelux Economical Union

54


Staatsbosbeheer Dutch State Forest Service Stuurgroep Steering Committee Vlaamse Ecologisch Netwerk (VEN) Flemish Ecological Network Working group ‘Natuur en Water’ Working group Nature and Water Working group ‘VER’ (Voorlichting, Educatie en Recreatie) Working group Information, Education and Recreation

55

55


Appendix II, List of informants and respondents Informants: 1. Advisor of the Borderpark, Bergen op Zoom (NL/B) 2. Chairman of the Bijzondere Commissie and Stuurgroep, Kalmthout (NL/B) 3. Official of municipality of Kalmthout, Kalmthout (B) Respondents: 4. Ministry of the Vlaamse Gemeenschap, departement of nature, Antwerp (B) 5. Secretariaat-Generaal of the Benelux Economische Unie, Brussels (NL/B) 6. BENEGO (NL/B) 7. Staatsbosbeheer, Breda (NL) 8. Ministry of the Vlaamse Gemeenschap, main office, Brussels (B) 9. Ministry of LNV, Eindhoven (NL) 10. Province of Noord- Brabant, Den Bosch (NL) 11. Municipality of Kalmthout, Kalmthout (B) 12. Municipality of Woensdrecht, Woensdrecht (NL) 13. Private owner (B)

56

56

Ja, goed dat we op hoogte gehouden worden en elkaar informeren.

Ja, je houdt contact en probeert iets te bereiken.

beleidsprogramma, begroting, jaarrekening, beheersmaatregelen, onderzoeken. Nadruk op beheersplannen en acties daaromtrent.

budgetering, aannemen v personeel. Sinds Wiersma beter met communicatie. Maar hij zelfde probleem als wij, geen geld (voor bewaking)

Particuliere eigenaar

57

Ministerie LNV

Gemeente Woensdrecht

BC is eindverantwoordelijk, zou zichzelf belangrijker mogen vnden. Meer discussie over stukken zou goed zijn.

Ja. Als burgemeester sta je er toch vaak boven, je bekijkt door gemeentelijke bril.

Ministerie Vlaamse Gemeenschap

Ja, bestuurlijke goedkeurinig is nodig Ja, omdat ook de eigenaren erin zitten.belanrijk om ontmoetingspunten te hebben. Eig denken soms dat niks meer kan veranderen.

Budgettaire maatregelen, begroting, inh natuurgerichte maatregelen, recreatie maatregelen. De grote lijnen

Staatsbosbeheer

nuttig dat alle personen aanwezig zijn.

Gemeente Kalmthout

Begroting, herschikking van begroting, jaarverslag, visie van gemeente elke keer (meer betrokkenheid), vragen part eig.

BENEGO

ja, forum met alle stakeholders.

die moeten er zijn, hier vind besluitvorming plaats

Iha dezelfde als in de stuurgroep, maar abstracter. Welke lijnen en welke stappen in toekomst.

Benelux

Provincie Brabant

Hoofdlijnen beheersaspecten. Inpassing in flankerend beleid tov beleid in omgeving bv. Financien. Relatie met gemeenten en eig, dat is meerwaarde. Alles over uitvoering BIB. Financiering gebied, verlenen opdrachten.

ja

Nuttig?

57

wat gaan we komend jaar doen,hoeveel geld nodig en verantwoording geld. BC verantwoordelijk voor budget en alles in gp, heeft het laatste woord. Ook aandacht voor bestuurlijke kant van gemeentes, BC verg. in gemeente.

Dingen in BC voorbereidt door SG. Planning, goedkeuring budgetten, uitvoering BIB. Gemeenten en eig geven hun visie

Bijzondere Commissie Onderwerpen?

MinVlaamse Gemeenschap,natuur

Vraag 6 Bijzondere Commissie

Appendix III, tables with the results from interviews


58

Provincie Brabant

Ministerie LNV ja

ja, anders gebeurt er niks

Bereidt BC voor. Zaken over part, beheer, vragen mbt BIB. Voorbereiden nieuwe dingen, contacten leggen.

Hangt van agenda af. Op grond hiervan wel of niet gaan.

Inhoudelijk. Concrete dingen tot bestuurlijke zaken.

Staatsbosbeheer

Ja, zeer belangrijk. Ook tav management en om te zien wat gebeurt met geld

Nuttig, rechtstreeks bezig met praktische uitvoering

Voorbereiding en uitvoering beslissingen naar BC.

