Partnership in cross-border drug tourism. An explorative study in Belgium and the Netherlands

(1)

Leiden University

Master Thesis Public

Administration

International and European

Governance

Partnership in cross-border drug

tourism

An explorative study in Belgium and the Netherlands

Name: Annabelle van Waes Student number: S1067443

Supervisor: Dr. E. Devroe Second reader: Dr. J. Christensen Date: January 13, 2016

(2)

1

1. Introduction

With the Schengen agreement1, the abolishing of internal borders within the European Union (EU) came into practice. One of the consequences was that free movement of persons became possible. This development brought several new issues for member states to deal with. One of the issues that is influenced by the Schengen agreement is cross-border crime. With the abolishment of the internal borders, increased cooperation between member states became necessary to fight cross- border crime. Already in 1948 the members of the Benelux, the Netherlands, Belgium and Luxembourg, signed a treaty to create a customs union. This Treaty was renewed on June 17, 2008. The Treaty is a cooperation between the three countries, which also focuses on the cooperation to fight cross- border crime.2 In 2008 the Council3 made the ‘Prüm decision’: “This decision aims to step up cross-border cooperation between European Union (EU) countries’ police and judicial authorities to combat terrorism and cross- border crime more effectively”4.

The research subject of this thesis is cross-border drug tourism. For this research, a multiple case study will be used. The cases are the Netherlands and Belgium. These two countries are members of the Benelux and they share a border. They also both signed the Prüm Treaty in 2005, together with Luxembourg, Germany, Spain, France and Austria.5 As members of the Benelux and the EU, these countries have cooperation on fighting cross- border crime on different international levels. This forms an interesting subject within the cross-border crime legislation. Since the cooperation between the Netherlands and Belgium is too broad of a topic, the cases will be narrowed down to a specific territorial area.

1

Schengen Agreement: The Schengen agreement of 1985 founded the Schengen area and cooperation. In the Schengen area free movement of persons is guaranteed. The Schengen cooperation has been incorporated by the Treaty of Amsterdam of 1997. The countries in the Schengen area are: France, Germany, Belgium, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Italy, Spain, Portugal, Greece, Austria, Denmark, Finland, Sweden, Czech Republic, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Hungary, Malta, Poland, Slovenia, Slovakia and Switzerland. On:

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=uriserv:l33020 (visited on 15-8-2015). 2_{Benelux Treaty on:}

http://www.europa-nu.nl/id/vh83uonakjyx/benelux_verdrag_in_werking?tab=2&ctx=vh8freao54vt&p=vh8freao54vt (Visited on 1-3-2015).

3_{The Council of the European Union: The Council is the institution which represents the member states’} governments. In the Council national ministers from the EU member states meet to adopt laws and coordinate policies. On: http://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/council-eu/ (Visited 15-9-2015).

4

Prüm decision on:

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?qid=1425381107321&uri=URISERV:jl0005 (visited on 23-2-2015). 5_{Benelux Treaty on:}

http://www.europa-nu.nl/id/vh83uonakjyx/benelux_verdrag_in_werking?tab=2&ctx=vh8freao54vt&p=vh8freao54vt (Visited on 1-3-2015).

(5)

4

This research will use a triangulation of methods, where I will conduct interviews, perform a document analysis and desktop research. With this triangulation of methods the aim is to find an answer to the research question and draw a conclusion. The research on multi-level governance and the cooperation between Belgium and the Netherlands on fighting drug tourism is relevant for both societal as theoretical reasons. In the next two subchapters the societal and theoretical relevance of this research will be explained. The upcoming chapter will first of all provide a theoretical framework on MLG. Chapter 3 entails the methodological chapter. Chapter 4 will present an overview of the background of the Netherlands, Belgium and their cooperation. Chapter 5 presents the results. Lastly, chapter 6 will draw a conclusion, give recommendations and address the shortcomings of this research.

1.1. Drug tourism

The Netherlands and Belgium know different policies when it comes to drugs. Additionally, the problem of drug tourism occurs. “De drugsmarkt is een bijzonder dynamische markt” (De Ruyver et al. 2007:11). This quote from De Ruyver (2007) marks that the drug market is a dynamic one. This dynamic market includes drug tourism. Drug tourism means that tourists visit another country or place for the purpose of purchasing drugs. This is often the case when certain drugs are legal or “gedoogd” (tolerated) in one place and not in the other. So it is illegal for the tourists to buy drugs in their own country and thus they buy it in a country where it is legal. Besides this problem, drug tourism can cause hindrance as well. This can occur in several ways, like a feeling of un-safety or park- and traffic hindrance. The problem with hindrance is that it influences the livability and attractiveness of a neighborhood.

In 2007 a Belgium research on cross-border drug tourism describes the phenomena of “dealpanden” (deal buildings) and coffee shops and their relation to drug tourism. Deal buildings are private houses used for drug dealing (Ibid:15-88). De Ruyver et al. (2007) describe that deal buildings have their origins in the Netherlands, especially Rotterdam had a lot to deal with this phenomena. However, because of the effort the city of Rotterdam put in fighting these deal buildings, the phenomena moved towards the border area and even into Belgium (Ibid:15-42).

Describing the phenomena of coffee shops, De Ruyver et al. (2007) use the coffee shops and coffee shop tourism in Terneuzen as a research subject. This city is part of the province Zeeland and this research will relate to this city as well. The city was coping with a substantial amount of drug hindrance and in 1995 Terneuzen decided on a “gedoogbeleid”

(6)

5

(tolerating policy) for two coffee shops. This means that the coffee shops are tolerated and they are allowed to sell a certain amount of soft drugs. The crime rate and unsafely feeling amongst the citizens became too high and the mayor took action. Terneuzen is an example of a city in the border area coping with drug tourism.

Cooperation between Belgium and the Netherlands on drug tourism is very important. Especially in the border-area the cooperation on fighting drug tourism is significant. Therefore the specific territorial area in this research will be the province Zeeland in the Netherlands and the province Oost- Vlaanderen in Belgium. These provinces form one of the border- areas between Belgium and the Netherlands. I chose this border- area, because it is not as well-known and researched as the other border-areas between Belgium and the Netherlands (Brabant (NL) & Antwerpen (BE); Limburg (NL) &Limburg (BE)). However in Zeeuws- Vlaanderen, which is part of the province Zeeland in the Netherlands, the biggest coffeeshop of Europe was closed in 2008 (Omroep Zeeland, 2011). This area and Oost-Vlaanderen were dealing with a lot of drugs-tourism because of the coffeeshop. Therefore it is an interesting border- area to research.

