IMFN experience in long-term, large-scale,

multi-site experimentation / research in

sustainable forest management

Presentation to CIFOR Sentinel Landscapes Workshop

Bogor, Indonesia, 30 September – 1 October 2011

What we are?

Launched at Rio (UNCED) Summit in 1992.

Voluntary international learning network comprised of +/- 60

large-scale landscapes in +/- 30 countries.

Globally shared framework for addressing sustainable forest

resource management (SFM).

Idea – at model forest level - is to use broad-based

partnerships to translate policies of SFM into practice, at a

landscape scale, in real time and for real benefits

Idea – at the international network level – is to link the needs

and knowledge of network members in order to accelerate

innovation at all levels.

Model Forest Framework Principles

IMFN Site Locations by Forest Type

• RECOFTC

• INBAR

• GPFLR

• CATIE

Local level: typically large partnerships, highly

diverse and non-traditional

1,000+ field-level partners across the network

Country/national-level partners

Numerous institutional partners at site,

regional, and international levels, including:

Model Forest Partnerships

• FAO (Asia,

LAC, Africa)

• UNDP-GEF

(LAC & Asia)

• CUSO-VSO

• CIFOR

• CIDA

• IUCN

Site Selection

IMFN Secretariat has developed guidelines

(non-prescriptive) for site selection.

Multiple approaches:

• Competitive process (Canada)

• Capacity/infrastructure driven (path of least resistance)

• Issue/policy driven (go to where the problems are)

• Stakeholder (bottom-up) driven

• Policy (top-down) driven

Partnerships

As complex as the landscape/land-uses

(academic, research, industry, govt., indigenous,

landless, etc)

Must include policy makers

Competitors and adversaries

They build it, own it, drive it

They understand that they belong to and work within

a larger regional and global IMFN community

Given time to define their modus operandi

“Funding Permanence”

No such thing – focus on risk mitigation strategies.

Scaleable: scale of effort ebbs and flows with opportunity and

initiative but with minimum thresholds

Important to engage and strategize with key stakeholders from

the beginning

Build capacity and awareness in non-traditional actors

Keep costs low from outset (proxy or “para-technical”

expertise)

Ensure that the work has buy in/relevance to those charged with

maintaining and supporting it over time

Understand local players as assets and (potential) allies

>95% of Model Forests ever established since early 1990s are still operational (with varying levels of effectiveness) – why?

Many partners = many more resources to deploy and draw upon + political clout

Developed country experiences with similar efforts to SL should be explored (CMFN)

Working at this scale, governance and relevance are key to continuity/permanence (comprehensive, locally driven, transparent, accountable, empowered, etc.) which takes time and resources – not aware of any shortcuts.

Observations and Lessons Learned

Lessons Learned

Need to link explicitly to higher policy levels and

external communities of common interest (network[s])

Communicate/brand/promote

Process rather than project

Cultivate leaders (plural)

The social component of sustainability is one of the

most complicated: how do we manage ourselves and

the demands we place on our landscapes?

Lessons Learned cont’d.

National forest and other resource-focused agencies are key enablers but should also be understood as key beneficiaries and partners just as local communities are.

There is substantial value in peer-to-peer and site-to-site networking, a process that allows sharing of innovative practices and that builds confidence and important skills in participants.

Meaningful engagement of local stakeholders is a prerequisite to sustaining buy-in, momentum, direction and support.

Thank you!

WWW.IMFN.NET