Because of the growing interest of funding organizations for East-East cooperation at least the financial capacity for East-East cooperation can be enlarged these days. An important organization connected motivation for establishing East-East cooperative projects, namely getting bigger and/or more funds, might come forth from the growing interest of funding organizations for East-East cooperation. This is conform the hypothesis on the socio-economical factor, which said that a lot of environmental NGOs will have problems in mobilizing the necessary resources, so only when East-East cooperation brings extra resources it might be interesting for them to establish East-East cooperation. The latter is also related to the organization connected hypothetical factors. This hypothesis said that enough institutional capacity of the NGOs is needed, before they will be able to establish East-East cooperation. But, more factors than the institutional capacity of the environmental NGOs have a role in establishing East-East cooperation.
On the first place the environmental topic on which East-East cooperation will be established is a crucial factor. Dealing with a transboundary topic gives a strong motivation for East-East cooperation, as long as CEE borders are involved of course. Cooperation just for the sake of cooperation is worthless according to most activists. East-East cooperation has to be build upon a specific environmental topic with which both organizations deal. Rucht mentioned this as well. [Rucht, 1993, p. 91] When we look back to the hypothetical factors related to the topic on which East-East cooperation was expected to be established, we find that the first two factors (dealing with border and/or transboundary environmental issues) where indeed important factors in the reality of East-East cooperation. All partners need to see the benefit of East-East cooperation for achieving their organization's goals before they will step into a troublesome form of international cooperation like East-East cooperation. This means that for direct border issues between two CEE countries the motivation for East-East cooperation is almost guaranteed.
The third hypothetical topic related factor given as a motivation for East-East cooperation turned out to be false. The expected EU membership of the Visegrad countries as a motivation for East-East cooperation is not found in reality. Just a few NGOs could see a potential motivation in the future EU membership of their country and such only after it was given in the interviews. Reasons for the lack of interest in the potential EU membership might be the unstable national political situation, the fact that it is still a long way to go before the countries will be accepted in the EU and the lack of real lobby groups within the environmental movement in Central Europe.
A second crucial factor for establishing East-East cooperation is the ability of a NGO to find a willing and capable partner at the other side of the border. Now we come to the surprising part of the conclusion on this research, namely the importance of good personal contacts for East-East cooperation. This factor is missing in the hypothesis. Some potential reasons can be given for that. At first this factor was not mentioned at all in the consulted literature. Individual contacts are not mentioned in the resource mobilization approach, the political process model and even the more practical article of Rucht did not pay attention to this factor. At second it might be too logical to hypothesize the necessity of personal contact. In that case the factor good personal contacts is just a forgotten factor for East-East cooperation. That idea does not leave us much room for interpreting the factor personal contacts. Another explanation for the difference in the literature and the reality might be the existence of a cultural difference between Easterners and Westerners. Since almost all available literature came from Westerners, it might be the case that the factor good personal contacts does not play a significant role in West-West cooperation. In the Western society efficiency and pure professionalism in cooperative contacts might be more important values than in CEE. Maybe Central Europeans are more suspicious towards potential partners, or Westerners base their cooperative relationships more on pure business. Eventually it is just the idea that in mutual Western cooperation the factor good personal contact is not that important. In my opinion, the latter assumption seems to be the most reasonable. Of course cultural differences between East and West exist, but the human need for mutual trust in cooperative relationships will not differ that much between East and West. Especially in cases of joint projects good personal contacts are important, both in East and West. It might be more easy to hide the importance of this factor when the professionality of the environmental NGOs is higher, like it is in the big Western NGOs, but that usually does not hide the problems which occur when the personal contacts get troubled.
The EPCE discovered the importance of good personal contacts after some years of dealing with environmental NGOs in Central Europe. Since the EPCE started focusing on East-East cooperation in 1993 it recognized the importance of personal contacts. Because of that the professional position of Regional Coordinator was created. 'Since then the Partnership has purposefully increased transboundary grant making in border areas and held joint staff and board meetings to gain a regional perspective', as Mrs. K. Wolniakowski[2] writes in the EPCE report 1994/95. [EPCE, 1994/95, p. 7] The importance of good personal contacts for establishing East-East cooperation is proved once again in this research.
