Upload
others
View
2
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Support Action to initiate cooperation between the Communities of
European MARine and MARitime REsearch and Science
Deliverable No. 2.1
Report on Stakeholders Identification
(Maritime and Marine Part)
Creation Date: 2011-06-30
Revision Date: 2011-06
Project EMAR2RES – n.234359
Stakeholders identification Report
Seite 2 von 47
Support Action to initiate cooperation between the Communities of
European MARine and MARitime REsearch and Science
Deliverable No. 2.1
Report on Stakeholders Identification
(Maritime Part)
Creation Date: 2010-04-30
Revision Date: 2011-06
Project EMAR2RES – n.234359
Authors on behalf of ECMAR:
Center of Maritime Technologies e.V. Dr.-Ing. Frank Roland, [email protected] Dipl.-Ing.(FH) Markus Hollwedel [email protected]
Project Partners:
European Council for Maritime Applied R&D ECMAR European Science Foundation – Marine Board MB
Contents
Abstract ................................................................................................................................................... 2
Recipients ................................................................................................................................................ 3
Organisation Chart .............................................................................................................................. 4
Requested Documents ............................................................................................................................ 7
Questionnaire ...................................................................................................................................... 7
Competence Matrix ............................................................................................................................. 7
Response ................................................................................................................................................. 8
Results and Evaluation of responses ....................................................................................................... 9
Mapping of Services and needs ......................................................................................................... 11
Services .......................................................................................................................................... 11
Needs ............................................................................................................................................. 14
Conclusions and derivations .................................................................................................................. 17
Cooperation ....................................................................................................................................... 17
Conclusions on improving further surveys ........................................................................................ 17
Reference to next steps ..................................................................................................................... 17
Appendix i Questionnaire Feedback ..................................................................................................... 18
Appendix ii Competence Matrix template ............................................................................................ 19
Appendix iii List of recipients ................................................................................................................ 20
Appendix iv List of Shipyards represented by CESA .............................................................................. 21
Tables
Table 1: Superior organizations addressed in EMAR2RES....................................................................... 5
Table 2: Key Figures of recipients ............................................................................................................ 8
Table 3: Landscape of participants ........................................................................................................ 10
Figures
Figure 1: Structure of Waterborne TP ..................................................................................................... 4
Figure 2: Way of evaluation .................................................................................................................... 9
Figure 3: Visualization of summarized services ..................................................................................... 11
Figure 4: Visualization of cumulated services ....................................................................................... 12
Figure 5: Evaluation of replies about industry´s services offered ......................................................... 13
Figure 6: Evaluation of replies about non-commercial institution´s services offered .......................... 13
Figure 7: Visualization of summarized needs ........................................................................................ 14
Figure 8: Visualization of cumulated needs .......................................................................................... 15
Stakeholders identification Report
Page 1 of 47
Figure 9: Evaluation of replies about industry´s needs requested........................................................ 16
Figure 10: Evaluation of replies about non-commercial institution´s needs requested ....................... 16
Figure 11: Matrix template .................................................................................................................... 19
Stakeholders identification Report
Page 2 of 47
Abstract At its own option the European science community is lacking proper and reliable knowledge
concerning cooperation possibilities between their marine and maritime areas.
Every scene has its own expertise about funding possibilities, research demands and –topics but
nowhere near high is the number of expertises in possibilities of cooperation. For this reason the
project EMAR2RES was set up by the most influential Associations from both communities.
This report shall offer a first database and foundation about their specific services to offer and where
they are missing the opportunity of cooperation.
For this reasons not only a simple desktop study was performed, furthermore comprehensive
questionnaires were developed and sent to the most promising stakeholders all over Europe.
According to the above mentioned reasons this stakeholder-analysis was realised in following steps
of evaluation:
Predefinition of most promising stakeholders of both communities
Preparation of questionnaire and competence matrices
Survey phase
Evaluation phase
Compilation of this report
Stakeholders identification Report
Page 3 of 47
Recipients The Waterborne Transport Platform was founded in 2005 by the Maritime Industries Forum and its
R&D-Committee. It is making strident efforts to regularly update R&D requirements for European
competitiveness, innovation and the meeting of regulations like safety and environment.1
In general The Waterborne TP represents stakeholders from several maritime branches like:
Ship-owners (deep-, short- and inland shipping)
Shipyards
Marine equipment manufacturers
Classification societies
Ports
Research and development institutions
etc.
Hence the Waterborne TP was chosen to build the backbone of recipients concerning the EMAR2Res
stakeholder survey in the maritime area.
Lately the Waterborne TP represents the most complete and capacious profile regarding the
European Maritime Area that is available-
In Figure 1: Structure of Waterborne TP the Waterborne TP members are displayed.
1 Source: http://www.waterborne-tp.org/index.php/aboutWaterborne
Stakeholders identification Report
Page 4 of 47
Organisation Chart
Figure 1: Structure of Waterborne TP
Stakeholders identification Report
Page 5 of 47
Following associations were taken into account for this underlying stakeholder analysis:
FEPORT –Federation of European Private Port Operators ESPO – European Sea Ports Organisation
EUROGIF – European Oil and Gas Operation Forum EMF – European Metalworkers Federation
EURACS – European Association for Classification Societies EBU – European Barge Union
CEMT – Confederation of European Maritime Technology Societies
EMEC – European Marine Equipment Council
INE – Inland Navigation Europe CESA – Community of European Shipyards´ Association
WEGEMT – European Association of Universities in Maritime Technology and related Sciences
ECSA – European Community Shipowners´ Association
EURMIG – EU Recreational Marine Industry Group ECMAR – European Co-operation in Maritime Research
EuDA – European Dredging Association INNOVAMAR - FUNDACIÓN INSTITUTO TECNOLÓGICO PARA EL DESARROLLO DE LAS INDUSTRIAS MARÍTIMAS (Spain)
2
Table 1: Superior organizations addressed in EMAR2RES
Annotation for stakeholders outside this survey:
MARTEC II - Maritime Technologies as an ERA-NET The ERA-NET MARTEC II aims at further deepening, broadening and strengthening the established
transnational cooperation based on the experience gained and the existing cooperation structures.
The general themes for research, such as environmental protection, safety and security, the use of IT,
and the development of innovative products, are being addressed in almost all national research
programmes. The potential thus exists for European partners to share a research platform and
develop coordinated activities.
The research fields included in this ERA-NET project include: shipbuilding, ship and port operation,
maritime equipment and services, inland water and intermodal transport, offshore
industry/technology, offshore structures for renewable energy, fishing/aquaculture, polar
technology, environmental impact, safety and security, and human elements
MARTEC is a partnership of 28 European ministries and funding organizations responsible for funding
RTD in maritime technologies from 24 countries. All together these countries represent about 95 %
of the gross tonnage (GT) of shipbuilding output in Europe which shows that this network already
covers the EU key players in that field.
