Knowledge leads, policy follows? The Two Speeds of Collaboration in IRBM Ellen Pfeiffer, Jan...

Knowledge leads, policy follows?

The Two Speeds of Collaboration in

IRBMEllen Pfeiffer, Jan Leentvaar

30 May 2013

Content

1. The case: Rhine Action Programme 1986-20002. A phenomenological take on the Rhine regime3. Institutional dynamics and cross-level interplay 4. Implications for Capacity Development

Purpose of 5th Symposium

• Europe‘s most economically important river

• One of 19 worldwide rivers with more than 5 basin countries

• Transboundary collaboration on navigation started 1815

• Massive pollution problems: Rhine called „open sewer“ already in 1901

The Rhine river


• 1950: ICPR founded, formal treaty 1963

• For decades: joint research, but conflict and diplomatic deadlock over treaties for Chloride and Chemical Pollution

• 1986: Environmental Disaster – Fire at Sandoz, Switzerland

• 1987: Rhine Action Programme adopted

A “new era” of successful collaboration starts

The Case: International Commission for the Protection of the Rhine (ICPR) – Rhine Action Programme (RAP)


Success Story RAP – Example Chloride Pollution

Rhine at Lobith, chloride (1866 - 2000)

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

Year

Load (kg/s)

Conc. (mg/l)


Iconic goal of the RAP: Return Salmon to the Rhine

Original Salmon Population Adult salmon confirmed


• Non-binding agreement, but water quality improved massively

• Knowledge and trust seen as core contributors to success

• But mechanisms of the process little understood

Which factor led the process:

Knowledge and learning or political will?

What made the RAP so successful?


Many toolboxes based on such case examples

Do we really know what makes best practice?


0

2

4

6

8

10

12

52 62 72 82 92

The Problem: A ‘Black Box’ take on IRBM

Berne Convention

Chloride Convention

Rhine Action Programme

„The Regime“Research Cluster 1:Regime Development

Research Cluster 2:Impact Assessments


• Regimes ‘happen’ in social encounters

• Experiences and interpretations are ‘facts’

Detailed accounts by actors needed

Multiple theoretical approaches to triangulate best explanation

Pilot study to test method

A phenomenological take on the Rhine regime


Interviews Pilot Study


• Exceptional levels of personal identification

• Working groups unconsciously produced informal knowledge needed to facilitate better collaboration at the strategic level

• Working group leadership is crucial for the quality of outcomes

• High value of scientific output in working groups depended on building trust

Results: Identity, learning, leadership & trust


• “New spirit” coincided with systemic disruption of environmental policy in Europe

• “Ambitious goals” mirror existing treaties• “Gentlemen’s agreement” is the norm in river basin management• National Identities very visible in the process

The “European Experience” is not an exceptionPower- and interest-based theories expect regime transformation

Analysis I: ‘classic’ international relations theory


• Formation of an epistemic community in the ICPR at the time

• It included some working groups and actors at the strategic level

• Strong influence on process design of European Water policy

• Knowledge leadership for many water quality questions

• But late to integrate ecological considerations

Effect of strong knowledge-based communities ambiguous

Analysis II: Epistemic Communities


• Dynamics show all characteristics of institutional bargaining

• Results suggest that working group formed a separate scale-dependent regime at the time

• Internal dynamics resemble cross-level interplay

Working groups might form sub-regimes

Formation is a separate process for each new group

ICPR outcomes might by shaped by interplay dynamics

Analysis III: Institutional Bargaining


River basin organizations: A portfolio?


• IRBM more portfolio managment than process management? Would require more entrepreneurial leadership

• Are epistemic communities in working groups desirable? Might support or obstruct a collective response to crises

• Is cross-level interplay within a regime desirable? Strong ‘sub regimes’ can both lead and block innovation

Not all ‘knowledge’ capacity is unambiguously good for IRBM

Implications for Capacity Development


Thank you for your attention.

Contact detailsEllen Pfeiffer

Independent Researcher [email protected]

Knowledge leads, policy follows? The Two Speeds of Collaboration in IRBM Ellen Pfeiffer, Jan...

Documents

Transcript of Knowledge leads, policy follows? The Two Speeds of Collaboration in IRBM Ellen Pfeiffer, Jan...