Search

National audience; Cette présentation retrace deux expériences dans lesquelles des citoyens ont pris part à l'élaboration de politiques publiques et à leur évaluation : la révision du schéma d'aménagement et de gestion de l'eau (SAGE) de la rivière Drôme et du Plan Local d'Urbanisme de la commune de Saillans (26). Dans ces deux cas, des groupes citoyens ont participé au cadrage du suivi-évaluation (SE) et ont mis en place des outils pour suivre et évaluer les processus participatifs. Les processus participatifs évalués visaient à associer les citoyens à l'ensemble des étapes décisionnelles liées à la révision des plans : du diagnostic à leur mise en oeuvre. Le choix d'évaluer ces processus participatifs avec des citoyens était basé sur les présomptions sous-jacentes à l'évaluation participative : c'est-à-dire qu'elle permettrait au groupe de citoyens évaluateurs de monter en compétence, de s'impliquer dans l'action publique, d'identifier des questions d'évaluation pertinentes localement, et d'améliorer la précision et la pertinence des rendus. Les résultats de ces deux expériences montrent qu'en termes de posture, les citoyens évaluateurs n'envisageaient pas de rester des observateurs distants, mais voulaient faire des propositions concrètes pour améliorer le processus décisionnel. Ainsi plusieurs évaluateurs sont devenus des interlocuteurs incontournables pour le maitre d'ouvrage et le bureau d'études. En termes d'implication, les citoyens étaient intéressés à participer à la collecte de données, à la discussion et à la diffusion des résultats mais pas au traitement des données ni à leur analyse. Cela a mis en avant le nécessaire partage des rôles entre citoyens et experts évaluateurs ainsi que le besoin d'une personne compétente dédiée à l'analyse de données, et de l'informatisation du suivi de certains indicateurs. Les expériences ont révélé une montée en compétence de tous les acteurs sur le SE: les groupes dédiés au SE, mais aussi l'animateur, le bureau d'étude et le maitre d'ouvrage. Enfin, certaines spécificités sont liées à l'évaluation participative d'une démarche participative (EvalPart2). Faire l'ingénierie du processus participatif a donné envie aux citoyens de savoir si ce processus serait bien mis en oeuvre tel que prévu, et donc de le suivre et l'évaluer. Cette EvalPart2 a créé une forte exigence de transparence et de reddition des comptes de la part des citoyens, certains s'instituant même garants de la concertation et du respect de la charte

International audience; Citizen sciences are often 'extractive' in that they involve citizens in order to collect data useful to science. We consider citizen science more broadly, with a research-action stance, and aiming to collect data that is useful not only to scientists, but also to policymakers, politicians and citizens themselves. In this perspective, the question of objectivity is placed at the heart of a dialogue between different actors coming from different scientific disciplines, but also from other areas of society. Here, objectivity must guarantee a decision-making process that is 'enlightened' (i.e. informed) and serves the common good. The communication proposed here is based on several experiences of participatory research projects in the field of water led by the authors and pertaining to this paradigm. These experiences rely on associating citizens and other actors in the subsequent decision-making steps of a plan, project or program: from diagnosis to implementation, through the identification of objectives, planning, foresight and the choice of actions (CoOPLAaGE approach). Actors are notably involved in the framing of the process itself as well as its monitoring and evaluation. In other words, they define who will be involved when and with what role and what data they will need when and in what format. In this sense, they are invited to discuss the role of scientific expertise in the decision-making process and the data they need to participate in an informed way. This reflection is anchored in the fields of research on the engineering of participation as well as on policy analytics. Two experiences will be highlighted: the SPARE project in Drôme (2015-2018) and the PACTE project (2018-2022) in Tunisia. In Drôme, the aim was to allow citizens to make proposals ahead of the revision of the Water Management Plan (SAGE). Citizens have thus participated in the engineering of the participatory process itself, with the underlying assumption of their empowerment and increased ownership of the process. In fact, if this hypothesis has been verified, it has also led citizens to question the very expertise of researchers on participation and to require the extreme transparency of all data produced and analyzed. In Tunisia, conversely, the sharing of the expectations of the various actors vis-à-vis the production of knowledge related to the participatory process revealed a refocusing on the scientific authority underpinned by a vision of necessary partition of roles and skills. In conclusion, rather than questioning 'what form the implication of citizens should take in order to optimize the epistemological conditions of scientific objectivity ?', this communication proposes to return this question and ask: 'what form should citizen sciences take in order to optimize the epistemological conditions of an enlightened decision?'.