To analyse the cooperation between the Netherlands and Belgium I will use the theory of multi-level governance (MLG). It is expected that the cooperation on fighting cross-border drug tourism entails partnerships which is part of the MLG theory. The research subject of partnership in drug tourism and the theoretical framework on partnership leads to the following research question: How is partnership organized in practice in cross-border

drug tourism?

1.2. Societal relevance

The issue of drug tourism in the border- area between Belgium and the Netherlands is a well-known problem. Especially people living in the border-area are familiar with this phenomenon. This research will provide an insight in the cooperation between Belgium and the Netherlands, by measuring the level of MLG in the countries. This will offer insights in how both countries separately but also together fight the phenomenon of drug tourism. The theory of MLG entails the inclusiveness of regional and local partners in the process of policy. Research on the level of this inclusiveness and how it reflects on the cooperation between two countries has a societal relevance. This relevance lies in that the research first of all provides an insight in to what extend regional and local authorities are able to influence the policy process. Reflecting these results on the cooperation between the Netherlands and

(7)

6

Belgium offers a new perspective on this cooperation. A new perspective can improve the general understanding of the cooperation which might lead to points of improvement.

1.3. Theoretical relevance

Besides the societal relevance, there is a theoretical relevance of this research as well. The theory used in this research is the theory of multi-level governance. Using this theory may offer new insights compared to the dominating views of neofunctionalism and intergovernmentalism (Bache 2012). However the theory of MLG itself has a gap when it comes to empirical research. Especially research on the actual roles of the actors and functional aspects involved in multi-level interactions (Stephenson 2013). This research will measure the level of MLG by measuring partnership in two cases (Belgium and the Netherlands). The level of partnership will mostly be measured on the regional level. The level of partnership will then be reflected on the cooperation between the two cases. This might give insight in the consequences of the level degree of partnership on the cooperation between two countries. So besides adding to the gap of empirical research in MLG, this research might also provide new insides on the consequences of the level of partnership in a country and between two countries.

(8)

7

2. Theoretical framework: Multi- Level Governance

2.1. Definition

Before the introduction of multi-level governance (MLG), two other approaches dominated the view on European integration. These approaches, neofunctionalism and intergovernmentalism, have different ways of explaining the European integration. The neofunctionalist approach argues that supranational actors emerge and that these actors gain authority over the decision- making process (Niemann and Ioannou 2015). Where according to the intergovernmentalist approach, national governments will remain the biggest authority in the decision- making process (Garrett and Tsebelis 1996). Bache (2012) explains that the Single European Act6 of 1986 caused a turning point in the theorizing of the European Union (EU). The Single European Act brought changes in the decision-making procedure, like speeding up the process of integration through eliminating the national vote in certain areas. So a new approach of the decision-making process emerged and brought the concept of MLG with it (Levi-Faur and Bache 2012).

Over the years MLG has been applied in different ways. Stephenson (2013) offers an overview of 20 years of MLG where he explains the different ways MLG has been used over the years. He connects these uses to the periods when they emerged. The uses of MLG he addresses are the original, functional, combined, normative and comparative uses. These different uses provide a good overview of how MLG emerged and how it has been applied over the years. Therefore I will follow Stephenson’ distinction in uses of MLG in this theoretical overview. Starting with the original uses from 1993 forward.

2.2. Uses of MLG

Original

When we look at multi-level governance (MLG) and how it emerged, we have to start with Gary Marks and Liesbet Hooghe. They are seen as the founders of the concept MLG (Stephenson 2013). Marks introduced MLG to explain developments in the EU cohesion policy. The origins of MLG lie in the reform of structural funds in 1988, which introduced

6_{The Single European Act (SEA): The SEA of 1986 adds new momentum to complete the European integration} and completing the internal market. This act revises the Treaties of Rome. On: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=uriserv:xy0027 (visited on 15-9-2015).

(9)

8

new governing principles, like partnership. Partnership here consists of national, subnational and supranational actors. This principle is central to MLG. So this was the start of MLG as an approach to EU policy. Not much later, Marks, Hooghe and Blank applied MLG broader on the EU decision-making process (Levi-Faur and Bache 2012).

In their article, Marks, Hooghe and Blank (1996) explain a change in the decision-making process by addressing two models: the state-centric model, also known as intergovernmentalism, and the MLG model. The state- centric model claims that state executives are the actors who primarily determine the policy-making in the EU. Also, European integration doesn’t challenge the nation-states’ autonomy here. MLG offers a model which argues that the authority and influence on the policy-making process are shared across multiple levels of government. These levels are subnational, national and supranational. Marks et al. argue that there has been a change in who controls the decision-making process. The control has slipped away from national governments to supranational institutions like the European Parliament, the European Commission and the European Court of Justice (Marks, Hooghe et al. 1996).

The concept of MLG, as it was introduced by Marks, offered a conceptual framework for the study of European regional policy. So this means policy which isn’t created on a national, supra-national level or the local level, but on a regional level. As Awesti points out: “The state has been forced to accept regional authorities as actors in their own right with specific policy interests and goals” (Awesti, 2007: 7). So states need to take the regional authorities into account when it comes to policy making. This led to more flexible arrangements within states. Marks and Hooghe divided these new arrangements into two types. The first type, Type I, creates general-purpose jurisdictions. Type II creates special-purpose jurisdictions. Type I arrangements are operating more to a logic of appropriateness, where Type II have a more problem-solving logic. In the EU Type I entities are the Commission, the Council of Ministers and the European Parliament. Type II entities include agencies, quangos and partnerships (Bache & Flinders, 2004: 17-22).

Functional

The rise of MLG came across around the same time the existing state- centric assumptions of international relations were challenged. Hundreds of regions were established in Brussels. There is a clear overlap between literature on regionalization, Europeanization and MLG. This overlap and the success of the MLG approach made MLG a popular approach for policy- makers. A new dimension of MLG, the functional use was established. Policy- makers started

(10)

9

to use MLG as a partnership between different institutional levels, being the supranational institutions of the EU, national, regional and local authorities. This partnership aimed at creating and implementing EU policies (Stephenson 2013).

