Suchergebnisse

National audience ; How many people participated in the participatory process? Were the participants representative of the territory's population? Were all participants able to express themselves? What did they learn from their participation? Did the participatory approach lead to better water or land management? Did it lead participants to change their practices and consume resources in a more responsible and sustainable way? These questions are almost always asked by the actors involved in a participatory process, especially those who lead the process. These are questions that can be answered by monitoring and evaluating the participatory process, its context and its effects. This article seeks to reverse the dominant view of monitoring-evaluation as a cumbersome and complex protocol to implement. The article provides guidelines for setting up a useful monitoring-evaluation of participation, one that answers the questions that the various actors ask themselves, while remaining open to the surprises and unexpected effects that any participatory approach can generate. Three main aspects are addressed: the evaluation of the demographic characteristics of the participants, the monitoring and evaluation of the process and the evaluation of the impacts of the process. The article also addresses the questions of when to evaluate and who evaluates, and makes the link between monitoring and evaluation and participation charters and guarantors. ; Combien de personnes ont participé à la démarche participative ? Les participants étaient-ils représentatifs de la population du territoire ? Tous les participants ont-ils pu s'exprimer ? Qu'ont-ils appris suite à leur participation ? La démarche participative a-t-elle permis une meilleure gestion de l'eau ou du territoire ? A-t-elle amené les participants à changer leurs pratiques et à consommer les ressources de manière plus responsable et durable ? Ces questions sont presque toujours posées par les acteurs impliqués dans une démarche participative, notamment ceux qui ...

National audience ; How many people participated in the participatory process? Were the participants representative of the territory's population? Were all participants able to express themselves? What did they learn from their participation? Did the participatory approach lead to better water or land management? Did it lead participants to change their practices and consume resources in a more responsible and sustainable way? These questions are almost always asked by the actors involved in a participatory process, especially those who lead the process. These are questions that can be answered by monitoring and evaluating the participatory process, its context and its effects. This article seeks to reverse the dominant view of monitoring-evaluation as a cumbersome and complex protocol to implement. The article provides guidelines for setting up a useful monitoring-evaluation of participation, one that answers the questions that the various actors ask themselves, while remaining open to the surprises and unexpected effects that any participatory approach can generate. Three main aspects are addressed: the evaluation of the demographic characteristics of the participants, the monitoring and evaluation of the process and the evaluation of the impacts of the process. The article also addresses the questions of when to evaluate and who evaluates, and makes the link between monitoring and evaluation and participation charters and guarantors. ; Combien de personnes ont participé à la démarche participative ? Les participants étaient-ils représentatifs de la population du territoire ? Tous les participants ont-ils pu s'exprimer ? Qu'ont-ils appris suite à leur participation ? La démarche participative a-t-elle permis une meilleure gestion de l'eau ou du territoire ? A-t-elle amené les participants à changer leurs pratiques et à consommer les ressources de manière plus responsable et durable ? Ces questions sont presque toujours posées par les acteurs impliqués dans une démarche participative, notamment ceux qui ...

National audience ; How many people participated in the participatory process? Were the participants representative of the territory's population? Were all participants able to express themselves? What did they learn from their participation? Did the participatory approach lead to better water or land management? Did it lead participants to change their practices and consume resources in a more responsible and sustainable way? These questions are almost always asked by the actors involved in a participatory process, especially those who lead the process. These are questions that can be answered by monitoring and evaluating the participatory process, its context and its effects. This article seeks to reverse the dominant view of monitoring-evaluation as a cumbersome and complex protocol to implement. The article provides guidelines for setting up a useful monitoring-evaluation of participation, one that answers the questions that the various actors ask themselves, while remaining open to the surprises and unexpected effects that any participatory approach can generate. Three main aspects are addressed: the evaluation of the demographic characteristics of the participants, the monitoring and evaluation of the process and the evaluation of the impacts of the process. The article also addresses the questions of when to evaluate and who evaluates, and makes the link between monitoring and evaluation and participation charters and guarantors. ; Combien de personnes ont participé à la démarche participative ? Les participants étaient-ils représentatifs de la population du territoire ? Tous les participants ont-ils pu s'exprimer ? Qu'ont-ils appris suite à leur participation ? La démarche participative a-t-elle permis une meilleure gestion de l'eau ou du territoire ? A-t-elle amené les participants à changer leurs pratiques et à consommer les ressources de manière plus responsable et durable ? Ces questions sont presque toujours posées par les acteurs impliqués dans une démarche participative, notamment ceux qui ...

