Presentation by Anne M Larson on April 5, 2019 at Workshop in Ethiopia ("Forests and climate change: research results and implications for REDD+ and forest governance in Ethiopia")

1. Anne M Larson, Juan Pablo Sarmiento Barletti and Mastewal Yami
Forests and climate change: research results and implications for REDD+ and forest governance in
Ethiopia
5th April 2019 - Addis Ababa, Ethiopia
MULTI-STAKEHOLDER FORUMS AS
INNOVATION FOR NATURAL RESOURCE
MANAGEMENT?
THE ROLE OF MULTI-STAKEHOLDER FORUMS IN
ETHIOPIA

2. CIFOR’s global comparative study of MSFs
• Purposely organised interactive processes that bring together a
range of stakeholders to participate in dialogue, decision‐making
and/or implementation regarding actions seeking to address a land
or resource problem (LULUC)
• Research criteria:
o Subnational: more likely not just policy but focused on a specific
jurisdiction or geographic location
o Multiactor: at least one government and one non‐government
actor

3. Potentially transformational scale of
governance and action
Closer to impact of LULUC decisions
Calls for: integrated landscape approaches,
multisectoral initiatives, multistakeholder
platforms
LULUC is a multi‐sector issue
Why engage with participation and collaboration at
the subnational level?

4. 'To learn you have to participate'
Francisca Arara
Organization of Indigenous Teachers of Acre
'If you do not sit at the table, you end up
on the menu'
Roberto Borrero
International Indian Treaty Council
Why engage with participation and collaboration at
the subnational level?

5. What do we want to know?
• Are we learning, or repackaging?
o Participation integrated landscape initiatives, multi‐stakeholder processes
• Divergent theory on participatory processes:
o potential for more horizontal decision‐making (e.g. Hickey and Mohan 2005;
Reed 2008)
o catchword for existing governance “technology” that does little to address
underlying structures of inequality (e.g. Cooke and Kothari 2001)
• If and how multi‐stakeholder processes are actually working, and what explains
the outcomes?
o Step 1 – RSR of the scholarly literature
o Step 2 – In‐depth fieldwork in 14 sites in Brazil, Ethiopia, Indonesia and Peru
o Step 3 – Development of a participatory monitoring tool

6. What is a Realist Synthesis Review (RSR)?
• The better known “systematic reviews” answer a research question
through an exhaustive, systematic search of relevant literature, with
a 'yes’, 'no’, or, commonly a ‘there is not enough information'.
• The RSR method allows a systematic and comparative analysis of
how context affects initiatives with an emphasis on the "why".
o Better for complex questions
• The RSR took six months and 5 phases 984 articles 124 articles
42 articles 17 articles (19 cases) (Sarmiento Barletti et al. 2018)
• We systematized 4 program theories (the 'how the MSF should
work') and mechanisms ('how project actually tries to change
things’)
• We consider how contextual factors affected the transition from
theory to practice.

7. Program Theory Mechanism: levers for “buy‐in”
Sustainability‐social inclusion initiatives:
integrating sustainable land‐use change,
livelihood, and social inclusion goals.
Include local people in initiatives toward
sustainability, as this will motivate them to adopt
the proposed initiative.
Development‐sustainability initiatives:
integrating sustainable land‐use and
development goals.
Create economic benefits through protecting
and/or regenerating forests, which is then
distributed among local stakeholders to provide
development benefits.
Enhanced participatory decision‐making
initiatives: providing communities with
greater control over natural resources
through local institutions, which are
integrated with government and formalized.
Grant local communities more control over their
resources through co‐management and co‐
learning and/or capacity‐building efforts.
Multilevel governance initiatives: cross‐scale
initiatives that involve different stakeholders
and government agencies, from different
sectors / levels.
Enhance social capital through collaborative
decision making and multilevel coordination.

