Global green deals, such as the European Union Deforestation Regulation (EUDR), aim to enhance the environmental governance of key commodities, including palm oil, cocoa, timber, and soy, by requiring them to be deforestation-free, legally sourced, and traceable. EUDR poses both challenges and opportunities for producing countries. This study explores how Indonesia's palm oil sector can align with EUDR-defined sustainability standards through inclusive and systemic approaches. We employed a participatory Theory of Change involving key stakeholders across the palm oil value chain, supported by systems dynamic modeling to simulate trade-offs and identify strategic pathways toward sustainability. The approach revealed inevitable trade-offs between economic, ecological, and social dimensions. Practical solutions are available to support EUDR compliance by reducing deforestation and illegal activity while sustaining the palm oil economy. These include production intensification, certification, carbon credit, payment for environmental services, and ecological fiscal transfers from the central government. These strategies have been collaboratively developed and endorsed by both the government and stakeholders. Indonesia's experience demonstrates that participatory, system-based methods can facilitate alignment with global sustainability regulations while addressing local priorities. The lessons and approaches apply to other environmentally sensitive commodities and geographies that aim to meet global environmental and social standards.

Key messages• As REDD+ countries move towards results-based payments, there is a need to examine the operationalization of safeguards and their roles in the recognition and respect of the rights of Indigenous Peoples and local communities (IPs and LCs).• This Infobrief presents lessons from research into the perceptions of different REDD+ stakeholders regarding the implementation of safeguards under the BioCarbon Fund Initiative for Sustainable Forest Landscapes in Jambi Province, Indonesia.• The multilateral financial organization's involvement in REDD+ results-based agreements may provide a pathway for more rights-responsive safeguards than Indonesia's interpretation of the Cancun safeguards for REDD+.• The operationalization of safeguards could be improved through more inclusive implementation of activities; promoting gender justice throughout the process, including strengthening communities' access to information; and engaging with NGOs and CSOs to facilitate relevant processes with communities.• Project proponents should also incorporate independent monitoring of rights-related issues to ensure community access to rights and to REDD+ benefits; and strengthen grievance mechanisms, especially those that already exist at the local level.• Fostering the establishment of a provincial government regulation on recognizing customary (adat) communities is essential for addressing tenure issues in the region, and simplifying subnational processes through which such communities are recognized as 'legal entities'.Peoples and local communities (IPs and LCs), including compliance with rights recognized under key documents such as the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) and International Labour Organization (ILO) Convention No. 169 on Indigenous and Tribal Peoples.This is important, as not all countries recognize Indigenous Peoples as per international law, which will impact how safeguards are interpreted at the national level.For example Indonesia has not ratified ILO Convention No. 169 as the government deems its definition of Indigenous Peoples inappropriate to the Indonesian context (Tamara et al. 2022).With REDD+ countries moving towards results-based payments, and different financial pathways opening up for carbon transactions, concerns remain about the potential impact on communities.There is a need to clarify and understand experiences with safeguards so far, including their role in catalysing efforts to move from REDD+ initiatives that 'do no harm' to ones that 'do better' for community rights.

Over the past two decades, growing recognition of forest-based Indigenous peoples and local communities (IPs and LCs) sparked forest tenure reforms to formalize IP and LC rights to forests and forest lands through a variety of mechanisms. Nevertheless, tenure security, an intended objective of such reforms, has received less attention, despite being integral to the life and livelihoods of IPs and LCs and important for forests. Formal rights - a title, certificate or contract - is often used as an inadequate proxy for security, though the need to understand perception has been increasingly recognized. But understanding perceptions around tenure (in)security also raises the challenge of unpacking what people mean when they say they perceive tenure to be secure or insecure. This article explores perceptions of tenure (in)security using a novel approach – Participatory Prospective Analysis (PPA), a multi-stakeholder foresight scenario-building method. The research explores tenure security scenarios in Indonesia, Peru and Uganda drawing on results from a series of workshops implemented in 2015 and 2016 primarily at subnational level, with 177 government officials, practitioners and members of community level organizations involved in forest tenure reforms. Four women-only workshops (three subnational and one national) were organized in Peru and Uganda with an additional 87 participants. The results demonstrate the immense depth and complexity of tenure security and insecurity perceptions and the interplay of multiple factors driving toward and away from desirable futures. The method also demonstrates the benefits of PPA for bringing together different perspectives and promoting mutual understanding without reducing complexity. The article contributes to efforts to find common ground not only around how tenure (in)security is defined but also how it is being assessed; and points to the need to embrace more holistic approaches in practice for the future of forest dependent communities and forest landscapes.