BENEGO

oa begroting, over dingen in werkgroepen, voortgang grenspark, hoe bestuurlijk verder, uitbreiding, groenfonds enz Controle en bijsturing op voortgang door Marten en Ignace. Verschuiving geld tussen projecten, uitstel/start projecten, voorbereiding BC, problemen andere org, werkgroepen.

Ja, het is daar dat je beleid mee helpt vorm geven

inhoudeiljke onderwerpen. Financies, besteding financies, voortgang rond versch items.

Benelux

Ministerie Vlaamse Gemeenschap

Ja

Nuttig?

Praktisch, meer detail. Over de stand van zaken. Niet direct over N2.

Onderwerpen?

58

MinVlaamse Gemeenschap,natuur

Vraag 7, Stuurgroep


59


Water (algemeen) minder pompen

door samenwerking en overleg over ontwikkelingen.

Middelen:

Doelen: Middelen:

toezicht houden

Doelen:

overleg via de BC. Sommigen dingen via werkgroep.

Middelen:


actief natuurbeheer

Doelen:

Gemeente Kalmthout

realisatie BIB, optimaliseren VHR gebieden Uitvoeren BIB

samenwerking en overleg (via BC)

Middelen:

Doelen: Middelen:

natuurbescherming

synergetisch, dingen samen doen is meer trachten structuren helder te houden

Doelen:

Doelen: Middelen:

duurzaam beheren in samenhang met omgeving onze taak om EHS te beheren met geld LNV

Provincie Brabant

Minsterie van LNV

Ministerie van de Vlaamse Gemeenschap

Doelen: Middelen:

Staatsbosbeheer

publieksrechtelijke status geven

elkaar informeren, samen beleid organiseren

Middelen:

Doelen: Middelen:

versterken GOS(meerwaarde natuur, landschap)

administratief overleg BC, overleg structuren

Doelen:

Doelen: Middelen:

BENEGO

Benelux Economische Unie

Min.van de Vlaamse Gemeenschap,natuur

Vraag 3, doelen en middelen


tegengaan am vogelkers. …..

door samenwerking en overleg over ontw. strengere bescherming eigendommen part eig (algemeen?) meer controle

recreatie overleg via de BC. Sommigen dingen via werkg.

versterken samenw. eig en beheerders GO samenwerking bevorderen

samenwerking en overleg (via BC)

natuurgerichte recreatie

project genereert ook dingen, bv financieel trachten structuren helder te houden

houtproductie ism dienst dienstverlening

voorbeeld op gebied van go natuurbehoud er zijn veel natuurparken, waarom niet meer?

goed samen werken wat we (3 gem) willen door samenwerking en overleg over ontwkklngn.

verantwoordelijk voelen

aanpak verdroging overleg via de BC. Sommigen dingen via wg.

samenwerking en overleg (via BC) realisatie BIB, instandhouden, verbeteren natuurlijke kwaliteit gebieden Uitvoeren BIB

voorlichting en educatie

uitdaging 2 visies bij elkaar brengen trachten structuren helder te houden

extensieve recreatie boswachters voorlichting en educatie

beheer financien

GOS beheer op elkaar afstemmen elkaar informeren,samen beleid organiseren

verbeterking natuurkwaliteit grenspark er is een BIB opgesteld

59

Middelen:

60

Problemen:

Middelen:

Problemen:



Problemen: Middelen:

Middelen:

Problemen:

Middelen:

Problemen:

Gemeente Kalmthout

Provincie Brabant

Minsterie van LNV

Problemen:

Middelen:

Problemen:

Staatsbosbeheer


Problemen:

Problemen: Middelen:

Middelen:

Problemen:

BENEGO


Min.van de VG, natuur

Vraag 5, problemen en middelen

Water

verdroging

recreatie

verdroging wateronttrekkende bronnen stoppen (meer water vasthouden, minder onttrekken, kwaliteit aanvoer en in gebied verbeteren)

water deels binnen,deels buiten park. Kwestie van lange adem

wateronttrekking, verdroging niet direct op te lossen, vraagt ruimer plan dan binnen gp alleen, ook mentaliteitsverandering

grote versnippering, veel verschillende eig een kwestie van tijd, mensen laten wennen aan processen. Unieke karakter gp moet bij de mensen 'landen'.

