Basics of Stakeholder Analysis

Team-Assignment Week 3: Our Stakeholders, Their Power

May 18th – May 24th 2015


Cantabrian Mountain Range

- Hotspot for rural tourism and biodiversity, but also essential for agriculture, livestock farming and economic development -

1 The Study Site

The Cantabrian Mountains (Spanish: Cordillera Cantábrica) are a mountain chain extending approximately 300 km across northern Spain almost parallel to the Bay of Biscay (Fig. 1). The chain runs from the western limit of the Pyrenees, as far as the pass of Leitariegos, to the borders of Galicia, limited by the valley of the river Miño, and several smaller rivers.

Figure 1: Geographic Position of the Cantabrian Mountain Chain.

Source: Fernández, Marquínez, Menéndez Duarte (2005: 258).

Figure 2: The Cantabrian Mountain Chain can be separated into three different zones: The Central Cantabrian Mountains and the Western and Eastern Region.

Due to its impressing landscapes, wild animals, pilgrimages and further adventure activities like hiking, climbing and kayaking the mountain range is very attractive fortourists. However, by the locals it is mainly used for livestock farming (primarily cows and goats) and agriculture. It is also well known as a wine region. Besides the industrial areas, it is a main source of revenues and a driver of rural development.

2 Stakeholder Analysis

  1. List below your major stakeholders identified with relation to your land

Tab. 1: Identified Stakeholder’s in the Cantabrian Mountain Chain.

Stakeholder Name / Type of Stakeholder 1 / Description 2 / Relationship to the land3

Naturaleza y Medio Ambiente

/ Government / Land owner / Leases land to conditions & requirements to farmers

Castro Urdiales

/ Agribusiness / Depends on crop yield / Aims to maximise its profit margin
Ecologistas en Acción / Conservationists / Against monoculture / Wants to protect soil quality and biodiversity
NGO /

Cantabria Acoge

/ Concerned with land / Policy of food production
Tourists /

Civil Society

/ Visitors / Recreation and adventure vacation i.e. climbing, hiking
Local residents /

Private

/ Land owners/ renters / Private use

1 e.g. Government, Private, and civil society

2e.g. Land user groups, concerned with land or economically profitable exploitation, and/or conservation and/or preservation.

3 Level /Role/Policy context

  1. Selection of method you used to categorize your identified stakeholders:
  • We chose the Interest-influence matrice to categorize our stakeholders.

It’s a method simple to use and flexible as you set up a table containing every stakeholder and the interrelations (see table below). It also offers a good overview and basis for additions. The table below provides the interests and conflicts of the different stakeholders of the Cantabrian Mountain Range at different levels. The conflicts are a result of the different purposes and utilizations of the land i.a. as economic resource for crop production, recreation and touristic attraction and conservation area. Due to the different interests and levels, the stakeholders also have different influences and demands.

Initially, the different interests of each stakeholder have to be presented clearly e.g. due to interviews, workshops or meetings to solve problems and prevent conflicts.

Tab. 2: Interest-influence matrice to categorize our stakeholders.

