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 13:57] 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.\\ 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 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.
  
-__Most important facts__\\+=== Most important facts ===
   * both thematic fields have been equally distributed across projects and institutions   * 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   * 77 per cent of the partners only contributed to one project, but 8 projects involved 3 or even 4 French institutions
Line 17: Line 16:
   * several networks of institutions through AS, but only one large network with strong influence on spatial development   * several networks of institutions through AS, but only one large network with strong influence on spatial development
  
-__Branche, types and areas of work__\\+=== Branches, types and areas of work ===
 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 surprising. Although 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 sphere. NGOs together with public authorities account for 36 per cent of partners alone. Research institutes or universities make up another 25 per cent. Actors from the economic sphere play a minor role. Accordingly, the main areas of work concern wider public policy, spatial planning and development of mountain territories. Environmental sciences, forestry and natural hazards also appear frequently. Rhône-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 technologies. The 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.\\ 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 surprising. Although 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 sphere. NGOs together with public authorities account for 36 per cent of partners alone. Research institutes or universities make up another 25 per cent. Actors from the economic sphere play a minor role. Accordingly, the main areas of work concern wider public policy, spatial planning and development of mountain territories. Environmental sciences, forestry and natural hazards also appear frequently. Rhône-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 technologies. The 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.\\
  
-__Spatial distribution__\\+=== 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).\\ 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).\\
  
-__Influence on sustainable spatial development__\\+===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 (22) or 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 level, no 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 development. One quarter of all institutions has at least medium impact on the local level. Globally, strong impact institutions appear to be lacking at all spatial scales.\\ 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 (22) or 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 level, no 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 development. One quarter of all institutions has at least medium impact on the local level. Globally, strong impact institutions appear to be lacking at all spatial scales.\\
  
  
-__Interpretation__\\+===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.\\ 
wiki/stakeh_france.1418475476.txt.gz · Last modified: 2014/12/13 13:57 by dominikcs