verandering van water, veel neveneffecten

recreatie monitoring, gebieden afsluiten. Via allerlei technieken

verdroging herloc grondwaterwinning in B, dempen grachten, naald naar loof


Bewaking

Recreatieoverdruk aan Vl kant, recreatie onderdruk aan NL kant. bezig om ook'poort' tot gp te krijgen, b groeve.

verdroging

eutrofiering als mogelijk uitkopen boeren. Aanpakken luchtvervuiling, bv uit vollegrondstuinbouw, Jagersrust (fosfaat).

recreatie via zonering. Maar wel bedoeling dat mensen er gebruik van maken, van gp.

gevaar van recreatie zonering + het vraagt ook inspanning lokale bestuurders….hebben andere visie

Zie eerder

communicatie (blijvend aandacht)

waterwinning samenwerking met watermaatschappijen

graasbeheer, maaien en plaggen

eutrofiering, vergrassing

60

opkopen van gronden zodat geen gaten

versnipperd eigendom

brandveiligheid

Zie eerder gp is gebaseerd op een stuk commitment/goodwill blijven dialogeren. Gp actief stappen zetten om contact te houden

eig binnen gebieden frustreren processen (hebben niks met natuurontwikkeling)

zonering proberen beheersmaatregelen op elkaar af te stemmen via BIB

recreatiedruk

61

Minsterie LNV

Min Vlaamse Gemeenschap

Staatsbosbeheer

BENEGO

Benelux

Min Vlaamse Gemeenschap, Natuur

Vraag 11, overeenkomsten/tegenstellingen

de visie (BIB) is door iedereen onderschreven, ook door ons globale doelstellingen vastgelegd. Discussie over andere dingen. Uiteindelijk: visie afstemmen. Ja, iedereen akkoord met BIB, daar staan ze alledrie in. Maar ieder heeft eigen 'belangrijkste' uit die drie. Iedereen mee eens: gaat om totaal van drie.

dit is wettelijk vastgelegd in BIB Wij geen eigen belang. Onze rol: zorgen dat het goed loopt wij hebben geen eigen doelstellingen

In hoeverre overeen?


lb, hoe daarmee omgaan, ontsluiting verbindingsweg.

af en toe discussie maar geen problemen, natuur blijft belangrijkst.

geen tegenstellingen

in beheer nuance verschillen (..) VG en SBB hebben over natuurbeheer en recreatie dezelfde ideeen.

landbouw, jacht, waterwinning. Tegenstelling waterw.maatschappijen en natuur

wat voor tegenstellingen?

gemeente, lb. Is geen verschil in visie maar op punten. Visie is hetzelfde.

wij nemen alle visies op.

wij zijn onafhankelijk

met wie tegenstellingen? tegenstellingen NL/B: grondaankoop, denken over brandpreventie, jacht.

het kan een probleem worden als je het niet serieus neemt

Binnen gp geen dingen waar sbb probleem mee heeft, behalve lb.

Problemen?

61

Org die betrokken zijn gaan voor hetzelfde. Waterwinningsbedrijven/recreatiebedrijven hebben andere doelen.

Recreatie is een overeenkomst tussen NL/B, hierover met NL org op een lijn

overeenkomsten

62



Gemeente Kalmthout

Over natuur en water: doelstellingen lopen parallel.Iedereen BIB onderschreven. Wel discussie over uitvoering soms. Wij meer wakker van Vl zijde, ook meer kjiken vanuit invalshoek recreatie. Andere mensen andere invalshoeken.


part eig

geen tegenstellingen

Eig willen niet dat grond wordt benut voor toeristische doelstellingen, wij wel: spanning discussies over jacht, en over veiligheid/handhaving (maar geen geld voor)

62

gemeenten. Wij willen alledrie gronden openstellen.

Met andere gemeenten geen grote tegenstellingen

vrij voldoende, een 4 (op schaal 1-5)

meer kan altijd maar op zich goed nu. Opkomst is iha goed. Er wordt genoeg gepraat. Ik zie weinig reflectie van speciale commissie KH in BC/SG. Maar binnen VG afd natuur vast afstemming met Joris.

Voldoende samenwerking

is voldoende. samenwerking is goed, gaat niet goed omdat NL of Vlaming is.

dat je gemeensch beheer en inrichting organiseert. Meerwaarde is je doet het samen

go werken is belangrijk. Dat je op een lijn zit. Er zijn versch visies, bv militair terrein, staan recr passief toe.

Vlaamse en NL partijen hebben een doel, nl gp optimaliseren. Als je op elkaar afstemt: meerwaarde.