1 Government / 2 Agribusiness / 3 Conservationists / 4 NGO‘s / 5 Residents
1 Government / same / Cooperation:
SH 1 gets fees from SH 2
Complementaries & conflicts: SH 1 leases to environmental conditions and requirements e.g. conservation soil cultivation / Cooperation & complementary: SH 1 supports environmental requirements
Conflicts: SH 3 enforces stricter requirements / Cooperation & complementary: Work together on the common areas to solve increasingly complex
socio-economicproblems
Conflicts: / Cooperation: SH 5 pays taxes
Complementary: Informs SH 1 of potential irregularities Conflicts: SH 5 claims a greater involvement
2 Agribusiness / Cooperation:
SH 1 gets fees from SH 2
Complementaries & conflicts: SH 1 leases to environmental conditions and requirements e.g. conservation soil cultivation / same / No cooperation because of adverse interests
Complementary: SH 2 agrees to conservation measures imposed by SH 1
Conflicts: Due to profit orientation not insufficient conservation / Cooperation & complementary: SH 4 is a partner in the intervention Conflicts: Limited period of support, after that agribusiness may collapse / Cooperation: SH 2 offers labour
Complementary: Development of the region Conflicts: SH 5 claims a greater involvement and SH 2 endangers the ecosystem
3 Conservationists / Cooperation & complementary: SH 1 supports environmental requirements
Conflicts: SH 3 enforces stricter requirements / No cooperation because of adverse interests
Complementary: SH 2 agrees to conservation measures imposed by SH 1
Conflicts: Due to profit orientation not insufficient conservation / same / Cooperation & Complementary: SH 3 in close cooperation with Conservation NGO’s
Conflicts: Different goals (?) / Cooperation & Complementary: SH 5 supports goals of nature conservation
Conflicts: SH 5 also wants regional development
4 NGO‘s / Cooperation & complementary: Work together on the common areas to solve increasingly complex
socio-economicproblems
Conflicts: / Cooperation & complementary: SH 4 is a partner in the intervention Conflicts: Limited period of support, after that agribusiness may collapse / Cooperation & Complementary: SH 3 in close cooperation with Conservation NGO’s
Conflicts: Different goals (?) / same / Cooperation: Mobilization of SH 5 to raise their voice
Complementary: Support and interaction to SH5 Conflicts: Different interests (?)
5 Residents / Cooperation: SH 5 pays taxes
Complementary: Informs SH 1 of potential irregularities Conflicts: SH 5 claims a greater involvement / Cooperation: SH 2 offers labour
Complementary: Development of the region Conflicts: SH 5 claims a greater involvement and SH 2 endangers the ecosystem / Cooperation & Complementary: SH 5 supports goals of nature conservation
Conflicts: SH 5 also wants regional development / Cooperation: Mobilization of SH 5 to raise their voice
Complementary: Support and interaction to SH5 Conflicts:
Different interests (?) / same
  1. Name the method you intend to use to map your stakeholders?

We used the“4Rs” tool to map our stakeholders.

  1. Name the tool you choose to investigate the relationships among your identified stakeholders?
  • Knowledge Mapping

Because the chosen method represents the different stakeholders neatly arranged in a diagram, which shows the interests and powers and, additionally, separates them into different groups to demonstrate the position or relation to each other and the different demand to the Cantabrian Mountain Range.

  1. Explain how you plan to prioritize the identified stakeholders in relation to their engagement, role, importance and influence over your land work?

(Map out the possible stakeholders (likely to have great impact on the project) and to detect the main relevant ecosystem services via assessing their stakeholders’ interest with justification for inclusion of stakeholder and the expected role of the stakeholder in the MOOC work. The output could be formed in a matrix of ecosystem services, beneficiary groups, and stakeholders involved and their interests)

By listing the different levels of the chosen stakeholder and their interests to identify conflicts and common interests. The Cantabrian Mountain Range is the most visited tourist destination in Spain. However, such attractive locations bring an especially high conflict potential between the individual stakeholders.

Tab. 3: Prioritization of the stakeholders.

Interests / Upper Level / Lower Level
SH 1: Government
SH 2: Agribusiness / SH 3: Conservationists / SH 4:
NGO‘s / SH 5:
Residents
Job creation and business stimulation / High crop production / Biodiversity / Job creation and business stimulation / Job creation and business stimulation
Tax revenue / Economic growth / Soil conservation / Soil conservation / Sustainability
Sustainable cultivation / Soil fertility / Nature conservation / Nature conservation
Soil conservation / Available fresh water / Water conservation / Water conservation
Nature conservation / Fewer restrictions / Little fertiliser
Water conservation / Sustainable production

Bibliographical references:

  • Fernández, Marquínez, Menéndez Duarte (2005): A susceptibility model for post wildfire soil erosion in a temperate oceanic mountain area of Spain. Catena Vol. 61 (2005), pp. 256–272.
  • Fernández, Marquínez, Menéndez Duarte (2008): A sapping erosion susceptibility model for the

southern Cantabrian Range, North Spain. Geomorphology Vol. 95 (2008). pp. 145–157.

  • IberiaNature (2010): URL: iberianature.com/material/cantabrian_mountains.html.
  • Rodriguez (2015): Encyclopaedia Britannica - Cantabrian-Mountains. URL: britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/92995/Cantabrian-Mountains.

Seite 1 von 5