Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-lnqnp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T04:57:44.174Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

11 - How Are Land-Use Multi-stakeholder Fora Affected by Their Contexts?

Perspectives from Two Regions of the Peruvian Amazon

from Part II - Tools to Address Wicked Problems

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 July 2020

By
Juan Pablo Sarmiento Barletti  and
Anne M. Larson
Edited by
William Nikolakis  and
John L. Innes
William Nikolakis
Affiliation:
University of British Columbia, Vancouver
John L. Innes
Affiliation:
University of British Columbia, Vancouver
Get access

Summary

Multi-stakeholder mechanisms have been touted as a more democratic and equitable alternative to forest and land use decision-making. It has been argued that these processes do not address power relations and thus maintain the status quo. In this chapter, we examine eight Multi-stakeholder fora in the Peruvian Amazon, half of which have been set up in the Madre de Dios region, and the other half in the San Martin region, both in the Peruvian Amazon. These regions represent two different poles of development paradigms in Peru. While the chapter does not provide a definitive answer around whether multi-stakeholder processes can address power inequalities, three preliminary ideal types are used to analyze these mechanisms, drawn from a realist synthesis review of the literature: decision-making, management and influence. This chapter illuminates how multi-stakeholder fora are affected by their contexts, as well as their process and outcomes.

Keywords

Multi-stakeholder foraPeruAmazonIdeal typesProcessesOutcomes
Type
Chapter
Information
The Wicked Problem of Forest Policy
A Multidisciplinary Approach to Sustainability in Forest Landscapes
 , pp. 301 - 327
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2020

