User Tools

Site Tools


wiki:stakeh_france

Differences

This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.

Link to this comparison view

Both sides previous revisionPrevious revision
Next revision
Previous revision
wiki:stakeh_france [2014/12/13 13:39] dominikcswiki:stakeh_france [2017/03/24 14:39] (current) andreash
Line 1: Line 1:
-**Stakeholder analysis for France**+===== Stakeholder Analysis for France ===== 
 +Over the period from 2007 to 2013, 44 French institutions have participated in 28 Alpine Space (hereafter AS) projects from the thematic fields “inclusive growth” (hereafter IG) and “resource efficiency and ecosystem management” (hereafter RE). Six of these (14 %) have been lead partner of a project. There was only one institution that worked on projects of both thematic fields (Institute of Alpine Research in Grenoble). Across the two thematic fields, both projects and institutions were equally distributed (14 projects from each field, 28 and 29 project participations for IG and RE respectively). Yet, remarkably, the majority of institutions only contributed to one project (77 per cent), and only two institutions participated in 3 or 4 projects (IRSTEA Mountain Ecosystems research unit in Grenoble and the LIRIS Laboratory in Lyon). Overall, French institutions participated 57 times over the period.\\ 
 +The distribution of French partners across projects is heterogeneous. Most of the projects involved one or two institutions. Eight projects, however, involved 3 or even 4 institutions from the French stakeholder landscape; a fact that points at high interest for the specific issues of these projects and rather strong networks at regional and local level.
  
-The following analysis and interpretation bases on the project partner institutions participating in the thematic fields “inclusive growth” and “resource efficiency and ecosystem management” of the Alpine Space programme period 2007-2013. For the German part of the Alpine Space 30 institutions participated, four of them in two projects of these thematic fields.+=== Most important facts === 
 +  * both thematic fields have been equally distributed across projects and institutions 
 +  * 77 per cent of the partners only contributed to one project, but 8 projects involved 3 or even 4 French institutions 
 +  * 14 per cent of all institutions have been lead partner 
 +  * more than 80 per cent of the institutions belong to the public sector, mainly at regional and local level, but diversity of work areas and institution types 
 +  * 25 per cent of all stakeholders are either research institutes or universities 
 +  * main fields of work are spatial development and spatial planning, development of mountain territories, environmental science, forestry and health and bio-technologies 
 +  * 95 per cent of institutions comes from the AS programme area 
 +  * three quarters of participating institutions situated in the Rhône-Alpes administrative region 
 +  * more than half of the institutions are considered to have a low impact on spatial development 
 +  * stronger impacts on spatial development come from the regional and local level; one quarter of all institutions has at least medium impact on the local level 
 +  * several networks of institutions through AS, but only one large network with strong influence on spatial development
  
-__ +=== Branchestypes and areas of work === 
-Branches and types of stakeholders__\\ +Given the variety of topics among projects, the variety of French stakeholders in institution types and areas of work across the two thematic fields is not surprisingAlthough we can identify 14 types of institutions, more than 80 per cent of the project partners belong to the public sector. The AS programme seems to have principally importance for the public sphereNGOs together with public authorities account for 36 per cent of partners alone. Research institutes or universities make up another 25 per centActors from the economic sphere play a minor role. Accordingly, the main areas of work concern wider public policyspatial planning and development of mountain territoriesEnvironmental sciences, forestry and natural hazards also appear frequentlyRhône-Alpes has a large sector of bio- and health technologies, and three projects (NATHCARE, ALIAS, ALPS Bio-Cluster) involved both local networks and clusters that explain the areas of work of health care and related technologiesThe analysis showed larger categories of other types (for instance municipality, cluster or protected area) and other work areas (for instance transport, energy or tourism), confirming a generally diverse landscape of stakeholders.\\
-Almost one half of Project Partners (PP) are in branches of [[http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/ramon/nomenclatures/index.cfm?TargetUrl=LST_NOM_DTL&StrNom=NACE_REV2&IntCurrentPage=1&StrLanguageCode=EN&IntPcKey=&StrLayoutCode=HIERARCHIC|NACE-code]] “O” (public authorities). NACE-code “P" (Universities or Institutes of applied science) are also frequent project partners in the Alpine Space Programme. The public sector is therefore clearly dominating. The private sector is underrepresented as well as institutions representing the civil society. +
-Looking closer at authorities it shows that most of them have their thematic focus on regional development, spatial or regional planningOnly two of them are representing the localbut eight the regional level. Their main resources are decision-making/policy-making. These stakeholders have often high influence on sustainable spatial development. They are a very important target group for the Alpine Space program\\ +
-Another type of well represented institutions within the scope of the analysis is “Universities and Institutes of applied sciences” and “Technological and scientific research center” with their main resources knowledge / expertiseTheir influence is generally not very high but their area of influence is wider than for participating authorities. Universities and research institutes work generally on all spatial levels, but have often low (directinfluence on sustainable spatial development.\\+
  