Global biodiversity targets have not been met due to weak implementation at the national level. National Biodiversity Strategies and Action Plans (NBSAPs) are central for mainstreaming biodiversity by translating global ambition into national policies. This study analyzes the practical role of global and national biodiversity agendas. Interviews from France, Germany, Honduras, Indonesia, Mexico, Peru, Rwanda, and South Africa show that global targets and NBSAPs have raised awareness, mobilized initiatives, mobilized support for implementation, and fostered accountability. Nevertheless, conflicting interests, weak financial support, and poorly integrated institutional and regulatory structures remain challenges to implementation. Levers for harnessing the role of future NBSAPs to achieve the goals and targets of the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework are: improving communication; defining concrete measures and clear responsibilities; fostering cross-sectoral commitment; enshrining targets into national laws; ensuring adequate public funding; reforming harmful subsidies; ensuring coordination among sectors and levels of governance; and strengthening accountability frameworks.

Liswanti et al. begin with a literature review on the role of trust in multi-stakeholder forums (MSFs) – something widely considered important. They use the work of Stern and Baird, which identifies four bases of trust: (1) dispositional (based on personal traits, hearsay), (2) rational (based on expectation of outcomes resulting from action), (3) affinitive (based on feelings of shared values or connectedness), and (4) system-based (due to fair and transparent procedures). The authors briefly describe the site, the MSF, and their methods. They use Q-methodology, which involves asking respondents to express their agreement or disagreement with a series of locally developed value statements, relating to the MSF. The authors analyze these responses as to the ways they indicate trust and approval (or lack thereof) regarding the MSF. Although MSF functioning was not without challenges, this analysis attributes its impressive and long-lasting successes to its members’ effective cooperation, excellent and relatively unbiased facilitation, and a shared vision – all contributing to the growth of trust within the group.

As forest tenure reform is mainstreamed around the world, outcomes are increasingly determined by the institutions that are responsible for administering its operationalisation and translating policy into implementation. This global study examines state institutional contexts of tenure reform in Kenya, Uganda, Nepal, Indonesia, and Peru. Interviews were administered in 2016–2017 using a fixed questionnaire applied across all countries involving 26–32 respondents from state implementers of forest tenure reform in each country for a total of 145 respondents. Although our study engagement was tailored for specific country contexts, we identified generalisable forest tenure reform trends through comparative analysis. Findings situate the overall bridging role that state institutions play in forest tenure reform, which we describe as falling under three key overarching coordination functions, namely: coordination among implementers, coordination of objectives, and coordination of resources. These three categories provide insights not only for gauging the progress of a country's forest tenure reform, but also for evaluating how robust reforms have been, and where forest tenure reforms are headed in the future.

This data was recorded as part of CIFOR’s GCS-REDD. “Integrating REDD+ with development goals at the landscape level: the role of multi-stakeholder forums in subnational jurisdictions” sought to examine 13 subnational MSFs addressing land and resource-use sustainability in terms of equity and effectiveness. Research included 13 subnational case studies in Brazil, Ethiopia, Indonesia and Peru; and 1 national case study in Brazil. The project had ten different data collection instruments. Research included a wide range of interviewees in order to compare and contrast the views of different stakeholders and their different forms of involvement (or absence). The data has been organized according to the type of interview/data collected. Each section is presented in a different file. • Section 1: National level data (secondary data, sources are specified in the database) • Section 2: Jurisdictional/region level data (secondary data, sources are specified in the database) • Section 3: MSF typology table (completed in interviews with MSF organizers) • Section 4: Key context questionnaire (implemented with context experts) • Section 5: Theory of change questionnaire (implemented with MSFs’ organizers) • Section 6: Q-methodology (implemented with MSF organizers and participants) • Section 7: Participants questionnaire (implemented with MSF participants) • Section 8: Non-participant questionnaire (implemented with relevant stakeholders who did not participate in an MSF) • Section 9: Partial participant questionnaire (implemented with MSF participants who stopped attending or did not regularly attend a forum) • Section 10: Non-participant focus group questionnaire (implemented with non-participants in a focus group form)

Multi-stakeholder forums (MSFs) are coordination spaces that enable discussions, negotiations, and joint planning between different kinds of actors. Proponents of MSFs claim that bringing different actors to the same table may help solve complex problems. Nevertheless, an MSF's process and outcomes are affected by its leadership and whether participants are able to trust each other. This paper examines the influence of trust and leadership in three MSFs addressing land and resource use in three subnational jurisdictions in Indonesia. The comparative analysis of semi-structured and Q-methodology interviews carried out with MSF participants and non-participants demonstrates the following. First, that the presence of conflicting interests of different stakeholders can hinder trust-building and cooperation. Understanding the historical relationships between stakeholders, including any positive informal relationships, is necessary to build a better strategy to handle antagonism and improve collaboration. Second, different challenges within MSFs require different kinds of leadership. A shared leadership may work in an MSF with participants with a history of positive relationships. A charismatic leader is preferable in MSFs with conflicts of interest or where participants are yet to trust each other.