National audience

International audience; Institutional arrangements shape water-related decision making and water policies, and drive behaviours related to water sharing and use. It is therefore crucial that water researchers, policy makers and managers understand institutions. This article reviews and critically assesses the current knowledge of water-related institutional arrangements. It explains how researchers explore institutional structures, emergence and change. It details how institutions are considered as a response to social-environmental issues through design, fit and bricolage. The article concludes with the most promising topics for the future scientific agenda.

International audience; This communication details the implementation of participatory processes in five pilot river basins across the Alps in the frame of the SPARE project (Strategic Planning for Alpine River Ecosystems): Dora Baltea in Italy, Inn - Engadine in Switzerland, Steyr in Austria, Soča in Slovenia and Drôme in France. In each case, managers planned, applied and evaluated participatory methods for involving citizens in the management of their rivers and associated ecosystems. In the frame of SPARE, participatory processes focused on a specific strategic planning issue in each case study site: water withdrawal, integrated management, ecosystem services, etc. The innovation of the SPARE project is that stakeholders themselves were meant to decide who would be involved in the participatory strategic planning, when, how and why. When implemented in the field, this participatory framework was hampered by several factors, which this communication will highlight.; Cette communication détaille la mise en oeuvre de processus participatifs dans cinq bassins versants pilotes à travers les Alpes dans le cadre du projet SPARE (Planification stratégique des écosystèmes alpins): Dora Baltea en Italie, Inn - Engadine en Suisse, Steyr en Autriche, Soča en Slovénie et Drôme en France. Dans chaque cas, les gestionnaires ont été en mesure de planifier, d'appliquer et d'évaluer des méthodes participatives pour l'implication des citoyens dans la gestion de leurs rivières et écosystèmes associées. Dans le cadre de SPARE, les processus participatifs étaient centrés sur des problématique de planification stratégique spécifiques sur chaque site d'étude : prélèvements d'eau, gestion intégrée, services écosystémiques, etc. L'innovation du projet SPARE est que les acteurs eux-mêmes devaient décider qui serait impliqué dans la planification stratégique participative, quand, comment et pourquoi. A l'épreuve du terrain, ce cadre participatif a été entravé par plusieurs facteurs que cette communication mettra en évidence.

International audience; Within the framework of the Interreg Alpine Space project "SPARE", project partners from six Alpine countries are working together to advance the harmonization of human use requirements and the protection of Alpine rivers. Five different pilot areas across the Alpine space (Dora Baltea, IT; Drôme, FR; Inn, CH; Soča, SL; Steyr, AT) are committed to integrative river and catchment management, and engaged in participatory processes, to improve existing river management practices and to increase awareness and knowledge about the ecosystem services of healthy rivers. The poster will present preliminary outputs of the three-year project, such as the experiences learnt from the five pilot areas, a pan-Alpine overview of priority rivers with high protection needs and an interactive online platform for knowledge exchange & policy support.; Dans le cadre du projet Interreg Alpine Space «SPARE», les partenaires du projet de six pays alpins travaillent ensemble pour faire progresser l'harmonisation des besoins humains avec la protection des écosystèmes aquatiques. Cinq zones pilotes à travers l'espace alpin (Dora Baltea, IT, Drôme, FR, Inn, CH, Soča, SL, Steyr, AT) se sont engagées à gérer leurs rivières et bassins versants de manière intégrative, et à mettre en oeuvre des processus participatifs, à la fois pour améliorer les pratiques de gestion des rivières et pour accroître la sensibilisation et les connaissances sur les services écosystémiques des rivières en bonne santé. Le poster présentera les résultats préliminaires du projet triennal, tels que les expériences acquises dans les cinq zones pilotes, un aperçu pan-alpin des cours d'eau prioritaires ayant des besoins de protection élevés et une plateforme interactive en ligne pour l'échange de connaissances et l'appui aux politiques

[Departement_IRSTEA]Territoires [TR1_IRSTEA]DTAM [ADD1_IRSTEA]Adaptation des territoires au changement global; SMAG (Self-Modelling for Assessing Governance) is a participatory tool developed by IRSTEA in the frame of the SPARE Project. The objective of this tool is to model and analyse the governance process of a river basin over the past 30 years. This document is composed of two parts: • Part 1, including annexes 1 to 5, introduces SMAG guidelines and is destined to SMAG users. It provides the instructions and the support materials that are required for organizing a workshop for 4 to 8 participants. • Part 2 traces back the evolution of the tool and the modelling choices made. It is targeting internal audiences (SPARE partners and researchers).