Two other key factors play a role in the establishment of East-East cooperation. Those two have political-historical and socio-cultural backgrounds. These two factors are:
Stimulating surroundings for the development of NGOs are important for improving the strength of environmental NGOs. Stimulating surroundings relate at first to the current political situation in a country. In case of a government which is in favor of building a strong third sector the NGO community will develop faster, both in quantity and quality. Following from a positive approach of the authorities the NGOs will be more successful, both on organizational and strategical level, so that the self-confidence might grow. The interest of potential participants for NGOs might grow as well, which will increase the available human resources. Another result of a stimulating political approach towards NGOs might be the development of internal (= national) cooperation. The environmental movement will become more coherent and with that more efficient and mature. From the interviews it is clear that a relationship between internal and external cooperation exists. Many activists mentioned a positive influence of having experience with internal cooperation before or while establishing East-East cooperation.
In reality the stimulating surroundings were not really experienced. For example the current political situation in Slovakia and the lack of political interest for environmental issues are obstacles for East-East cooperation.
The historical component is a second part of the NGO surroundings in which East-East cooperation has to be established. Historical factors are mentioned a lot, but they are not the main motivations or, if negative, obstacles for East-East cooperation. Dealing with the daily life is already difficult enough for most groups. They are not that much interested in looking back in time, which might be the reason for the lower importance of historical factors. Besides that environmental NGOs are usually quite progressive organizations, compared to the rest of the society. This progressiveness might be a reason for stepping over 'old pains' as well.
A stimulating environment refers at third to socio-cultural factors. The hypothetical socio-cultural factors had their role in reality almost literally as described in the hypotheses. The hypothesis says that East-East cooperation will cost extra efforts of the NGOs to overcome language problems, cultural differences and/or nationalistic sentiments. In a stimulating environment these obstacles are missing or easy to overcome. In reality it costs indeed more efforts of the NGOs to establish East-East cooperation. However another surprising outcome of the research is the motivation which comes forth from the nationalistic sentiments. The reality of 'stereotyping and nationalistic tendencies' which is recognized by the environmental NGOs is rather considered a motivation than an obstacle for East-East cooperation.
The socio-cultural hypothesis should have been connected to the hypothetical political factors to describe the reality more correctly. In reality the environmental NGOs want to show their governments the possibility of useful and successful East-East cooperation. East-East cooperation is seen as a way of opposing the authorities' approach, so that both the current political attitude towards East-East cooperation and the (political) reality of 'stereotyping and nationalistic tendencies' can be motivational factors for the NGOs to add East-East cooperation to their strategy.
The last key factor for East-East cooperation is Western influence. In this research sample no East-East cooperation exists without Western influence in one way or another. The factor Western influence touches in fact the international surroundings of CE environmental NGOs. Western financial support plays a big role in diminishing the lack of capacity and funding particular East-East cooperative projects. Both REC and EPCE show their influence with special East-East cooperative funding. Beside this financial interest in Westerners, other interests exist. For example Westerners working as volunteers in the NGOs. These might be Peace Corps Volunteers for the United States, but also students from Western Europe, or normal employees or volunteers. The mutual contacts, especially within the Peace Corps Volunteer organizations makes contacts among the respective environmental organizations likely. As a human resource with knowledge, organizing capacities, network contacts and their language skills, Westerners are very much wanted in the environmental NGOs in Central Europe.
Other Western influence is a result from contacts and/or cooperation with Western NGOs. Usually these contacts exist within a mixed East-West or worldwide network of NGOs, although just bilateral cooperation occurs as well. Popular networks are the IUCN, WWF, Greenpeace, FoEI, Coalition Clean Baltic and so on. These networks originate from the Western part of the world, but since the iron curtain fell, more and more Eastern NGOs succeed in becoming a member of these networks. The Western and worldwide NGOs and networks are used to obtain information, to get training and advice and sometimes human and financial resources as well. For the future of East-East cooperation we should not underestimate the influence of Western support, and with that East-West cooperation as a precursor of East-East cooperation.
Summarizing it can be stated that East-East cooperation among environmental NGOs in Central Europe will be established based on a common topic, which is usually transboundary, and good personal contacts, though only if enough capacity of at least one NGO is available. After these three factors, two other important factors play a role. At first the consequences of the political opportunities structure and at second the Western influence. Both factors define a part of the surrounding of environmental NGOs, on national and international level, respectively. The national and international environment of environmental NGOs should be stimulating towards at least the development of a NGO community, but preferably towards a regionwide vision and East-East cooperation where necessary to tackle the common environmental problems. The latter does not mean that without a stimulating environment no East-East cooperation will occur, it is only more likely to be established within a stimulating environment.