Percentiles, rangos de percentiles y excelencia científica

The interpretation in relation to the research questions is presented from the viewpoint of organisations wishing to engage with actors in mountain resorts to address environmental and sustainability issues in the resort.

45

Original quote : “Et il y a des gens qui se disent défendeurs de l'environnement qui veulent que la vilaine bête c'est l'homme, on veut pas que l'homme arrive…certaines personnes du parque [national] ils souhaitent en faire un sanctuaire où le prédateur c'est l'homme. Donc c'est là où c'est pas notre vision à nous, on pense que la nature elle est au service de l'homme.” (A4)

What groups of stakeholders hold the real power and influence in French Alpine resorts? The research shows that the real power and influence lie in the hands of the mayor, which is a particular feature of the French administrative system. Whether the tourist office is in the form of an association or an EPIC, it falls largely under the influence of the mairie.

Where the lift company is privately owned, it may wield significant influence over the running of the resort, such as seasonal opening and closing dates, and the management of the ski area, in terms of investment in new lifts or snow-making capacity, however it has little influence over communal decisions. For environmental organisations with issues concerning the mountain area and ski domain, the lift company may well be an important interlocutor. For all

environmentally-related issues, the mayor is the person who has to be convinced. What formal and informal power relationships exist between the different groups of

stakeholders of French Alpine resorts and how can these be defined in a general way to be relevant to all such resorts?

The formal relations between the different actors are clearly visible. For example, the relationship between the mairie and the lift company is defined in the ‘delegation of public service’ contract. The relationship between the mairie and the tourist office can be understood through the legal structure of the tourist office, its financing arrangements and the composition of its management board/steering committee. Other important relationships exist between the mairie and the other actors in the resort. They are most clearly visible through the organised hoteliers’ or retailers’ associations, second home owners’ and property owners’ associations, and so on. Other significant relationships may exist between the mairie and powerful land- owning families or long-established businesses which are well-known and thus influential in the resort.

Informal power relationships are far more difficult to identify, many having developed through history. The previous (or ongoing) occupation of the mayor may indicate allegiances and greater influence for those involved with the mayor in previous or ongoing activities. Smaller actors may gravitate together to increase their voice to compete with larger, better organised groups. The personal influence of a major land-owner, important business-owner or hotelier on other actors in the resort is however extremely difficult to detect and also to measure.

Similar relationships will be found in most French mountain resorts and this analysis may therefore help organisations to understand the specific relationships in a particular resort. How effectively can these formal and informal power relationships between the stakeholders be represented visually, in a form that can be adapted to each resort using a systems map?

presented in other research which did not consider degrees of influence of actors on the decision-making process. The model presented in Figures 4.3/4.4 above enables the formal or informal organisation of actors to be represented visually, such as the retailers’ association or hoteliers who act together informally. It also allows spheres of influence to be identified, such as the tourist office and ski slope management services which are under the influence of the mairie. The model also attempts to communicate the degree of influence through the size of circle or text, however this is less effective due to the importance of informal relationships which are difficult to detect and to the question of how to evaluate the degree of influence of one actor in relation to another.

Whilst resorts can be classified according to certain characteristics such as the ownership of the lift operator or the broad type of resort, the research has highlighted the difficulty in creating ‘standard’ stakeholder models which can be applied to different classifications of resort. Each resort has it’s own particular stakeholder groups, each with their own degrees of influence in the context of that resort. For example a retailers’ association may be dynamic and influential in one resort, while the same structure in another resort may have little impact. This is down largely to the personalities and the history in each resort.

The stakeholder model offers environmental organisations an effective tool to analyse actors in a resort, providing an ‘aide mémoire’ of the different actors and a simple method for

representing them visually.

What specific, generally-applicable questions can be identified to enable others to use the map to derive a valid picture of the stakeholder relationships in other resorts?

Based on the construction of the stakeholder model presented above and observations on how it could be developed further, the following list of questions is proposed:

 What commissions exist in the commune and who takes part in them? Councillors? Other economic actors? Local residents?

 Is the lift company directly managed (i.e. régie), semi- publicly owned (i.e. via a SEM) or privately owned? If via a SEM, which public body is the majority shareholder?

 Is the legal structure of the tourist office an association or an EPIC? What do the articles of association require in terms of representation of the local council and other actors?

 Is there an association of Retailers?

Hoteliers? Land owners?

