Learning tools for more inclusive participatory processes
•Download as PPTX, PDF•
0 likes•40 views
Reaching landscape objectives means bringing together multiple stakeholders to agree on common goals, negotiate tradeoffs and define solutions.
Recommended
Recommended
More Related Content
Similar to Learning tools for more inclusive participatory processes
Similar to Learning tools for more inclusive participatory processes (20)
More from CIFOR-ICRAF
More from CIFOR-ICRAF (20)
Recently uploaded
Recently uploaded (20)
Learning tools for more inclusive participatory processes
- 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)
- 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
- 34. PART 2 Introducing the toolkit The how and why of How are we doing? Implementation exercise Wrap up & discussion
Editor's Notes
- Though usually organized for consultation rather than consent, there is at least a tacit understanding that expanding decision-making and coordination spaces to include these actors has implications for equality and addressing the historical marginalization of IPLCs from political processes
- PART 1 [70 minutes] Intro to the workshop [Anne; 5 mins] Some sort of intro exercise for participants [5/10 mins] CIFOR/our research on MSFs – key motivations and findings [JP - 10 mins] Stock take (probably in smaller groups on board/using cards) [facilitators – 30 mins] What sorts of experiences (research, facilitation, participation, etc. ) do we all have with MSPs (in the broadest sense); What sort of challenges have we found in terms of equity and effectiveness Walk around the room for presentations of group work and combine them into a single board [15 mins] PART 2 [50 minutes] What are our solutions to those challenges – introducing the toolkit (all versions of How are we doing? and Getting it right) [Anne; 10 mins] How and with what goal was ‘How are we doing?’ put together? [JP - 10 mins] Implementation method and implementation exercise [JP, Anne & facilitators – 20 mins] Wrap up/feedback/discussion [Anne & JP – 10 mins]
- Vi que hay varios grupos interesados/involcurados en procesos de carbono – y como parte de la plata que viene al reconocimiento de derechos territoriales, sería bueno hacer el link aquí con el tema.
- Un punto clave que planteaban en una entrevista en la que estuve –¿Por qué incluir? ¿para qué? - como preguntas previas porqué en algunos casos – especilamente cuando se habla de género y de la inclsuión de las mujeres– no es si la gente cree o no en que es importante asegurar la participación de los actores – pero más bien no se les ocurre que es necesario que esten ciertos ”grupos” la idea de que los bosques/la tierra son temas de “hombres”– o la referencia a las autoridades comunales –q ue suelene ser hombres.