In the midst of global change uncertainties, Indonesian spatial planning authorities are developing 20-year strategies. However, the lack of collaborative engagement of stakeholders and unclear methodology around using futures studies in addressing land management undermine such plans and affect environmental governance. A crucial question is how to link a future-oriented process with governance transformation processes, particularly related to land-use planning and management. To address this issue, we used a co-elaborative scenario-building approach, referred to as participatory prospective analysis (PPA), to facilitate the creation of local multistakeholder platforms considering future-oriented perspectives. The PPA design combines equally the knowledge of local communities, technical experts and decision-makers, and was applied in a series of sequential multistakeholder workshops in two regencies in Indonesia, followed by public consultations on the main results. In both regencies, participants agreed on a common topic related to spatial planning in their jurisdiction to be explored with a 20-year time horizon. They reached consensus on relevant variables, analyzed their dependence/influence, and developed several plausible yet contrasting scenarios for land management and road maps with guidelines for the implementation of desired outcomes. The PPA approach stimulated stakeholder engagement and ensured that more local voices were not only heard but also duly included in the process. It allowed participants to consider strategies that would otherwise have been less readily accepted by their respective organizations. It showed that it is possible to improve existing spatial planning processes in Indonesia by integrating tools for a more inclusive and long-term future-oriented collaborative approach.

This guide explains how to operationalize inclusion of women, Indigenous Peoples and other under-represented groups in multi-stakeholder forums (MSFs).Around the world, MSFs have been promoted and adopted as decision making, consultation and dialogue platforms to bring together diverse constituencies to share ideas and formulate decisions in a more open and equitable. Research finds that MSFs organizers believed that their forums foster equity simply by inviting more under-represented actors to the table; however, they spend less effort in addressing the power inequalities among participants and the quality of the participation and representation of historically under-represented groups.Getting it right focuses on the inclusion of women and Indigenous Peoples in natural resource management and governance contexts. In particular, we analyzed how these actors participate and/or are represented in spaces such as forest user group committees, co-management groups or forest commodity roundtable meetings. Our hope is that presenting cases of women and Indigenous Peoples provides insights into how different dimensions of social differentiation intersect in practice, pushing us to look at these different scales and inform us about other under-represented groups.Getting it right provides several tools that are designed to operationalize inclusion at specific trigger points where we believe action is most effective. Our goal with this guide is to present ideas, not solutions; the challenges to inclusion are complex, and unique to every MSF.

Nous remercions tous nos partenaires financiers qui ont soutenu ce travail de recherche par leur

Esta guia explica como llevar a la practica la inclusion de las mujeres, los pueblos indigenas y otros grupos subrepresentados en los foros multiactor (FMA). Los FMA han sido promovidos como medios para reunir a diferentes actores con el fin de compartir ideas y opiniones y tomar decisiones de una forma mas abierta y equitativa en una variedad de temas y niveles, desde negociaciones mundiales sobre el cambio climatico hasta decisiones locales sobre el uso de los bosques. Sin embargo, en la practica, la evidencia muestra que las mujeres y los pueblos indigenas con frecuencia estan subrepresentados o carecen de influencia en las iniciativas multiactor. Como acertar aborda este desafio poniendo a disposicion varias herramientas disenadas para llevar a la practica la inclusion en puntos de activacion especificos donde la accion sera mas eficaz.