Additionally, functions of MLG like problem-solving, co-ordination and learning emerged. The problem- solving capacity of MLG was explored by Scharpf (1997). He argued that the capacity differed from one policy area to another at different governance levels (Scharpf 1997). The learning function is further explained by Schout (2009). He focused on a governance turn where sociological aspects of MLG and leadership had to be considered (Schout 2009). Egan (2009) points out that globalization has undermined national autonomy and it encouraged cross-national networks at the international level. In this context policy learning is important according to Egan. Neighbor member states within the EU have emulated, borrowed, copied or imitated each other. So policy learning can occur in multiple venues, because of the emergence of transnational networks (Egan 2009).

The functional use of MLG provided a reconciliation of MLG with networked governance, which caused a movement towards communication- based instruments. Policy- making became a process involving self- organizing, multi-level actors (Stephenson 2013).

Combined

Like every theory or new approach, MLG also endured criticism. MLG was used combined with other theories to test and challenge the use of MLG. For example, Blom- Hansen used the principle- agent framework to compare to MLG and expose its flaws (Stephenson 2013). Awesti (2007) critically examines MLG by proposing a framework where MLG exists in three institutional types, being rational, historical and sociological.

Analyzing the emerging of MLG from a rational choice institutional view, MLG emerged because national political leaders explicitly chose to. They did this to ensure their desired gains, when the authority shifted. The historical institutional view sees the emerging of MLG as a result of path dependency. Initial choices caused autonomous supranational institutions and they brought unanticipated consequences. This led to the authority shift away from the central state. From a sociological institutional perspective, MLG is a ‘learnt’ process. Here actors have a socially perceived role, and they behave according this role (Awesti, 2007).

Awesti offers another look at MLG and how it can be used. However he addresses that in order to make a judgment regarding the relative credibility of these types of MLG,

(11)

10

empirical research is necessary. This empirical research would entail the behavior and actor motivation in the process of the shifting away of authority from the central state (Idem: 24).

Normative

With the White Paper on European governance7 and its recommendations on increasing the legitimacy and democracy level of the EU institutions, questions on accountability emerged. In their article, Harlow and Rawlings (2007) state that traditional government control systems are undermined by the new form of governance that emphases cooperation and coordination. The self- organizing and self- regulating networks are causing an ‘accountability deficit’ in MLG (Harlow and Rawlings 2007). Other normative questions were raised as well. For example about the democratic level of MLG. Peters and Pierre (2004) called MLG a: “Faustian Bargain, in which core values of democratic government are traded for accommodation, consensus and the purported increased efficiency in governance” (Bache & Flinders, 2004: 85). So they saw MLG as a compromising democracy. The best way to escape this Faustian Bargain might be embedding MLG in a regulatory setting. This offers the weaker states the possibility to create a legal basis for their actions (Bache & Flinders, 2004:86-89).

Comparative

The comparative view is the latest use of MLG. First of all MLG is taken out of the EU and into global governance. International institutions, like the World Trade Organization and the United Nations have been used to analyze MLG. Second of all, MLG and regionalism are compared in different countries all over the world (Stephenson 2013).

Since the comparative view is, up till now, the latest use of MLG, Stephenson (2013) offers a look ahead at the end of his overview. Here he gives a couple of new focus points for the further scholarship on MLG. First of all he addresses the focus on individuals within institutional actors and how they collaborate in these actors which are seen as unitary bodies. This requires a new focus on the policy-making process rather than just looking at the implementation of a certain regulation. As Stephenson (2013) puts it: “In short, further research might dig deeper still into the functional aspects of ‘doing policy’, adopting more

7_{The White Paper on European Governance: In July 2001, the Commission adopted its White Paper on}

European Governance. The aim of this White Paper was to establish more democratic forms of governance at all levels. On: http://www.euractiv.com/future-eu/white-paper-european-governance-linksdossier-188216 (Visited on 15-9-2015).

(12)

11

sociological considerations and acknowledging ontological questions, including the different ways actors engaged in multi-level interactions actually see the EU and their place within it, as well as examining close-up institutional actors’ tasks across policy domains throughout the stages of the policy cycle” (Stephenson 2013).

2.3. Partnership

Since the theory on MLG is still very broad, this research will look at one aspect of MLG. Bache (2004) discusses the implementation stage of regional policy making. Since it was said that this is where MLG is to be most prominent (Bache & Flinders, 2004:165). In the original use of MLG we already discussed the reform of the structural funds in 1988 which brought new concepts, like partnership, one of the main concepts of MLG.

On June 24, 1988, the Council Regulation was announced, which included an article on partnership. This article clarifies: “Community operations shall be such as to complement or contribute to corresponding national operations. They shall be established through close consultations between the Commission, the Member State concerned and the competent authorities designated by the latter at national, regional, local or other level, with each party acting as a partner in pursuit of a common goal. These consultations are hereinafter referred to as the 'partnership'. The partnership shall cover the preparation, financing, monitoring and assessment of operations” (Regulation EEC, 2052/88). The objective of these partnerships was to implement the structural fund programs. Before the partnerships, national governments implemented the structural policy according to their national priorities (Hooghe, 1996:102).

In 1999 the European Commission funded a research on the partnership principle. The objective was to analyze the level of entrenchment of the partnership principle within the member states. This research: “presents an analysis of different partnership operations across the fifteen member states with a view to explaining the diversity of partnership forms and roles operating throughout the policy cycle in the EU today” (Kelleher et al. 1999:1). In their research, Kelleher et al. use several indicators to be identified, to measure the administrative structure of partnership. These indicators are: “1. The number of partners; 2. Who the vertical (obligatory) partners are; 3. The number and type of horizontal partners; 4. The delegation of powers; 5. The status and role of different groups; 6. The particular role of political representatives and the social partners; 7. The procedures for making key program decisions; 8. Whether competitive bidding exists for project selection” (Ibid: App. 2-5). By identifying these indicators, they define the administrative structure and thus the level of partnership.

(13)

12

Kelleher et al. (1999) selected 53 case studies across fifteen Member States to analyze the implementation of the Structure Program which entails partnership. Two of these member states are Belgium and the Netherlands. Kelleher et al. (1999) see that although the programming in the Netherlands is largely decentralized to the provinces, rule- based interventions because of central priorities, disable the functioning of partnerships. The Netherlands is found to be: “a predominantly trust based consensual system which also tends to be highly inclusive” (Ibid: 107). Examining the case study in the Netherlands, a mismatch becomes visible between regional expectations and the feasibility of regional plans. The redrafting of the program occurs outside the partnership, namely on a central level, leads to demotivation and damaging the trust between vertical partners (Ibid: 108). Belgium on the other hand knows a higher level of decentralization, but also a territorial conflict. Instead of functioning through consensus, partnership in Belgium functions through compromise. There is a tension between the regional level and the state. However there also appears to be some difficulty at the horizontal level (Ibid). So in the research of Kelleher et al. (1999) a difference between the level of partnership in the Netherlands and Belgium occurs. They have a different level of decentralization and a different functioning of partnership (consensus versus compromise) as well.

