Long and consultative planning processes have been undertaken to develop priorities for strategic forestry research in Africa. The results have contributed to the development of CIFOR’s medium-term plan, so that there seems to be a good match between Africa’s needs and CIFOR’s intentions. The political divisions of Africa make it difficult to achieve critical mass in public sector institutions. There should be renewed attempts to establish group-country research so as to maximize the effectiveness of the small pool of trained research staff. Institutional strengthening and human resource development needs more attention nationally and from donor agencies. Forestry research institutions should recruit staff from a wider range of disciplines or should develop partnerships with a wider range of organizations. A much greater effort in economics and social science research is required to compensate for the frequent policy failures. CIFOR seeks active collaboration with appropriate organizations in Africa.
Tag: cooperation
Roles of global and regional networks and consortia in strengthening forestry research
Collaborative institutional arrangements such as networks and consortia are becoming significant players in the provision of goods and services in situations where such collaborations can improve the overall comparative advantage of the alliance. Economic globalisation, rapid development of communication technologies, and increasing problem complexity have enhanced the relevance of networks and other such arrangements. While networks and strategic alliances are an integral part of business and industry, and are playing an increasingly important role in national and international agriculture research (APAARI 1997) they have been less widely used in forestry for collaborative research. Convinced that both the efficiency and effectiveness of forestry research could be improved through strategic alliances, the Fourth Session of the Intergovernmental Panel on Forests stressed the need to “promote consortia and networks to lead and organize research” (IISD 1997). Historically, forestry among research networks have been created principally to foster the exchange of information among scientists and to a lesser extent, users and beneficiaries of forestry research. This was the primary aim of IUFRO, by far the largest and oldest forestry research network, when it was created in 1892. For nearly all forestry research network, including IUFRO, exchange of information continues to be a primary focus but recent developments in foresty suggest that by broadening the scope of their activities, these networks could potentially contribute much more to forestry research. Numerous research problems can potentially be handled more effectively through networking than by individual research institutes. National research systems are often constrained by lack of expertise and resources, and networks can help overcome these limitations. Making this potential a reality requires a clear understanding of the role of networks and consortia, as well as their potential strengths and limitations. In this paper we examine a selection of issues relating to collaboration in forestry research through networks and consortia at the regional and global levels. We make no pretence that our treatment provides a comprehensive overview of this subject. Rather than attempting to catalogue the many forestry research networks and collaborative arrangem ents that exist, our objective is to raise issues that might be fruitfully discussed during the ICRIS dialogue
Annex 3: Roles of global and regional networks and consortia in strengthening forestry research
Collaborative institutional arrangements such as networks and consortia are becoming significant in the provision of goods and services in situations where such collaborations can improve the overall comparative advantage of the alliance. Economic globalisation, rapid development of communication technologies and increasing problem complexity have enhanced the relevance of these networks. While networks and strategic alliances are playing an increasingly important role in national and international agricultural research they have been less widely used in forestry for collaborative research. Forestry research networks foster the exchange of information among scientists and to a lesser extent, users and beneficiaries of forestry research. Recent developments in forestry suggest that by broadening the scope of their activities, these networks could contribute much more to forestry research. Many research problems could be handled more effectively through networking than by individual research institutes. In this paper a selection of issues relating to collaboration in forestry research through networks and consortia at the regional and global levels is examined. It is not a comprehensive overview of the subject but rather an attempt to catalogue the many existing forestry research networks and collaborative arrangements. The aim is to raise issues for discussion.
National REDD+ policy networks
Reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation (REDD+) is a financial mechanism aimed at providing incentives to reduce carbon emissions from forests and enhance carbon stocks. In most forest-rich developing countries, policy actors, i.e., state and nonstate as well as international and national, are designing national REDD+ policies. Actors’ interests and beliefs shape patterns of interactions, ranging from cooperation to conflict, and these interactions influence a country’s direction and progress in REDD+ policy formulation and implementation. We used a comparative policy network approach to analyze the power structures in national REDD+ policy domains in seven countries. We drew on the typology of power structures defined by two dimensions, namely the distribution of power in the policy arena and the dominant type of interaction, cooperative or conflictual, among actors, and we mapped the progress of national REDD+ decision-making processes against these power structures. We tested three hypotheses and found that (1) national ownership over the policy process is a prerequisite for progress. In addition, (2) the level of concentration of power in an actor group can facilitate progress in REDD+; however, particularly when concentration of power is high, progress will be possible only if the interests of the most powerful are aligned with the objectives of REDD+ and address the drivers of deforestation and forest degradation. Furthermore, (3) although cooperation is perceived as ideal in any collective decision-making setting, a certain level of conflict is necessary for progress in REDD+ decision making. This applies particularly in more advanced national REDD+ domains, where, following a honeymoon phase during which most policy actors embrace the broad idea of REDD+, policy decisions must deal with difficult realities associated with negotiating established business-as-usual interests, which entails high political costs.
International forestry cooperation: which way now ?
Although the international forestry dialogue has improved significantly since the Earth Summit, much remains to be done if sustainable forestry management is to be implemented on a global scale. This article discusses current trends: frequent, lengthy talks with limited action; declining official development assistance to forestry; an incomplete and incoherent international institutional framework; and increased reliance on hypothetical market-based mechanisms such as certification. It concludes that most progress towards worldwide forest sustainability will depend on good governance at the national and international level. Countries need to design and implement policies to address underlying causes of forest degradation and loss, both within and outside the forestry sector. An international framework that is truly conducive to sustainable forestry must be shaped through far-reaching reforms, such as strengthening development aid to forestry, adopting operational means of international forestry cooperation, reforming international forestry institutions and adopting a supportive legal framework.