Unieke kans om in samenwerkingsverband te zitten over de grenzen heen.Mogelijkheid om schaalvergroting en beheer op elkaar af te stemmen.

2C: NL heeft stelsel NP, Kleisterlee commissie van LNV moest zoveel mogelijk NP aanwijzen. Voor elk ecosysteem 1 NP.

zonder samenwerking geen grenspark. Oplossen problemen in eigen gebied werkt vaak niet, omdat andere gebieden van invloed zijn.enige manier is samenwerken.

Overleg orgaan, hierdoor contact met NL buren. Ook geldstroom vanuit Europa, die gp, en KH, ten goede komt.

Van belang om te weten hoe je grondgebied wordt beheerd en welke functie je, als gem, wilt veranderen. Goed samenwerken met 3 gem, wat we willen

Het is goed om in gp te zitten maar typisch politiek. Politiek beslist, je hebt medezeggenschap nadat besloten is.

Benelux

BENEGO

Staatsbosbeheer

Min Vlaamse Gemeenschap

Minsterie LNV

Provincie Brabant

Gemeente Kalmthout



63

Ja

gemeensch beheer doorvoeren. NL en B andere manier van samenwerking en kunnen van elkaar leren.

Min Vlaamse Gemeenschap, Natuur

Ja. Samenwerking is goed, effectiviteit kan beter. Soms partijen te voorzichtig, teveel praten terwijl misschien niet nodig. Freq is goed als je elkaar weet te vinden als nodig, dat is wel in orde. Formele bijeenkomsten zijn optimaal, meer kun je niet verwezenlijken. Dialoog kun je niet genoeg doen maar teveel berichten ookniet zinvol. Nu goed punt.

Voldoende samenwerking?

Belang van samenwerking?

Vraag 16, over samenwerking


Ja, hooguit vanuit recreatieve kant org erin.

als er partijen zouden missen zouden we ze verzoeken toe te treden. Ja, BC is formeel besluitvormingsorgaan. Niet meer groepen, wel in werkgroepen.

een van de heikele punten toch handhaving en veiligheid in het gebied. Toch 2 wetten waar iedereen zich aan moet houden.

Ja, onderwerpen zijn onderwerpen waar het over zou moeten gaan.

Nu NM erbij. Nu (voor 2004) is het ok maar hangt af van ontwikkelingen, wie erbij moet. Dat voel je wel. Ja, al blijven part eig moeilijk om erbij te betrekken.

Uiteraard, als je nog punten hebt kun je die aandragen.

Ja, denk ik wel.

Ja, verschillen tussen lb normen. Verder scheiding waterbekkens.

Ja

Ja, over uitovering beleidsplan.

Samenwerking over juiste onderwerpen?

Ja, zijn onderwerpen die allen aangaan of die we zelf op agenda hebben gezet.

Ja, we volgen allemaal BIB.

Ja

Samenwerking tussen juiste organisaties?

63

eigenaren die jagen op hoogte (grotere). Kleinere op hoogte via grenspark eig op hoogte, sommige rekening mee, anderen niet.

doorgaans wel bekend bij grote eig. Bij kleine niet zo. part eig zullen het wel kennen. Heeft invloed op milieu en bouwvergunningen

Natuur en milieu org op hoogte, bevolking en gemeenteraad deels. Deel bevolking ziet het als lastig. In Belgie te laat kenbaar gemaakt. Mensen die eronder leden waren niet op de hoogte.

belangrijke extra bescherming,regionale belangen afwegen tegen belangen flora en fauna

Idee grenspark veel ouder dan VR,nu valt 't samen. VR gebied: je kunt extra impulsen geven

EU Richtlijnen geven aan hoe je met gebieden om moet gaan

op grond van aanwijzing beschikken over europese middelen

beperkingen voor andere gemeentelijke doelstellingen, negatief.

Vanuit kwetsbare natuur positief. Soms wel een belemmering,het houdt processen iets op

Niet pos of neg. In NL en Vl anders.