Second home owners? Huntsmen or other sports? Seasonal workers?

How many members do they have? What evidence exists of their influence on previous issues?

 Who are the major land owners?

 Which large tourism groups (hotel chains, tourist residences, tour operators) are present in the resort? How many beds do they have compared with the total number of tourist beds in the resort?

 Which actors have a long historical connection with the resort? Large families? Long established businesses? (What names are on the war memorial?)

 Which ski schools or other sports activity companies exist?

 What organisations are represented on the tourist office board/ committee? In the municipal council?

 What are the commune’s other activities, apart from tourism? Agriculture? Crafts? Consider the key actors in these activities.

What are the perspectives and motivations of the key groups of stakeholders?

The key perspective of all actors interviewed was an economic one, concerned with ensuring the success of the resort as a tourist destination, thus providing financial security and protecting their way of life.

The mayor has not only the interests of his electorate in mind (for example, provision of

employment, housing and community services) but also the financial position of the commune, which in many French alpine resorts, including those studied, is heavily dependent on winter tourism. His goal is to see the resort prosper and develop, however his perspective is also influenced by State regulation which restricts his freedom to act.

The Tourist office perspective is solely focused on the development of the resort and on tourism strategy, to attract visitors and increase revenues. Similarly the lift company, whether private or public, is focused primarily on financial objectives, such as lift pass sales. Economic actors such as hoteliers, restaurant owners and retailers also share this economic perspective, even when expressing a personal view: “If tomorrow there are no more tourists, I don’t have any employees, so I don’t have a life anymore, I don’t have anyone who comes here to work, who settles down, who has children, who makes the economy work.”46

46

Actors interviewed were motivated primarily by the desire to see the resort succeed and the sense that everyone is working towards that goal. Ensuring a future in the resort for

themselves and their children was also important.

The strong positions of some nature-protection organisations have alienated them from local actors. The above analysis of actors’ perspectives and motivations is intended to improve environmental organisations’ understanding of these actors to help them communicate more effectively.

The final research question on recommendations is addressed in the next section. 4.7 Interpretation in relation to the aim

The aim of the research is to provide recommendations for organisations seeking to engage stakeholders in the decision-making processes of French Alpine resorts to address

environmental and sustainability challenges faced by the resort. Based on the analysis conducted on two such resorts, these organisations are recommended to:

 Conduct a Stakeholder Analysis of the resort to ascertain:

o who the stakeholders (i.e. those with a particular interest in the issue) are; o the different ‘stakes’ (i.e. the different interests of stakeholders in the issue, from

their own perspective);

o what groups of stakeholders exist,

o their degree of influence in the commune and the relationships between them. This will enable the identification of the most influential stakeholders and those with the biggest stakes. It will also enable detection of support for the environmental action which the organisation can capitalise on. Similarly, knowledge of the perspectives and motivations of those opposed to the action will enable resources to be specifically targeted and communication directed towards changing those perspectives.

 Use the Stakeholder model proposed in section 4.4 to illustrate these stakeholders and represent their degree of influence with regard to the issue at stake. The model, used in conjunction with the questions listed in section 4.6, should ensure all potential

stakeholders are considered. The model can be adapted by colouring the different stakeholder groups to reflect their position in relation to the issue being considered. Alternatively the key ‘stakeholders’, ‘stakekeepers’ and ‘stakewatchers’ as identified by Fassin (see p.9) could be highlighted in relation to the ‘stake’ under consideration. This n'ai plus de gens qui viennent travailler, qui s'installent, qui ont les enfants, qui font vivre un économie.” (B1)

tool can be used to communicate the stakeholder landscape clearly and effectively to other members of the organisation.

 Be aware of the perspectives of actors in the resort, which are focused primarily on the continued economic success of the resort, their own financial security and way of life. By accepting this reality and finding common ground with actors through other

perspectives, such as the concerns voiced about climate change or the need for better management of water, waste and energy resources, organisations can build

relationships with local actors and influence their perspectives from the inside. This is considered a more effective route than through confrontation or opposition.

 Aim to develop constructive dialogue primarily with the mayor and the deputies who hold the greatest decision-making power in the commune. Where the lift company is privately operated, resources would be well directed to building a strong relationship with it, perhaps via the entry of its own environmental policies (for example ISO14001). It is then recommended to target the large tourism chains and the organised

Chapter 5 Conclusions