The general conclusion of the research is quite similar to the conclusion drawn from the research of Hooghe in 1996 also on partnership (Bache & Flinders, 2004:167). Even though Kelleher et al. (1999) found that regional partners are alongside the Commission and the member states entrenched as full partners, they also found that the member states still use their key role to dominate and delimit the partnership functioning (Kelleher et al. 1999:56). How the member states influence the partnership functioning depends on their institutional background. As Kelleher et al. (1999) explains: “The specific institutional history of the individual Member State (in a specific mediating institutional culture) is one of the main factors in determining actual programme partnership forms” (Kelleher et al. 1999:158). So this entails that the level of decentralization and de-concentration within a Member State, shapes the partnerships and the relations between the key actors (Kelleher et al. 1999).

2.4. Problem definition

Both Hooghe and Kelleher et al. draw the connection between the level of (de)centralization in a member state and the degree of partnership. Hooghe (1996) analyzes partnership and its encouraging effect on MLG. This study shows that the pre-existing territorial distribution of

(14)

13

power had a large effect on whether MLG occurs through partnership. In member states with a strong national government, the government held significant powers to retain control over the domestic impact of structural policy. There was more evidence of partnership encouraging MLG in less centralized states (Hooghe, 1996). The following implication can be drawn from these conclusions: The higher the level of centralization of a member state, the higher the level of domination of the central government in partnership functioning and thus the lower the influence of regional actors.

As the research of Kelleher et al. (1999) shows, there is a difference in the functioning of partnership in the Netherlands and Belgium. As a general explanation both Kelleher et al. as Hooghe give the constitutional background of the countries. The problem of the studies is that they were published respectively in 1996 and 1999. Also, both studies focused on the implementation of structural policy and regional policy. Questions can be raised like: “What does partnership nowadays look like?”, or: “Is partnership applicable in other areas of cooperation as well?”. Most importantly the question whether there actually is partnership in practice and how it is structured?

Therefore this research will estimate the level of partnership from a regional view in the area of cross-border drug tourism since 2008 in two cases. The cooperation between the Netherlands and Belgium will be analysed. 2008 is the starting point, because of two events that took place in this year that are expected to influence the cooperation between Belgium and the Netherlands on fighting drug tourism and the level of partnership. These events are further described below. Since the role of regional partners is essential in partnership, this research will focus on these regional partners and analyse their role and involvement in fighting drugs- tourism.

2.4.1 Prüm decision

In 2008 a decision was made by the Council of the European Union, with the aim to increase the cross- border cooperation between the police and judicial authorities of EU countries. This decision follows out of the Prüm Treaty of 27 May 2005, signed between The Netherlands, Belgium, Luxembourg, Germany, France, Spain and Austria. This Treaty was concerned with stepping up cross-border cooperation on cross-border crime, illegal migration and combating terrorism. Before the Prüm Treaty, already in 1999 the Tampere European Council led to conclusions that there was a need to improve the exchange of law enforcement information between the EU countries. This was further addressed in the, the Hague Programme in 2004.

(15)

14

The main point of the Prüm decision is thus the exchange of information between member states. This information exists of DNA profiles, fingerprint images (Dactyloscopic data) and certain national vehicle registration data.8 The purpose of this exchange of information is to open up new possibilities: “Cross-border data comparison should open up a new dimension in crime fighting. The information obtained by comparing data should open up new investigative approaches for member states and thus play a crucial role in assisting Member States’ law enforcement and judicial authorities” (Council Decision 2008/615/JHA: 2).

To exchange information between member states, countries need to establish national DNA analysis files. These ought to be made available to other EU countries, so automated searches are possible. These searches are on the basis of individual cases, they are performed through comparing DNA profiles via national contact and on a hit/ no-hit basis. The same protocol goes for the exchange of dactyloscopic data. EU countries are to establish a national automated fingerprint identification system (AFIS). Via automated online searches, national contact points shall also have access to certain national vehicle registration.9

With regard to major events, which have a cross-border dimension, the national contact points of EU countries must provide non-personal data to each other. However this can only happen with the purpose of preventing criminal offences and maintaining security and public order. When the security and public order are threatened by a data subject, personal data may be supplied. This data can be used only for the event which it was supplied for. The data must be deleted after is has served its purpose, or else a year after it was supplied.10

When it comes to police cooperation the decision provides the opportunity for joint operations: “In order to step up police cooperation, the competent authorities designated by the Member States may, in maintaining public order and security and preventing criminal offences, introduce joint patrols and other joint operations in which designated officers or other officials (officers) from other Member States participate in operations within a Member State’s territory” (Council Decision 2008/615/JHA: 6).

8_{Prüm decision on:}

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?qid=1425381107321&uri=URISERV:jl0005 (visited on 23-2-2015). 9_{Prüm decision on:}

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?qid=1425381107321&uri=URISERV:jl0005 (visited on 23-2-2015). 10_{Prüm decision on:}

(16)

15

Member states are left free to create mutual agreements on police cooperation. This is supposed to lead to a direct and measured approach to emergencies. The condition to make this happen is that member states ought to set up contact points in order to make quick contact so they can handle as quickly as possible.11 The exchange of information and the police cooperation are concerned with two basic assumptions. First of all the exchange and cooperation ought to take place on the level of the local government. Secondly, the data must be processed very carefully. Data needs to be coded by member states. This is in order to protect the privacy of the data subjects.12

This stepping up of cross- border cooperation focused thus on the exchange of information between member states on for example DNA profiles. Besides the exchange of information, EU member states are free to make agreements on police- cooperation13.

The Prüm decision is expected to lead to more MLG, because it provides the possibilities for further cooperation between the Netherlands and Belgium on several levels of government. The exchange of information and the cooperation are supposed to take place on the level of local government. So therefore it is expected that the local government will fulfil a relevant position in the partnership as described by the theory of MLG.

2.4.2. Closing of Checkpoint

Around the same time of the ‘Prüm decision’ a significant change, regarding drugs-tourism, took place in the area Zeeuws-Vlaanderen, which is part of the province Zeeland in the Netherlands. The biggest coffee shop of Europe, Checkpoint, was closed. The coffee shop in Terneuzen brought a lot of drugs tourism from Belgium and France to the area. The coffee shop had around 2000 customers a day (Omroep Zeeland, 2011).

