No abstract

Multi-stakeholder forums (MSFs) have received much attention from policymakers and development and conservation practitioners as a transformative solution for more equitable coordination and decision-making over environmental challenges. Studies on "invited spaces" have previously shown the importance of balancing power relations and attending to context. To what extent do the plans and expectations of MSF organizers reflect these previous lessons? This paper examines how and why the organizers of 13 subnational MSFs addressing sustainable land and resource management in Brazil, Ethiopia, Indonesia and Peru established these forums, and if and how their plans and expectations compare to previous lessons on invited spaces. Findings reveal that the organizers conceived of power inequalities as obstacles that could be overcome by including historically disempowered peoples in the MSFs, but generally failed to consider specific measures to address inequalities; nor did they develop clear strategies to engage with unsustainable local development and political priorities.

No abstract

Community forest management (CFM) is promoted as a strategy to reach multiple development outcomes including the sustainable use of forest resources, forest conservation, poverty alleviation, and social equity through the devolution of rights to forestdependent communities. Developing effective and equitable strategies to promote CFM requires consensus on its goals and the approaches for reaching those goals. Finding common ground among diverse actors involved in the promotion of CFM can be a challenge when their multifaceted expectations and beliefs are not explicitly enunciated or consciously expressed, obscuring contradictions, conflicting objectives, or even shared agendas. An initial step to reaching consensus would be to clarify the range of perspectives that exist to identify common ground and areas of divergent opinion. We report on an initiative applying Q-methodology as a means of identifying differing perspectives on CFM through interviews with 34 informants representing 6 stakeholder groups involved in the promotion of CFM in the Peruvian Amazon: Indigenous leaders, government policymakers, technicians from nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), university professors, forestry students, and representatives of donor agencies. We found four different perspectives on what CFM should do: balance conservation with community rights, encourage capacity and enterprise development, technical oversight to protect forests on behalf of Indigenous communities, and support for grassroots Indigenous autonomy. These perspectives revealed differences in how conservation should be achieved and where balance between technical requirements, Indigenous environmental management, and stewardship practices should be favored. Despite different viewpoints, the perspectives also revealed shared understanding of CFM as a mechanism that could emphasize both supporting community rights and conservation goals. This example illustrates how Q-methodology can generate information on the range of perceptions underlying broad strategies such as the promotion of CFM that can facilitate dialogue around shared pathways and agendas.

Discussion 4.1 The outcome of the combination of different degrees of intensity and embeddedness depends on the context in which MSFs are implemented 4.2 There are limited data on processes, outcomes and medium-and long-term impacts of MSFs, highlighting the need to publish more details 4.3 Lessons for methods and research processes 4.4 The objectives of MSFs change over time 4.5 Implementation matters -Designing a participatory process to be equitable is not enough 4.6 Responsibilities need to come with benefits