During the SPARE project (2015-2018), participatory processes have been implemented in five pilot case studies (PCSs, see Figure 1). The overall aim of these participatory processes was to improve existing watercourse management practices by integrating citizens and other stakeholders in decision-making. The objective of the current report is to present the results of the monitoring and evaluation (M&E) of these participatory processes over the entire timeframe of the SPARE project. The report is organised in three parts: • The context in which participatory processes were implemented: what are the issues at stake, who are the different actors, what knowledge they have about water, how participatory processes were linked to strategic planning in each PCS, etc. • The participatory processes themselves: who were the participants involved, what methods were used, who was mobilized and at what moment, ... • The outputs, outcomes and impacts: which deliverables were produced by participants (e.g. citizen diagnosis, proposals, etc.), whether participatory processes changed their perceptions, which modifications it generated in the institutions in charge, etc. Each part is composed of several sub-sections (cf. table of content). For each subsection (except context), we have indicated: • A reminder of the methodological guidelines initially provided by the project work package in charge of participation (WP T1) • A description of the way these guidelines have been implemented in each PCS • Key lessons learned Data collected to fuel the current report comes from the various M&E methods implemented in each PCS (See section on Monitoring and evaluation and Table 11). Additional data was also collected and compiled in other WP T1 deliverables or in other work packages' deliverables. We have included in this report only the data that was relevant to understand and analyse participatory processes. For more detailed information on specific aspects, we have included links to these other deliverables.

[Departement_IRSTEA]Eaux [TR1_IRSTEA]GEUSI [ADD1_IRSTEA]Gestion intégrée de la ressource et des infrastructures; International audience; To render policies for water and soil conservation planning (WSCP) more efficient, Tunisia is seeking to reorient them through innovative participatory approaches. Reorientation is taking place in contexts in which data is often lacking, and where the environmental dimension needs to be clearly objectified. Furthermore, very few spaces are available that allow such dialogue between different stakeholders. This paper analyzes an original participatory approach designed to produce quality information and data by exploiting local knowledge and accounting for and sharing the perceptions of the different stakeholders, and finally building a consensus to enable more efficient WSCP policy-making. In addition to a survey of the participants' satisfaction, evaluation called on outside observers, and used an evaluative framework of the process itself, its outcomes and its short-term effects. Sharing and taking into account not only the information and data collected but also the expertise and perception of the different stakeholders made it possible to produce data that all the participants rated as 'satisfactory' to 'very satisfactory'. The participatory process supported the knowledge of all the stakeholders and helped create a constructive dynamics that encouraged group learning. The commitment and the mobilization of the stakeholders, especially at national level, in an operational arena geared towards reaching agreement on territorial stakes, agricultural practices and WSCP, paves the way for the decentralization of political power.

[Departement_IRSTEA]Eaux [TR1_IRSTEA]GEUSI [TR2_IRSTEA]DTAM; International audience; Cette communication détaille un dispositif participatif mis en place sur le bassin versant de la Drôme dans le cadre d’un projet Interreg intitulé SPARE . Ce dispositif participatif a pour objectif de préparer, avec les citoyens, la révision du Schéma d’Aménagement et de Gestion des Eaux (SAGE) du bassin versant. Ce dispositif participatif a pour particularité d’avoir associé les citoyens très en amont du processus de décision, dans le cadrage même du processus participatif. Un groupe d’une cinquantaine de citoyens s’est ainsi réuni à plusieurs reprises entre décembre 2016 et mai 2017 afin de rédiger un plan de participation, des règles de participation et une charte d’articulation entre le dispositif participatif et le dispositif institutionnel de gouvernance (la Commission Locale de l’Eau – CLE). Ce groupe a identifié les objectifs du dispositif participatif, les étapes, les participants et leur rôle. Une consultation a également été ouverte afin de valider ces éléments produits par le groupe. Le forum de lancement du dispositif participatif ainsi décidé a eu lieu le 13 mai 2017. Ce dispositif participatif est porté par le Syndicat Mixte de la Rivière Drôme et de ses affluents (SMRD), soutenu méthodologiquement par l’Institut national de Recherche en Sciences et Technologies pour l'Environnement et l'Agriculture (IRSTEA). Cette communication présente le dispositif mis en œuvre et en tire des premiers retours « à chaud » ainsi que des enseignements sur l’ingénierie participative de la participation.