Staatsbosbeheer


Minsterie van LNV

Provincie Brabant

Gemeente Kalmthout



64

ver van mijn bed show, ze moeten toch rekening mee houden. Ze kunnen 't zien als belemmering/bescherming

eerst weinig invulling, nu aan het invullen

BENEGO

Je mag niet meer veel mesten.

nu nog niet zo concreet,hoewel wel bezig met implementatie F&F wet.

niet als apart agenda punt, wel naar verwezen bij beheersproblemen nee, niet apart gesproken over wat betekent t voor beheer

nee

ja, in grote lijnen wel bij part eig en beheerders en zien het belang ervan in. Zolang het hun niet beperkt


ik plant graag loofbomen aan ,ook voor de vogels. Nu meer vogels die eerst niet waren.

maatregelen ja maar niet omdat VHR is. beheersmaatregelen gericht op BIB, BIB niet strijdig met VHR.BIB gemaakt toen VHR nog niet duidelijk was.Weten in grote lijnen wel waar 't om gaat

BIB niet zo op in omdat VHR later was. Maar in KH wel rekening mee

ja, wordt zeker rekening mee gehouden

ja

ja, BIB staat vol met van die dingen, maar meer bij de werkgroepen

eigenaren niet mee bekend, kijken alleen naar concrete zaken op terrein

overleg over de grens zou beter kunnen, nm bij andere org dan natuurorganisaties NL-B op verschillende manieren ingevuld, ook overleg over geweest. Nu neem je VHR mee in grenspark

weet ik niet

nee,niet in BC, maar kader van VHR is bekend en daarbinnen werk je

ja, bij heidevegetaties, verbossing, zonering

beheersmaatregelen?

wij hebben VHR niet nodig om te starten, eerst Benelux overeenkomst, later VHR pas.

Rekening mee gehouden tijdens opstellen BIB

wordt er in SG over gesproken?

Ja, via vergunningen krijgen ze ermee te maken

Bekendheid?

kader waarbinnen BIB is opgesteld

Betekenis?

Wordt er rekening mee gehouden? mee gewerkt? Contact?

64

Min.van de Vlaamse Gemeenschap,natuur

Vraag 4, Natura 2000


Geen overleg hierover met Vlaamse gemeenten.

Geen overleg hierover met NL gemeente, gaat via BC.

implementatie B: gewoon overnemen, wij: aangescherpt. Maatregelen voor BIB en N2 lopen beetje samen.

Bedoeling is dat part eig via BIB er rekening mee houden

een alg richtlijn geldt niet overal, er kunnen plaatselijke element. Zijn die afwijkingen noodzaken

taak BC + SG belang BEU overeenkomst en VHR te verzoenen met belang part. Eig., Misschien stimulans voor meer samenwerking

andere opmerkingen


65

Appendix IV, interview informant This interview was used to interview the informants 1 and 2. The interview with the third informant was an informal conversation. Deel 1: Algemene vragen 1.

a) Wat is uw achtergrond, qua opleiding en werk? b) Welke functie heeft u in de samenwerking in het Grenspark? c) Door wie bent u aangesteld? d) Wanneer bent u aangesteld? e) Bent u verbonden aan een organisatie?

Deel 2: Ideeën over: doelen, middelen, Natura 2000 2.

a) Wat vinden de organisaties in het gebied de drie belangrijkste doelen voor de samenwerking, vrnl. op het gebied van natuur, natuurbescherming? 1 2 3 b) Hoe wil men deze doelen bereiken? Per doel opschrijven 1 2 3

3.

a) Bent u bekend met de Vogel -en Habitat richtlijn, oftewel, Natura 2000?

Zo Nee, ga naar vraag 5. b) Wat is, volgens u, de betekenis van deze richtlijnen voor de grensoverschrijdende samenwerking?

-Is de tot stand brenging van de Vogel- en Habitatrichtlijn gebieden een van de doelen van de grensoverschrijdende samenwerking? Waarom wel/niet? -Zijn ze een middel om dingen op te lossen of is het een zoveelste regel? -Wordt er actief mee gewerkt of ‘omdat het moet’? -In hoeverre is Natura 2000 een stimulans/reden om (meer) samen te werken? -Is er wederzijds contact over de VHR-soorten? -Leeft Natura 2000 in het gebied? Is het bekend bij veel mensen? -Op welk niveau wordt er grensoverschrijdend overlegd over Natura 2000? c) Zijn er speciale beheersmaatregelen die gericht zijn op de bescherming van VHR-soorten?

65

The nature of cross-border co-operation 4.

a) Wat vinden de organisaties de drie belangrijkste problemen die spelen in het gebied op het gebied van natuurbescherming?

1 2 3 b) Hoe kunnen deze volgens u opgelost worden? Per probleem opschrijven 1 2 3 Deel 3: Vragen over de contacten met andere organisaties/personen

Aantal vragen over de contacten die er zijn met andere personen/organisaties. 5.

