**4. Discussion**

The objective of the GLA program is to strengthen the role of CSOs to contribute to inclusive landscape governance for sustainable development. The landscape governance assessments conducted at the start of the program helped to shed a light on the various perceptions on landscape governance processes, and the desired changes in the future. Discussing ways to improve governance, workshop participants often would stress the need for some kind of multi-stakeholder process, to bring stakeholders together to discuss, negotiate, and develop common solutions to challenges in the landscape.

This is in concordance with literature on landscape approaches and integrated landscape initiatives, which stress the importance of multi-stakeholder arrangements, enabling processes of negotiation, learning, and adaptation between diverse stakeholders across scales, sectors, and knowledge systems [2–5,35]. Efforts to implement a landscape approach often aim to develop or strengthen institutional arrangements for multi-stakeholder processes, for example in the form of platforms, coalitions, forums, partnerships, and co-managemen<sup>t</sup> boards. These are spaces where public, private, and civil society actors can discuss their respective agendas, and collaboratively identify options to balance the various interests that exist in the landscape [12,36,37]. Failure to develop a common agenda, and e ffectively engage di fferent stakeholders is seen as a main cause of poor performance of landscape approaches [2,38].

In line with the above, several GLA partner CSOs took on the role of convening multi-stakeholder processes in their landscapes, providing opportunities for stakeholders to share ideas, identify common principles, and develop collaborative action. This has been a process of trial and error. Below we highlight general lessons related to the role of CSOs in convening multi-stakeholder processes to strengthen landscape governance, based on our own experiences in the GLA program and discussions with GLA partners.

#### *4.1. Build Capacity and Trust First*

Convening organizations will need to consider carefully whether the necessary conditions for effective and inclusive multi-stakeholder processes are in place. Two of the most important conditions are trust and capacity among actors in the landscape. When the level of trust is low, stakeholders may not even want to sit at the same table, for example because they are intimidated by other actors, or skeptical of their intentions. Moreover, marginalized groups may neither have the capacity nor the confidence to meaningfully engage in discussions and negotiations with other stakeholders. In such cases, it is necessary to first focus e fforts on improving trust between stakeholders, and building the capacity of weaker actors, for example by helping smallholders and indigenous communities to organize themselves, access relevant information, learn about their rights, and develop negotiation skills.

#### *4.2. Provide Clarity about Goals and Expectations*

Multi-stakeholder processes have high opportunity and transaction costs for all involved [39], and stakeholders are more likely to engage if they expect that the long-term rewards will outweigh the costs, be it monetary or otherwise [2]. CSOs that convene multi-stakeholder processes will therefore need to be explicit about goals. The identification of a concrete challenge that connects the various stakeholders can act as a common agenda. After a short- or medium-term goal has been determined, the convenor will have to define the expected outcomes as clearly and realistically as possible, and communicate this with stakeholders. It should also provide clarity about responsibilities, timeframes, mandates, and the ability of the convenor to be engaged in follow-up activities. This is important to convince actors to participate in the process, as well as to prevent unrealistic expectations. The convenor will have to find a balance between defining a context-specific objective and expectations at the onset, while at the same time ensuring flexibility, so that stakeholders can adjust objectives over time.

#### *4.3. Engage the Private Sector*

In many landscapes private companies are main drivers of change, but they are often reluctant to engage in multi-stakeholder processes. Our experience with organizing the landscape governance assessment workshops serves as a case in point; private companies were not interested to participate, because they did not see how it could work in their advantage. To ensure private sector participation, convening organizations will need to proactively look for frontrunning companies, and develop a business case for their engagement. Some of the elements of the business case may be related

to the company's need to mitigate the risks of conflicts with communities, reputational damage, and decreasing long-term supply in the face of climate change and environmental degradation [40,41].

#### *4.4. Connect to Policy Processes*

The extent to which a multi-stakeholder process results in policy changes depends on the way it is connected to local governmen<sup>t</sup> agencies that are in charge of spatial planning and the development of land-use rules and regulations at the landscape level. CSOs may connect to these agencies by convening multi-stakeholder processes that provide direct input into ongoing policy debates and decision-making (e.g., the development or revision of a spatial plan), and by actively engaging senior governmen<sup>t</sup> o fficials in these processes [42]. Alternatively, rather than taking on the role of convenor, a CSO can assist a local governmen<sup>t</sup> agency to adopt and incorporate multi-stakeholder processes in its modus operandi. This is likely to require changes in governmen<sup>t</sup> procedures as well as attitudes. CSOs can help with building capacity and willingness within a local governmen<sup>t</sup> to adjust its role from authority to facilitator, guiding bottom-up processes, and opening up decision-making procedures for other stakeholders.

#### *4.5. Be Explicit about Interests and Values*

Landscape actors do not only have di fferent interests, they may also have di fferent values. To enable constructive discussions, convening organizations can help to create openness about stakeholders' values and intentions—including their own. These are not always explicit. Sometimes a CSO or a research institute functions as a bridging or boundary organization, which implies it does not have a clearly defined local objective. Instead, they support dialogue among stakeholders, aiming to contribute to the joint identification of challenges, mediating conflicts, and discussing solutions [18,43–45]. Such boundary organizations are seen as impartial by the other stakeholders, but they are not necessarily value neutral, as they often try to link local interests to global objectives, e.g., concerning climate change and biodiversity [46].

#### *4.6. Consider the Limitations of Interventions Establishing New Arrangements*

Multi-stakeholder processes are en vogue. As part of donor-funded landscape-level projects and programs, CSOs are increasingly expected to convene multi-stakeholder processes. This is often operationalized through the establishment of a new institutional arrangement, such as a platform or a managemen<sup>t</sup> board, where landscape actors can meet on a regular basis. It may raise complex questions concerning participation (who is invited? who shows up?) and representation (who represents who? are representatives accountable?). Furthermore, there is a risk that the institutional arrangemen<sup>t</sup> becomes a goal in itself—a box-ticking exercise to satisfy donor demands. Making sure that such an arrangemen<sup>t</sup> continues operating after donor support falls away requires firm embeddedness with an institutional host and continued facilitation [47]. We argue that e fforts to strengthen landscape governance need to build on what is already there, strengthening existing forms of collaboration and coordination in the landscape. This ensures embeddedness and local ownership. Emphasis should be on increasing the possibilities for local stakeholders to play a role in ongoing governance processes, by building trust and capacity, including understanding of governance processes. This demands a flexible and adaptive role of the convening organization, which is harder to plan for, and does not fit in well with more rigid project cycles.