The consortium members of MARTEC are: German Federal Ministry of Economics and Technology;
Research Centre Juelich GmbH, Germany; The Research Council of Norway; Ministry for Ecology,
Energy, Sustainable Development and the Sea, France; Centre d'Etudes Techniques Maritimes et
Fluviales; the Association of Finnish Marine Industries; Tekes, the National Technology Agency of
Finland; Instituto Tecnológico para el Desarrollo de las Industrias Maritimas, Spain; The Danish
Maritime Authority; Ministry for Economic Affairs, The Netherland; Universitatea Dunarea de Jos Din
Galati, Romania and the Swedish Maritime Administration.
www.martec-era.net/home
other ERA-NETs ERA-NETs are not a legal entity and therefore not a stakeholder in this context. Because of this, the
question to the participants was included whether they are joining any ERA Initiative. (Compare
Questionnaire in the Appendix of D_2.1)
2 No official Waterborne TP Member
Stakeholders identification Report
Page 6 of 47
Member states Member states were not considered directly because of their comprehensive structures, which were
hardly to include from our point of view. Furthermore they are represented by many national
organizations.
International Association of Marine Aids to Navigation and Lighthouse Authorities - IALA IALA is a non-profit, non-governmental international technical association. Established in 1957, it
gathers marine aids to navigation authorities, manufacturers and consultants from all parts of the
world and offers them the opportunity to compare their experiences and achievements. IALA’s aim is
to harmonize aids to navigation worldwide and to ensure that the movements of vessels are safe,
expeditious, cost effective and harmless to the environment.
A number of technical committees have been established bringing together experts from around the
World, taking into account the needs of mariners, developments in technology and the requirements
and constraints of aids to navigation authorities. The work of these committees is aimed at
developing common standards through publication of IALA Recommendations and Guidelines.
http://www.iala-aism.org
European Maritime Safety Agency - EMSA The European Maritime Safety Agency (EMSA) was established as a regulatory agency as a major
source of support to the European Commission and the Member States in the field of maritime
safety and prevention of pollution from ships, and subsequent amendments have refined and
enlarged its mandate. EMSA’s operational tasks include oil pollution response, satellite monitoring
and in long-range identification and tracker of vessels (LRIT)
http://www.emsa.europa.eu
International Maritime Organization - IMO IMO is the United Nations specialized agency with responsibility for the safety and security of
shipping and the prevention of marine pollution by ships. The mission of the International Maritime
Organization is to promote safe, secure, environmentally sound, efficient and sustainable shipping
through cooperation. This will be accomplished by adopting the highest practicable standards of
maritime safety and security, efficiency of navigation and prevention and control of pollution from
ships, as well as through consideration of the related legal matters and effective implementation of
IMO’s instruments with a view to their universal and uniform application.
http://www.imo.org
Coastguard and SRA organisations Most Member States have Coastguard and SRA organisations, but are currently not represented by a
official European Coastguard organisation.
Stakeholders identification Report
Page 7 of 47
Requested Documents In the field of activity of work package 2.1 “stakeholder’s identification” two documents were sent
out.
The two documents, precisely a questionnaire and a competence matrix, were sent to specific
persons where this was possible due to the previously efforts made for identifying concrete contact
persons. Since that in many cases tangible contact persons were not available, so that the editors of
the survey had to send it for example to info-mail-addresses at the related companies or
organisations.
Questionnaire In order to identify and create an inventory of relevant stakeholders across marine and maritime
science, the persons in charge for Task 2.1 created a questionnaire composed of 3 main questions
and a matrix. The collected data was supposed to give the opportunity to map the marine and
maritime landscape and in order to identify potential development strategies in a more dedicated
way.
Especially related to the following tasks
Task 2.2 “Linking the Marine and Maritime Science and Research Visions”
Task 2.3 “Initiating a structured dialogue” the questionnaire can become a very help- and meaningful position.
For a more dedicated way on the concrete contents please compare Appendix 1.
Competence Matrix The competence matrix which was also developed during the preperational phase of Task 2.1 is
believed to allow a more sophisticated way of mapping and assessing the relationships between the
potential stakeholders addressed during the survey. The matrix is the most important source of
information and basically the core of the whole survey.
The following explanation was given to the recipients as an instruction manual how to fill it and at
the same time to convey the recipients to the underlying methodology.
“In the header row (dark yellow and green) please identify the adequate maritime/marine field you‘re
involved in (e.g. dredging industry, research institute, university etc.). In most cases, you should select
only one field.
Below this line, there are two domains (in yellow and blue):
"Services" = Describe your core competences or the offer to other stakeholders respectively clients.
"Needs" = Describes your specific requirements to perform your job.
The vertical header column (in grey) indicates possible stakeholders’ "Areas of Expertise". Please
indicate whether certain specific "Services" or "Needs" in one particular area of expertise
fit/correspond to the current and/or desired operability/functioning of your organization. In most
cases, you will have to complete one column only (corresponding to your field of activity - see point 1
above)”
Stakeholders identification Report
Page 8 of 47
Response In fact the quantity of response was completely unsatisfying. It is estimated that the main reasons
are to a high proportion of outdated e-mail addresses, which were partly collected on the Internet.
On the other hand, the spring- and Easter holidays might be also a reason.
Due to the fact that responses received in this survey came from several parts of the maritime
community like
Ports
Inland shipping
Universities
Marine suppliers
Shipyards-/-owners representatives
Research institutes
still a good distribution is available which delivers an acceptable overview. Therefore, we believe that
the present results nonetheless will have some benefits for further disseminations’ even when there
isn´t a quantitative- but a good qualitative distribution given.
Table 2: Key Figures of recipients
Marked in red we see an overview about correspondences received during the survey. The Survey
was done in a period of about 6 months and started in November 2009 with desk study that aimed to
achieve a stakeholder’s inventory.
In February 2010 the desktop study as well as the preparation of all related documents for starting
the survey was finished so that it could be finally started in March 2010 with sending out the
documents towards the recipients.
The evaluation of results and preparation of the present report were performed in April 2010.
Stakeholders identification Report
Page 9 of 47
Results and Evaluation of responses
Figure 2: Way of evaluation
Figure 2 provides a first overview of the approach by the summation of responses up to the
derivation of the most promising research areas.
In the first step of the evaluation it was supposed to differentiate and quantify the results from the
areas of service and needs.
The second step is a further differentiation according to the particular types of business forms.
Addressed for the maritime community wasn´t just parent non-profit institutions also potential
industrial stakeholders were asked for their input.
In the concluding step of evaluating an assessment was performed which research- and activity areas
might offer the most promising opportunities for further cooperation with the marine sector.
In Table 3: Landscape of participants a first overview about the structure of participants regarding
this survey is displayed.
