A Strategic Approach to Multistakeholder Negotiations

Abstract

Environment and development practitioners increasingly are interested in identifying methods, institutional arrangements and policy environments that promote negotiations among natural resource stakeholders leading to collective action and, it is hoped, sustainable resource management. Yet the implications of negotiations for disadvantaged groups of people are seldom critically examined. We draw attention to such implications by examining different theoretical foundations for multistakeholder negotiations and linking these to practical problems for disadvantaged groups. We argue that negotiations based on an unhealthy combination of communicative rationality and liberal pluralism, which underplays or seeks to neutralize differences among stakeholders, poses considerable risks for disadvantaged groups. We suggest that negotiations influenced by radical pluralist and feminist poststructuralist thought, which emphasize strategic behaviour and selective alliance-building, promise better outcomes for disadvantaged groups in most cases, particularly on the scale and in the historical contexts in which negotiations over forest management usually take place.

Power and politics in stakeholder engagement: farm dweller (in)visibility and conversions to game farming in South Africa

“…In this regard, we became stakeholders too, and potential drivers of change. Our findings and interpretations, as well as the knowledge we generated, shaped the stakeholder engagement and the workshop dynamics, dispelling the myth of researchers as neutral or objective (Edmunds and Wollenberg 2001). Yet, as far as we could tell, in sharing and engaging with participants in the research findings, we were not able to influence power disparities during the workshops or convince participants of the problems with the dominant discourse on game farming as a win-win strategy for conservation and development.…”

“…Policy makers tend to have a limited understanding of farm dwellers' livelihood structures, which means that they are poorly recognized or represented in rural transformation programs (Del Grande 2006). Those in positions of power tend to be (more) visible in both process and outcomes than those not in power (Edmunds andWollenberg 2001, Faysse 2006). This situation brings us to issues of complicity and responsibility for the impacts of our research because we decided whom to invite and not to invite, how the workshops were conceptualized and conducted, and to some extent, what was being discussed.…”

“…This literature builds on critical perspectives that emerged in community-based natural resource management studies on multistakeholder approaches (Edmunds and Wollenberg 2001, Larson and Ribot 2004, Dressler et al 2010). The critique is that these approaches tend to revolve around an assumed "neutrality" of research as a space for engagement where everyone's voice can be heard (equally) and focus on consensus building in contexts in which it might not be desirable for all parties (Barnaud and VanOur contribution aims to connect insights from this aforementioned literature and build on the more critical perspectives, but it also calls attention to the importance of the historical social-ecological context in which resource conflicts develop.…”

Questioning the effectiveness of planned conflict resolution strategies in water disputes between rural communities and mining companies in Peru

“…This goes far beyond public hearings and stakeholder engagement. It also requires thinking beyond quick solutions (Himley, 2014) or short-lived forms of consensus, both of which tend to blur the diversity of positions and mask abuses of power (Castro, 2007;Edmunds & Wollenberg, 2001;Moreyra & Wegerich, 2006). Rather than seeking to neutralize differences in position and power, our analysis suggests that the longer-term sustainability of livelihoods and ecosystems may be better served by openly accepting and dealing with such differences, and by learning to acknowledge that experiences and knowledge (including science) are always contextually embedded and plural.…”

“…water) distributions, or the allocation of risks and hazards (Muradian, Martinez-Alier, & Correa, 2003), cannot be solved in a manner that is agreeable to all parties involved (Edmunds & Wollenberg, 2001). Such conflicts are symptoms of inadequate or ineffective political processes, as much as they signal problems of a more technical nature.…”