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Barnes, G. and Child, B., editors. 2014. Adaptive Cross-Scalar Governance of Natural Resources. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Bebbington, A. and Hinojosa Valencia, L.. 2011. Conclusiones: minería, neoliberalización y reterritorialización en el desarrollo rural. Pages 311–343 in Bebbington, A., editor. Minería, Movimientos Sociales y Respuestas Campesinas. Una Ecología Política de Transformaciones Territoriales. Lima, Peru: Instituto de Estudios Peruanos.Google Scholar
Chambers, R. 1983. Rural Development; Putting the Last First. Harlow: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
Chambers, R. 2006. Transforming power: from zero sum to win-win? IDS Bulletin 37(6):1–12.Google Scholar
Chambers, R., Pacey, A. and Thrupp, L. A., editors. 1989. Farmer First: Farmer Innovation and Agricultural Research. London: Intermediate Technology Publications.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cooke, B. and Kothari, U., editors. 2001. Participation: The New Tyranny? New York: Zed Books.Google Scholar
Cornwall, A. 2003. Whose voices? Whose choices? Reflections on gender and participatory development. World Development 31(8):1325–1342.Google Scholar
Denier, L., Scherr, S., Shames, S., et al. 2015. The Little Sustainable Landscapes Book. Oxford: Global Canopy Programme.Google Scholar
Dougill, A. J., Fraser, E. D. G., Holden, J., et al. 2006. Learning from doing participatory rural research: lessons from the Peak District National Park. Journal of Agricultural Economics 57:259–275.Google Scholar
Fishman, A., Oliveira, E. and Gamble, L.. 2017. Tackling Deforestation through a Jurisdictional Approach: Lessons from the Field. Gland, Switzerland: WWF.Google Scholar
Fujisaki, T., Hyakumura, K., Scheyvens, H. and Cadman, T.. 2016. Does REDD plus ensure sectoral coordination and stakeholder participation? A comparative analysis of REDD plus national governance structures in countries of Asia-Pacific Region. Forests 7(9): Article 195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gardner, E. 2012. Peru battles the golden curse of Madre de Dios. Nature 486:306–307.Google Scholar
Hickey, S. and Mohan, G.. 2005a. Participation: From Tyranny to Transformation? Exploring New Approaches to Participation in Development. London: Zed Books.Google Scholar
Hickey, S. and Mohan, G.. 2005b. Relocating participation within a radical politics of development. Development and Change 36(2):237–262.Google Scholar
Hughes, N. 2010. Indigenous protest in Peru: the “orchard dog” bites back. Social Movement Studies 9(1):85–90.Google Scholar
Kowler, L. F., Ravinkumar, A., Larson, A. M., Rodriguez-Ward, D. and Burga, C.. 2016. Analyzing Multilevel Governance in Peru: Lessons for REDD+ from the Study of Land-Use Change and Benefit Sharing in Madre de Dios, Ucayali and San Martin. Bogor, Indonesia: CIFOR.Google Scholar
Kusters, K. 2015. Climate-Smart Landscapes and the Landscape Approach: An Exploration of the Concepts and Their Practical Implications. Wageningen: Tropenbos International.Google Scholar
Minang, P. A., van Noordwijk, M., Freeman, O. E., et al., editors. 2015. Climate-Smart Landscapes: Multifunctionality in Practice. Nairobi: ICRAF.Google Scholar
Monterroso, I., Cronkleton, P., Pinedo, D. and Larson, A.. 2017. Reinvindicacion de Derechos Colectivos: Reformas de Tenencia de Tierras y Bosques en el Peru (1960–2016). Bogor, Indonesia: CIFOR.Google Scholar
Pedroni, L., Dutschke, M., Streck, C. and Estrada, M.. 2009. Creating incentives for avoiding further deforestation: the nested approach. Climate Policy 9:207–220.Google Scholar
Reed, M. 2008. Stakeholder participation for environmental management: a literature review. Biological Conservation 141:2417–2431.Google Scholar
Reed, M., Dougill, A. J. and Baker, T.. 2008. Participatory indicator development: what can ecologists and local communities learn from each other? Ecological Applications 18:1253–1269.Google Scholar
Robbins, P. 2012. Political Ecology: A Critical Introduction. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Rodriguez-Ward, D., Larson, A. M. and Gordillo-Ruesta, H. A.. 2018. Top-down, bottom-up and sideways: the multilayered complexities of multi-level actors shaping forest governance and REDD+ arrangements in Madre de Dios, Peru. Environmental Management 62(1):98–116.Google Scholar
Sarmiento Barletti, J. P. 2011. Kametsa Asaiki: The Pursuit of the ‘Good Life’ in an Ashaninka Village. PhD thesis, University of St Andrews.Google Scholar
Sarmiento Barletti, J. P. 2016. The angry earth: wellbeing, place, and extractive development in the Amazon. Journal for Applied Anthropology in Policy and Practice 23(3):43–53.Google Scholar
Sarmiento Barletti, J. P., Larson, A. M., Hewlett, C. and Delgado, D.. 2020. Designing for engagement: A Realist Synthesis Review of how context affects the outcomes of multi-stakeholder forums on land use and/or land-use change. World Development 127.Google Scholar
Thompson, M. C., Baruah, M. and Carr, E. R.. 2011. Seeing REDD+ as a project of environmental governance. Environmental Science & Policy 14:100–110.Google Scholar
Tippett, J., Handley, J. F. and Ravetz, J.. 2007. Meeting the challenges of sustainable development – a conceptual appraisal of a new methodology for participatory ecological planning. Progress in Planning 67(1):1–98.Google Scholar
Weber, M. 1952. The essentials of bureaucratic organization: an ideal-type construction. Pages 18–27 in Merton, R. K., Gray, A. P., Hockey, B. and Selvin, H. C., editors. Reader in Bureaucracy. New York: The Free Press.Google Scholar
White, D. F., Rudy, A. P. and Gareau, B. J.. 2015. Environments, Natures and Social Theory towards a Critical Hybridity. London: Palgrave.Google Scholar
Williams, G. 2004. Evaluating participatory development: tyranny, power and (re)politicisation. Third World Quarterly 25(3):557–578.Google Scholar
Wilson, Z. and Perret, S.. 2010. Participation in water resource and services governance in South Africa: caught in the Acts. Pages 183–200 in Berry, K. and Mollard, E., editors. Social Participation in Water Governance and Management: Critical and Global Perspectives. London: Earthscan.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×