Stakeholder Analysis for Switzerland [WIKIAlps

This page is read only. You can view the source, but not change it. Ask your administrator if you think this is wrong.
===== Stakeholder Analysis for Switzerland =====
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.

===Descriptive part===
The number of stakeholders in the thematic field of  “resource efficiency” (15) is almost the same than in the field of “inclusive growth” (16). The major part of stakeholders are research institutes (26%) followed by authorities (16%), the same number is defined as NPO (16%) followed by environmental agencies. The stakeholders are mainly public (84%), 13% are a mixture of private and public and only a very small percentage (3%) can be considered as private. 
In Switzerland a very low number of Project Partners are also Lead Partners (2 out of 31) and only two stakeholders are involved in several projects of the AS programme 2007-2013 (incl. growth, resource efficiency). These were namely the Geneva University Hospitals (in 3 projects) and the Swiss Federal Institute for Forest, Snow and Landscape Research WSL Research Programme Forestry and Climate Change (in 2 projects). Only two out of the stakeholders act on all spatial levels (local, regional, national), the major part (58%) are active on a regional level and 35% on a national level. Therefore the local level can be considered as heavily underrepresentated. 
Thematically the stakeholders are located in the fields of environment (32%), health (13%) and regional development (10%). Less than one fourth of the stakeholders are located in the perimeter of the alpine convention.\\

===Interpretation===
As a 1st conclusion it can be said that during the AS programme period 2007-13, the themes “resource efficiency” and “inclusive growth” were dominated by public organisations, private stakeholders were an exception. In Switzerland this is an important gap, since the interreg programme belongs to the New regional policy instrument (NRP) which targets the fostering of entrepreneurs and added value. Research institutions represent one fourth of the involved stakeholders other organisations such as authorities and NPOs have almost the same shares. It would be wishfull that more projects would be composed out of these three types of organisations. Such a combination delivers scientific results and has a high chance of being implemented in reality and considered in policies. 
The low number of Lead partners in Switzerland has different reasons 1) Switzerland is a small country, thus there is a smaller pool of potential LPs available 2) the cofinancing provided by the project partners is higher than in the European Union, which is not an incentive to overtake a time consuming role as a lead partner 3) Swiss institiutions can only do a technical leadership, the financial lead must be in the responsibility of a European partner institution, this might appear to many partnerships as not convenient. With regard to the spatial level of actions it can be said that the regional one is the most widespread. This is due to the fact that in Switzerland the regions represent a perfect mixture of bundeling local needs/synergies and a good linkage to the levels beyond (eg. Cantons). It would be too complicated to address single actors on a local level. Via regional entities local actors can be best reached.  
With regard to the thematical focus of the projects it is no wonder that in the field of “resource efficiency” and “inclusive growth” environmental issues take a predominant role. Concerning the degree of importance it can be said that the stakeholders ranked with high importance are mainly authorities and are equipped with economic and publicity/multiplier resources. They are the most influential for Sustainable Spatial Development and influence activities via funding and policies. Therefore it is important to assure a good integration of authorities in future projects. Only in that way, a sustainable embedding of project results into policy papers and strategies can be guaranteed.