Organizing for transformation? How and why organizers plan their multi-stakeholder forums

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.

Relational values of forests: Value‐conflicts between local communities and external programmes in Sulawesi

“…The integration of broader, and oft‐conflicting interests over land use lend themselves to consider landscape‐scale implementation rather than focussing on a single component of the wider mosaic (Reed et al, 2020). The key is transparent and multi‐stakeholder collaboration, which is conceptually popular but complex and challenging in its application (Barletti & Larson, 2019; Bouamrane et al, 2016; Fisher et al, 2017; Riggs et al, 2018). The case of the micro‐hydropower initiatives in Borong Rappoa shows that local actors are also motivated by instrumental initiatives but only in ways that provide benefits and maintain a sense of place.…”

Same Same but Different? A Quantitative Exploration of Voluntary Sustainability Standards in Agriculture

“…However, recent studies suggest that many MSIs are failing to deliver on this potential [39][40][41]48]. At the same time, other standard setting initiatives have recognized exclusion as a problem and seek to make their standards more inclusive without becoming full-fledged MSIs themselves [30,42,43,63]. For instance, many standard setting initiatives have built multi-stakeholder advisory groups, regularly carry out stakeholder consultations, or otherwise delegate limited authority to a multi-stakeholder body.…”

“…Later, non-governmental organizations (NGOs) [23,24] and organizations representing collective interests of business [25,26] also sought to draw up rules to mandate more corporate responsibility and sustainability. In response to growing criticism of the non-inclusive nature of VSS [27] and their increasing cooptation [28], multi-stakeholder initiatives (MSIs) have emerged more recently as an important vehicle for the private regulation of global corporate conduct [29][30][31][32]. These stakeholder coalitions have been hailed as more inclusive [33,34], more legitimate [35], and ultimately, more effective at standard setting [31,[36][37][38].…”

“…Pertinent examples include the Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil (RSPO), the Sustainable Rice Platform (SRP), or the Ethical Trading Initiative (ETI) [39][40][41]. At the same time, other standard setters have begun to recognize exclusion as a problem and now seek to make their standards more inclusive without becoming full-fledged MSIs themselves [30,42,43].…”