Stakeholders identification Report
Page 10 of 47
Table 3: Landscape of participants
Name The Port Authority of Algeciras Bay. Center of Maritime Technologies
ECMAR - (European Council for
Maritme Applied Research)
FUNDACION INSTITUTO
TECNOLOGICO PARA EL DESARROLLO
DE LAS INDUSTRIAS MARITIMAS
(INNOVAMAR)
Departament de Ciència i Enginyeria
Nàutiques - Universitat Politècnica
de Catalunya
via donau - Österreichische
Wasserstrassen-GmbH ECSA
Schiffbau-Versuchsanstalt Potsdam
GmbH
VDMA - Division Marine and
Offshore Equipment Industries
Bulgarian Ship Hydrodynamics
Centre - Varna, Bulgaria
Legal Status Public organism with legal
personality. e.V. (none-profit association) Non-profit making FOUNDATION University Company with l imited liability asbl GmbH / non-commercial e.V. Non-commerial entity
Main field of research
The Port Authority of Algeciras Bay
(APBA) manages and administers the
ports of General Interest of
Algeciras - La Linea and Tarifa.
Initiate, coordinate and facil itate
maritime research in Germany and
Europe (association),
provide an RDI network of industry,
research and academia
(association),participate in high
quality research and development in
strategic areas (research centre)
The mission of ECMAR is to promote
and conduct research to strengthen
the European maritime
sector. ECMAR’s role within a wider
European and global maritime
research environment is to focus
on applied research, making the link
between basic research undertaken
by universities, and its
application by industry. ECMAR sees
its focus on waterborne transport,
maritime safety, the
protection of the environment, and
marine resources, with a close
interaction with related research
sectors, and with marine science and
technology.
Improve the competitiveness of the
Spanish maritime and marine
SECTOR by Improving their
capacity to generate and carry out
R+D+i projects : N/A
waterway operation, maintenance
and development of inland waterway
transport
represent and promote EU
shipowners interests Ship Model Basin, Model Testing Industry Association
Realization of fundamental and
applied research, education and
training in the fields of the: Ship
Hydrodynamics, Aerodynamics,
Water Transport, Ocean and Coastal
Engineering, Sea and River
Crysises and Desasters, Renewable
Energy Sources, National Security
and Defence
Number of employees 251-500 11-30 11-30 Members 11-30 31-50 Members 251-500 1-10 31-50 1-10 51-250
Funding sources N/A
National grant-aid, FP, Member
organisation subscriptions
Member
Organisation
subscriptions
National
funding University
National
funding,
Member
Organisation
subscriptions National funding
Member
Organisation
subscriptions National funding
Main networking activities N/A
VSM -> CESA, VDMA -> EMEC, ECMAR
and many many other German and
European networks and cooperations WATERBORNE Technology Platform
SPANISH MARITIME TECHNOLOGY
PLATFORM/
SPANISH FISHING TECHNOLOGY
PLATFORM, MARTEC N/A TP, EIRAC Waterborne; MIF
VSM, GMT, CMT / EU: ECMAR /
International: ITTC
Entire VDMA in too many to l ist,
Marine and Offshore Equipment:
EMECRID, CMT
ITTC, ECMAR, WATERBORNE, PTMB
National Centre of Marine Science
and Technology - Varna
Marine cooperation No Yes Yes N/A N/A N/A No No Yes Yes
Name CETENA Copenhagen Malmö Port AB EUROPEAN BOATING INDUSTRY
IMEAK GEMI SANAYICILERI DERNEGI
(GESAD)
Hamburgische Schiffbau
Versuchsanstalt GmbH
Stichting Maritiem Research Instituut
Nederland (MARIN)
Faculty of Engineering, University of
Rijeka Dipartimento di Ingegneria Navale FORCE Technology CESA INSEAN
Legal Status S.p.A. Private AISBL NON-PROFIT ASSOCIATION GmbH (Ltd.) Foundation Higher Educational Institution (HEI) State University Independent, non-profit ASBL Govermantal Research Institution
Main field of research
CETENA S.p.A. - The Italian Ship
Research Centre - is a company of the
FINCANTIERI Group dedicated
to research and consultancy in the
naval and maritime field. Since its
foundation in 1962, CETENA has
been involved in national and
international research activities and
has carried out research and
consultancy in close cooperation
with shipbuilders, shipowners,
navies and universities.
CETENA's technical activities consist
in numerical studies, simulations
and experimental activities on
board ships and in the company's
laboratory. The technical areas of
activity are Hydrodynamics,
Structures and Materials, Vibrations
and Noise, Ship Vulnerability and
Signatures, Ergonomics and
Human Factors, Virtual Prototyping,
Risk Analysis and Process
Simulation. Port and terminal operator
To represent the interests of the
European leisure marine industry
The vision of GESAD is to enhance the
cooperation of ship industrialists
and shipyards, to introduce
and promote new technologies and
innovations with safe and
environmentally sound solutions, to
facil itate active relations between
ship industrialists and education-
training-research institutions as
well as international entities, to
represent Turkish ship industry in
national and international
platforms, respecting occupational
health, safety and environmental
friendly issues. Marine Hydrodynamics and Ice
To be an independent, innovative
service supplier to the maritime and
offshore industry with respect
to hydrodynamic and nautical
research.
Educational / Research in the fields
of naval architecture and
shipbuilding technology Educational
FORCE Technology wants to be the
customers’ preferred partner in the
development of
competitiveness requiring a high
degree of specialised knowledge and
technology.
Community of European Shipyards'
Association
To perform research research in the
maritime sector
Number of employees 51-250 51-250 1-10 1-10 51-250 51-250 51-250 11-30 Members >500 1-10 Employees, 11-30 Members 51-250
Funding sources N/A N/A
Member
Organisation
subscriptions, Services
Member
Organisation
subscriptions N/A N/A National funding
Regional
funding,
National
funding,
EU funding N/A
EU-funding, Member Organisation
Subscriptions
Regional funding, National funding,
EU-funding, Transnational funding,
Governmental funding
Main networking activities ECMAR
ESPO, Baltic Ports Organisation,
Swedish Ports, Danske Havne,
General
Stevedoring Council Waterborne Technology Platform N/A ECMAR, ITTC, VSM(nat. Germany) ECMAR (EU), MKC (National) N/A ITTC ; ISSC ECMAR, ITTC
CESA is part of MIF, WATERBORNE,
CESS, Jecku, Tripartite, IMO ECMAR
Marine cooperation No No Yes No No No Yes No Yes Yes Yes
Stakeholders identification Report
1
Mapping of Services and needs
Services
Figure 3: Visualization of summarized services
In Figure 3 we see the most often called line of actions where services are supposed to be offered
from the maritime participants of this survey.