Checkpoint was established in the nineties. The centrum of Terneuzen was coping with a lot of hard drugs dealing on the streets. In 1996 the city of Terneuzen started the project “houdgreep”. This project aimed to decrease the drug hindrance in Terneuzen to an acceptable level (De Ruyver et al. 2007). The dealing of hard drugs was dealt with and a so called ‘gedoogbeleid’ (tolerating policy) on soft drugs was established. This tolerating policy

11_{The Single European Act (SEA): The SEA of 1986 adds new momentum to complete the European integration} and completing the internal market. This act revises the Treaties of Rome. On: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=uriserv:xy0027 (visited on 15-9-2015).

12

The Single European Act (SEA): The SEA of 1986 adds new momentum to complete the European integration and completing the internal market. This act revises the Treaties of Rome. On: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=uriserv:xy0027 (visited on 15-9-2015).

13_{Cross-border crime, terrorism and illegal migration on:} http://www.europa-nu.nl/id/vhu4eb6eg0y3/grensoverschrijdende_criminaliteit (Visited on 23-2-2015).

(17)

16

entailed the selling of soft drugs in two coffee shops in Terneuzen, Miami and Checkpoint. They were allowed to stock 500 grams of soft drugs. However, with 2000 customers a day, 500 grams in stock wasn’t enough. Until 2007 no measures were taken. In 2007 there was a police raid and 96 kilos of soft drugs were found in and around Checkpoint. Still, no measures were taken. On 20 may 2008, another police raid took place and 130 kilos of soft drugs was found in and around Checkpoint. After this event, Checkpoint was closed (Omroep Zeeland, 2014).

By closing the coffee shop, the region had to anticipate on whatever consequences this decision would have on the area. The tolerating policy was established to handle the problem of dealing on the street. So there was an obvious possibility this might happen again with the end of the tolerating policy of such a big coffee shop. The closing of Checkpoint is thus expected to lead to more partnership, because this event forces the local government to change its policy towards drug tourism. It is expected that this change will entail an increasing cooperation between the Netherlands and Belgium particularly on the local level.

2.5. Research question

As we have seen in the overview of MLG and the focus on partnership, regional actors ought to be involved as partners in the process of policy making and implementation. However, as research has shown, the level of MLG through these partnerships, differs per member state. The reason for this differentiation lays, according to the implication drawn from previous research (Hooghe 1996; Kelleher et al. 1999), in the institutional background of the member state. The implication used for the analysis: The higher the level of centralization of a member state, the higher the level of domination of the central government in partnership functioning and thus the lower the influence of regional actors.

As I will further address in chapter 4, the Netherlands and Belgium have a different institutional background. Since Belgium is a federal state and the Netherlands is a decentralised Unitarian state, it is expected that the influence of regional actors is higher in Belgium than in the Netherlands (Devroe, 2013).

The level of partnership within the Netherlands and Belgium is expected to influence the cooperation between the countries. Since different actors might be involved on a national level and the division of power differs per country, cooperation on an regional level is expected to be difficult. However because of the EU regulation and the closing of Checkpoint, it is expected that cooperation on a regional level does occur between the two countries.

(18)

17

To answer the research question, four sub-questions are formulated: 1. To what extent is there partnership?;

2. What is the structure of the partnership?; 3. What does the partnership entail in practice?;

4. How do the involved partners experience the partnership in practice?

These sub-questions will be operationalized into indicators in an operationalization scheme in chapter 3. These indicators provide the framework that will structure the research.

(19)

18

3. Methodological chapter

Chapter 2 provided the theoretical chapter on MLG and partnership. For this thesis qualitative research and a theory applying approach will be used. The advantage of qualitative research is the possibility to set up an in- depth study, in clear and everyday terms (Yin, 2011:6). Yin (2011) describes five features of qualitative research. First of all, when doing qualitative research, this involves studying people’s lives and the meaning of it, under real-world conditions. The real-world social interactions, for example, will have as little intrusion by the research procedures as possible. The second feature is that qualitative research offers the ability in a study to embody views and perspectives of the participants. The third feature is that it includes contextual conditions, within which the participants’ lives are taking place. These contextual conditions include the institutional, environmental and social conditions. Qualitative research also, as a fourth feature, is able to explain human social behaviour, by contributing certain insights to already existing or emerging concepts. Lastly, the fifth feature, is the use of multiple sources of evidence. This will improve the internal validity of the study (Ibid:7-9).

These features, as described by Yin (2011) make qualitative research a good fit for this research. This thesis will analyse the cooperation between institutions and thus people, also addressed as participants. To create a clear view on the cooperation, the research must be able to embody the views and perspectives of the participants and be able to explain their social behaviour. Also, in this cooperation which, as we shall see, entails different organizations and institutions it is important to include the contextual conditions. So the features of qualitative research match the necessities of this thesis. Therefore I will use qualitative research.

3.1. Design

As a research design, this thesis will provide a multiple case-study. The research question is about a social process, namely the cooperation between the Netherlands and Belgium through MLG. There is relatively little knowledge of this social process (Swanborn, 2010: 14-27). When it comes to selecting the cases, Swanborn mentions two general principles. First of all the cases should be ‘informative’, which means that it is expected that the cases clearly represent the phenomenon that is studied. The second principle is that the cases should be ‘representative’: “that is cases occupying a modal position on putative relevant variables”

(20)

19

(Ibid: 52). This means that the cases have a significant position on the established relevant variables (Ibid). The cooperation that is analysed in this thesis is the cooperation between two countries, the Netherlands and Belgium. These countries are the two cases on macro-level. It is expected that these two cases are both informative and representative as Swanborn (2010) addresses. This because of the earlier described events in 2008. The Netherlands and Belgium are expected to incorporate MLG strategies in their cooperation and therefore fitting cases for this study. Another case-selection criteria is the different institutional background of the countries. Which is also expected to influence the level of incorporation of MLG strategies. Since there are only two cases this can be seen as a small case- study (Ibid: 14).

3.1.1. Nested case studies

The Netherlands and Belgium are not studied on the macro-level, but two provinces in the border-area of Belgium and the Netherlands will be the research units. In the Netherlands this is the province Zeeland and in Belgium the province Oost-Vlaanderen. The cooperation between them is studied, each within their own specific legislation. The difference in legislation will be further addressed in chapter 4. The cooperation is analysed from a regional view. So the perspective of the regional partners will be analysed.

