The 20th
anniversary
edition
March 14 & 15, 2025
at UNESCO • Paris

How did Missions Publiques come about, and what guides your actions today? What are the fundamental principles driving your work?

Missions Publiques was founded by Yves Mathieu in 1998. It emerged from the recognition of the need to bring together the experiences and expertise of those who live a situation (citizens, residents, users, public service agents) to jointly find solutions and make decisions that better integrate the needs and real expectations of a territory. It also arose from the intuition that actions implemented solely by decision-makers miss out on a vital source of knowledge—the lived experiences of those on the ground.

We are guided by one key principle: no topic is too complex, too technical, or too divisive to be discussed with society. The more a challenge seems delicate, the more essential it is to create spaces for dialogue where viewpoints can be confronted, tensions explored, and informed compromises built. We defend the idea that democracy cannot simply be reduced to voting every five years. It must be alive, continuous, and inclusive, incorporating a diversity of voices and relying on participatory methods that guarantee sincere and constructive exchange. This requires well-designed consultation and deliberation mechanisms, as well as deep reflection on how the outcomes of these processes genuinely influence political and strategic decisions.

Today, we face a paradox: never have the participation mechanisms been so numerous, with public consultations, citizens’ conventions, participatory platforms, and other dialogue tools. Yet, trust in institutions remains high, and pessimism about the future of France remains concerning. This observation urges us to rethink our practices, innovate in our approaches, and deeply question how decision-makers—both public and private—take into account the results of consultations.

Among the projects you have led, which ones best illustrate the concrete impact of informed citizen participation?

I have two examples in mind. The first concerns a national consultation on vaccination policy conducted in 2016, well before the one related to COVID. This approach demonstrated that when citizens are provided with complete and structured information on a complex issue, they are able to propose relevant and reasoned solutions. In this case, they rethought the distinction between mandatory and optional vaccinations, proposing a new classification that was more in line with public health issues. Their recommendations were followed and contributed to the authorities’ reflection. Interestingly, a jury of professionals, consulted in parallel, reached similar conclusions, highlighting the rapid skill development of citizens when given the means to inform themselves and engage in debate. One striking lesson was their ability to identify an underexplored angle: the lack of training among healthcare professionals on these topics.

The second example is more recent and pertains to the citizens’ convention in Grand Lyon, focused on adapting to climate change, particularly heatwaves. This process helped bring this issue onto the political agenda, even though it had been poorly addressed in public policies until then. One of the convention’s major contributions was highlighting solidarity as a key lever for resilience in the face of climate crises. Citizens made concrete proposals to strengthen local mutual aid and promote collective solutions. Another key point raised by the convention was the need to anticipate the effects of future heatwaves, including the rise of tropical nights. Without coordinated action, individuals’ spontaneous responses are likely to be limited to individual air conditioning, an energy-consuming and counterproductive solution that worsens the problem. Citizens then brainstormed more sustainable alternatives, prioritizing collective cooling solutions. Instead of promoting isolated and polluting responses, they advocated for more just and environmentally respectful approaches, based on cooperation and the common good.

In your opinion, what are the main obstacles to genuinely considering and effectively integrating the citizen's voice in major decisions, especially regarding ecological transitions?

One of the primary obstacles lies in the very structure of our institutional system, which is not designed to fully integrate the citizen’s voice into decision-making processes. Today, the consideration of citizens' proposals largely depends on the existing power dynamics in the real world, particularly when it comes to economic actors and lobbies. A striking example is the Citizens’ Convention for Climate, where some proposals, like limiting short-distance flights, were strongly contested and diluted under pressure from economic interests.

But even before arriving at these political arbitrations, a fundamental challenge is the awareness and collective acceptance of the seriousness of the situation. Denial or reluctance to face certain realities hinders decision-making. For example, the retreat of the coastline raises deep questions about our ways of life and our ability to envision a future that no longer promises ever-growing material prosperity. The challenge, then, is to define a new collective narrative: if we must give up certain forms of growth, what other promise can we offer?

Another major barrier is the difficulty in agreeing on the necessary transformations and the compromises acceptable to all actors in society. Too often, the question of sacrifices and concrete changes is not posed in its entirety. What evolutions of the economic system are realistically feasible? How far are we willing to modify our ways of life? And most importantly, how do we build compromises that are not only validated by citizens but also by economic and institutional actors? Without in-depth and collective discussion on these subjects, decisions remain limited and hard to apply.