-__Thematic focus of stakeholders__\\+=== Spatial distribution === 
 +Some spatial disparities become apparent when we look at the spatial distribution of project participation for the two thematic fields. The majority of projects involved participants from the Isere (11) and Rhone (12) departments, the French NUTS 3 level. The institutions in these two NUTS3 territories account for almost 50 per cent of project participations. Institutions from other departments, particularly in the Southern French Alps, on the Mediterranean coast and in the Ain department, did contribute to the projects to a much lesser extent. At a higher level, Rhône-Alpes administrative region, accounting for almost three quarters of project participations, outperforms the two other AS regions Provence-Alpes-Côte-d'Azur (4 participations) and Franche-Comté (6 participations). Unsurprisingly, the majority of institutions was situated in the area of the AS programme (93 %), 44 per cent of which even within the area of the alpine convention. Only one institution (2.2 %) joined an AS project from other areas in France, outside the alpine perimeters (ONF International, situated in Paris but ONF has also regional delegations).\\
  
-Looking closer at the thematic focus of the institutions, it shows that many (13of them have their focus at resources and the other main group (8) is in context with spatial planning and regional development. Close to these institutions are the institutions concerned with economic development and tourismThe issue of building and architecture is represented by three institutions, the other institutions are more singular in the scope of this analysisThe thematic focus of institutions corresponds to the two selected thematic fieldsthe picture would change, if the other thematic fields (Climate change, competitiveness and innovation of SMEs, low carbon energy and energy efficiency, sustainable transport and mobility) would be included into the analysis.\\+===Influence on sustainable spatial development=== 
 +We (qualitatively) estimated influences on spatial development at the main scale of intervention for every institution. Most of the French partners in AS projects operate at regional (22or local level (15), which is in line with the objectives of the AS programme to operate specifically at regional and local level in order to foster territorial cohesion. Nevertheless, more than half of the total of institutions is considered to have lower influences on spatial development. Only two institutions on international level have medium or strong impacts respectively (European Association of elected representatives from Mountain regions and the Committee for the European Transalpine Link). On the national levelno institution with higher impact participated in the projects. Influences on spatial development are considered highest for regional and local level: 17 institutions from these scales are considered to have at least a medium influence on spatial developmentOne quarter of all institutions has at least medium impact on the local level. Globallystrong impact institutions appear to be lacking at all spatial scales.\\
  
-__ 
-Influence of stakeholders on sustainable spatial development__\\ 
-A closer loook at the degree of influence the stakeholders have on the different spatial levels shows, that there are only 5 (out of 30) institutions with a high influence on sustainable spatial development. The highest influence on local and regional level have authorities who are directly involved in or responsible for spatial planning in their area. But in the two thematic fields of the last program period of the Alpine Space program very few of such authorities participated as project partners, although they represent an important target group of the program. If this is representative for all thematic fields and also the other program periods, strategies have to be found to motivate more of them to participate.\\ 
-The stakeholders with a low degree of influence are mainly universities and research institutions, which contribute to sustainable spatial development by giving their knowledge and expertise on all spatial levels from the local and regional level (mostly by supporting pilot activities) to the national and even international level by exchanging the expertise via networking and activities in their common channels (conferences, scientific journals etc.). They play an important role in the Alpine Space program as Partners (at least in the scope of this analysis), but are maybe compared to local stakeholders somehow overrepresented.\\ 
-The most important stakeholders – the key stakeholders for sustainable spatial development - are the 5 institutions with high influence at the local and regional spatial level.\\ 
  
