Participatory development projects seldomly enable participation to build counter power for accountability in participatory processes; those that do support scaled up social organizations - e.g., beyond the project/community level

1. Juan Pablo Sarmiento Barletti (j.sarmiento@cgiar.org),
Anne M. Larson and Nicole M Heise
CIFOR-ICRAF
A place at the table is not enough:
Landscape management multi-stakeholder
platforms from the perspective of IPLCs

2. The multi-stakeholder paradigm: transforming what for whom?
Major efforts to address global problems regarding land/resource use call for an
MS process, platform, or forum.
Growing recognition that landscape-level actors are integral to initiatives for
change; important in areas without secure land and resource rights.
Agreement that MSPs are preferable to top-down or unilateral decision-making;
but they will not promote equity simply by bringing in more participants.
MSPs tend to be idealized as spaces for collaboration among equals, despite
loads of research on how fostering equity in such spaces is not easy.
How do IP/LC representatives experience participation in these spaces? – little
attention despite decades of research and experience on participation.
How can these processes ensure voice and empowerment and address
inequality, and thus be accountable to the needs and interests of IPs and LCs?

3. The multi-stakeholder paradigm: transforming what for whom?
Participatory development projects seldomly enable participation to build
counter power for accountability in participatory processes; those that do
support scaled up social organizations - e.g., beyond the project/community level.
Fox (2015, 2020) tactical (bounded, local, based on information and voice
alone) vs strategic (collective action, findings allies, etc.) approaches.
Organizers perceived MSPs as an event and a method, both as more tactical, but
rarely as part of a broader strategy for change (Sarmiento Barletti et al., 2021).
They recognized power inequalities as obstacles, yet most had no specific
measures to address them and tended tend to idealize MSPs as imagined spaces
for collaboration and even collective action (Sarmiento Barletti et al., 2022).

4. purposefully organized interactive process that brings together a range of stakeholders to participate in
dialogue and/or decision-making and/or implementation of actions seeking to address a problem they hold
in common or to achieve a goal for their common benefit
11 subnational MSPs improving land/forest use practices in Brazil(3), Ethiopia(2), Indonesia(2) & Peru(4).
• At least one government, one non-governmental actor, and one IP/LC participant (in this paper).
• Closer to landscapes of targeted changes, with government actors to assure that the MSF was
embedded in -or at least linked to- official political processes and institutions, in places with few
avenues for IPs/LCs to hold more powerful actors accountable.
• ‘‘Invited spaces (…) into which people (as users, citizens or beneficiaries) are invited to participate by
various kinds of authorities” (Cornwall 2002)
Interviews with 58 IP and LC MSP participants to understand their perspective on efforts to address equity
in the MSFs & compared to 185 interviews with non-IP and LC participants.
• Small number of IPs/LCs challenges representative analysis, but it is also indicative of the problem.
Methods: IP and LC perceptions of participation & equity

5. Questions focused on whether the MSPs addressed power inequalities and had an impact beyond MSPs.
Are MSPs places for the less powerful to connect with potential allies?
• 51% of IPs and LCs across sites agreed (Other actors - 71%).
• Participants see themselves or others at the MSPs as allies, but IPs/LCs are less convinced.
• IP/LC with less access to networks were likelier to see MSPs for alliances, others found allies elsewhere.
Is collective action outside the forum a better option?
• One third of IPs and LCs posed social action as a better option; less than half (43%) disagreed.
• Different views of ‘‘social action” – ‘‘last resort”, disruption, collective strategy to improve negotiating power.
• MSPs can be used as part of longer-term strategies of representation and accountability - work with the
government when it serves them, and protest when it does not.
Are there better solutions for the problem the MSP sought to address?
• Most described how MSPs could be improved hold more frequent meetings, involve more actors, monitor
its results, and increase funds for activities (why? lack of spaces to make demands to government actors)
Findings: IP and LC perceptions of participation & equity

6. Findings: IP and LC perceptions of participation & equity
Meaningful differences between feeling like equals at an MSP, experiencing MSPs as tools for
empowerment, and believing in their transformative potential.
• Feeling equal and being empowered by the MSP are not the same thing
• Empowerment and seeing the potential for ‘‘transformation” are not the same thing.
Despite differences in perspectives with non-IP/LC participants, many IP/LC were reasonably
optimistic about their potential, whether or not they considered their MSPs as inadequate.
Problems persist regarding representation and influence of marginalized groups in MSPs; this may
be why so many perceived better options to MSPs – e.g., their own collective organizations.
If IPs/LCs are to remain at the table, much more is needed to support accountability and counter
power - what would that look like?

7. Organizers need to engage more strategically with IP/LC participants to foster counter power.
Think strategically about what it means for marginalized groups to have a place at the table.
• Why are they being invited?
• How does their participation fit into a ToC that includes levelling the playing field?
• How can accountability structures be built into the MSPs (esp. those that include government actors)?
IPs/LCs (and women in those groups) need to have their own spaces to learn, debate, and organize.
• Enough representatives to form a constituency, embedded in their structures of representation.
• With conditions to build strategic alliances with other platform members.
Engage strategically with these groups and discuss how to facilitate such accountability mechanisms.
• Individuals can have differing experiences and opinions, which are commonly homogenised in platforms.
• Approach facilitation with an openness to listen, reflect, learn and adapt (more on this on Monday).
Wrap up: (are we?) all in this together

8. cifor.org | worldagroforestry.org | globallandscapesforum.org | resilientlandscapes.org
The Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR) and World Agroforestry (ICRAF) envision a more equitable world where forestry and
landscapes enhance the environment and well-being for all. CIFOR–ICRAF are CGIAR Research Centers.
cifor.org/gcs
THANK
YOU