Ce manuel explique comment se servir d'Ou en sommes nous ?, outil qui permet de reflechir et d’assurer un suivi participatif dans les forums multipartites (multi-stakeholder forums ou MSF en anglais). Ces MSF sont des espaces ou un vaste eventail de parties prenantes, concernees par une region ou un sujet particulier, entament un dialogue, prennent des decisions et/ou mettent en oeuvre des activites en vue de realiser des objectifs communs lies au paysage. Ou en sommes nous ? est utile pour instaurer des conditions permettant a un forum multipartite d’atteindre son ou ses objectif(s) equitablement et efficacement. Nous indiquons ici etape par etape le processus a suivre. Les forums multipartites suscitent de plus en plus l’attention dans le monde parce qu’ils peuvent ameliorer la collaboration entre differents acteurs, divers secteurs et niveaux de gouvernance pour s’atteler a des defis complexes impossibles a resoudre par un seul acteur. Ils peuvent aussi faire intervenir des acteurs qui, au cours de l’histoire, n’ont pas pu (ou n’ont pas ete autorises a) prendre part aux decisions relatives a l’utilisation des terres et aux problemes y afferents, et/ou a la conception d’initiatives susceptibles d’affecter leurs droits, leur territoire, leur vie et leurs moyens de subsistance. Ce manuel est le fruit de la collaboration entre des membres de MSF et des chercheurs du Centre de recherche forestiere internationale (CIFOR). Cette collaboration est nee du besoin de mettre a la disposition des participants des MSF un outil simple qui leur permette d’assurer un suivi de leur forum, de reflechir a leurs processus et a leurs resultats pour les ameliorer. Le CIFOR a donc organise une serie d’ateliers participatifs en Indonesie et au Perou pour elaborer Ou en sommes nous ?, pour reflechir aux actions reussies des forums multipartites (comme a celles qui l’ont ete un peu moins) afin d’en degager des enseignements, examiner les progres realises par rapport a l’objectif ou aux objectifs, comme les problemes rencontres et ceux qui restent a surmonter, et enfin pour assurer la planification annuelle des activites. Ou en sommes nous ? se demarque des autres outils sur trois plans. Tout d’abord, il a ete developpe avec la participation des membres de plusieurs forums multipartites sous-nationaux. Deuxiemement, il a ete concu pour etre utilise par les participants des forums eux-memes, et non pour etre applique par des evaluateurs externes. Et troisiemement, son objectif va plus loin qu’une simple evaluation d’indicateurs puisqu’il invite les participants a debattre de leurs reponses pour y reflechir. La finalite de cette reflexion est de tirer des enseignements du passe, d’envisager des pistes de progres et les obstacles eventuels, et de s’organiser collectivement en vue de parvenir aux objectifs du forum pour l’avenir.

• Land and forest tenure reform has been expanding globally, increasingly with the aim of improving the livelihoods and food security of indigenous people and local communities through securing forest access. • In Indonesia, legal rights for local communities to access and manage state forests were partially recognised in 1999. Social forestry only started to advance in 2014, however, following the government’s pledge to transfer the management of 12.7 million ha of forest to forest-dependent communities. Evaluating the impact of these forest tenure reforms on local communities’ food security is critical to understanding the effectiveness of the reforms. • CIFOR has developed a framework to assess the impact of forest tenure reform in Indonesia by comparing the perception of current levels of food security and the perception of changes in food security of communities living in areas that have undergone forest tenure reform with those living in non-reformed forest areas. • Communities’ perceptions of food security are influenced more by household characteristics and level of village development than by forest tenure reform status – the higher the village development, the greater the perception of food security. However, communities that have undergone forest tenure reform are more likely to perceive that their food security status has improved than those who have not. • Communities in customary areas perceived higher food security, however those who had poor access to forests previously, such as those in reform areas, benefitted from forest access through reforms and thus perceived an improvement in food security conditions. Nining Liswanti, Deborah Kirby, Ade Tamara, Kartika Sari Juniwaty and Esther Mwangi

Key messages Financial mechanisms and climate change-related interventions should prioritize activities that are locally adapted and accessible for both genders, considering the different roles and constraints of each gender. Ministries responsible for climate action require a specifically tagged budget to enable interventions to be gender-responsive. The gender-specific indicators provided in this study can support ministries responsible for delivering climate action to include gender within the Indonesian KRISNA (‘Collaborative Planning and Budget Performance Information’) budget system. On-the-ground interventions need to acknowledge the necessity of integrating women and the poor as vital allies in achieving climate change adaptation and mitigation objectives – from the design phase through all stages of implementation – and translate this into pro-poor and gender-responsive strategic planning and operational guidance. Building the institutional capacities of stakeholders is required at all levels so that plans and actions can be synergized, and different finance sources can be combined to ensure positive gender and pro poor outcomes and the long-term sustainability of finance mechanisms. Gender-responsive budgeting needs to include gender variables in monitoring at all levels: this includes indicators for immediate and intermediate results that act as stepping stones in changing longer-term gender relations, therefore contributing to gender transformational change. Indicators need to go beyond the usual economic assessments, to look at the social factors related to decisionmaking processes, agenda setting, the representation of women in institutions, their access to assets and markets, and capacity building.

2-HOW ARE WE DOING ?-This handbook explains how to implement How are we doing?, a tool that enables participatory reflective monitoring in multi-stakeholder forums (MSFs).MSFs, or multi-stakeholder platforms, as they are often called, are spaces that include a wide range of stakeholders in a topic or region, to engage in dialogue, decision making and/or the implementation of activities for common landscape goals.How are we doing?supports enabling conditions to allow the MSF to achieve its goal(s) equitably and effectively.Here we provide a step-by-step process on how to use it.