The (In)Ability of a Multi-Stakeholder Platform to Address Land Conflicts—Lessons Learnt from an Oil Palm Landscape in Myanmar

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Overview

The authors describe the experience of a multi-stakeholder platform (MSP) used to discuss and attempt to resolve land-conflict issues surrounding oil palm in southern Myanmar. They analyse the successes and failures of the MSP in the context of the existing literature on the subject, and conclude with a list of recommendations. The use of a rich narrative account enables the authors to show how small details, such as the lead facilitator’s skill, can have a significant impact on the ultimate outcomes of the process. The list of recommendations should be helpful for researchers and practitioners in the field (and could perhaps be highlighted in a table as one of the key outcomes of the paper). 

Minor comments:

I was not familiar with the term ‘Multi-stakeholder platform’. The definition L67 onwards is clear, but some examples would be helpful. e.g. is RSPO a multi-stakeholder platform? Is any venue where more than one stakeholder meets an MSP? What are the limits of the term? 

L119, I appreciate the note about the 2021 coup, and the effort taken to protect stakeholders’ anonymity and security. Although if the participating CSO and government department are anonymised, should KNU be anonymised as well for consistency? I realise these are hard choices because it’s in any case easy to work out who is who if you know the context, but potentially life or death for the people involved. 

A recently published paper led by Kevin Woods (Integrating Pixels, People, and Political Economy to Understand the Role of Armed Conflict and Geopolitics in Driving Deforestation: The Case of Myanmar. Remote Sens. 2021, 13(22), 4589; https://doi.org/10.3390/rs13224589) might be worth citing in discussing the relationship between civil war and agricultural expansion in Myanmar.

L293 - how was this literature selected? Systematically? Snowball sampling? 

Table 4 - is it a coincidence that the two goals communicated only by OneMap Myanmar were not achieved at all by the MSP? i.e. were OMM’s goals perceived as not internally relevant?  

The acknowledgement section is a nice touch and I hope the Myanmar contributors are all as ok and safe as possible in the circumstances. 

Minor writing edits:

L25: change ‘recommend to pay special attention to’ -> ‘recommend paying special attention to’ 

L42: I would rewrite this sentence as follows: ‘Many examples of top-down oil palm expansion as part of war- and state-making or elite-drive accumulation strategies alike have resulted in land dispossession, food insecurity, and the social and economic marginalisation of segments of the local population.’

L52: Delete ‘therewith’, sounds rather archaic in modern English. Maybe could rewrite as ‘peace, and consequently, sustainable development’

L126 - would rewrite the sentence ‘Myanmar has experienced one of the world’s longest running civil wars, starting shortly after its independence from the British Empire, and continuing through periods of military dictatorship from 1962-2010s. The fighting has been concentrated in the ethnic borderlands…’ 

L137 change ‘what fuelled’ -> ‘fuelling’ 

L176 - ‘to date, Myanmar’s land governance is characterised’ -> ‘to date, Myanmar’s land governance has been characterised’

L379 rewrite as ‘some stakeholders strongly criticised the insufficient representation of …. in the MSP’. 

L636 ‘communicated openly’ -> ‘openly communicated’

L643 ‘very many’ -> ‘many’ 

L937 ‘achieved creating’ -> ‘succeeded in creating’ 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 1.

Thank you very much for your very careful reading and for providing such useful comments! It was enriching to get your feedback and improving our article accordingly. Kindly see the attachment for a point-by-point answer.

With our best regards, the authors

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

1. The phenomenon of imbalance of power, domination of elite, and social-agrarian conflicts in the stakeholder analysis was a very interesting point of this manuscript. However, the manuscript did not yet offer a strong and clear scientific novelty in the form of conceptual ideas supporting the theory of persisting power disparities among stakeholders or theory of socio-agrarian conflicts that can be derived from this study. It is advisable to add a sub chapter (before the Chapter 6 Conclusion) used to discuss the scientific novelty of this study.
2. As mentioned in lines 320-321, the study used in-depth semi structured expert interviews as well as short narrative interviews as research methods. It would be better for the author to add case-boxes containing direct excerpts of narratives from in-depth interviews. With these case-boxes, the readers will be more appreciative in understanding the phenomena of persisting power disparities, longstanding land conflict history or ineffective communication processes of the MSP.
3. The absence of adequate spatial (land) data platform or credible data on land (lines 421-425) was very serious in that region. Do the authors believe that MSP can be used to provide sufficient spatial data or map of land covering the large scale of landscape? If not, it would also be advisable to suggest the use of GIS (Geographic Information System) as a technical solution for providing precise and accurate data on land property/ownership in the region. 
4. The Conclusion of Chapter 6 focused more on addressing second research question. Less description was given in Chapter 6, to address the first research question.   
5. In some chapters, there are lengthy explanations that may be shortened and be concise. 
6. It is suggested to add some reference about oil palm landscape governance from MDPI e.g., https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/14/3/1820 or  https://doi.org/10.3390/su131910839 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 2,

Thank you very much for your careful reading and your constructive suggestions and comments. Kindly see the attachment for our point-by-point answers.

Yours sincerely, the authors

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

1. I suggest a Title " Limits of xxxx
2. Can authors highlight WHAT worked as well?
3. Can they represent  301-315 in a diagram so we can appreciate the relationship
4. 385-390 was there a feedback mechanism
5. 392 is there an alternative heading that captures inconsistency and turnover of representatives
6. 401 and 379 is this not a same point that could be consolidated
7. 415 is about clarity and vagueness
8. 432-433 unclear 
9. 435  could it be risk aversion
10. There are too many overlapping subheadings could they be consolidated without losing the point
11. The silence and muted contributions and responses by various actors - is this part of the culture? response to a percieved risk and or act of resistance 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 3,

Thank you very much for taking the time to read and comment on our article. Kindly see our point-by-point answers attached.

Yours sincerely, the authors

Author Response File: Author Response.docx