Bijzondere Commissie-vergaderingen a) Over welke onderwerpen wordt er dan zoal gesproken? b) Vindt u deze vergaderingen nuttig? c) Bereidt u deze vergaderingen voor? d) Wie heeft de Bijzondere Commissie samengesteld? Gert van der Slikke lid?? e) Waarom hebben juist deze personen/organisaties zitting in de BC? f) Zijn de vergaderingen openbaar? g) Zijn er vaak niet-leden, geïnteresseerden, aanwezig?

6.

Stuurgroep-vergaderingen a) Over welke onderwerpen wordt er dan zoal gesproken? b) Vindt u deze vergaderingen nuttig? c) Bereidt u deze vergaderingen voor? d) Zijn er organisaties binnen de Stuurgroep die min of meer dezelfde ideeën en uitgangspunten hebben? e) Wie heeft de Stuurgroep samengesteld? f) Waarom hebben juist deze personen/organisaties zitting in de stuurgroep? g) Waarom zijn er geen gemeenten of eigenaren lid?

66

66


67

h) Zijn de vergaderingen openbaar? i) Zijn er vaak niet-leden, geïnteresseerden, aanwezig? 7.

Werkgroep-vergaderingen a) Over welke onderwerpen wordt er dan zoal gesproken? b) Vindt u deze vergaderingen nuttig? c) Bereidt u deze vergaderingen voor? d) Zijn er organisaties binnen de Werkgroepen die min of meer dezelfde ideeën en uitgangspunten hebben? e) Wie heeft de Werkgroepen samengesteld? f) Zijn de vergaderingen openbaar? g) Zijn er vaak niet-leden, geïnteresseerden, aanwezig?

Net gehad over formele contacten, nu wil ik wat meer weten over de informele contacten, als die er zijn. 8.

a) Hebt u weleens ‘informeel contact’ met andere organisaties over zaken aangaande het Grenspark? Hiermee bedoel ik het contact buiten de officiële bijeenkomsten om. b) Met welke organisaties is dit dan vooral? c) Over welke onderwerpen wordt er dan zoal gesproken? d) Kunt u aangeven hoe vaak u contact heeft? Fieldcoding

Meer keren per week/ 1x per week/ 1x per 2 weken/ 1x per maand/minder dan 1x per maand

e) Hoe lang duren deze ontmoetingen/contacten gemiddeld? 0-14 min/ 15-29 min/ 30-59 min/ 60-120 min/ meer dan 120 min Fieldcoding

9.

a) Bestaan er tussen de partijen veel informele contacten?? b) Tussen welke organisaties is dit dan? 10. a) Wie zijn volgens u de belangrijkste partijen of organisaties die een rol spelen in het gebied? b) Zijn er, onder deze organisaties, leiders en volgers te onderscheiden? c) Kunt u aangeven wat, van de belangrijkste organisaties, de karakteristieken zijn?

67


-actief -passief -betrokken -machtig (financieel of op een ander vlak) -dwarsliggers -doorzetters -kritisch -flexibel -conservatief -vernieuwend d) Wie is wanneer betrokken geraakt? e) Waarom zijn ze betrokken geraakt? 11

a) In hoeverre komen de visies of doelstellingen van de organisaties overeen?

Geheel overeen/deels overeen/niet overeen/ grote tegenstellingen/geen mening b) Tussen welke organisaties zijn er tegenstellingen? c) Waaruit bestaan de eventuele tegenstellingen? d) Hoe zijn ze te verklaren? e) Leidt dit tot problemen? f) Zo ja, hoe kunnen deze opgelost worden? g) Tussen welke organisaties bestaan er overeenkomsten? h) Wat zijn deze overeenkomsten? Deel 4: Ideeën over het grenspark en samenwerking 12. a) Wanneer was er voor het eerst samenwerking tussen Nederlanders en Belgen in dit gebied? b) Wie heeft/hebben het initiatief genomen tot de grensoverschrijdende samenwerking? c) Wat was de reden hiervoor? 13. a) Wat vindt u het belang van de samenwerking zoals die nu plaatsvindt in het park? b) Is er naar uw mening voldoende samenwerking tussen Nederland en Belgie? Helemaal niet voldoende

1

2

3

4

5

Ruim-voldoende geen mening

c) Welke organisaties werken veel samen? d) Over welke onderwerpen wordt er vooral samengewerkt?

