By Charl-Thom Bayer, Francisco Carranza and Washe Kazungu. Originally published March 20, 2026 by the Land Portal Foundation. Republished from the original article under Creative Commons Attribution 4.0.
Related project: The Land Facility.
This blog is adapted from the presentation given by Charl-Thom Bayer & Francisco Carranza at the 5th International Land Management Conference on March 3, 2026.
Introduction
Despite the growing use of Multi-Stakeholder Platforms (MSPs) in the land governance sector, power asymmetries, siloed land governance functions, and fragmented information systems can undermine their effectiveness. This blog considers how the integration of MSPs with digital public platforms can move land governance initiatives beyond participatory dialogue.
MSPs generate discursive legitimacy, while digital public platforms generate informational legitimacy. Impact emerges when these forms of legitimacy converge within decision-making structures. Without integration, MSPs risk becoming consultative forums, and digital platforms risk becoming passive repositories. Together, they can shift land governance from episodic dialogue to structured, evidence-based, and accountable reform.
Beyond Participation: The Governance Role of Multi-Stakeholder Platforms
MSPs may take diverse forms but share a common purpose: to enable different actors to collectively address complex cross sectoral problems. Larsen and Baerletti (2022) define MSPs as “purposely organized interactive processes that bring together a range of stakeholders to participate in dialogue, decision making and/or implementation, with the aim to address a common problem or achieve a common goal”.
MSPs enhance planning coherence by bringing together actors from across the land sector, including environmental and mining interests, rural communities, civil society and government organisations into structured platforms. MSPs help to align competing mandates and reconcile siloed governance arrangements (Lah 2025). Regular engagement, open information sharing, clear decision rules, inclusion of marginalized voices, and follow through on commitments build trust.
However, trust depends on predictable institutional behavior; without it, even active participation and dialogue cannot prevent rapid erosion of trust. MSPs are often composed of actors with different positions about topics discussed. Those that are more experienced in negotiation environments and have the capacity to build alliances will win advantages. Furthermore, to increase the likelihood of success, MSPs require a neutral facilitator with technical knowledge and emotional intelligence to understand stakeholder dynamics. Objective guidance is critical to promote dialogue and trust (amongst stakeholders and of the process of achieving the goal itself).
While MSPs may be formal or informal, their effectiveness depends on alignment with institutional or administrative procedures to build trust and influence policy and decision making. Strongly embedded MSPs are recognized in legislation, linked to government ministries, have dedicated budgets, clear reporting obligations, and formal roles in policy formulation. While stronger embedding increases the potential for meaningful policy impact, it also introduces higher political constraints and requires careful navigation of bureaucratic and political dynamics.
The sustainability and accountability of MSPs depend on their funding model and institutional mandate. Donor-funded mechanisms that function as an MSP are typically accountable upward to donors. State-funded or legislated MSPs benefit from more stable resources and are accountable to parliaments, ministries, or public oversight bodies. MSPs or similar mechanisms without formal recognition, such as Global Action for Land, may rely on reputational accountability, which limits their capacity to enforce commitments or sustain long-term influence, but may serve as an important convening space.
MSPs have the potential to reduce information asymmetries, but this must be deliberately embedded in their design. Creating structured mechanisms for information sharing and public visibility that documents deliberations, publishes decisions and facilitates data exchange among stakeholders can help to reduce such information asymmetries. When supported by Digital Public Goods, such as open data platforms, interoperable standards, and shared information systems, transparency becomes embedded in MPS processes. In this way, digital platforms can institutionalize transparency, making accessible information the norm.
From Information to Influence: The Role of Digital Public Platforms
This article looks primarily at digital public platforms through the land data prism. A digital public data platform such as the Land Portal enables the collection, standardization, and open dissemination of land governance-related information. Digital data platforms are not merely repositories of information; they have the ability to structure how knowledge is organized, accessed, and used. By creating a common evidence base and reducing information asymmetries, digital platforms support more coordinated governance processes when linked to MSPs.
An open data infrastructure allows an MSP’s stakeholders to deliberate, align policy priorities and identify contradictions across regulatory frameworks using consistent information (Tumpa and Naeni, 2025). In this way, digital platforms strengthen the analytical foundation upon which coherent planning decisions are made. Open publication of MSP discussions and decisions transform a discretionary practice into a structural feature of governance for enhanced credibility and legitimacy.
Despite their potential, digital public platforms do not automatically equalize power or guarantee legitimacy. Digital divides, data literacy gaps, and unequal internet access (Chikwenda, Bayer, Booth, 2023) may reproduce existing inequalities in participation. Data selection and curation processes also reflect institutional bias, shaping which narratives and indicators gain visibility. Hence, the role of a facilitator in these processes is even more justified to pull together the strings that can bridge the digital platform with the MSP process effectively.
Going beyond convening
MSPs and digital public data platforms each play distinct but complementary roles in land governance, but their impact depends on their institutional embedding. MSPs create structured spaces for deliberation, negotiation, and coalition-building across sectors and interest groups. Digital platforms organize, standardize, and disseminate the information that underpins those deliberations. Individually, each can enhance dialogue and transparency. Yet neither is sufficient to generate sustained governance impact and trust-building. Moving from convening to consequence requires their deliberate and mutually reinforcing integration with international (global agreements and multinational processes) and national policy processes (ministerial mandates and budgeting cycles). Without such embedding, MSPs risk remaining consultative fora and digital platforms may become parallel information systems with limited relevance.
Operationalizing a digital public data platform requires sustained technical and institutional investment. Interoperable data standards, metadata protocols, secure hosting infrastructure, user-friendly interfaces, regular data updates, and governance arrangements that define data stewardship and quality control are costly. Beyond the technical architecture, platforms require sustainable funding models, partnerships, and clear mandates to enhance reliability and neutrality. Without long-term resourcing, digital platforms risk becoming static repositories rather than dynamic governance tools.
MSPs without robust data infrastructures risk becoming arenas of negotiation shaped by unequal access to information. Conversely, digital platforms without institutionalized deliberative mechanisms risk remaining descriptive repositories. Power asymmetries manifested through informational advantage allow actors with technical expertise or privileged data sources influence agenda-setting and framing. Digital public platforms can help to mitigate this imbalance by establishing a shared and accessible evidence base. By reducing information gatekeeping and standardizing documentation and improving access, digital platforms enhance procedural fairness and strengthen institutional and technical trustworthiness.
To move beyond convening, four reinforcing conditions are required. First, institutional embedding: MSP outputs and digital monitoring systems must connect to global agreements and/or formal policy cycles and administrative procedures – or at the very least start and head in that direction. Second, sustained resourcing: both deliberative processes and digital infrastructures require stable funding and technical stewardship. Third, accountability integration: transparency tools and dashboards must be linked to review mechanisms capable of triggering corrective action. Finally institutional and technical trust: Stakeholders must have confidence in how discourse is facilitated as well as in the technical competence of the how the digital platform is managed (data quality, data neutrality and data equity).
Conclusion
MSPs and digital data platforms each play a critical role in improving land governance, yet their effectiveness depends on their deliberate integration and a facilitator to carry the process and mediate the negotiated approach. Individually, MSPs and digital platforms improve understanding and visibility, but alone they cannot ensure policy change or implementation. When combined, digital infrastructure enhances the legitimacy, equity, and accountability of MSP deliberations, while MSPs translate data into negotiated priorities, policy recommendations, and actionable reforms. Collaboration between convening platforms like GAL and digital platforms such as the Land Portal suggest a potential pathway for integrating deliberation and evidence.
Editing support from Lilian Lee