Abstract

As interest grows in supporting multi-stakeholder forums (MSFs) to address land-use and climate change, it is important to understand how these processes operate from the perspectives of their participants. The academic literature on their equity largely presents a dichotomy: participatory processes either allow for horizontal decision-making with more equitable and effective outcomes for local populations, or they mask technologies of governance that do not address – and may reinforce – structures of inequality. These two perspectives downplay the different, complex and sometimes nuanced perceptions and experiences of participation. In order to better understand these nuances, the authors applied Q-methodology to analyse and compare the perceptions of MSF participants and organisers in four forums in the Peruvian Amazon. The research finds that participants are often optimistic about the forums, but at the same time they are aware of risks; and that groups falling into both camps may be just as likely to fail to address inequality among participants but for different reasons. The results help identify points of convergence and divergence, and potential ways forward to help construct more equitable and effective MSFs.

摘要

随着支持多方利益相关者论坛 (MSF) 以解决土地利用和气候变化的兴趣日益浓厚，从参与者的角度了解这些过程如何运作非常重要。关于其公平性的学术文献在很大程度上呈现出二分法：参与性过程要么允许横向决策，为当地人口带来更公平和有效的结果，要么掩盖了不能解决 - 并且可能会加强 - 不平等结构的治理技术。这两种观点淡化了参与的不同、复杂、有时微妙的感知和体验。为了更好地理解这些细微差别，作者应用 Q 方法来分析和比较秘鲁亚马逊四个论坛中无国界医生组织参与者和组织者的看法。研究发现，参与者往往对论坛持乐观态度，但同时也意识到风险；落入两个阵营的群体可能同样可能无法解决参与者之间的不平等问题，但原因不同。结果有助于确定趋同点和分歧点，以及帮助构建更公平和有效的无国界医生的潜在途径。