The biggest accordance was pronounces for the areas of Design methods and –tools,
Hydromechanics as well as Training and Education. By enlarging the point of view to the next level of
nominations we see also accordance in the field of Maritime Simulation, Ship operation, Standard
and Rules as well as Testing.
Two Areas which are pretty complement to each other are “Design methods and –tools” together
with “Maritime Simulation”. These parts should be accentuated and taken into account for further
investigations.
Stakeholders identification Report
1
Figure 4: Visualization of cumulated services
The previously described services are displayed in Figure 4 with relation to the recipient’s field of
activity.
Here the RFO/RPO´s have to be pointed out and can be assigned to the fields with the biggest
accordance’s:
Maritime Simulation
Hydromechanics
Training and Education
Testing
Design methods and –tools
Ship operation
Figure 5 and Figure 6 displayed on the following page are showing this more dedicated and broken
down to the specific research- and operational areas divided by industries and non-commercial
institutions.
Stakeholders identification Report
1
Services offered by Industry
Figure 5: Evaluation of replies about industry´s services offered
Services offered by non-commercial institutions
Figure 6: Evaluation of replies about non-commercial institution´s services offered
Stakeholders identification Report
1
Needs
Figure 7: Visualization of summarized needs
In Figure 7 we see the most often called line of actions where needs are demanded from the
maritime participants of this survey.
The biggest accordance was pronounced for the areas of Field Inspection, Marine Research,
Navigation and Training and Education. By enlarging the point of view to the next level of
nominations we see also accordance in the field of Environmental services, Human Factors Research
and Testing.
Two Areas which are pretty complement to each other are “Marine Research” together with
“Environmental Sciences”. These parts should be accentuated and taken into account for further
investigations especially in the context with cooperation’s with institutions from the marine science
community which surely can offer services in that area.
Stakeholders identification Report
1
Figure 8: Visualization of cumulated needs
The previously described needs are displayed in Figure 8 with relation to the recipient’s field of
activity.
Here the RFO/RPO´s have to be pointed out and can be assigned to the fields with the biggest
accordance’s:
Training and Education Testing
Environmental sciences
Field Inspection
Marine research
Navigation
Production Logistics and planning
Ship operation
Standards and Rules
Figure 9 and Figure 10 displayed on the following page are showing this more dedicated and broken
down to the specific research- and operational areas divided by industries and non-commercial
institutions.
-
Stakeholders identification Report
1
Needs requested by Industry
Figure 9: Evaluation of replies about industry´s needs requested
Needs requested by non-commercial institutions
Figure 10: Evaluation of replies about non-commercial institution´s needs requested
Stakeholders identification Report
1
Conclusions and derivations
Cooperation The most part of the respondents (about 75%) applied that they are having already maritime
interactions in a Research and Development context, which was an expected reply for the maritime
community. For further investigations it is even more interesting how the reactions on already
existing cooperation with the maritime scene are formulated
About 50% of the respondents answered that they already have interactions on the marine sector
especially in questions of environmental relevance like marine biodiversity, climate effects or
pollution of the seas. Also some respondents are already active in the Directorate General for
Maritime Affairs and Fisheries (DG MARE) which describes its own goals as followed.
“To steer, in close relationship with stakeholders at regional and European level, the development
and implementation of the Integrated Maritime Policy and to manage the Common Fisheries Policy
with a view to promote the sustainable development of maritime activities as well as the sustainable
exploitation of fisheries resources within and beyond Community waters.”3
Also engagement in the FP7 Project MARCOM+ were named, which mainly focuses on the
cooperation between marine and maritime science communities.
Conclusions on improving further surveys Based on the results following conclusions are allowed:
The quantity of responses was not really satisfying and especially the fact that in specific cases not
even one recipient from an organisation was answering is a really disappointing result. But anyway it
should be still possible to derive some further conclusions which are useful for considerations in
work package 2 on joint visions for the marine and maritime science and research.
In general surveys of this kind could be purified by some improvements like:
online questionnaire Which might offer bigger potentials of responses because it´s much more convenient to fill for the recipient. Also a time saving-aspect for the recipient as well as the evaluator is given.
Personal request by their specific superior organisation. It becomes obvious that a personal relation between the person in charge who sends out the
questionnaire and the recipient is of prime importance to get an satisfying number of feedback.
Reference to next steps It has to be considered that at a stage of differentiation as displayed in Figure 5 and Figure 6 as well
as in Figure 9 and Figure 10 it is only partly a generality available. From here, as a follow-up, maybe it
is needful to do further investigations using a new Questionnaire which is specifically tailored to the
needs of the identified areas. The final and desired objective will be at least to have clustered and
organized list of the marine and maritime organizations by order of scientific priorities and by type of
organizations, which has to be done in the next work steps.
3 Source: http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/fisheries/mission_en.htm
Stakeholders identification Report
1
Appendix i Questionnaire Feedback
app1_1.pdf
Stakeholders identification Report
1
Appendix ii Competence Matrix template
Figure 11: Matrix template
Stakeholders identification – The Marine Part Report
Page 20 of 47
Appendix iii List of recipients
app3_1.pdf
Stakeholders identification – The Marine Part Report
Page 21 of 47
Appendix iv List of Shipyards represented by CESA
app4_1.pdf
Stakeholders identification – The Marine Part Report
Page 22 of 47
Support Action to initiate cooperation between the
Communities of European MARine and MARitime
REsearch and Science
Deliverable No. 2.1
Report on Stakeholders Identification:
the Marine Part
Date: 2010-06-05
Project EMAR2RES – n.234359
Author: Aurelien Carbonniere (Marine Board-ESF) Contributions from Markus Hollwedel (CMT)
Stakeholders identification – The Marine Part Report
Page 23 of 47
Contents
Contents ................................................................................................................................................ 23
1- Presentation of the marine research landscape ............................................................................... 24
2- Methodology ..................................................................................................................................... 26
3- Description of the Marine Research Landscape ............................................................................... 26
4- Presentation and description of marine research services ............................................................... 29
4.1 Results ......................................................................................................................................... 29
4.2 Services offered by non- profit organisations ............................................................................. 31
5. Presentation and description of research needs from the marine research community ................. 35
5.1 Results ......................................................................................................................................... 35
5.2 Needs required by non- profit organisations .............................................................................. 37
6- Conclusions ....................................................................................................................................... 39
Annex 1 – Questionnaire: “Stakeholder Identification” ........................................................................ 40
Stakeholders identification – The Marine Part Report
Page 24 of 47
1- Presentation of the marine research landscape For EMAR2RES Task 2.1, the Marine Board-ESF, sole marine partner in this FP 7 project, hereby presents to its maritime partners a high-level overview of the European marine research landscape. Figure 1 on the following page presents a model of this landscape structured according to two major clusters: geographical and topical. In a second step, marine organisations and initiatives have been categorised based on their legal status/governance (e.g. programme, networks, projects, intergovernmental, etc.). It is worth noting that:
- This list of EU marine (research) organisations and projects is not exhaustive; key actors and main marine related initiatives of pan-European relevance were included. Cross-references and linkages across those clusters can be further established for many organisations listed here. For the sake of clarity and consistency, we focused on the main research activity performed (or the main geographical interests) by the organisations/initiatives mentioned.