National audience ; In March 2019, the Government of New Caledonia approved the framework for the country's first water policy. This policy, called the Shared Water Policy is the result of a broad consultation involving about 1 in 600 New Caledonians. Launched a year earlier, this consultation resulted in a document of nearly 200 pages that sets six strategic objectives and proposes 700 actions to be implemented. This article presents a retrospective of the consultation mechanism set up for the development of this policy. It focuses in particular on the proceedings of the process and on the planning support tools that were used, partly inspired by the co-planning mechanism, called COOPLAN (Co-construction and Co-planning of an action plan for water management). We analyze the feedback from participants and facilitators and discuss the limitations of the tools. ; Le gouvernement de Nouvelle-Calédonie a approuvé en mars 2019 le schéma d'orientation de la première politique de l'eau du Pays. Cette politique, appelée « Politique de l'eau partagée » (PEP), est le fruit d'une large concertation ayant impliquée environ un calédonien sur six cents. Lancée un an plus tôt, cette concertation a abouti en quelques mois à un document de près de deux cents pages qui fixe six objectifs stratégiques et propose sept cents actions à mettre en place. Cet article présente une rétrospective du dispositif de concertation mis en place pour le montage de cette politique. Il se focalise particulièrement sur le déroulement du processus et sur les outils d'appui à la planification qui ont été utilisés, en partie inspiré du dispositif de co-planification, appelé COOPLAN (Co-construction et co-planification de plan d'action pour la gestion de l'eau). Nous analysons les retours issus des participants et des facilitateurs et discutons les limites du dispositif.

Le gouvernement de Nouvelle-Calédonie a approuvé en mars 2019 le schéma d'orientation de la première politique de l'eau du Pays. Cette politique, appelée " Politique de l'eau partagée " (PEP), est le fruit d'une large concertation ayant impliquée environ un Calédonien sur six cents. Cet article présente une rétrospective du dispositif de concertation mis en place pour le montage de cette politique. Il se focalise particulièrement sur le déroulement du processus et sur les outils d'appui à la planification qui ont été utilisés, en partie inspiré du dispositif de co-planification, appelé COOPLAN (Co-construction et co-planification de plan d'action pour la gestion de l'eau).

National audience ; In March 2019, the Government of New Caledonia approved the framework for the country's first water policy. This policy, called the Shared Water Policy is the result of a broad consultation involving about 1 in 600 New Caledonians. Launched a year earlier, this consultation resulted in a document of nearly 200 pages that sets six strategic objectives and proposes 700 actions to be implemented. This article presents a retrospective of the consultation mechanism set up for the development of this policy. It focuses in particular on the proceedings of the process and on the planning support tools that were used, partly inspired by the co-planning mechanism, called COOPLAN (Co-construction and Co-planning of an action plan for water management). We analyze the feedback from participants and facilitators and discuss the limitations of the tools. ; Le gouvernement de Nouvelle-Calédonie a approuvé en mars 2019 le schéma d'orientation de la première politique de l'eau du Pays. Cette politique, appelée « Politique de l'eau partagée » (PEP), est le fruit d'une large concertation ayant impliquée environ un calédonien sur six cents. Lancée un an plus tôt, cette concertation a abouti en quelques mois à un document de près de deux cents pages qui fixe six objectifs stratégiques et propose sept cents actions à mettre en place. Cet article présente une rétrospective du dispositif de concertation mis en place pour le montage de cette politique. Il se focalise particulièrement sur le déroulement du processus et sur les outils d'appui à la planification qui ont été utilisés, en partie inspiré du dispositif de co-planification, appelé COOPLAN (Co-construction et co-planification de plan d'action pour la gestion de l'eau). Nous analysons les retours issus des participants et des facilitateurs et discutons les limites du dispositif.