8. Contextual factors
Attributes of actors Attributes of governance
• Gender inequalities in access to participation
and/or resources
• Government control of decision making
• Indigenous/local peoples distrust other groups • Government recognition of right to and/or interest
in the participation of local people
• Local/regional/national interest in conservation
and preservation
• Existence of informal and/or traditional resource
management/use institutions
• Power inequalities between LULUC actors • Government commitment for multi‐sector
collaboration
• Forest dependence • Tenure insecurity and weak recognition of IPLC
resource rights
• Time, capacities and funding available for
program
• Government commitment to decentralization and
devolution of decision
• Powerful groups clearly influenced the MSF’s
process and/or outcome
• Enforcement of LULUC‐related laws and regulations
• Economic poverty • Political and social sensitivities re conservation
• History/ experience of past initiatives • Government development agenda that emphasizes
extraction

9. Summary
• The intended role of MSFs themselves may vary, but all are
aimed at obtaining local “buy‐in” using different levers:
sustainability, economic benefits, co‐management and
multilevel coordination.
• The literature reveals that initiatives are often not reaching
success on their own terms because of a mismatch between
theory and practice that may be addressed by paying
attention to four factors.

10. Four common lessons
1. The importance of commitment (to the people, the
process, and its goals);
2. Engaging the implementers (key middle level, brokers,
and government officials who determine what happens
on the ground);
3. Openness to learn from and listen to stakeholders;
4. Having a design that is adaptive to context, with time
and resources

11. Characteristics of Successful MSFs
• Purposefully recognized as part of a wider process that
seeks to transform practices at multiple levels;
• Entail a period of research and meetings at upper levels
(and on down) to identify potential roadblocks, build
capacities with implementers;
• Build consensus and commitment and thus political will;
• Designed as adaptive learning processes.

12. Conclusions – from the literature
• The central lesson, then, is not how to design
projects, given such different contexts.
• Rather, it is about how to design engagement
to address context, whatever its distinct
features, in order to develop and implement
initiatives with greater chance of success.

13. Field Research - Objectives
• Identify the processes and
outcomes that influence the
effectiveness of MSFs in achieving
sustainable land use, and
• Examine how the MSFs address
inequity issues in decision‐making
processes and benefit sharing
among stakeholders.
‐> How improve MSFs for more
effective and equitable outcomes?

14. Ethiopia – background
• 85% of Ethiopia’s population depends on agriculture and natural resources.
• Land degradation (e.g. soil erosion, forest resources degradation) threatens rural
livelihoods.
• Interventions to prevent deforestation and forest degradation include soil and
water conservation initiatives, afforestation programs, and establishment of
exclosures.
• Limited success in past efforts
o Political and socio‐cultural constraints (e.g. power relations and competing
interests)
o Government lack of coordination across offices and levels
o Low level of engagement of stakeholders in the design and implementation of
interventions.
‐> Growing interest in participatory approaches such as Multi Stakeholder Forums

15. MSFs
SHARE Bale MSF (Oromia)
• Established in 2014
• To identify biophysical and
socio‐cultural factors
aggravating land
degradation
• To find solutions in a joint
decision‐making process
and with active
involvement of actors.
Jamma‐Urji MSF (Oromia)
• Established in 2014
• To address the lack of
integration among
different sectors
• Strengthening the capacity
of stakeholders in planning
and implementation of
interventions.

16. Methods
• Data collection using in‐depth interviews:
o 35 MSF participants, 19 non‐MSF participants,
o 5 MSF organizers, and 8 key informants (context)
• Q‐methodology to interview MSF participants and MSF
organizers.
• Questions focus on power relations, participation,
inclusiveness, and effectiveness of the MSFs.
• Qualitative data analysis.

17. Summary of SHARE Bale and Jamma-Urji MSFs
SHARE Bale MSF Jamma‐Urji MSF
Organizers Research (IWMI), conservation (FZS), livelihoods
(SoS‐Sahel and FARM Africa), and PHE‐Ethiopia
(population, health and environment).
Academia and research in conservation (HoAREC),
and conservation and development (ANCEDA)
Approaches Multi‐sectoral, integrated, collective action Collective action
Interventions Evidence generation, PFM cooperatives,
capacity building, livelihood interventions, and
family planning
Evidence generation, PFM cooperatives, capacity
building, exchange visits, and exclosures
Level of
effectiveness*
Great
(4 years, 2nd phase?)
Moderate: Good agreements/steps, but low
enforcement
(2 years, ended)
Level of transparency Good Minimal
Level of equity Somewhat good Somewhat good
Poor representation Private sector and women Private sector, women, and NGOs
Success factors Multi‐sectoral and integrated approaches,
livelihood interventions, rule enforcement, and
alignment with the plans in government
offices.
Motivation among stakeholders and capacity
building
Constraining factors Agricultural expansion, ‘illegal’ settlement and
funding constraints
Lack of alternative livelihoods, low level of rule
enforcement, and funding constraints
Gender inequity High High
* Independent verification not available

