Power, politics and participation in multi-stakeholder processes

A tale of two Brazilian states leads us to really useful tips to design meaningful, inclusive platforms for transformation.
Read at CIFOR-ICRAF’S Forests News

Participatory processes do not guarantee equality, as the interactions within them and in the wider contexts where they are enacted are shaped by power relations that define what kinds of actions are possible,

CIFOR-ICRAF scientists Juan Pablo Sarmiento Barletti, Anne Larson, and Nicole Heise Vigil in a 2021 study on how and why organisers plan their MSPs.

Here’s a cautionary tale for MSF convenors

In the 1990s and early 2000s – in response to calls for participatory land-use planning and concerns about deforestation – Brazil’s state governments began to carry out Ecological-Economic Zoning (ZEE in Portuguese) processes with the aim of collectively laying out land-use plans that were inclusive and sustainable. These processes were mandated to be developed and implemented using multi-stakeholder participatory mechanisms.

The two ended up with very different results, as described in this paper.

Acre and Mato Grosso are two landlocked Brazilian states, both of which contain part of the Amazonian rainforest. Acre’s ZEE map, completed in 2007, was widely hailed for advancing collective benefits and sustainability. For Mato Grosso, in contrast, the ZEE process was disastrous: it reflected deep-seated social and political conflicts, and to this day the state does not have a ZEE map, despite a number of valiant attempts by different parties to develop one. So, why did the two processes, which fell under the same federal mandate, turn out so differently?

This excellent article from CIFOR-ICRAF’s Forests News, not only outlines the different results and reasons behind them, but also provides links to really useful tools and resources to enable you to design and implement a multi-stakeholder process that’s far more like that of Acre, “widely hailed for advancing collective benefits and sustainability”, than of Mato Grosso, where “the ZEE process was disastrous: it reflected deep-seated social and political conflicts, and to this day the state does not have a ZEE map, despite a number of valiant attempts by different parties to develop one.”

… a lively living being, consistent with the identity of the populations living in the managed territory.

Acre government’s description of the map-making process after the addition of a cultural-political axis or ‘ethno-zoning’

Want to emulate that success in your own MSF?

Researchers and others at the Center for International Forestry Research and World Agroforestry (CIFOR-ICRAF), along with partners in diverse organisations and locations around the world, have been exploring how MSFs might better achieve their goals in the future, within their Governance, Equity and Wellbeing programme. They’ve found a number of conceptual and practical measures to better take these social dimensions into account.

Find out more in this short video:


Practical fact sheets designed for you

To support participants and implementers in this multifaceted process of making MSPs more equitable and effective, CIFOR-ICRAF has produced a series of simple, accessible infosheets and ‘how-to’ guides. “We often take too much for granted in MSPs,” says author Anne Larson. “Some considerations are simple – like changing where the platform is held, or adjusting seating arrangements; and some require deeper strategic thinking. Our research has unearthed a host of practical steps that convenors can take to help empower marginalised stakeholders and create lasting impact.”

Click any image below to download its factsheet pdf.

A place at the table is not enough: Accountability for Indigenous Peoples and local communities in multi-stakeholder platforms

This article explores the challenges of achieving equity in multi-stakeholder platforms and forums (MSFs) focused on sustainable land and resource governance. Drawing on a comparative study of 11 subnational MSFs in Brazil, Ethiopia, Indonesia, and Peru, the article examines the perspectives of Indigenous Peoples and local communities (IPLCs) who participate in these forums. The research aims to understand how MSFs can ensure voice, empowerment, and address inequality, while being accountable to the needs and interests of IPLCs. The findings highlight the optimism of IPLC participants but also reveal accountability failures. The article argues for greater strategic attention to how marginalized groups perceive their participation in MSFs and proposes ways to foster collective action and hold more powerful actors accountable to achieve equality, empowerment, and justice.
Download from CIFOR

Can multi-stakeholder forums mediate indigenous rights and development priorities? Insights from the Peruvian Amazon

This article examines the role of a multi-stakeholder forum (MSF) called PIACI Roundtable in protecting indigenous peoples in isolation and initial contact (PIACI) in Peru's Loreto region. The MSF aimed to address delays in establishing Indigenous Reserves for PIACI. The article highlights the potential of MSFs to raise awareness and coordinate actions for vulnerable groups, but emphasizes the importance of shared respect for recognized rights among participants. Without such respect, MSFs may prioritize other perspectives over the rights of marginalized communities.
Download from CIFOR

Designing for engagement: A Realist Synthesis Review of how context affects the outcomes of multi-stakeholder forums on land use and/or land-use change

This Realist Synthesis Review analyses scholarly literature on multi-stakeholder forums (MSFs) for sustainable land use. It focusses on subnational MSFs involving grassroots and government actors. The review highlights key contextual variables and identifies four common lessons: commitment, engagement of implementers, openness to stakeholders, and adaptive design. Successful MSFs are recognized as part of a transformative process, involve research and meetings, build consensus and commitment, and prioritize adaptive learning. The central lesson is to design for engagement that addresses the context for greater success.
Download from CIFOR

Designing for engagement: Insights for more equitable and resilient multi-stakeholder forums

A process that is engaged, committed and adaptive allows for all actors to build trust, and thus has the best chance of success moving forward. This literature review highlights the importance of engagement within an MSF.

How are we doing? A tool to reflect on the process, progress and priorities of your multi-stakeholder forum

This handbook introduces "How are we doing?", a tool for participatory monitoring in multi-stakeholder forums (MSFs). It helps MSF participants reflect, assess progress, and plan for achieving their goals. Developed in collaboration with MSF members, it focuses on inclusive decision-making and collective learning.

How does context affect the outcomes of multi-stakeholder forums on land use and/or land-use change?: A Realist Synthesis Review of the scholarly literature

This protocol outlines a Realist Synthesis Review (RSR) that analyses the global scholarly literature on multi-stakeholder forums (MSFs) addressing land use and land-use change. MSFs bring diverse stakeholders together to address common challenges and achieve shared goals. The review aims to understand how contextual factors influence MSF outcomes. It contributes to the study of MSFs and participatory processes, addressing concerns about top-down approaches and emphasizing meaningful engagement. The RSR methodology provides empirical insights and advances social science research methods.
Download from CIFOR

Intensity and embeddedness: Two dimensions of equity approaches in multi-stakeholder forums

This paper introduces a novel approach to studying multi-stakeholder forums (MSFs) in the context of land use and land-use change, focusing on their equity implications. The authors analyse MSFs based on two key characteristics: the extent to which local communities are actively involved (intensity) and the extent to which the forum is integrated into broader societal or governmental processes (embeddedness). By employing these analytical tools, the paper offers nuanced insights into how different MSF approaches function and their impact on equity, going beyond simplistic categorizations and providing a deeper understanding of MSF dynamics.
Download from CIFOR

Models of participation in multi-stakeholder forums: Results of a realist synthesis review

Context and process are both vital for a MSF to succeed, but at times they can be ignored. This review shows that the more successful MSFs view context not as an obstacle, but instead design their initiatives to respond to it.

Multi-stakeholder platforms for cross-border biodiversity conservation and landscape governance in East Africa: Perspectives and outlook

This working paper explores multi-stakeholder platforms (MSPs) for biodiversity conservation in East Africa. It assesses challenges, success factors, and the need for research on governance and monitoring. MSPs are crucial for managing biodiversity across sectors but require institutional linkages, skilled facilitation, science-policy connections, and sustainable financing.