Abstract
AbstractMultistakeholder forums (MSFs) are applied in territorial planning with the goal of bringing together diverse actors in decision‐making, allowing the participation and empowerment of indigenous and local communities, protecting their territories, and promoting community‐based conservation efforts. However, important questions remain. How are territorial planning MSFs shaped by context and power? Can they represent communities' diversity, respect their ancestral rights, and bring real change? This article explores how context and power affect the capacities and challenges of territorial planning MSFs to include, represent, empower, and benefit communities. Examining actors' perceptions, we comparatively analyze two cases, in two Brazilian states with contrasting contexts. We conclude that territorial planning MSFs are highly political spaces influenced by complexities in context, power relations, and communities' diversity. They may include, represent, and empower communities and help recognize and conserve their territories, but not necessarily. Especially in difficult settings, communities face more challenges than other actors to be represented and participate at MSFs, and territorial planning may empower or “invisibilize” communities. Other mechanisms (e.g., social action) can be key for communities instead of, or in synergy with, MSFs.
Highlights
The rise of community-based conservation (CBC) focused environmental and development efforts on the rights and interests of indigenous and local communities (Chiaravalloti, 2019), as well as improving forest conservation, collaboration, and conflict mitigation (Alvarez Barriga, 2015; Campos-Silva, Hawes, Andrade, & Peres, 2018; Engen, Fauchald, & Hausner, 2019; Garnett et al, 2018; Souza, 2018)
Multistakeholder forums (MSFs) have been proposed as a way to bring diverse actors together in coordinated and collective decision-making toward sustainable land uses, as well as to empower and benefit local peoples through their participation (Brenner, 2019; see Sarmiento Barletti, Larson, Hewlett, & Delgado, 2020 for a review)
To examine how MSFs can support CBC efforts and indigenous and traditional populations and communities (ITPCs) more generally, we explore how these contrasting settings led to different experiences of participation of ITPCs in their ZEE processes, with different outcomes
Summary
MSFs may put ITPC's recognized rights up for discussion with other actors rather than empower them (Asefa, Mengesha, & Almaw, 2019; Chauvin, 2019; McGinnis, 2011) This may hinder devolutionism, a key aspect of community-based natural resource management (Jones & Murphree, 2004). We comparatively analyze the ZEE commissions of the Brazilian states of Acre and Mato Grosso These cases represent two extremes in terms of historical contexts and power dynamics. We analyze actors' perceptions on whether the ZEE commissions, considering context and power dynamics in each site, included, represented, empowered, and brought positive outcomes for ITPCs. acknowledging the importance of local voices, we explore the perceptions of ITPCs about MSFs in general; whether they believe or not in MSFs as a transformative solution for more equitable and effective decision-making processes, and why
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