One among other possible approaches towards integrated and adaptive Natural Resource Management (NRM) is participatory planning. Participatory planning entails engaging relevant stakeholders in the identification of environmental issues and the planning of actions to be implemented in order to address these issues. It is now widely acknowledged that plans resulting from participatory planning processes for NRM are more likely to be implemented and sustainable when supported by adequate institutions. However, the extent to which participatory planning processes are able to deliver expected outcomes, and to trigger institutional dynamics, is still largely unknown. The main research question of this PhD is “How can participatory planning processes for NRM trigger suitable institutional dynamics to more sustainably address social and environmental issues of concern in a given context?“ This research question is addressed through two lenses: a methodological lens, looking at the monitoring and evaluation (M&E) of participatory planning processes for NRM, and an institutional lens, looking at institutional dynamics and their drivers. Two participatory planning processes were analysed, in the Rwenzori region in Uganda and the Fogera woreda (district) in Ethiopia. This thesis provides four main additions to knowledge. First, it bridges the theory-practice gap in the M&E of participatory processes by proposing combined descriptive and analytical frameworks. M&E frameworks used in practice are generally ready-to-use grids of criteria which are not adapted to the specificity of the case, while frameworks proposed in the literature are often resource-demanding and face the reluctance of practitioners. To my knowledge, no existing approaches have suggested combining both an easy-to-use descriptive framework and an adaptive analytical framework in order to bridge the theory-practice gap in the M&E of participatory processes. Second, this thesis draws from a wide range of social and management sciences to support participation scholars to undertake their “research journey” with more confidence. Most existing studies remain well within one or the other corpus, preventing scholars seeking to draw from both social and management sciences to understand and compare approaches. This thesis provides a typology which helps participation scholars to clarify their underlying assumptions and to identify which research approaches they can draw from to monitor and evaluate their participatory processes. Third, it provides an original contribution to the emerging literature on “critical institutionalism” by exploring a practical application of the institutional bricolage approach. In the past, institutional bricolage has mainly been used for in-depth analysis of institutional changes but no studies investigated how it could be voluntarily triggered through an intervention such as a participatory process. Finally, this thesis uses the process-tracing method to identify contextual and procedural drivers in institutional emergence and change. To my knowledge, no previous concrete application of the process tracing method had been made in the literature to identify concrete drivers of institutional dynamics.; Une approche, parmi d'autres, pour gérer les ressources naturelles de manière intégrée et adaptative est la planification participative. La planification participative peut être définie comme l’engagement des parties prenantes concernées dans l'identification des problèmes environnementaux et la planification des actions à mettre en oeuvre afin de répondre à ces problèmes. Il est maintenant largement reconnu que les plans découlant des processus de planification participative pour la GRN sont plus susceptibles d'être mis en oeuvre et durables lorsqu'ils sont soutenus par des institutions adéquates. Cependant, la capacité des processus de planification participative à livrer les résultats attendus, et à déclencher des dynamiques institutionnelles, est encore largement inconnue. La principale question de recherche de cette thèse est « Comment les processus de planification participative pour la GRN peuvent-ils déclencher des dynamiques institutionnelles appropriées afin de répondre de façon durable aux problématiques sociales et environnementales ciblées dans un contexte donné? ». Cette question de recherche est abordée à travers deux angles: un angle méthodologique, s’intéressant au suivi-évaluation des processus de planification participative pour la GRN, et un angle institutionnel, s’intéressant aux dynamiques institutionnelles et à leurs facteurs. Deux processus de planification participative ont été analysés, dans la région des Rwenzori en Ouganda et le district de Fogera en Ethiopie. Cette thèse propose quatre principales contributions à la connaissance. Premièrement, elle aide à combler l’écart entre théorie et pratique au niveau du suivi-évaluation des processus participatifs en proposant un cadre de suivi-évaluation combinant une partie analytique et une partie descriptive. Les cadres de suivi-évaluation utilisés dans la pratique sont souvent sous la forme de grilles de critères « prêtes à l’emploi » qui ne sont pas adaptées à la spécificité de chaque cas, tandis que les cadres proposés dans la littérature sont souvent exigeants en terme de ressources et donc confrontés à la réticence des praticiens. À ma connaissance, aucune des approches existantes n’a jamais suggéré de combiner à la fois un cadre descriptif facile à utiliser et un cadre d'analyse adaptatif afin de combler le fossé entre théorie et pratique dans le suivi-évaluation des processus participatifs. Deuxièmement, cette thèse puise dans un large éventail de sciences sociales et de gestion et aide les universitaires travaillant sur les processus participatifs à entreprendre leur « voyage de recherche » de manière assurée. La plupart des études existantes se restreignent à l'un ou l'autre corpus, empêchant les chercheurs cherchant à s’inspirer à la fois des sciences sociales et de gestion de comprendre et de comparer les approches. Cette thèse présente une typologie qui permet aux chercheurs travaillant sur la participation de clarifier leurs hypothèses sous-jacentes et d'identifier les approches de recherche dont ils peuvent s’inspirer pour suivre et évaluer leurs processus participatifs. Troisièmement, cette thèse contribue de manière originale à la littérature émergente sur l’« institutionnalisme critique » en explorant une application pratique de l'approche de bricolage institutionnel. Le concept de bricolage institutionnel a jusqu’à aujourd’hui principalement été utilisé pour analyser en profondeur des changements institutionnels. Aucune étude n’explore comment le bricolage institutionnel pourrait être déclenché volontairement par une intervention telle qu’un processus participatif. Enfin, cette thèse utilise la méthode de « processus de traçage » pour identifier les facteurs contextuels et procéduraux entrainant une émergence ou un changement institutionnel. À ma connaissance, cette méthode n’a jamais été utilisée dans la littérature pour identifier les facteurs concrets entrainant une dynamique institutionnelle.

