This document discusses lessons learned from using multi-stakeholder partnerships (MSPs) for intervention and research. Key lessons include: (1) MSPs require aligning goals and methods to ensure effective participation; (2) problem-based approaches can be slow without tangible progress in over a year; (3) externally-driven programs can fuel conflicts if they ignore existing local institutions. Strength-based approaches that build self-confidence and contribute to existing local mechanisms were more successful. Effective communication, trust-building and working with reputable local partners also supported MSP goals. Challenges include the long timelines required across multiple institutions.

1. Using MSPs for intervention and
research: lessons learned
E. Linda Yuliani
6 June 2022
Bogor

2. Experience from:
• Adaptive Collaborative Management/ACM (Jambi)
• Linking Agroforestry and Forestry Knowledge/AgFOR GOV component and USAID PEER (South and SE Sulawesi)
• USAID PEER and COLANDS (West Kalimantan)

3. What do we use MSPs for?
Facilitation
tool
Research

4. Influence/intervention tool:
To facilitate
Good
governance
principles
Learning
(individual,
collective)
Mutual
understanding,
joint solution
Network,
collective action,
relation
Adaptive
capacity &
resilience
Relevance
(policy, program,
ToC) across levels
& SH groups

5. Research
Data
collection &
triangulation
Governance
principles in
practice
Perception,
knowledge
Motivation
& capacity,
e.g. CBNA
Behavior,
norms, rules
Grounded theory
variables, local
indicators
Dynamics, power,
decision-making
in practice
e.g. types of
participation
Gaps,
recommendation

6. Lessons learned: what did not work (1):
• Mismatched between goals and
methods/approaches used
• Assumption that facilitating/
creating/ organizing MSP would
directly ensure participation,
equity, collective action etc.

7. What did not work (2):
Problem-based approach  very slow, > 1 year without any
progress
Joint solutions
& plan
Slow follow up, relying
at each others, “who’s
going to do it?”

8. Causes: low morale, lack of self-motivation, issues of structural
variables
The planned
activities are not
in my job-list No
budget
We are
incapable Don’t know
how to start
No
umbrella
regulation
Not our
institution’s
mandate
The problem
is too big to
solve
I have to farming
otherwise no
food and income

9. What did not work (3):
Externally-driven programs: fueled conflicts, competition, inequity
• Relational values (irreplaceable)
are treated as instrumental values
(replaceable)  value-conflicts
• Forming a new formal institution,
ignoring existing traditional
institution  competition,
disempowering IPLC

10. What worked?
• Strength-based approach e.g.
Appreciative Inquiry  build self-
confidence and realistic plan 
achievement of the MSP goals
• Build from the existing local
mechanisms similar to MSP,
contribute and add value to
strengthen capacity  more relevant
regulations and programs,
sustainability beyond project period

11. What worked?
• Communication, coordination, trust-
building, mutual respect: day-to-day,
not only in formal event
• Work with local partner institutions
that has long presence and good
reputation in the project location

12. Some publications:

13. Challenges
• Long process, multiple layers,
multiple timelines, multiple
institutions and rules  be careful in
preparing project ToC
• Multiple reports/ documentation/
outputs, multiple languages
• Data: field notes  spreadsheet
Despite of these challenges, it’s important, and enjoyable and nice to work on...

14. cifor-icraf.org | globallandscapesforum.org | resilient-landscapes.org
The Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR) and World Agroforestry (ICRAF) envision a more equitable world
where trees in all landscapes, from drylands to the humid tropics, enhance the environment and well-being for all.
CIFOR and ICRAF are CGIAR Research Centers.
Thank you