Acronyms of marine organisations/initiatives:
BONUS EEIG – Baltic Organisations Network for Funding Science
CIESM – The Mediterranean Science Commission
CPMR – Conference of Peripheral Maritime Regions
EAS – European Aquaculture Society
EATIP – European Aquaculture Technology and innovation Platform
EFARO - European Fisheries and Aquaculture Research Organisation
ECORD - European Consortium for Ocean Research Drilling
EuroGOOS – European Global Ocean Observing System
ICES – International Council for the Exploration of the Sea
IOC/IODE – Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission of UNESCO / International
Oceanographic Data and Information Exchange programme
KDM - German Marine Research Consortium
Marine Board-ESF – Marine Board-European Science Foundation
MARS – European Network of Marine Research Institutes and Stations
OFEG – Ocean Fleet Exchange Group
OGP – Oil and Gas Producers
SEAS-ERA – Towards Integrated Marine Research Strategy and Programmes (FP7 ERA-NET project)
Note: RFOs – Research Funding Organisations (e.g. research councils, agencies) RPOs – Research Performing Organisations (e.g. research institutes)
Stakeholders identification – The Marine Part Report
Page 25 of 47
Figure 1: Overview of the European marine research landscape
Stakeholders identification – The Marine Part Report
Page 26 of 47
2- Methodology A short questionnaire (co-developed with EMAR²RES maritime partners) accompanied by an Excel matrix (see following chapters) was sent to to the secretariats of 16 European representative marine organisations (in parallel with the questionnaire sent to maritime organisations by our maritime partners). The questionnaire is shown in Annex 1 of this report. The questionnaire requested basic information on:
- Legal Status - Main activities/research field - Size of the organisation - Sources of funding - Networking activities - Interactions/links with maritime partners
Responses from the marine organisations/networks surveyed were collected by the Marine Board Secretariat and represented a return rate of 87.5%. The results are presented in overview in Section 3 below. Section 4 provides a further analysis of the research services provided by these organisations and Section 5 provides an analysis of their research needs.
3- Description of the Marine Research Landscape Tables 1 and 2 below provide basic information (management/governance, research and networking activities) on the 16 marine research organisations/networks surveyed (listed on page3).
Stakeholders identification – The Marine Part Report
Page 27 of 47
Name & website
Baltic Organisations Network for Funding
Science EEIG www.bonusportal.org
The Mediterranean
Science Commission
(CIESM) www.ciesm.org
Conference of Peripheral Maritime
Regions (CPMR) www.cpmr.org
European Aquaculture Society (EAS)
www.easoline.org
EU Aquaculture Technology and
Innovation Platform (EATIP) www.eatip.org
European Consortium for Ocean Research
Drilling (ECORD)
www.Ecord.org
European Fisheries and Aquaculture
research Organisations
(EFARO) www.efaro.eu
Legal Status European Economic
Interest Grouping (EEIG) Intergovernmental
Organisation Non-profit association
International non-profit Organisation
Trust Organisation (network of RFOs/RPOs)
Organisation (network of RFOs/RPOs)
Main activities/research field
Implementation of joint RTD programme
Marine research in the Mediterranean
& Black Seas
Regional cooperation
Sustainable development of EU
Aquaculture
Sustainable, profitable value-
chain of competitive food products and
imports
Drilling research Fisheries and
Aquaculture policy
Size (Number of member organisations or countries)
9 countries 23 countries 28 countries; 161 regions
47 organisations 21 organisations 23 organisations
Sources of funding Framework Programme +
Member Organisations subscriptions
Annual fees from Governments
Member Organisations subscriptions
Member organisations subscriptions
EU grant-aid + Member
Organisations subscriptions
Member Organisations susbcriptions
Member Organisations susbcriptions
Networking activities
EATIP/Aqua-Net TT IOC, IAEA, UNEP,
FAO, GESAMP
Venice platform, G10, EU4Seas FP7 project, European Intergroup on sea and coastal affairs
EATIP/Aqua-Net TT MARCOM+ DS3F, ERICON-AB,
IODP, NSF (US), MEXT (Japan)
MARCOM+
Interactions/links with maritime partners
Through the Aberdeen Stakeholder Platform
Group of 10, Waterborne TP
Group of 10
Through the Aberdeen
Stakeholder Platform
Stakeholders identification – The Marine Part Report
Page 28 of 47
Name & website
European Global Ocean Observing
System (EuroGOOS)
www.eurogoos.org
International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES) www.ices.dk
Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission of
UNESCO – International
Oceanographic Data and
Information Exchange (IODE)
programme www.iode.org
German Marine Research
Consortium (KDM) www.deutsche-
meeresforschung.de
Marine Board-ESF
http://www.esf.org/research-areas/marine-
sciences.html
European Network of Marine Research
Institutes and Stations (MARS)
www.marsnetwork.org
SEAS-ERA FP7 Project
(coordinated by MICINN, Spain)
Legal Status Organisation (network of RFOs/RPOs)
Intergovernmental Organisation
International organisation
Private (non profit) Organisation
(network of RFOs/RPOs) Foundation (Dutch law)
ERA-NET (EC Coordination Action project)
Main activities & research field
Operational oceanography
Marine Sciences, fisheries
Facilitate the exchange of
oceanographic data and information and
meet the needs of users for data and
information products
National representative body of
the German marine science community
Marine research Policy and Strategy
(Platform of European Research Funding
organisations & Research Performing
Organisations)
Coastal marine research laboratories
and institutes
Consortium of national marine
funding organisations
Size of the organisation
35 organisations 20 countries 144 countries (IOC) 14 organisations 30 organisations 66 organisations 20 organisations
Sources of funding
Member Organisations subscriptions
Annual fees from Governments
UNESCO and IOC Member States contributions
Member Organisations subscriptions
Member Organisations subscriptions and FP
Member Organisations subscriptions
EU grant aid
Networking activities
Regional GOOS, Regional conventions
FP7 MARCOM+ project, data management
networks
SeaDataNet, CASPINFO, EMODNET
RTD FP projects (e.g. ESO-NET, EuroArgo)
EMAR²RES, MARCOM+ MARCOM+, MarBEF,
MGE, Lifewatch, Assemble, EMBRC
Interactions/links with maritime partners
Aberdeen Stakeholder
Platform
Group of 10, Waterborne TP
Aberdeen Stakeholder
Platform, G10 Aberdeen Stakeholder
Platform, G10 MARCOM+
Stakeholders identification – The Marine Part Report
Page 29 of 47
4- Presentation and description of marine research services A matrix was established based on marine and maritime research areas (for both services and needs) and the legal status of the participating marine organisations/initiatives.