International audience; Institutional resilience is generally considered a desirable attribute (Hills, 2000), if not an objective to reach. This is translated by the fact that since the 1990's, most donors and development agencies aimed at the sustainability of participatory processes through favouring adequate institutional environments (Leroy, 2009) and the emergence of ad-hoc organisations. We consider here that institutions are “normative (rules, norms, procedures) and cognitive (identity, culture, representations, common beliefs) frames, formal or informal, that govern society” as opposed to organisations which are groups of individuals. This definition places endeavors of the past two decades under the frame of organizational resilience rather than institutional resilience. We will argue that the concept of institutional resilience in that sense is difficult to define, even less to assess, since institutions as a set of rules, norms and values are hardly identifiable and nameable and can undergo a wide range of dynamic changes from persistence to transformation. The various concepts of resilience will be discussed, along with the link between institutional resilience, resilience of social-ecological systems (SES) and adaptiveness of institutions. We will advocate here that institutional and organisational (I&O) resilience are not always desirable, and should be considered as support functions rather than as an objective per se. This implies that I&O change and emergence should not necessarily be pushed for but rather provided favourable conditions, with the potential of being precluded. We analyse here a specific form of participatory process called “cooplan” (collaborative planning) implemented in 5 real case study areas (South Africa, Mali, Tunisia, Uganda and Ethiopia) presenting various NRM issues in the frame of a European project. A common monitoring and evaluation protocol was developed in order to observe potential organisational and institutional changes induced by the process. The hypothesis is that planning is more likely to call for I&O changes than other forms of participatory processes. The main monitoring tool is a “logbook” based on the model developed in Etienne (2009) supposed to monitor all interactions, decisions and external factors (such as tribal conflicts, floods, etc.) happening in the case study area. Additional tools record stakeholders' engagement, time of inclusion, satisfaction, learning, relational aspects, innovation, commitment, etc. All these factors were identified as proxys for assessing I&O emergence, change and/or resilience within and outside the social groups involved. This process is largely conditioned by field requirements, with an assumed action-research and loosely-controlled experiment posture. This presentation will detail this process, discuss the different implementation in the countries, the observed discrepancies, and discuss some of the procedural results and remaining challenges.