Finally, there is a question about the very role of citizen participation. We know today what the broad outlines of the necessary solutions are to address the ecological crisis. So, what should the citizen’s voice contribute? Its role should not be to become a parallel expert body, but rather to shed light on transition pathways and identify acceptable collective paths for moving from an unsustainable society to a sustainable one, where everyone finds their place. The issue of justice is central here: any transformation perceived as unjust or disconnected from social realities is likely to generate strong opposition, as the Yellow Vest movement demonstrated. The revolt against the carbon tax, seen as a measure that punishes the most vulnerable, clearly illustrates the need to integrate social concerns into the ecological transition to prevent it from being experienced as an unbearable constraint.

In sum, the obstacles to truly considering the citizen's voice are numerous: an institutional structure ill-suited to this purpose, resistance due to vested interests, the difficulty of sharing a clear and accepted diagnosis, and the absence of collective reflection on the necessary compromises and sacrifices. Citizen participation should not be a mere alibi or a theoretical exercise, but a lever to build just and genuinely applicable transition pathways.

In a national and international context that is highly turbulent, with urgent ecological issues and simultaneous political regressions on commitments to be made, how do you see the evolution of participatory approaches in democratic decision-making and the creation of concrete, lasting solutions?

In a national and international context marked by rising tensions, budgetary constraints, and political regressions on ecological commitments, participatory approaches are more essential than ever. Not because they would guarantee immediate consensus, but because they allow us to peacefully explore disagreements and organize democratic debate on issues that directly affect our ways of life and often conflicting interests.

One of the major challenges is to embed these approaches within a broader dialogue framework, involving citizens, decision-makers, experts, NGOs, and economic actors. The ecological transition can only be effectively carried out by mobilizing all these stakeholders, taking into account each party’s specific constraints but also the possible leeway. This requires a localized approach and discussions focused on concrete and specific issues, where decisions can truly translate into sustainable actions.

Often, debates about the ecological transition are addressed too sectorally—focusing only on mobility, reducing carbon emissions, or other isolated aspects. This is why more systemic analysis frameworks, like planetary boundaries or the "doughnut" economics model, are particularly interesting. They allow us to broaden the reflection and integrate social and environmental dimensions that are often in tension in political and economic debates.

What we observe is that citizen participation has a transformative effect: when citizens take part in participatory and deliberative processes, they develop greater capacity for action and a better understanding of the issues. However, we cannot rely solely on citizen participation. It is crucial to link these approaches with other dynamics, notably popular education, and the work of associations and trade unions, which play a fundamental role in spreading knowledge and transforming organizations from within.

In sum, citizen participation must be thought of as a lever within a broader democratic ecosystem. It cannot solve all the challenges of the ecological transition on its own, but it can help strengthen social cohesion, illuminate collective choices, and structure solutions adapted to local realities. The key, therefore, lies in collaborative and concerted implementation, where each actor—citizens, associations, trade unions, businesses, and public authorities—finds its place and role in building a more sustainable future. The real question today is: are we ready to evolve our governance systems to truly integrate this collective intelligence? Because while participation alone is not enough to change everything, the absence of participation condemns us to stagnation.

At the Université de la Terre, you are co-organizing a workshop on food and biodiversity on March 15. What do you hope participants will take away from this experience, and how do you hope it will influence their perceptions or actions?

First of all, we want participants to experience an enjoyable, participatory, and stimulating moment that shows that we can learn, exchange, and reflect together without it being tedious or purely academic. Then, we hope that each participant leaves better informed, with a deeper understanding of the links between their daily food choices and the major issues of agricultural production, biodiversity, and ecological transition: what is hindering more planet-friendly food today? What are the individual and collective levers for action? As we know, participatory experiences are often transformative for citizens and strengthen, for some, their sense of agency. Too often, debates about food and ecology can lead to discouragement, even fatalism, in the face of a system seen as rigid and difficult to change. We hope that after leaving this workshop, everyone feels less powerless and more confident in their ability to act—whether through individual choices, civic engagement, or by challenging decision-makers.