iufro proceedings

8/3/2019 IUFRO Proceedings

1/109

Forest Research Managementin an Era of Globalization

Proceedings of the

International Union of Forest

Research Organizations (IUFRO)Unit 6.06.00

April 1821, 2007Arlington, Virginia


2/109

1 Introductory MessageDon K. Lee

3 Forest Research Management in an Era of GlobalizationKonstantin von Teuffel, Ann Bartuska, and Peter Mayer

5 Forest Research Management in an Era of Globalization

Frances Seymour

9 Forest Research Institutes in the World: Results of a IUFRO SurveyKonstantin von Teuffel

13 Setting the AgendaMarc Hanewinkel (moderator); Diana Jerkins and Randy Tanner (rapporteurs)

15 Funding and Finance SynthesisMichael Goergen Jr. (moderator); Dana Roth and Shawn Yeh (rapporteurs)

17 Stakeholder Convergence Modality: The Rallying Point for Multi-SectorialR&D

Florence Z. Tarun-Acay

21 Developing Strategies for an International Research OrganizationRisto Pivinen

25 Forest Research in the United Kingdom: A View from the University Sector Jeffrey Burley

31 Efficiency of Managing Forest Research: Contribution from ItalyGiuseppe Scarascia-Mugnozza

39 Financing Forestry Research in an Era of Decreased Public Funding:Experience from the Association of Forestry Research Institutions in Eastern

Africa (AFREA)Ben Chikamai and Paul Konuche

43 Forest Research in Development Contexts: The Concept of the AccountableResearcherBenno Pokorny and James Johnson

55 Knowledge Management as Means to Ensure Quality, Efficiency, andRelevanceMalin von Essen and Jan Fryk

Proceedings of the

International Union of ForestResearch Organizations (IUFRO)Unit 6.06.00April 1821, 2007Arlington, Virginia

Published by the Society of American Foresters, with support fromthe International Union of Forest Reseach Organizations(IUFRO), Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Develop-ment (OECD), and the US Forest Service.

The opinions expressed and arguments employed in this publica-tion are the sole responsibility of the authors and do not necessari-ly reflect those of the OECD or of the governments of its Membercountries.

2008 Society of American Foresters and International Union ofForest Research Organizations

IUFRO 6.06.00

Forest Research Management in an Era of Globalization


3/109


4/109

IUFRO 6.06.00Forest Research Management in an Era of Globalization

Introductory Message

Today is the second convening of the IUFRO Directors Forum. The firs

was the meeting of the directors for the IUFRO World Congress 2005in Brisbane, Australia. This forum provides usbeing the decision

makers for managing forest researchwith an opportunity to exchange viewsshare experiences, and contribute to the further improvement of forest researchmanagement on a global level. I am very pleased that so many of you haveturned out to attend this conference and to participate in discussions on key

issues that face forest research management today.I will certainly refrain from going into great detail on the three main issues

that you have been asked to discuss over the next 2 days, namely setting theagenda, funding and financing, and ensuring quality and efficiency. Howeverplease allow me to make a few observations with regard to the general topic ofthe Directors Forum: the era of globalization.

Globalization nowadays is used in many contexts and refers to the increasingglobal connectivity, integration, and interdependence in the economic, socialtechnological, cultural, political, and ecological spheres. Striking a balance amongall these aspects is complex, but foresters and forestry as a sector have long-stand-ing experience in balancing these various demands. As you are all well aware, thereare many global challenges that deal in one way or another with forests. Thisshould be taken as the general context for the discussions over the next 2 days.

The continuous decline of forest area worldwide is a major concern and apolitical driving force behind the global forest policy debate. In this contextillegal logging activities and land conversion are developments which have a sig-nificant impact on global forest cover. Moreover, the conservation of biologicadiversity and the establishment and expansion of protected forest areas remaina global challenge.

Additionally, the increasing scientific evidence of global warming and climatechange challenges the role of forest and forestry in many ways. In connection

with this topic I would also like to mention desertificationas highlightedthrough last years international year of deserts and desertificationas one ofthe worlds most alarming aspects of environmental degradation.