Natural resources in Africa are under increasing pressure to sustain the continent’s growing economies and populations, as well as competition for access to Africa’s resources from global economies. Management of these resources has become imperative to prevent over-utilisation and ensure that the local custodians of the resources are able to benefit in the long-term. Natural Resource Management (NRM) in Africa is a complex problem, needing to balance demands across different stakeholders, sectors and scales, in a context where governance is often uncoordinated and under-resourced. Integrated Natural Resource Management (INRM) encompasses the concept that natural resources are not only important for direct use, but are critical in supporting basic service provision, local economic development and social well-being. Although the concepts of INRM have been in play in Africa since the late 1980s (Hagmann et al., 2001) and the principles widely accepted, implementation in operational planning and management has been limited. Campbell et al. (2004) concluded ‘Our seeming inability to translate the approaches into practical achievements on the ground is leading to widespread disillusionment. …. What is surprising is not the improvement of approaches over the past 40 years – rather it is their fundamental similarity.’ This conclusion establishes a challenge to provide practical tools that can assist in translating concepts into improved outcomes on the ground. We need to entrench an integrated approach in the practice of NRM and associated governance frameworks. The AfroMaison project was instituted under the European Union’s 7th Framework Programme to address the challenges of making INRM in Africa operational. The project worked with five geographically and culturally diverse case studies, namely: Tunisia (Oum Zessar Watershed); Mali (Inner Niger Delta); Ethiopia (headwaters of the Blue Nile); Uganda (Rwenzori Mountains); and South Africa (uThukela District).

International audience; Managing transboundary river basins is a complex endeavor that requires specific approaches and methods of management and governance. Part 1 of this chapter introduces transboundary river basins and their management: why they are now widely used as a unit of management, potential linkages with the management of other natural resources and with national and regional development planning efforts. It highlights the difference between operational management, strategic management and governance while introducing river basin organizations and their roles. Finally it paves the way to an open interpretation of the term "transboundary". Part 2 introduces the notion of social-ecological systems and lists a number of factors, explaining their complexity and the inherent difficulties in managing them. We advocate in this part that there is a need to shift from an infrastructure-oriented approach, which focuses on supply-side management and was prevalent in the 1970 s and 1980 s, to more integrated and adaptive approaches considering water demand management, and environmental and social benefits. Based on a comparative analysis of 8 projects in seven transboundary basins, Part 3 shows concrete examples highlighting obstacles and key success factors in implementing these new approaches in practice. Part 4 starts by advocating that an additional factor compounding the difficulty in implementing these new approaches is the apparent incompatibility between the notions of planning, integration and adaptation. Authors in the management science literature uphold that this argument is based on a very old-fashioned notion of planning and suggest using a more adaptive and integrated planning approach based on multi-scale, trans-disciplinary and participatory aspects. Finally, the conclusion questions the desirability of resilience and adaptation for planning purposes and concludes by highlighting the importance of thorough monitoring and evaluation as the unique means for responding to this question.

[Departement_IRSTEA]Eaux [TR1_IRSTEA]GEUSI; The european research project Afromaison aimed at bringing the concept of integrated natural resources management (INRM) into practice at the meso-scale in Africa. This report specifically presents the methods and results of workpackage 7, which sought to produce a toolbox and a generic operational and participatory framework for adaptive INRM. This framework comprises a multi-level participatory platform based on role-playing games, which were tailored to each case study context. It was applied in 5 countries : Ethiopia, Mali, South Africa,Tunisia, Uganda.

[Departement_IRSTEA]Eaux [TR1_IRSTEA]GEUSI; International audience; We describe how three models, for sustainable change, human agency in collective resource management, and socio-environmental systems, have been used to design a protocol and the tools for a large scale (1500 participants, 35 villages) multi-level participatory process held in Africa for Integrated Natural Resource Management, through the European Project Afromaison. The process especially combines a common action model to support proposals by stakeholders, an integration matrix to build coherent plans, a role playing game design process, and a method to combine planning and playing to engage into the plans. It has also inspired the design of the attached monitoring and evaluation process. We describe the process in two countries, Ethiopia and Uganda, present the theoretical bases of the evaluation framework using the ENCORE paradigm and the implemented methodology transferred to local evaluators. We introduce some results and propose comments on potential learning back to the modelling community.

This pre-report provides a set of initial guidelines to organize stakeholders' engagement in the PCS ("Pilot Case Studies") of SPARE. It specifies general participatory principles and explains the rationales of the induced strategy. It gives recommendations for the planned structures and events, and introduces the future developments