4.1 Results
The results of the survey are presented below in two different formats:
Figure 1 and 2 show marine research services ranked by order of importance. The following list illustrates the services provided by marine stakeholders in order of decreasing importance:
- Marine research - Environmental sciences - Fisheries and aquaculture - Marine conservation and protection - Training and education - Operational oceanography - Human factors research - Designing tools and methods - Scenario and strategy development - IT and communication techniques - Project management - Risk assessment, safety - Economic studies, forecasting - Standards and rules - Drilling research - Others
Stakeholders identification – The Marine Part Report
Page 30 of 47
Figure 1: Cumulated and ranked marine research services
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
Marin
e rese
arch
Environm
ental S
cience
s
Fisherie
s/Aquac
ulture
Marin
e conse
rvat
ion &
pro
tect
ion
Train
ing a
nd Educa
tion
Operatio
nal O
cean
ograp
hy
Human
Fact
ors R
esear
ch
Design M
ethods a
nd Tools
Scenar
io an
d Stra
tegy
Deve
lopm
ent
IT a
nd Com
munica
tion T
echn.
Proje
ct M
anagem
ent
Risk A
ssess
ment,
Safe
ty
Econom
ic St
udies/
Fore
cast
ing
Standar
ds and R
ules
Drillin
g rese
arch
Mate
rial S
cience
s
Quality
Ass
essm
ent and C
ontrol
Statis
tical
Serv
ices
Ship
Opera
tion
Hydro
mech
anics
Non Dest
ruct
ive T
estin
g
Oil and ga
s
Product
ion Lo
gistic
s and P
lannin
g
Testin
g
Accid
ent Inve
stiga
tions
Field
Insp
ectio
n
Marit
ime Si
mula
tion
Product
ion P
roce
sses
Stru
ctura
l Mech
anics
Naviga
tion
Summary of research fields (Services)
Stakeholders identification – The Marine Part Report
Page 31 of 47
Figure 2: Cumulated and ranked marine research services
4.2 Services offered by non- profit organisations
Based on the results displayed above, Table 3 below compiles recipients’ responses according to:
- the legal status of the organisation/initiative consulted; - the “marine” research services offered to society.
Table 3: classification of Services provided by type of “non-commercial” marine organisations/initiatives
Marine research Services Total Number/category Legal status List of
marine stakeholders
Marine research 13
5 Network of RFOs/RPOs
MB-ESF EuroGOOS
EFARO ECORD MARS
4 Inter-
governmental/international organisation
CPMR IODE
CIESM ICES
2 EU FP consortia BONUS4
SEAS-ERA
1 University consortia KDM
4 In 2007, the BONUS FP6 project has evolved into a BONUS European Economic interest Grouping.
Estimation of cumulated services
0
1
2
3
4
5
Accident Investigations
Design Methods and ToolsDrilling research
Economic Studies/Forecasting
Environmental Sciences
Field Inspection
Fisheries/Aquaculture
Human Factors Research
Hydromechanics
IT and Communication Techn.
Maritime Simulation
Marine conservation & protection
Marine research
Material SciencesNavigation
Non Destructive Testing
Operational OceanographyOil and gas
Production Logistics and Planning
Production Processes
Project Management
Quality Assessment and Control
Risk Assessment, Safety
Scenario and Strategy Development
Ship Operation
Standards and Rules
Statistical Services
Structural Mechanics
TestingTraining and Education
Offshore Technology Shipowners + OperatorsShipbuilders + repairers Equipment suppliersFisheries and Aquaculture Ports and TerminalsInland Shipping Operators Dredging and InfastructureLeisure craft University consortiaResearch Funding/Performing Organisations (RFOs/RPOs) Pan European / inter-governmental organisation FP EU consortium (geographical and / or thematical) Local / regional authority
Stakeholders identification – The Marine Part Report
Page 32 of 47
1 Industry (aquaculture) EATIP
Environmental Sciences 11
4 Inter-
governmental/international organisation
CPMR IODE
CIESM ICES
3 RFOs/RPOs EuroGOOS
EFARO MARS
2 FP EU consortia BONUS
SEAS-ERA
1 University consortia KDM
1 Industry (aquaculture) EATIP
Fisheries/Aquaculture 10
3 Inter-
governmental/international organisation
CIESM ICES EAS
3 RFOs/RPOs EuroGOOS
EFARO MARS
2 FP EU consortia BONUS
SEAS-ERA
1 University consortia KDM
1 Industry (aquaculture) EATIP
Marine conservation & protection 10
4 Inter-
governmental/international organisation
CPMR IODE
CIESM ICES
3 RFOs/RPOs EuroGOOS
EFARO MARS
1 University consortia KDM
1 FP EU consortium SEAS-ERA
1 Industry (aquaculture) EATIP
Training and Education 8
3 RFOs/RPOs EuroGOOS
EFARO MARS
2 FP EU consortia BONUS
SEAS-ERA
1 Inter-
governmental/international organisation
IODE
1 University consortia KDM
1 Industry
(Fisheries/aquaculture) EATIP
Operational Oceanography 7
3
Inter-governmental/international
organisation
IODE CIESM
ICES
2 RFOs/RPOs EuroGOOS
MARS
1 University consortia KDM
1 FP EU consortium BONUS
Stakeholders identification – The Marine Part Report
Page 33 of 47
Human factors research 7
2 Inter-
governmental/international organisation
IODE ICES
1 RFOs/RPOs MARS
1 University consortia KDM
2 FP EU consortium BONUS
SEAS-ERA
1 Industry
(Fisheries/aquaculture) EATIP
Design Methods and Tools 7
3 RFOs/RPOs EFARO MARS
MB-ESF
1 University consortia KDM
1 FP EU consortium BONUS
1 Industry (Off-shore
technology) EATIP
1 Industry
(Fisheries/aquaculture) EATIP
Scenario and strategic development 6
2 Inter-
governmental/international organisation
IODE ICES
2 RFOs/RPOs MB-ESF EFARO
1 University consortia KDM
1 Industry
(fisheries/aquaculture) EATIP
IT and Communication Techn. 5
1 RFOs/RPOs MARS
1 Inter-