-__ +===Interpretation===
-Spatial level of stakeholders__\\ +
-National and local stakeholders are poorly represented, while most stakeholders represent the regional level – a level which includes state authorities from Bavaria. Most research institutes and universities as well as the few private enterprises included as partners in the program work at all spatial levels from the local level – often involved as pilot site – to international level, subject to the respective needs.\\ +
- +
- +
-__Interpretation__\\+
 The analysis revealed notable imbalances in the group of French institutions that participated in AS projects of the two thematic fields.\\  The analysis revealed notable imbalances in the group of French institutions that participated in AS projects of the two thematic fields.\\ 
 **First**, participation is not equally distributed across the French alpine territory. Notable concentrations are situated in the Isere and Rhône departments, other especially southern territories lagging behind. This might have different reasons. Politically, the northern French Alps are more oriented towards the Alps (also in a transnational perspective) and also to the centres of gravity of the European economy (concept of the blue banana), whereas the Southern Alps are more oriented towards the Mediterranean Sea and the coast. Mountainous zones in the South are less populated, economically less prosperous and more marginal. In addition, economic activity and population create higher perceived pressures in the Northern French Alps, and might contribute to an advanced political and societal understanding of spatial development and natural resource management as contemporary challenges.\\  **First**, participation is not equally distributed across the French alpine territory. Notable concentrations are situated in the Isere and Rhône departments, other especially southern territories lagging behind. This might have different reasons. Politically, the northern French Alps are more oriented towards the Alps (also in a transnational perspective) and also to the centres of gravity of the European economy (concept of the blue banana), whereas the Southern Alps are more oriented towards the Mediterranean Sea and the coast. Mountainous zones in the South are less populated, economically less prosperous and more marginal. In addition, economic activity and population create higher perceived pressures in the Northern French Alps, and might contribute to an advanced political and societal understanding of spatial development and natural resource management as contemporary challenges.\\ 
Line 31: Line 33:
 **Last**, and in more general terms, a major problem that became apparent throughout the analysis is related to constraints of stakeholders to participate in AS projects, notably in terms of human capital, expertise and financial resources. Project participants are generally larger institutions and structures, who are able to fulfil the project management requirements. Participation of smaller institutions, both from the public and private sphere, should be facilitated in order to diversify the AS network. In a nutshell, the analysis of French stakeholders has shown a sensitive lack operational partners on the ground across the AS projects, capable of implementing change towards sustainable spatial development. The table below summarizes these results in an action matrix, defining appropriate actions for different groups of stakeholders based on their participation and interest in alpine spatial development. **Last**, and in more general terms, a major problem that became apparent throughout the analysis is related to constraints of stakeholders to participate in AS projects, notably in terms of human capital, expertise and financial resources. Project participants are generally larger institutions and structures, who are able to fulfil the project management requirements. Participation of smaller institutions, both from the public and private sphere, should be facilitated in order to diversify the AS network. In a nutshell, the analysis of French stakeholders has shown a sensitive lack operational partners on the ground across the AS projects, capable of implementing change towards sustainable spatial development. The table below summarizes these results in an action matrix, defining appropriate actions for different groups of stakeholders based on their participation and interest in alpine spatial development.
  
- +^ Keep involved:strong participation, weak interest^ Engage closely:strong participation, strong interest^ 
 +|all stakeholders that already participated and have lower interest,\\ e.g. SMEs, research institutes not directly working on Alpine topics|Research institutes, universities, NGOs, Public authorities, policy-makers| 
 +^ Raise awareness: weak participation, weak interest^ Motivate: weak participation, strong interest^ 
 +|private sector enterprises, outer alpine stakeholders|municipalities, intermunicipal syndicates,protected areas, city regions,\\ small and medium-sized public and private actors|
wiki/stakeh_france.1418474362.txt.gz · Last modified: 2014/12/13 13:39 by dominikcs