Province of Oost-Vlaanderen Province of

Zeeland

Case 1: The Netherlands Case 2: Belgium

Design: Multiple case- study

(21)

20 3.1.2. Triangulation of methods

In order to increase the internal validity, a triangulation of methods will be used. This triangulation exists of interviews, document analysis and desktop research.

The first of this triangulation is semi-structured interviews. The researched cooperation between Belgium and the Netherlands is expected to take place on several levels. Therefore the participants for the interviews ought to be working on different levels within this cooperation. Additionally, the participants will be officials from both the Netherlands and Belgium. As a starting point the mayors of two municipalities (Terneuzen and Lochristi), one in the Netherlands and one in Belgium, will be addressed. Since in both countries the mayor is concerned with safety and security on a regional level. Also, these municipalities are in the border area. Terneuzen is directly attached to the border. Lochristi isn’t directly attached, but it is part of the “politiezone” Puyenbroeck. This “politiezone” (police area) has a “politiecollege” (police college) which exists inter alia out of the mayors of the involved municipalities. This system will be further addressed in Chapter 4. However the mayor of Lochristi is chairman of this police college and therefore he will be addressed for an interview. Besides the mayors also the police in both the Netherlands and Belgium will be addressed. Further participants will be selected through the so called random ‘snowbal’ survey. This means that participants, besides the one addressed, will stem from the conducted interviews. Important when conducting interviews in a qualitative research compared to conducting interviews in a quantitative research, where responses are displayed numerically, is that the words and ideas of the participants are used (Yin, 2011:32).

After conducting the interviews, the method of open coding will be used to analyse the collected data (Yin, 2011:186-188). By coding the interviews a comparison can be made between the experiences and perspectives of the participants in on the one hand the Netherlands and on the other hand Belgium. This offers an analysis of the cooperation between the Netherlands and Belgium on fighting cross- border crime.

The second of the triangulation of methods is document analysis. These documents will stem from first of all desktop research, which is a third part of the triangulation of methods. Additionally my aim is to obtain (confidential) policy documents through the respondents of the interviews. With the triangulation of methods the aim is to establish a clear view and a comparison between the cases. To be able to analyse the gathered data through this triangulation of methods, an operationalization of concepts of MLG is established in the following part.

(22)

21

3.2. Operationalization

The concept of partnership will be operationalized based on a study of Kelleher et al. (1999) on partnership. The operationalization provides certain indicators. These indicators provide the framework to analyse partnership in and between the two cases (the Netherlands and Belgium). Figure 1 presents the operationalization. Figure 2 presents the interview questions which will be used, based on the indicators described in Figure 1.

(23)

22

Fig. 1. Operationalization table (based on Kelleher et al. 1999)

Topic (Partnership) Sub- questions Indicators

To what extent is there partnership?

1) The number of involved partners

2) Type of the involved partners (Vertical/ horizontal)

What is the structure of the partnership?

1) A delegation of power

2) Status and role of different groups

3) Role of political representatives and social partners

4) The options for re-programming

Research question: How is partnership organized in practice in cross-border drug tourism?

What does the partnership entail in practice?

1) Exchange of information according to Prüm (DNA, fingerprints and vehicle registration data)

2) Police cooperation on fighting drug tourism 3) Cross-border regional governmental cooperation

How do the involved

partners experience the

partnership in practice?

1) Consultation on a regular basis

2) Consensus and disagreement between involved partners 3) Evaluations and monitoring

(24)

23

Fig.2 Interview questions (based on indicators fig. 1)

Indicators Interview questions

1)The number of involved partners

--- 2)Type of the involved partners (Vertical/ horizontal)

1.1.Who are the involved partners in the implementation of policy concerning cooperation? 1.2. How many partners are approximately involved?

--- 2.1.What type of partners are involved?

2.2.Are there any other partners involved? (For example partners from the private sector) 1)A delegation of power

--- 2)Status and role of different groups

--- 3)Role of political representatives and social partners

--- 4)The options for re-programming

1.1.Are competencies delegated? 1.2.Who delegates competencies to whom?

--- 2.1.What is the role of the involved partners?

2.2.What is the level of control of the involved partners? 2.3.How are decision made in the cooperation?

--- 3.1.What is the role politics in the cooperation?

3.2.What is the role social partners in the cooperation?

--- 4.1.How is the process monitored?

4.2.What are the opportunities for adjustments? 1)Exchange of information according to Prüm (DNA, fingerprints and vehicle registration

data)

--- 2)Police cooperation on fighting drug tourism

--- 3)Cross-border regional governmental cooperation

1.1.Is there an exchange of information on DNA-data, fingerprints and vehicle registration between the Netherlands and Belgium?

1.2.If yes, how is this exchange organized? 1.3.Does this occur on a regular basis?

--- 2.1.Does police cooperation occur?

2.2.How is this cooperation organized?

--- 3.1. Is there cooperation between regional governments?

3.2. How is this cooperation organized?

3.3. Is there cooperation between the regional, national and international level? 1)Consultation on a regular basis

--- 2)Consensus and disagreement between involved partners

--- 3)Evaluations and monitoring

--- 4)Points of improvement

1.1.Is there consultation between the involved partners on a regular basis? 1.2.Are the partners informed on a regular basis?

--- 2.1.How are differences in opinion dealt with?

2.2.How is dealt with the different interests of the partners? 2.3.Do evaluations take place or is there monitoring?

2.4.Is the different background in legislation and structure of the Netherlands and Belgium causing issues?

--- 3.1.Do evaluations take place?

3.2.How are these evaluations organized?

--- 4.1.What are potential disadvantages of the cooperation?

(25)

24

4. Background: The Netherlands, Belgium and partnership in cross-border

drug tourism

The Netherlands and Belgium have a different constitutional background. According to Kelleher et al. (1999) and Hooghe (1996), the constitutional background of a country has an influence on the level of partnership. This will be a guiding element through the analysis of partnership. Therefore the constitutional background of both cases will be shortly described. Additionally the development of the cooperation between Belgium and the Netherlands will be discussed to provide an overview of the cooperation thus far.