governmental/international organisation
IODE
1 University consortia KDM
1 FP EU consortium BONUS
1 Industry
(Fisheries/aquaculture) EATIP
Project Management 5
1 Inter-
governmental/international organisation
IODE
3 RFOs/RPOs MB-ESF EFARO MARS
1 University consortia KDM
Risk Assessment, Safety 5
2 Inter-
governmental/international organisation
IODE ICES
2 RFOs/RPOs EuroGOOS
MARS
1 University consortia KDM
Economic Studies/Forecasting 5
1 FP EU consortium BONUS
2 RFOs/RPOs EFARO
MB-ESF
Stakeholders identification – The Marine Part Report
Page 34 of 47
1 University consortia KDM
1 Industry
(fisheries/aquaculture) EATIP
Standards and Rules 4
1 RFOs/RPOs MARS
1 University consortia KDM
1 Inter-
governmental/international organisation
IODE
1 Industry
(fisheries/aquaculture) EATIP
Drilling research 3
1 FP EU consortium BONUS
1 RFOs/RPOs ECORD
1 University consortia KDM
Quality Assessment and Control 3
1 RFOs/RPOs MARS
1 University consortia KDM
1 Inter-governmental
organisation CIESM
Material Sciences 3
1 RFOs/RPOs MARS
1 University consortia KDM
1 Industry
(fisheries/aquaculture) EATIP
Statistical Services 3
2 RFOs/RPOs EFARO MARS
1 Industry
(fisheries/aquaculture) EATIP
Ship Operation 3
1 RFOs/RPOs MARS
1 University consortia KDM
1 FP Consortium SEAS-ERA
Oil and gas 2 1 RFOs/RPOs EuroGOOS
1 University consortia KDM
Testing 2 1 RFOs/RPOs MARS
1 University consortia KDM
Hydromechanics 2
1 University consortia KDM
1 Industry
(fisheries/aquaculture) EATIP
Non Destructive Testing 2
1 University consortia KDM
1 Industry
(fisheries/aquaculture) EATIP
Production Logistics and Planning 2
1 University consortia KDM
1 Industry
(fisheries/aquaculture) EATIP
Structural Mechanics 1 University consortia
Production processes 1 1 Industry
(fisheries/aquaculture) EATIP
Maritime simulation 1 1 Industry
(fisheries/aquaculture) EATIP
Accident Investigations 1 1 RFOs/RPOs EuroGOOS
Field Inspection 1 1 RFOs/RPOs MARS
Stakeholders identification – The Marine Part Report
Page 35 of 47
5. Presentation and description of research needs from the marine research community
5.1 Results As for 3.1, the results are presented in two different formats:
Figures 3 and 4 show marine research services ranked by order of decreasing importance. The most recurrent needs as required by marine stakeholders are:
- Economic studies/forecasting; - Environmental sciences; - Human factor research; - Marine conservation and protection; - Ship operation; - Design methods and tools; - IT and communication techniques; - Operational oceanography; - Quality assessment and control; - Fisheries and aquaculture; - Marine research; - Material sciences; - Non-destructive testing; - Project management; - Risk assessment, safety; - Scenario and strategic development; - Standard and rules; - Statistical services; and - Training and education needs.
Stakeholders identification – The Marine Part Report
Page 36 of 47
Figure 3: Cumulated and ranked marine research needs
0
1
2
3
Econom
ic St
udies/
Fore
cast
ing
Environm
ental S
cience
s
Human
Fact
ors R
esear
ch
Marin
e conse
rvat
ion &
pro
tect
ion
Ship
Opera
tion
Design M
ethods a
nd Tools
IT a
nd Com
munica
tion T
echn.
Operatio
nal O
cean
ograp
hy
Quality
Ass
essm
ent and C
ontrol
Fisherie
s/Aquac
ulture
Marin
e rese
arch
Mate
rial S
cience
s
Non Dest
ruct
ive T
estin
g
Proje
ct M
anagem
ent
Risk A
ssess
ment,
Safe
ty
Scenar
io an
d Stra
tegy
Deve
lopm
ent
Standar
ds and R
ules
Statis
tical
Serv
ices
Train
ing a
nd Educa
tion
Accid
ent Inve
stiga
tions
Drillin
g rese
arch
Field
Insp
ectio
n
Hydro
mech
anics
Marit
ime Si
mula
tion
Naviga
tion
Oil and ga
s
Product
ion Lo
gistic
s and P
lannin
g
Product
ion P
roce
sses
Stru
ctura
l Mech
anics
Testin
g
Summary of research fields (Needs)
Page 37 of 47
Figure 4: Cumulated and ranked marine research needs
5.2 Needs required by non- profit organisations
Based on the results displayed above, Table 4 below compiles and clusters recipients’ responses according to:
- The legal status of the organisation/initiative consulted; - Specific research needs.
Table 4: classification of research needs required by type of “non-commercial” marine organisations/initiatives
Research needs required by the marine research
community
Total Nb/category Legal status List
Economic Studies/Forecasting 3
2 RFOs/RPOs EuroGOOS
MB-ESF
1 Intergovernmental
organisation ICES
Environmental Sciences 3 1 Intergovernmental/ CPMR
Estimation of cumulated needs
0
1
2
Accident Investigations
Design Methods and ToolsDrilling research
Economic Studies/Forecasting
Environmental Sciences
Field Inspection
Fisheries/Aquaculture
Human Factors Research
Hydromechanics
IT and Communication Techn.
Maritime Simulation
Marine conservation & protection
Marine research
Material SciencesNavigation
Non Destructive Testing
Operational OceanographyOil and gas
Production Logistics and Planning
Production Processes
Project Management
Quality Assessment and Control
Risk Assessment, Safety
Scenario and Strategy Development
Ship Operation
Standards and Rules
Statistical Services
Structural Mechanics
TestingTraining and Education
Offshore Technology Shipowners + OperatorsShipbuilders + repairers Equipment suppliersFisheries and Aquaculture Ports and TerminalsInland Shipping Operators Dredging and InfastructureLeisure craft University consortiaResearch Funding/Performing Organisations (RFOs/RPOs) Pan European / inter-governmental organisation FP EU consortium (geographical and / or thematical) Local / regional authority
