Stakeholder engagement had a prominent role in the PROVIDE project:

Most of the end-users are also stakeholders relevant to the project; the project envisaged a very early engagement of relevant stakeholders that were informing the initial steps of research design and were co-constructing the 3 year project activities with continuous reciprocal feedback and knowledge development. On the one hand, this allowed to target research and its physical products to end-users and a wide range of stakeholders’ needs. On the other hand, it also builds commitment and attention to the project by key stakeholders.

As the stakeholders had a key role both in designing the research process and questions and in providing input to answer these questions the information gathered in the stakeholder workshops fed into the work conducted in the project, and results were subsequently presented back to stakeholders and discussed with them.  This has also meant that focus on governance issues and public goods evolved as the project developed to incorporate the input provided by stakeholders.

A total of 41 workshops were conducted in the following case study regions included in PROVIDE: Austria, Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Estonia, Finland, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Poland, Romania, Scotland (UK) and Spain. These were split into three workshops (2, 3 and 4 in the PROVIDE project. Workshop 2

The objectives of workshop two were to present and discuss the hotspots and descriptions identified by the researchers based on information provided by the stakeholders in the first round of workshops. Stakeholders identified governance mechanisms to improve public goods within these hotspots, and discussed the information needs for designing effective governance mechanisms.

Workshops began by introducing the project and feeding back results from workshop one. Participants were then introduced to the hot spot identified for further study in their case study regions. These descriptions included visual illustration, indicating the links between the agriculture and forestry systems, public goods/bads, stakeholders and other issues related to the public goods/bads, and an associated storyline. Discussions were held around the storyline that had been constructed, and participants were encouraged to modify as needed. These discussions also included identification of the final public goods/bads to be considered for each hotspot.

Once public goods/bads to be considered had been identified, discussions taking different forms in each workshop and including the whole or smaller groups were carried out to identify the governance mechanisms which could be used to improve (or reduce) public good/bad provision. Final discussions centred on identification of information needs to implement the identified governance mechanisms

intended to validate the case studies, identify policy mechanisms which may improve public goods provision, and discuss the tools which may increase understanding of public goods provision. Workshop 3

Workshop three objectives included feeding back the previous valuation work carried out within the case study regions, developing further understanding of the most promising governance mechanisms for public goods in each case study regions, and exploring future scenarios.

The workshop began with feedback of previous PROVIDE work, in particular the valuation work carried out within each case study regions. Participants were invited to discuss the valuation results, particularly to identify percieved strengths and weaknesses. Further activities were held to identify the target levels of public good provision in each case study regions, including whole group, small group, and individual consideration.

Following identifcation of governance mechanisms, and target levels, participants were asked to discuss how the governance mechanisms may look to meet provided criteria of good goverance, and how they may meet the targets identified in the previous activity. This was carried out either as a whole group, or through smaller round tables, with groups rotating around governance mechanisms. Optionally groups may have also carried out a carrousel excercise to identify how future scenarios (business as usual, neglected public goods, promoted public goods) may impact the hot spot being considered.

intended to discuss new and existing governance mechanisms to ensure the delivery of public goods. Workshop 4

The objectives of workshop four were to analyse the practicability and transferability of governance mechanisms for public goods, and to assess the enabling factors and barriers to the uptake of governance mechanisms. Finally the workshop aimed to carry out comparative analysis of mechanisms for public goods.

As with previous workshops workshop four began with discussion of previous work, focused on modelling excercises, and provided participants with the opportunity to discuss these outputs. The package of governance mechanisms identified as important in previous workshops were also explained, and time was given for participants to discuss these mechanisms.

Following the introduction a SWOT analysis was conducted. Either individually or in groups participants were asked to write down the three most important strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats associated with the presented package of governance mechanisms for the case study hot spot. Once these had been collated the three most important factors in each category overall were selected, through deliberation or voting.

The final activity in this workshop was a multi-criteria analysis. Either individually or in groups participants identified the importance of each of the three most important strengths, weakness, opportunities and threats to success of governance mechanisms in general. Following this particpants identified how well the package of governance mechanisms fit each of the important criteria. The workshop finished with discussion of the outcomes of this excercise.

intended to analyse the suitability and transferability of governance mechanisms for the delivery of public goods. In between workshops 2 and 3, project partners carried out valuation studies for their case study regions. Likewise, in between workshops 3 and 4, partners carried out modelling work on the selected public goods/bads and governance mechanisms.

For further description and information about the stakeholder engagement in the PROVIDE Project, interested readers may consult the project’s deliverables D2.1, D2.2, D2.3 and D2.4. They can be found here.

Repository of the stakeholder portals with additional material, just as workshop presentations, pictures and other dissemination material, in national language.

Stakeholder Portal Andalusia

Stakeholder Portal Sluknovsko

Stakeholder PortalKromme Rijn

Stakeholder Portal Vatra Dornei

Stakeholder Portal Aberdeenshire

Stakeholder Portal Emilia-Romagna

Stakeholder Portal Marchfeld

Stakeholder PortalYug-tsentrala Bŭlgariya

Stakeholder Portal Brandenburg

Stakeholder Portal Geopark Ralsko

Stakeholder Portal Dolina Biebrzy

Stakeholder Portal Bretagne

Stakeholder Portal Harju

Stakeholder PortalRuka-Kuusamo