National audience ; In March 2019, the Government of New Caledonia approved the framework for the country's first water policy. This policy, called the Shared Water Policy is the result of a broad consultation involving about 1 in 600 New Caledonians. Launched a year earlier, this consultation resulted in a document of nearly 200 pages that sets six strategic objectives and proposes 700 actions to be implemented. This article presents a retrospective of the consultation mechanism set up for the development of this policy. It focuses in particular on the proceedings of the process and on the planning support tools that were used, partly inspired by the co-planning mechanism, called COOPLAN (Co-construction and Co-planning of an action plan for water management). We analyze the feedback from participants and facilitators and discuss the limitations of the tools. ; Le gouvernement de Nouvelle-Calédonie a approuvé en mars 2019 le schéma d'orientation de la première politique de l'eau du Pays. Cette politique, appelée « Politique de l'eau partagée » (PEP), est le fruit d'une large concertation ayant impliquée environ un calédonien sur six cents. Lancée un an plus tôt, cette concertation a abouti en quelques mois à un document de près de deux cents pages qui fixe six objectifs stratégiques et propose sept cents actions à mettre en place. Cet article présente une rétrospective du dispositif de concertation mis en place pour le montage de cette politique. Il se focalise particulièrement sur le déroulement du processus et sur les outils d'appui à la planification qui ont été utilisés, en partie inspiré du dispositif de co-planification, appelé COOPLAN (Co-construction et co-planification de plan d'action pour la gestion de l'eau). Nous analysons les retours issus des participants et des facilitateurs et discutons les limites du dispositif.

Alors qu'à l'échelle globale la répartition et la concurrence des usages de l'eau mettent cette ressource « sous pression » (Académie de l'eau, 2008), les évolutions sociodémographiques, économiques et climatiques en cours dans les Parcs naturels régionaux (PNR) du Sud- Est de la France, induisent, depuis les dernières décennies, une pression croissante sur la ressource susceptible de remettre en question la pérennité et la qualité de l'approvisionnement en eau. Dans ce contexte, certains de ces territoires ont lancé, depuis quelques années, en partenariat avec le Groupement des Amis des Parcs naturels régionaux du Sud- Est, une politique volontariste de gestion de la ressource en eau, pour répondre à la fois aux objectifs de protection de la ressource et de développement local, inhérents à leur charte et à la dimension sociale et institutionnelle de la Gestion intégrée des ressources en eau (GIRE). Cette volonté se concrétise, depuis 2013, par la réalisation d'une thèse CIFRE (Convention industrielle de formation par la recherche) permettant ainsi d'engager une démarche de recherche appliquée sur la dimension participative de la gestion intégrée de l'eau dans les PNR du Sud-Est. Cet article a pour vocations de montrer les enjeux du travail de thèse en cours vis-à-vis de l'engagement des PNR du Sud-Est en matière de gestion intégrée de l'eau, de donner un aperçu des premiers résultats et analyses, et de montrer comment le PNR du Luberon s'est positionné en territoire pilote pour expérimenter des outils de modélisation participative pour accompagner le contrat de gestion du bassin-versant du Largue et de la Laye. ; While water seems apparently abundant on the global scale, the resource is increasingly threatened and « under pressure » because of the unequal distribution and the multiplication of competing and conflicting uses. (Académie de l'Eau, 2008). The Regional Nature Parks of the South-East France have to cope with a growing pressure on the water resource due to the demographic, economic and climatic changes of the last decades. In this context, these territories have launched, in recent years, a proactive program on water resources management in partnership with the "Friends of the South East's Parks Association". The main purpose of this program is to help the parks to achieve their goals about resource protection and local development and to develop the social and institutional dimension of the integrated water resource Management concept (IWRM). This has been strengthened since 2013 by the establishment of a PhD Thesis which initiates a process of applied research on the participatory dimension of IWRM. The main objectives of this paper are to show the PhD issues related to the commitment of regional french parks about IWRM, to provide an overview and analysis of the first results and to show how the Park of Luberon is acting as a pilot area to experiment participatory modeling tools to support the Largue and Laye basin management plan.

