1. Learning tools for more inclusive
participatory processes
Juan Pablo Sarmiento Barletti, Anne M Larson, and many others!
October 10, 2022
FLARE conference, Rome, Italy

2. Background
Reaching landscape objectives means bringing together multiple stakeholders to agree on
common goals, negotiate tradeoffs and define solutions.
Natural resource governance (as well as food security, poverty and climate solutions)
requires processes that build mutual understanding across actors for solutions that are
both sustainable and equitable.
Inviting people to the table, however, is not enough. Unequal power relations and
resources mean that not all have equal voice – e.g. women, indigenous peoples,
smallholders.

3. What is the nature of a multistakeholder process?

4. Today’s workshop
PART 1: Joint discussion of experience and
challenges
• Introductions and ice breaker
• Our research on MSFs – key motivations and findings
• Group work: Stock taking
• What experiences (research, facilitation, participation, etc. ) do we all
have with MSPs
• What challenges have we found in terms of equity and effectiveness
• Report back by group, sort and combine
PART 2: Some solutions
• Introducing the toolkit
• The how and why of How are we doing?
• Implementation exercise
• Wrap up/feedback/discussion

5. PART 1
Introductions and ice breaker
Our research on MSFs – key motivations and findings
Group work: Stock taking, report back, sort and combine

6. PART 1
Introductions and ice breaker
Our research on MSFs – key motivations and findings
Group work: Stock taking, report back, sort and combine

7. MSPs & equity
What’s the hype all about?
Purposefully organized interactive processes that bring together “stakeholders” to
participate in dialogue, decision-making and/or implementation regarding actions seeking to
address landscape level problems or goals.
• Renewed attention to participation given the urgency to address climate change and transform
development trajectories.
• MSF ‘method’ promises more equitable processes and outcomes that are more inclusive of
underrepresented actors.
• They should allow them equal participation, empowering them to holdmore powerful actors (e.g.,
governments, NGOs, private sector) accountable.

8. MSPs & equity
What’s the hype all about?
Agreement that MSPs are preferable to top-down or unilateral decision-
making; but they will not promote equity simply by bringing in more
participants.
Challenge MSPs tend to be idealized as spaces for collaboration among
equals, despite decades of research on how fostering equity in such
spaces is not easy.
How can these processes ensure voice and empowerment and address
inequality, and thus be accountable to the needs and interests of IPs and
LCs?

9. Starting point
Barriers for the participation of IPS and LCs
There are many barriers preventing IPs and LCs from
participating effectively in relevant decision-making
spaces, including:
• Travel and access
• Unrecognised and/or unenforced rights
• Cross-cultural differences
• Resistance to Indigenous/local knowledge
• Government excludes IPs/LCs

10. Starting point
Barriers for the participation of IP/LC women
There are many barriers preventing women
from IPs/LCs from having equal influence over
decision making, including:
• Social norms
• Gender roles
• Restrictions on mobility
• Low literacy and education levels
• Low confidence

11. MSPs & equity
Challenges faced by IP/LC representatives and women in those groups
represent many of the difficulties of achieving equitable inclusion in MSFs.
• Research showed that organizers recognised power inequalities in MSFs but few
strategies to deal with inequalities (Sarmiento Barletti et al. 2021); participants
aware of risks but often optimistic about potential for collaboration (Larson et al.
2022; Sarmiento Barletti et al. 2022).
• RSR revealed that more equitable and resilient MSFs require a shift in emphasis
away from how to design projects toward designing engagement to addresses a
specific context. (Sarmiento Barletti et al. 2020a).

12. 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?
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.
MSPs & equity

13. PART 1
Introductions and ice breaker
Our research on MSFs – key motivations and findings
Group work: Stock taking, report back, sort and combine

14. Group work: Stock taking
What experiences (research, facilitation, participation, etc.) do we all
have with MSPs?
What challenges have we found in terms of equity and effectiveness?
Report back by group, sort, and combine

15. PART 2
Introducing the toolkit
The how and why of How are we doing?
Implementation exercise
Wrap up & discussion

16. Introduction to the toolkit
These tools, developed through engaged participatory processes at landscape scale, provide explicit structured ways to address
inequalities.
Organizers and participants of MSPs can:
• improve voice for marginalized groups,
• help actors understand others’ perspectives and the value of collaboration,
• build trust,
• support conflict resolution,
• and foster social learning through self-assessment and reflection.
Failing to do so may deepen poverty and inequality, foster opposition to proposed solutions and put intended goals further out of
reach.

18. A rights-based theory of change for collective action and gender equality Evans et al. (2021)

20. https://www.cifor.org/toolboxes/tools-for-managing-landscapes-
inclusively/

21. PART 2
Introducing the toolkit
The how and why of How are we doing?
Implementation exercise
Wrap up & discussion

22. Available in Spanish,
English, French and
Indonesian
Available in Spanish
(planning to translate it
into English)
Available in Spanish,
English, French and
Indonesian
Available in Spanish

23. The tools were developed with and for MSF participants
• Developed w/ members of subnational MSFs in Peru
& Indonesia
• Piloted with 10 MSFs (7 over Zoom)
• Based on their perceptions on how an MSF should
work in terms of inclusiveness and equity.
• Designed to be used by MSF participants, not by
external evaluators.
• Beyond a simple assessment of indicators (statements
aim at creating reflection & social learning).
• Invites participants to discuss and reflect on the
answers as a group, adapt based on the reflection,
and design a plan for improvement.

24. The tools have a reflexive and adaptive approach

25. The tools are participatory

26. The tools are flexible and adapt to changes in our priorities
Fixed statements
1. Women participate effectively in our community’s
decision-making spaces.
2. Our community is governed in a transparent manner.
3. Women and men decide – together and with equal
influence – how communal work is distributed.
Elective statements (sample)
A. Women and men decide – together and with equal
influence – how our community’s natural resources
are used.
B. Women have the necessary information to participate
effectively in the governance of their communities.
C. The benefits from communal economic activities are
distributed fairly among women and men.
D. We use our ancestral/traditional practices and
knowledge to steward our territory.

27. The tools invite us to reflect on what we’ve done to inform what we
still need to do
Routemap, setting out work &
responsibilities for our improved
workplan, to be reassessed in the
next implementation of the tool
Statement
Reflection
questions
What have we
learned?
What are the main
barriers that may
prevent us from
improving?
How will we
address those
barriers?
What have
we done well
(and want to
continue
doing well)?
What have
we not done
well (and
want to
imrpove at)?
Aim
Key terms

28. Available in Spanish,
English, French and
Indonesian
Available in Spanish
(being translated into
English)
Available in Spanish, English,
French and Indonesian
+ Training Handbook
Available in Spanish
Toolkit available https://www.cifor.org/toolboxes/tools-for-managing-
landscapes-inclusively/

29. PART 2
Introducing the toolkit
The how and why of How are we doing?
Implementation exercise
Wrap up & discussion

30. Implementation exercise

33. Implementation exercise

34. PART 2
Introducing the toolkit
The how and why of How are we doing?
Implementation exercise
Wrap up & discussion