68


14. a) Wie heeft/hebben het initiatief genomen tot de oprichting van het Nationale park? Hugo Abts?? b) Wat was de reden hiervoor? c) Hoe ging de totstandkoming van het Nationale Park?

Moeilijk/makkelijk? Was iedereen even gemotiveerd? 15.

a) Hoe wordt het park nu door de betrokken organisaties ervaren? b) En hoe wordt het park door de omgeving, door de omgeving ervaren? c) Zijn er verschillen merkbaar tussen de situatie voordat het een Nationaal Park was en nadat het aangewezen was, op het gebied van de samenwerking? Bijvoorbeeld op het gebied van samenwerking, aantal contacten, aard van contacten. 16. a) Hoe zou u het park willen typeren? b) Welke verbeteringen zou u graag zien? 17. a) Ziet u verschillen in de bestuurlijke organisatie van Nederland en België? b) Zoja, waaruit bestaan deze verschillen? c) Leidt dit tot problemen? d) Hoe zouden deze opgelost kunnen worden? 18

a) Zijn er ook verschillen in de ideeën van de Belgen en Nederlanders mbt samenwerking? b) Zoja, waaruit bestaan deze verschillen? c) Leidt dit tot problemen? d) Hoe zouden deze opgelost kunnen worden?

19. Wat zijn uw verwachtingen voor de toekomst van het Grenspark?

69


Appendix V, interview respondent The interview below is used to interview the respondents 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10. For the interviews 11, 12 and 13 the interview was slightly changed. Deel 1: Algemene vragen 1.

a) Wat is uw achtergrond, qua opleiding en werk? b) Welke functie heeft u binnen uw organisatie? c) Welke functie heeft u in de samenwerking in het Grenspark?

2.

a) Wanneer is uw organisatie betrokken geraakt bij de grensoverschrijdende samenwerking? b) Was de organisatie een van de initiatiefnemers? c) Wat was de reden voor de betrokkenheid? Waarom is het belangrijk voor uw organisatie om mee te doen?

Deel 2: Ideeën over: doelen, middelen, Natura 2000 3.

a) Wat zijn de drie belangrijkste doelen van uw organisatie voor de samenwerking in het grenspark op het gebied van natuur, natuurbescherming? 1 2 3 b) Hoe wil de organisatie deze doelen bereiken? 1 2 3

4.

a) Bent u bekend met de Vogel -en Habitat richtlijn, oftewel, Natura 2000?

Zo Nee, ga naar vraag 5. b) Wat is de betekenis van deze richtlijnen voor de grensoverschrijdende samenwerking?

-Is de tot stand brenging van de Vogel- en Habitatrichtlijn gebieden een van de doelen van uw organisatie? Waarom wel/niet? -Zijn ze een middel om dingen op te lossen of is het een zoveelste regel? -Wordt er actief mee gewerkt of ‘omdat het moet’? -In hoeverre is Natura 2000 een stimulans/reden om (meer) samen te werken? -Is er wederzijds contact over de VHR-soorten?

70


-Leeft Natura 2000 in het gebied? Is het bekend bij veel mensen? -Op welke niveau is er overleg over Natura 2000? c) Zijn er speciale beheersmaatregelen die gericht zijn op de bescherming van VHR-soorten? 5.

a) Wat zijn volgens uw organisatie de drie belangrijkste problemen die spelen in het gebied op het gebied van natuur, natuurbescherming?

1 2 3 b) Hoe kunnen deze volgens u opgelost worden? Per probleem opschrijven 1 2 3 Deel 3: Vragen over de contacten met andere organisaties/personen

Aantal vragen over de contacten die u hebt met andere personen/organisaties. 6.

Bijzondere Commissie-vergaderingen (Alleen als respondent lid is van BC!!) a) Over welke onderwerpen wordt er dan zoal gesproken? b) Vindt u deze vergaderingen over het algemeen nuttig? c) Bereidt u deze vergaderingen voor?

7.

Stuurgroep-vergaderingen a) Over welke onderwerpen wordt er dan zoal gesproken? b) Vindt u deze vergaderingen over het algemeen nuttig? c) Bereidt u deze vergaderingen voor?

8.

Werkgroep-vergaderingen (alleen als respondent lid is van werkgroep!!) a) Over welke onderwerpen wordt er dan zoal gesproken? b) Vindt u deze vergaderingen over het algemeen nuttig? c) Bereidt u deze vergaderingen voor?