After having designed and used various games for learning and supporting water management and governance, many similarities appear. However, the components, topologies, and social and political setting of the basins are different. Therefore we have started designing and validating a new generic game platform, WAT-A-GAME, alias AMANZI. This new game aims at facilitating exploration and transformation of water management and water use at the small catchment scale. It gives a simple but enlightening view of the various consequences of individual and collective choices, including regulation policies. After comparing it with some previous games, we discuss its main rationales and features. We show how it can be adapted to very different settings, how players can usefully contribute to designing an instance, and how it can especially address dialogue between multi-level stakeholders. We describe an application in South-Africa, in the Inkomati basin and the preliminary results of this instance.

Cet article détaille un processus participatif mis en place sur le bassin versant de la Drôme pour préparer, avec les citoyens, la révision du Schéma d'Aménagement et de Gestion des Eaux. Spécifiquement, des citoyens ont été associés précocement pour choisir et organiser leur propre processus participatif. Cette co-ingénierie les a sensibilisés à l'importance de ces décisions, a initié des apprentissages sociaux et posé les conditions d'une régulation efficiente. Elle a clarifié les liens entre la participation et la gouvernance institutionnelle. Mais l'exercice apparaît abstrait aux participants. Il requiert des règles de participation claires et une initiation aux enjeux et au vocabulaire de la participation. En conclusion, nous suggérons des adaptations de la co-ingénierie de la participation en fonction des attentes et moyens disponibles.

Numerous policy instruments have been proposed to promote the provision of ecosystem services (ES) by agro-ecosystems. However, the design of sound incentive schemes is still a challenge, partly because of the difficulty to adapt it to the particularities of agro-ecosystem and socio-economic conditions. To respond to this challenge, we developed and tested a new approach to explore the possible effects of policy instruments on farmers' adoption of practices leading to enhance the ES provision in coffee agroforestry systems. We applied this approach in two watersheds in Centro America, where coffee plantations provide both ES and disservices. First, we conducted semistructured interviews to coffee producers to analyze the diversity of their production systems and current responses to existing policies. Second, we developed a specific role-playing game (RPG) to simulate the effects of three instruments: the enforcement of the current regulatory environmental law, the setting of a specific Payment for Environmental Services; the development of green credits and environmental certification of products. We found that existing instruments are currently not effective in the regions but farmers would be responsive to some of the new incentives. Simulations showed that positive incentives would be the most effective to reduce environmental impacts without decreasing coffee production while an increased enforcement of the law impacts would negatively affect coffee production. After discussing the feasibility of the implementation of these incentives and the interests and limits of RPG method, we argue that it facilitates the co-design of sound incentives to overcome the challenges of multiple ES provision in agro-ecosystems. (Texte intégral)

International audience ; Participatory approaches are now increasingly recognized and used as an essential element of policies and programs, especially in regards to natural resource management (NRM). Most practitioners, decision-makers and researchers having adopted participatory approaches also acknowledge the need to monitor and evaluate such approaches in order to audit their effectiveness, support decision-making or improve learning. Many manuals and frameworks exist on how to carry out monitoring and evaluation (M&E) for participatory processes. However, few provide guidelines on the selection and implementation of M&E methods, an aspect which is also often obscure in published studies, at the expense of the transparency, reliability and validity of the study. In this paper, we argue that the selection and implementation of M&E methods are particularly strategic when monitoring and evaluating a participatory process. We demonstrate that evaluators of participatory processes have to tackle a quadruple challenge when selecting and implementing methods: using mixed-methods, both qualitative and quantitative; assessing the participatory process, its outcomes, and its context; taking into account both the theory and participants' views; and being both rigorous and adaptive. The M&E of a participatory planning process in the Rwenzori Region, Uganda, is used as an example to show how these challenges unfold on the ground and how they can be tackled. Based on this example, we conclude by providing tools and strategies that can be used by evaluators to ensure that they make utile, feasible, coherent, transparent and adaptive methodological choices when monitoring and evaluating participatory processes for NRM.