Page 38 of 47
international organisation
1 RFOs/RPOs MARS
1 FP Consortium SEAS-ERA
Human Factors research 3
1 Intergovernmental
organisation ICES
1 RFOs/RPOs MARS
1 FP Consortium SEAS-ERA
Marine conservation and protection
3
1 RFOs/RPOs MARS
1 Intergovernmental/
international organisation
CPMR
1 FP Consortium SEAS-ERA
Ship Operation 3 2 RFOs/RPOs
ECORD MARS
1 FP consortium SEAS-ERA
Design methods and tools 2 2 RFOs/RPOs EFARO MARS
IT and Communication Techn. 2 2 RFOs/RPOs EuroGOOS
MARS
Operational Oceanography 2 1
Intergovernmental organisation
ICES
1 University consortia MARS5
Quality Assessment and Control 2 1 RFOs/RPOs MARS
1 University consortia MARS
Fisheries/Aquaculture 2 1 RFOs/RPOs MARS
1 FP consortium SEAS-ERA
Marine Research 2 1
Intergovernmental/ International organisation
CPMR
1 FP consortium SEAS-ERA
Material Sciences 1 1 RFOs/RPOs MARS
Non-destructive testing 1 1 RFOs/RPOs MARS
Project management 1 1 University consortia MARS
Risk assessment, safety 1 1 University consortia MARS
Scenario and strategy development
1 1 RFOs/RPOs MB-ESF
Standards and rules 1 1 RFOs/RPOs MARS
Statistical Services 1 1 University consortia KDM
Training /education 1 1 FP consortium SEAS-ERA
5 In accordance with the research field, the MARS network is in this case composed solely of Universities.
Page 39 of 47
6- Conclusions This first “marine” research inventory aims to catalyse interests from a broad range of marine and maritime stakeholders. Results and lessons learned from this survey reveal that:
- Marine research stakeholders did express positively their interest in the EMAR²RES initiative as it paves the way towards more coordinated efforts within the marine research community and calls for more interactions and synergies with its maritime counterpart;
- There is a need and a willingness to learn better from each other i) on respective
legal/management/governance systems in place at the organisational level and ii) in the mutual understanding of respective marine core competences and capacities, both in terms of research services and needs.
- European marine stakeholder Secretariats appeared to be the appropriate level at which to
conduct this assessment: o It provided easy and rapid access/feedbacks of information from other marine
stakeholders; o It eased the information treatment process as these European Secretariats represent
the main European “voice” in their field; o It allowed future assessments in the frame of EMAR2RES tasks (comparability studies,
information treatment, transferability methods, etc.). As a first attempt, this inventory has limitations:
o It deserves the inclusion of information from more marine stakeholders and o It requires a refinement/fine-tuning of marine/maritime research fields and priorities
to facilitate the match and complementarities between marine/maritime research services and needs.
Next steps: Based on this first mapping exercise/inventory, we must now further assess the possibilities to promote and develop synergies, complementarities and bridges, as appropriate, between the European marine and maritime communities. This will contribute to the EMAR2RES goals of initiating a structured dialogue and developing common strategies between the two communities (EMAR2RES Task 2.3 “Initiating a structured dialogue”, in complement with Task 2.2 “Linking the Marine and Maritime Science and research Visions”).
Page 40 of 47
Annex 1 – Questionnaire: “Stakeholder Identification”
EU FP7 Support Action to initiate cooperation between the Communities
of European MARine and MARitime REsearch and Science
EMAR2RES
Questionnaire: “Stakeholder Identification”
(3 questions + Matrix)
Brussels, 1 Juli 2011
Dear Sir/Madam,
We kindly request the assistance of your organisation in completing an important task in the EU FP7
Project, EMAR²RES. In our opinion, you are a relevant stakeholder in the maritime/marine research
community who is in a position to provide advice on innovative and holistic research and
development strategies.
Context and objective of EMAR²RES project in general:
Through the EMAR2RES project, European Marine/Maritime Science and Research Communities will
identify and establish appropriate mechanisms to strengthen cross-sectoral and interdisciplinary
cooperation between both research communities. This will facilitate both communities to better
take advantage of new market opportunities and to address global challenges (e.g. Climate Change)
by means of focused R&D.
To tackle global issues such as Climate Change and Competitiveness, the EMAR2RES consortium is
aiming to identify and generate a framework of cooperation between the two communities (e.g.
areas of common interest, possible synergies). It will focus on maritime transport but will form the
basis for a wider reflection in the future.
Page 41 of 47
Objective of EMAR²RES´ Stakeholder identification: a short questionnaire
In order to identify and create an inventory of the relevant key stakeholders across marine and
maritime science, the EMAR2RES Task Leaders have created a simple questionaire composed of 3
main questions and a matrix (see following pages). The data collected will allow us to better map the
marine and maritime research landscape and to identify potential developmental strategies. In order
to avoid duplication, please note that this exercise will also feed and complement the MARCOM+ FP7
project ” Towards an Integrated Marine and Maritime Science Community” and its task on
“Identification of existing European Marine and Maritime Research Representative Organisations”.
We would be very grateful if you could take the time to complete this questionnaire and return it to
us. Thank you very much in advance for your assistance in this project.
Yours faithfully,
Willem Laros
Chairman Technical Advisory Committee
CESA Community of European Shipyards´ Association
Please send the filled questionaire back to the following e-mail adress:
Page 42 of 47
EMAR2RES QUESTIONNAIRE
Basic information on your company/organisation/authority/consortium
Name of the company or organisation:
Legal status:
Mandate / Vision:
Main contact point (your name and email) / website:
Size of the company / institute/ organisation (number of employee / or number of member oganisations):
1-10
11-30
31-50
51-250
251-500
> 500
If you are a non-commercial entity, please identify your primary sources of funding6: (e.g. for pan-EU organisations)
National
grant-aid
EU grant-aid FP Interreg Member
Organisation
subscriptions
Others
(please
specify)
The competence matrix (.xl file)
6 Note: You may be a non-commercial entity representing commercial entities
Page 43 of 47
Please find the marine/maritime competence matrix in the separate .xl file.
This is the most important source of information for this assessment as it will allow us to better
map and assess relationships between all marine and maritime stakeholders.
Brief instructions for completing the matrix:
1- In the header row (dark yellow and green) please identify the adequate maritime/marine field you
‘re involved in (e.g. dredging industry, research institute, university etc.). In most cases, you should
select only one field.
Below this line, there are two domains (in yellow and blue):
- "Services" = Describe your core competences or the offer to other stakeholders respectively clients.
- "Needs" = Describes your specific requirements to perform your job.
2- The vertical header column (in grey) indicates possible stakeholders’ "Areas of Expertise". Please
indicate whether certain specific "Services" or "Needs" in one particular area of expertise
fit/correspond to the current and/or desired operability/functionning of your organisation. In most
cases, you will have to complete one column only (corresponding to your field of activitiy - see point
1 above)
Membership and networks
Is your company/organisation/authority/consortium part of marine/maritime research and technology networks? (International/EU/National/regional)
These fields are applicable for organisations, authorities or comparable institutions*7:
Networks
please specify:
*
7 Please leave these fields blank if you would describe yourself as a company or university.
Page 44 of 47
ERA-Networks*8
please specify:
These fields are applicable for for companies or comparable institutions*9:
Networks
please specify:
Other projects or initiatives
please specify*10:
Cooperation
Did/Does your company/organisation/authority/consortium have (or plan to have) any interactions/exchanges and/or cooperative agreements with a marine and/or maritime partner?
Yes, please specify:
No
Thank you for cooperation and effort!
*
8 Please fill in these fields only if you are an ERA-NET program manager.
*9 Please leave these fields blank if you would describe yourself as an organisation/authority.
*10
Please specify the Project Acronym, Program/Funding Instrument and Website.