Net gehad over formele contacten, nu wil ik wat meer weten over de informele contacten, als die er zijn. 9.

a) Hebt u weleens ‘informeel contact’ met andere organisaties over zaken aangaande het Grenspark? Hiermee bedoel ik het contact buiten de officiële vergaderingen om. b) Met welke organisaties is dit dan vooral?

71


c) Over welke onderwerpen wordt er dan zoal gesproken? d) Kunt u aangeven wie het initiatief hiertoe neemt? e) Kunt u aangeven hoe vaak u contact heeft? 10. a) Wie zijn volgens u de belangrijkste partijen of organisaties die een rol spelen in het gebied? b) Zijn er, onder deze organisaties, leiders en volgers te onderscheiden? 11. a) In hoeverre komen de visies of doelstellingen van de andere organisaties overeen met die van uw organisatie? b) Met welke organisaties bestaan er grote tegenstellingen? c) Waaruit bestaan deze tegenstellingen? d) Leidt dit tot problemen? e) Met welke organisaties bestaan er grote overeenkomsten? f) Waaruit bestaan deze overeenkomsten? Deel 4: Ideeën over het grenspark en samenwerking 12. a) Hoe hebt u, als organisatie, de totstandkoming van het Nationale Park, Grenspark ervaren?

Makkelijk/moeilijk? Iedereen gemotiveerd? b) Zijn er verschillen merkbaar tussen de situatie voordat het gebied een Nationaal Park was en nadat het Nationaal Park was, op het gebied van de samenwerking? Bijvoorbeeld op het gebied van samenwerking,

aantal contacten, aard van contacten. Meer/minder intensieve samenwerking tussen de partijen? c) Hoe wordt het Grenspark nu ervaren, als een positief iets of als een negatief iets? d) Hoe wordt het Grenspark door de mensen in de omgeving ervaren? 13. a) Hoe zou u het grenspark willen typeren? b) Welke verbeteringen zou u graag zien?

Nu vraag 16 14. a) Ziet u verschillen in de bestuurlijke organisatie van het natuurbeleid van Nederland en Vlaanderen? b) Zoja, waaruit bestaan deze verschillen? c) Leidt dit tot problemen tijdens de samenwerking?

72


15. a) Zijn er verschillen in de ideeën van de Vlamingen en Nederlanders mbt samenwerking? b) Zoja, waaruit bestaan deze verschillen? c) Leidt dit tot problemen? 1.

a) Wat is het belang van de samenwerking zoals die nu plaatsvindt in het park? b) Is er naar uw mening voldoende samenwerking tussen Nederland en Vlaanderen?

Zou het meer kunnen of minder moeten? c) Vindt deze samenwerking plaats tussen de juiste organisaties? d) Is er samenwerking over de juiste onderwerpen? 2.

73

Wat zijn uw verwachtingen voor de toekomst van het Grenspark?


Appendix VI, Composition of Bijzondere Commissie Chairman Members: 1. Instituut voor Natuurbehoud 2. Ministry of the Vlaamse Gemeenschap, department of monuments and landscapes 3. Ministry of the Vlaamse Gemeenschap, department of forests and green 4. Ministry of the Vlaamse Gemeenschap, department of water 5. Waterschap Brabantse Delta (formerly Het Scheldekwartier) 6. Mayor of municipality of Woensdrecht 7. Province of Noord-Brabant 8. Mayor of municipality of Kalmthout 9. Ministry of the Vlaamse Gemeenschap, department of nature 10. Ministry of Defensie 11. Alderman of municipality of Essen 12. Staatsbosbeheer 13. Ministry of LNV 14. Ministry of the Vlaamse Gemeenschap, main office 15. Private owner 16. Private owner 17. Private owner Advisors: 1. Secretariaat-Generaal Benelux Economische Unie 2. BENEGO 3. Natuurmonumenten 4. Individual advisor

74


Appendix VII, Composition of the Stuurgroep Chairman Members: 1. Individual advisor 2. Province of Noord-Brabant 3. Secretariaat-Generaal Benelux Economische Unie 4. Ministry of the Vlaamse Gemeenschap, department of nature 5. Staatsbosbeheer 6. Ministry of LNV 7. Ministry of the Vlaamse Gemeenschap, main office 8. Advisor BENEGO 9. Natuurmonumenten

75

An analysis of the policy process of cross-border co-operation in Borderpark de Zoom-Kalmthoutse heide

Recommend Documents