The Governance Canvas -- Juan Diego Villacis

Before you design a multi-stakeholder platform, you need to answer 8 questions. Most platforms fail because they skip at least 3 of them. Usually the hard ones about mandate, accountability, and what happens when stakeholders stop showing up.

Fill in every block below. If you can't fill a box, that's your biggest risk. Share the filled canvas with your coordination core before your first meeting.

Block-by-Block Guide

Each block above corresponds to a structural decision your platform must make. Below is the field-tested reasoning behind each one, with examples from 3 Cooperation Tables in the Ecuadorian Amazon.

Multi-stakeholder platforms fail when the territorial scope is too vague ("the Amazon region") or too ambitious ("the entire watershed"). Be specific: province, canton, protected area, indigenous territory, or watershed boundary.

Questions to answer:

What is the formal administrative boundary?
Does it overlap with indigenous territorial claims? Which nations?
What other governance structures already operate here?
What is the population? How many communities?

From practice

The Mesa de Cooperacion in Morona Santiago covers the entire province. 25,000 km2, 12 cantons, population ~200,000. It overlaps with territories of the Shuar and Achuar nations. The territorial scope was defined by the provincial government boundary, which gave it administrative legitimacy, but it required indigenous governance structures (life plans, consultative assemblies) to be recognized as co-equal inputs. That process culminated in recognition of the "Territory of Life and Ancestral Use Tarimiat Pujutai Nunka," protecting 1.23 million hectares.

If you can't define the territorial scope clearly, you're not ready to build the platform.

Not "sustainable development." That is a goal, not a problem. What is the specific thing that is broken, duplicated, or missing because organizations are not coordinating?

Questions to answer:

What decisions are being made in isolation that should be coordinated?
Where is effort being duplicated across organizations?
What information exists in one organization that others need but don't have?
What governance vacuum is allowing conflicts, overlaps, or missed opportunities?

From practice

In Orellana and Sucumbios, conservation and development organizations were operating in the same territory with no shared execution roadmap. The provincial government had infrastructure plans that conflicted with conservation zones. NGOs were implementing projects in the same communities without knowing about each other. Indigenous organizations were consulted sporadically by different actors, creating consultation fatigue and contradictory commitments.

Write the problem in one sentence. If you need more than one, you haven't understood the problem yet.

Not "who would be nice to include." Who MUST be there, or the platform's decisions carry no weight?

Five stakeholder categories:

Public Sector: Provincial/municipal government, line ministries. Legitimacy source: administrative authority, budget allocation, policy enforcement.
Indigenous Authorities: Territorial governance bodies, nationalities, federations. Legitimacy source: territorial sovereignty, FPIC rights, historical legitimacy.
Civil Society / NGOs: International and local conservation, development, rights organizations. Legitimacy source: technical capacity, donor relationships.
Academia: Universities, research centers. Legitimacy source: technical knowledge, data, monitoring capacity.
Private Sector: Companies, cooperatives, producer associations. Legitimacy source: economic activity, supply chain influence.

Common mistake

Including everyone who asks. A platform with 50 organizations is a conference, not a governance body. 18-25 is the operational sweet spot. Enough for legitimacy, small enough for decision-making.

This is the block most platforms skip. And the reason most platforms die within a year.

Four levels of mandate (ascending):

Information sharing: Platform collects and distributes information. No binding decisions.
Advisory: Platform makes recommendations. Not binding.
Coordination: Platform assigns responsibilities and tracks execution. Morally binding.
Governance: Platform makes binding decisions. Legally or institutionally binding.

From practice

The Morona Santiago Cooperation Table operates at Level 3 (Coordination) with elements of Level 4 (Governance) through its constitutive agreement. Signed by the provincial prefect, indigenous federation presidents, NGO country directors, and academic rectors. It establishes the platform's authority to assign and track roadmap activities. The social accountability of 22+ signatories creates strong compliance pressure.

If your mandate is Level 1 (information sharing only), you don't need a platform. You need a mailing list.

Every effective platform needs a single, shared execution instrument. The one document all stakeholders reference that tracks what needs to happen, who is responsible, and when.

Anatomy of the Hoja de Ruta (Roadmap):

Time horizon: 2-3 years
Thematic sub-tables: 3-5 working groups by topic
Activities: Specific, measurable. Not "promote sustainability." Instead: "establish 3 community monitoring stations by Q2 2027."
Responsible organization(s): Named org per activity. Not "the platform."
Timeline: Quarterly milestones
Status tracking: Pending / In Progress / Completed / Delayed

Field note

Our roadmaps: 79 activities in Orellana, 93 in Sucumbios. Each with a named responsible organization and quarterly timeline. The roadmap is not a wish list. If an activity has no named responsible organization and no timeline, it's not in the roadmap.

Without accountability, the roadmap collects dust. Deploy all four layers:

Visibility: Public dashboard showing activity status by organization. Always-on.
Notification: Automated reminders when deadlines approach or pass. Weekly/monthly.
Reporting: Quarterly progress reviews in plenary session. Each org reports on their activities.
Escalation: What happens when an organization consistently fails to deliver? Social accountability, formal communication, conditional participation.

From practice

We built a notification engine that sends automated email reminders to responsible organizations when activities approach their deadline, and escalation notices when activities are overdue. A public dashboard shows the status of all activities by province, sub-table, and quarter. Making it impossible for an organization to hide non-delivery.

If no one is tracking, no one is accountable. And if no one is accountable, the platform is a talking shop.

Three-tier structure:

Plenary Assembly (all 22+ orgs, biannual): Approve/revise roadmap. Review progress. Make strategic decisions. Sign agreements.
Sub-table Working Sessions (6-10 orgs per theme, quarterly): Detailed activity planning. Technical coordination. Problem-solving.
Coordination Core (3-5 key institutions, monthly): Operational coordination. Resolve blockers. Prepare sub-table agendas.

Common mistake

Holding plenaries too frequently. When you gather 22+ organizations every quarter, the meetings become performative. People report but don't decide. Reserve plenaries for real decisions. Use sub-tables for the actual work.

Most platforms die when the project that funded them ends. Use at least two strategies:

Institutional embedding: Platform becomes part of formal government structure (ordinance, decree). Survives political transitions.
Multi-funder architecture: Platform supported by multiple donors/orgs. No single dependency.
Stakeholder co-financing: Each stakeholder contributes resources (staff time, logistics, data) instead of cash. Builds ownership.
Technical secretariat: A permanent coordination function hosted by a neutral institution. Continuity of operations.

From practice

The Morona Santiago Cooperation Table was institutionalized through a formal prefectoral decree, making it a permanent function of the provincial government. When the political administration changed, the decree provided legal continuity. That institutional embedding also created the conditions for tangible outputs: the first 7 Conservation Agreements were signed on June 27, 2025, delivering solar internet, energy kits, and water purification systems to Shuar and Achuar communities.

If your exit strategy is "hopefully the next project will fund it," you haven't built a governance platform. You have built a project component.

How to use this canvas

1. Fill in every block above before your first stakeholder meeting. Not after.

2. The blocks you can't fill are your biggest risks. Address them before launching.

3. Share the filled canvas with your coordination core. It becomes your design document.

4. Print it (use the button above) for workshop sessions.

5. Revisit every 6 months. Governance platforms evolve as political contexts shift.

Block-by-Block Guide

Common mistake

Field note

Common mistake

How to use this canvas

Need implementation support?

Related resources

The Cooperation Table Blueprint

The First 90 Days

Power Mapping for Conservation Platforms