Session 1. 15. A.

Agroecology offers a helpful approach for a coordinated effort to build equitable, accessible and just relationship-based food systems. The practice of agroecology is evolving from a primarily production-based intervention on some farms to encompassing positive changes of food systems at multiple scales. An agroecological transition is a systemic transformation and a multidimensional process which deeply involve various stakeholders across the food system, including farmers, governments, markets, supply chains, consumers, agricultural infrastructure, technical norms and standards, etc. We analyze how multi-stakeholder platforms (MSPs) and approaches can enable and shape such multi-actor processes of agroecological transition at different stages or “levels” of the transition as depicted by Gliessman’s (2007) transition pathway framework. We examine configurations of MSPs to better enable agroecological transition at each of the levels. The CGIAR initiative on Agroecology established Agroecological Living Landscapes (ALLs) to support the co-creation, scaling and enabling of agroecological innovations and practices with farmers in eight countries. Combining lessons from the literature and using the eight country ALLs as MSP case studies, we collect data on ALL structures, the institutional arrangements and involvement of different stakeholders in various countries. We map the relevant actors to the transition pathway and identify which stakeholders are necessary to be involved at different levels/stages of agroecological transition and how, deriving lessons about proper configuration of MSPs. We argue that while MSPs are essential at later stages of the transition (levels 4 and 5), they are also useful in enabling farmers to transition through levels 1-3. However, to be effective, they need to be configured differently with varying institutional arrangements to suit each of the levels of the transformation pathway and scales of operation.

"Multistakeholder platforms (MSPs) are increasingly seen as the most strategic way to address governance challenges related to landscape-based ‘conservation and development’. MSPs bring together multiple actors to share information, discuss, negotiate and identify solutions to landscape problems. There are many types of MSPs, but generally speaking, who could oppose dialogue? Yet MSPs are idealized as spaces for collaboration among equals, based on the idea that ‘we’re all in this together’. This notion can be an obstacle to meaningful change. For collective action to support change, it must challenge the foundations of inequity, promote the agency of historically underrepresented peoples and assure the accountability of decision makers.
We wanted to know how Indigenous Peoples and local communities (IPs and LCs) saw MSPs. Our presentation draws on a comparative study of 11 MSPs that sought to support sustainable forest landscape management in Brazil, Ethiopia, Indonesia, and Peru. Our cases focused on specific subnational landscapes; had at least one government and one non-governmental actor; were processes, not one-off events; and had been running for at least one year. Interviews were conducted with forum participants and organizers to comparatively engage with their perspectives regarding the potential of MSPs to provide voice, empowerment, and an opportunity for change.
Despite overall optimism regarding MSPs, IP and LC representatives were more skeptical than other participants about the potential of the forums to empower, assure voice, prevent those with more power from dominating dialogue and avoid placing their ancestral rights to land at risk. IP and LC respondents were likelier to think of collective action - outside the MSP - as a better option; they understood their participation in MSPs as part of a wider political strategy. We conclude by proposing concrete actions to support more accountable MSPs."

In natural resource governance, there has been a drive for increased decentralization through stakeholder engagement. One of the go-to solutions for policymakers and program managers is to develop Multistakeholder Platforms (MSPs). MSPs have become an increasingly common approach to structure sustained and meaningful stakeholder participation. With the proliferation of cooperative arrangements for natural resource governance at a transboundary scale, there has been an increasing number of transboundary river basin MSPs. This paper reviews the state of research on transboundary MSPs, with a focus on water resource management, to inform a research agenda on transboundary resource governance. We argue that MSPs can be an important mechanism to improve governance in shared basins, depending on the actors, process and context. However, more research is needed to better understand the relationship between cross-sectoral MSPs and existing formal governance institutions. We propose six avenues for research to improve transboundary MSPs in theory and practice.