4.1.1. Belgium

On February 7th, 1831 Belgium officially became an independent country. Between 1970 and 1993 Belgium developed, through four state reformations, from a unitary state to a special sort of federal state. Besides being a federal state, Belgium is a democracy, it knows rule of law, it has representative institutions, it knows a parliamentary regime and it is a monarchy (Jacquemin & van den Wijngaert, 1996:49-56). The structure of the federal state means that different partners have their own competencies in different areas. The separation of these areas is across two lines. First of all there are the ‘gemeenschappen’ (communities). These are divided according to language. Belgium counts three different languages, so there are three communities: de Vlaamse Gemeenschap (Flamish community), de Franse Gemeenschap (French community), and de Duitstalige Gemeenschap (German community).

The second line of separation is according to economic interests. There are three ‘gewesten’ (districts): het Vlaamse Gewest (the Flamish district), het Brussels Hoofdstedelijk Gewest (The Brussels district) and het Waalse Gewest (the Wallonia district). Besides the communities and districts there are ten provinces and over 589 municipalities.14 The communities and districts have their own competencies, for example on international relations (Ibid:143-150). However the federal state remains important on several subjects, including international relations: “Hoe dan ook, het principe blijft dat het de federale overheid is, die de Belgische Staat in de internationale relaties vertegenwoordigt” (Ibid:151). So the principal

14_{Belgium constitutional structure on: http://www.belgium.be/nl/over_belgie/overheid/federale_staat/structuur/} (Visited on 18-10-2015).

(26)

25

remains that the federal government represents the Belgium State in the international relations.

It is important with the several areas of competencies, that there is a cooperation between these different areas. In Belgium this is also seen as a cooperative federalism. There is a continuing political pressure on the cooperation and solidarity between the areas, because of the history of separation. To guarantee cooperation, several cooperation structures were established. These are incorporated in several (special) laws. These cooperation structures are diverse, from an advisory structure to an obligated inclusive structure. The establishment of these structures is comparable with international treaties, because they are negotiated and decided on by parliamentary assemble (Ibid:169-178).

4.1.2. The Netherlands

The Netherlands is a constitutional monarchy since the Constitution of 1815. However, the Constitution, as it is known nowadays, stems from 1848 and is created by J.R. Thorbecke. The Netherlands is characterized by its structure as a decentralised Unitarian state (Breeman et al, 2008:24-25). Like Belgium, the Netherlands is a democracy, it knows rule of law, a parliamentary regime and it is a monarchy as well. The Unitarian state is decentralised by territory into 12 provinces and 393 municipalities (1 January 2015).15 The connection between decentralisation and the Unitarian state is uttered through three concepts, being: Autonomie (autonomy), Medebewind (joint administration) and Toezicht (control). Provinces and municipalities have their own competencies concerning their territory. Through autonomy, they are able to create regulations for their territory. Joint administration entails that municipalities and provinces create regulation based on, and within the frame of, a higher regulation. These two concepts are concerned with the decentralisation. The third concept entails the Unitarian state, namely control. The national government can destroy regulations by provinces or municipalities when these are in contradiction with the law or common cause (Ibid: 27-30).

Like in Belgium, it is important in the Netherlands as well that the several layers of government work together. Breeman et al. (2008) give three reasons for this importance. The first reason has to do with the division of tasks. This division is important to remain efficient. The second reason is that local governments, like municipalities, have a better understanding

15_{CBS on:} http://www.cbs.nl/nl-nl/menu/methoden/classificaties/overzicht/gemeentelijke-indeling/2015/default.htm (visited on 28-10-2015).

(27)

26

of local problems. They stand closer to the citizens and know what the needs are of the citizens. Since policy is developed on a national level, it is important to cooperate and thus be able to offer fitting measures. The third reason for cooperation is that, most of the time, the problems faced by governments aren’t bound by territorial borders. Therefore cooperation is important to tackle problems together (Ibid: 29-30).

4.1.3. Cooperation

The cooperation between Belgium and the Netherlands has its roots in the Benelux. Together with Luxemburg they decided after World War II, to establish a cooperation to form an economic alliance. Soon the Benelux also agreed on cooperation on other areas, like criminal matters (Vermeulen, 2009:12-13).

With this cooperation, the Benelux started the process of creating a European cooperation. This European cooperation also started off as an economic cooperation in 1951 with the European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC). This alliance included only six countries: Belgium, the Netherlands, Luxemburg, Germany, France and Italy. Over the years the community increased and cooperation on several areas was established.16 One of the main events, with regard to cross-border crime, was the enactment of the Schengen Treaty. This Agreement guaranteed free movement of persons between member states. It also meant a stepping up of cooperation and coordination between judicial authorities and police services within the Schengen area. This was necessary to guarantee security.17

The stepping up of cooperation between judicial authorities and police services between member states continued over the years, as can be seen in the Prüm decision as well. This Council Decision focuses on cross- border cooperation in fighting cross-border crime and combating terrorism. So over the years the cooperation between the Netherlands and Belgium changed. First with the establishment of the Benelux, later with the EU and its regulations on cross-border cooperation.

16_{EU history on: http://europa.eu/about-eu/eu-history/index_nl.htm (visited on 15-8-2015).}

17_{Schengen Agreement: The Schengen agreement of 1985 founded the Schengen area and cooperation. In the} Schengen area free movement of persons is guaranteed. The Schengen cooperation has been incorporated by the Treaty of Amsterdam of 1997. The countries in the Schengen area are: France, Germany, Belgium, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Italy, Spain, Portugal, Greece, Austria, Denmark, Finland, Sweden, Czech Republic, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Hungary, Malta, Poland, Slovenia, Slovakia and Switzerland. On:

(28)

27

5. Results

As described in Chapter 3, this research uses a triangulation of methods. First part of this triangulation was conducting interviews. To conduct these interviews two mayors were addressed. One mayor of a Dutch municipality (Terneuzen) and one of a Belgian municipality (Lochristi). The mayor of Terneuzen redirected the request to a policy worker at the municipality concerned with drugs. He provided contacts at the police department in Terneuzen. The mayor of Lochristi redirected the request to the Korpschef (Chief of the local police area), who forwarded it to the “Hoofdinspecteur Dienst Interventie” (Chief inspector of the Intervention department) of the local police area. In both cases the request was redirected (eventually) to the police.