18. Stakeholders
SHARE Bale MSF
• Community representatives and
Participatory Forest Management
(PFM) cooperatives,
• Local governments (zonal,
wereda, and kebele levels),
• Experts in government offices:
Agriculture, health, cooperative
promotion agency, irrigation, and
animal and rangeland
management,
• NGOs and Madda Walabu
University
Jamma‐Urji MSF
• Community representatives and
PFM cooperatives,
• Local governments: West‐Arsi
zone, Shashemene and Shalla
weredas and six 6 kebeles,
• Extension agents and experts in
government offices: Agriculture,
land administration office,
irrigation development authority,
and cooperative promotion
authority, and
• Wondo Genet college of forestry

19. Effectiveness
SHARE Bale MSF
• The MSF mobilized collective
action among stakeholders,
• Increased awareness among local
communities on sustainable land
use,
• Increased ‘Ownership’ among
local communities using PFM
approach,
• Enabled rule enforcement to
prevent deforestation and forest
degradation using the multi‐
sectoral taskforce.
Jamma‐Urji MSF
• Mobilized stakeholders using a
collective action approach,
• Prevented further degradation by
establishing exclosures,
• Enabled rule enforcement using
PFM cooperatives, and
• Increased awareness among
stakeholders on sustainable land
use practices.
• However, problems with
enforcement, and with finding
alternatives for key actors.
• Two years is too short?

20. …Continued
SHARE Bale MSF also achieved:
• Increased use of alternative energy sources such as energy saving
stoves using livelihood interventions,
• Livelihood diversification using interventions such as honey
production and livestock productivity,
• Increased awareness on the link between population and natural
resources, rate of contraceptive use increased from 24% to 36%.

21. Equity issues in the MSFs
SHARE Bale MSF
• The MSF employs a multi‐sectoral
approach to ensure inclusive
decision‐making processes.
• The MSF uses mechanisms to
share economic gains among the
community in an equitable
manner.
• The MSF has not ensured equity
in mediating opposing views by
the less powerful stakeholders
such as women.
Jamma‐Urji MSF
• The MSF enabled participatory
decision‐making processes
through dialogues and
negotiation of interests.
• Private sector and NGOs have
little or no representation.
• Decision‐making processes are
male‐dominated.
• Women and youth are rated as
the least powerful but the most
influential stakeholders to the
enforcement of MSF outcomes.

22. Gender inequity in MSFs
• Gender norms and lack of
alternative means of livelihoods
weaken rule enforcement.
• Allocation of women in PFM
cooperative committees is
inadequate.
• Youth’s little or no access to land
and employment:
• Poor enforcement of outcomes
• “Open access” situation

23. Results of Q analysis
SHARE Bale MSF
• “MSFs build bridges that are
likely to lead to future positive
outcomes (even if not right
now)”
• “An MSF is a waste of time if
its outcome is not mandatory
for all relevant actors”
• “There should be a minimum
quota for IP/LC and/or women
representatives in each
participating group”
• Increasing the inclusiveness of
the MSF is more important
than focusing on outcomes
Jamma‐Urji MSF
• “An MSF is a waste of time if
its outcome is not mandatory
for all relevant actors”
• “MSFs help solve problems
because they bring together
government actors (e.g.
development/env planners)
that would normally not work
together”
• “Successful MSFs include
capacity‐building elements for
IP/LCs to participate
effectively”
• “Successful MSFs have an
unbiased facilitator”

24. Conclusions - Ethiopia
• Interventions on sustainable land use could benefit from
using MSFs to enhance inclusiveness, equity, and
effectiveness.
• Combination of interventions on environment and
livelihoods increases effectiveness of MSFs.
• Low level of engagement of women, youth and private
sector in MSFs limits ownership of the MSF processes and
outcomes.
• There is some allocation of quotas for women in leadership
committees of PFM cooperatives, but this is insufficient
given the level of gender inequity among stakeholders.

25. Recommendations - Ethiopia
• Devising mechanisms for economic empowerment of
women and youth would increase effectiveness of MSFs.
• Improving the representation of women and private sector
would increase inclusiveness and ownership of the MSFs.
• REDD+ initiatives could benefit from using MSFs to enable
multi‐sectoral collaboration and collective action among
stakeholders.
• Embedding plans and activities of the MSFs in the
government structure could help in mobilizing funds for the
MSFs in the long term.

26. Thanks to