During the interviews, it became clear that the police is the main actor when it comes to fighting cross-border drug crime. Therefore the interviews are mostly with respondents from the police. In two cases the interview included two respondents. In Belgium one respondent is Chief inspector of the Intervention department at the local police area Puyenbroeck and two respondents are employers of the federal police in Gent. The “Hoofdcommissaris Noodplanning” (Chief Commissioner Emergency Planning) and the “Commissaris Officier Operaties” (Commissioner Officer Operations). In the Netherlands three respondents are employers of the police department in Terneuzen and one respondent is a policy worker at the municipality of Terneuzen. So in total five interviews have been conducted, with seven respondents. Besides the interviews, most respondents also provided documents. These documents differ from policy documents up to presentations and evaluations. Combined with other available documents, the analysis of these documents form the other parts of the triangulation. The results of the triangulation of methods and an analysis will be presented in this chapter.

As the origin of the Dutch respondents show, they all come from the municipality of Terneuzen. One of the two cases in this research is the Province of Zeeland. However the involvement of the province isn’t significant enough and makes the case-study to broad. The border- area exists of Zeeuws-Vlaanderen and with the importance of the coffeeshops in this research, the focus has been drawn towards the municipality of Terneuzen. In the Belgian case however, the province of Oost-Vlaanderen includes both the local police area and the federal police. Therefore this case-selection is appropriate for this research.

During the research it became clear that the problem of drug tourism isn’t as relevant anymore in the area as it was before 2008. Drug crime and hindrance however still occurs,

(29)

28

both in the Netherlands and in Belgium. Since the two cases form a border-area the problem of drug hindrance can cross this border, so this subject is still relevant. As explained in the introduction, drug hindrance can be a result of drug tourism. Therefore the issue of drug hindrance is included in the analysis.

This chapter is structured by dealing with the sub-questions as described in the operationalization. According to the operationalization table the sub-questions are formed by certain indicators. Each chapter will deal with a sub-question and its corresponding indicators: 5.1. Sub-question: To what extent is there partnership?

Indicators:

The number of involved partners

Type of the involved partners (Vertical/ horizontal) 5.2. Sub-question: What is the structure of the partnership? Indicators:

A delegation of power

Status and role of different groups

Role of political representatives and social partners

The options for re-programming

5.3. Sub-question: What does the partnership entail in practice? Indicators:

Exchange of information according to Prüm (DNA, fingerprints and vehicle registration data)

Police cooperation on fighting drug tourism

Cross-border regional governmental cooperation

5.4. Sub-question: How do the involved partners experience the partnership in practice? Indicators:

Consultation on a regular basis

Consensus and disagreement between involved partners

Evaluations and monitoring

Points of improvement

The sub-chapters will be organized by first addressing the situation within the two cases and then the situation between the two cases.

(30)

29

5.1. Degree of partnership

The first sub-question is: “To what extent is their partnership?”. This section will provide an analysis of the degree of partnership in the two cases. The degree of partnership is, as explained in the operationalization, measured with two indicators. The first indicator is the number of involved partners and the second indicator is the type of involved partners.

5.1.1. Case 1: Zeeland

In the province of Zeeland – more specifically the municipality of Terneuzen – several partners are included in fighting cross-border drug tourism. In the interviews three main partners come up when it concerns drug tourism, namely the police, the municipality and the Public Prosecutor. Besides these three, the national government is involved by creating national policy. In practice the Marechaussee is also involved when it comes to inspecting persons. When it concerns goods, partners like customs and perhaps even de tax authorities are included as well (Appendix B: Interview 3).

However the main actors are the partners in the so-called “Driehoek” (Triangle), existing of the police, the Public Prosecutor (OM) and the mayor. The Triangle is a construction in the Netherlands on a local level, used in different forms. The municipality of Terneuzen is for example also part of a harbor-Triangle, because of the large harbor-area. The Triangle which is referred to in this case is the local Triangle with the mayor of Terneuzen, the police and the Public Prosecutor (OM). Because of the reorganization within the police (the introduction of the national police), the area of Zeeuws- Vlaanderen nowadays has a “basis-team”. The “classic” form of the Triangle therefore doesn’t exist anymore (Appendix B: Interview 3).

In 1996, the municipality of Terneuzen started project Houdgreep (Politie Zeeland et al. 2011). This was part of a larger policy to tackle the problems in the city of Terneuzen. Another element of this policy was for example the tolerating policy for Checkpoint (Appendix B: Interview 3). Later on, in 2006, the municipality of Sluis and the municipality of Hulst (the two other municipalities in the area of Zeeuws-Vlaanderen) joined this project. This project aims to prevent drugs traffic/dealing and the additional hindrance. To be able to do this it is important to develop suitable measures. Therefore every case of hindrance is examined and the best approach is discussed between the partners. These partners include the three municipalities of Zeeuws- Vlaanderen (Hulst, Terneuzen and Sluis), the police but also housing corporations (Woongoed Zeeuws-Vlaanderen, Clavis and Woonstichting Hulst)

(31)

30

(Politie Zeeland et al. 2011). Thus fighting drug hindrance in the municipality of Terneuzen includes several (non-) governmental partners.

Besides Terneuzen, the municipality of Goes and of Vlissingen have coffee shops as well. Since the introduction of the “wietpas”, the municipalities Goes, Vlissingen and Terneuzen have a structural meeting. The “wietpas” is a member card for a coffee shop. Coffee shops became clubs in a way and membership is only available for adults living in the Netherlands. With the “wietpas”, the Dutch government aimed to fight drug tourism.18 The introduction of the this policy established a structural meeting between the municipalities in the province of Zeeland. During these meetings they discuss issues like drug tourism and how they can fight this problem.

So in fighting drug hindrance, several partners are involved in different “partnerships” on a local level. First of all there is the Triangle, where the mayor, the Public Prosecutor and the police discuss issues on drug crime and aim to synchronize their measures. Statistics of these issues are provided by Houdgreep. Here the municipalities work together with the police and local housing organizations to gather information and create a unified plan of action.

5.1.2. Case 2: Oost-Vlaanderen

Belgium is, because of its federal constitutional background, expected to have a high level of partnership. In the area of fighting drug tourism and drug hindrance, several actors are involved. The main actor in this area, though, is the police. All the interview requests were redirected to the police. During the interviews with the local police zone and the federal police, it became clear that they are the main actors concerned with fighting drug hindrance. However, partnership between these two departments of the police does occur. The police system in Belgium is what they call a “geïntegreerde politie”, (integrated police system). This system exists of a federal police and local “politiezones” (police areas). These two levels are autonomous and function next to each other. The police system in Belgium is divided through another line as well, namely on the one hand the “gerechtelijke” (judicial) police and on the other the “bestuurlijke” (administrative) police. The administrative police is concerned with problems with regard to public order. When there is a violation of the law, the judicial police takes over (Appendix B: Interview 4).

18