Devastating forest fires have recently occurred in various parts of the worldand have also raised public awareness and prompted national and internationa

initiatives on policies for fire prevention and control. The continuous trend ourbanization and the increase in population have implications on forests world-

wide as well.Last but not least, the fight against poverty and the need for education to

encompass global perspectives are issues that I personally attach great importance to. I would like to make reference to the Millennium Development GoalsForestry, in particular, can contribute to the eradication of extreme poverty andhunger (Goal 1) and to ensuring environmental sustainability (Goal 7).

This list of environmental and social issues is by no means complete, and wemust remember that the context surrounding forest research and its managemenis constantly evolving and changing.

Don K. LeePresident,IUFRO

Presented at the IUFRO unit 6.06.00 conference on ForestResearch Management in an Era of Globalization, April 1821,2007, Arlington, Virginia.

Address correspondence to Don K. Lee, Seoul National University,San 56-1 Sillim-dong, Gwanak-gu, Seoul 151-921, Korea. E-mail:[email protected].


IUFRO 6.06.00 1


5/109

IUFRO as the global network for forest science cooperation hastherefore developed a strategy which aims to address these challenges.

As the President of IUFRO I am proud to say that with the unprece-dented involvement of scientists and stakeholders, IUFRO developedand adopted its 20062010 Strategy last year. This strategy is builtupon three main goals:

To strengthen research for the benefit of forests and people, To expand strategic partnership and cooperation, and To strengthen communication and links within the scientific

community and with students as well as with policy makersand society at large.

These three goalswhich are complemented by sub-goals andimplemented by a series of actionsprovide IUFRO and all thoseinvolved in IUFRO with a concise framework to meet the challengesof today.

I personally see the IUFRO Directors Forum as a flagship for theimplementation of IUFROs goals. We, as decision-makers in forestresearch management, not only decide about the future of our respec-

tive institutes and universities but also influence the future directionof global forest research as a whole.

In an era of globalization, this is the time to have a global openmind in dealing with forest research management. As I am alwaysemphasizing, there is a need for international cooperation and part-nership to bridge gaps, particularly between the South and the Northbetween the East and the West, between the developing and thedeveloped countries, and between the young and the old generationsI therefore sincerely hope that these discussions will yield significanoutput for the strategic research on forest management.

My deepest appreciation to the USDA Forest Service for hostingthis conference and my thanks to the IUFRO Research Group 6.06Management of Forest Research for initiating and preparing thecontents of the forum. The conference was sponsored by the OECDCo-operative Research Programme on Biological ResourceManagement for Sustainable Agricultural Systems, whose financiasupport made it possible for many of the invited speakers to partici-pate in the conference.

2 IUFRO 6.06.00


6/109



The ultimate goal of research is to improve the well-being of societyHowever, globalization has changed the framework conditions andnature of forest research. Societal questions around forests and forestry

are increasingly complex at the same time as declining budgets. This conditionis requiring research organizations to use their financial and human capitaresources more efficiently. Consequently, the role of managers in forest researchhas become even more important as they will have to make sound policy choic

es for the future of forest research.Against this background, the IUFRO Directors Forum (IUFRO Research

Group 6.06.00Management of Forest Research) convened for the secondtime. The forum serves as a global platform for directors of forest research institutes and deans of forest faculties of universities to exchange views, share expe-riences, and discuss strategies for the future. The results of the IUFRODirectors Forum will contribute significantly to the further development of for-est research management globally.

Setting the Forest Research AgendaIdentifying Science Priorities

Globalization has brought about major changes in the process of setting theforest research agenda. One major observation is that agenda developmen

becomes an increasingly strategic process for forest research institutions. Amongthe most important examples for research topics are the increasing demand forstakeholder involvement and opportunities for input, the introduction of agendas of scale such as agendas set on the basis of global demands and nationaneeds as well as the growing emphasis placed on long-term planning, and theconsideration of temporal research scales. All these factors inevitably makeresearch both more timely and relevant.

An increasing number of research organizations are already taking these fac-tors into account and use clearly structured processes in order to developresearch strategies for their respective institutions. In this respect, criteria suchas relevance, feasibility, timelessness, scope of benefits, innovative potentialcredibility, and legitimacy are helpful when selecting items to be included on theresearch agenda.

Quality Research and Efficiency Are CrucialKnowledge management is becoming a more and more important elemen

for the improvement of efficiency of forest research institutions. However, traditional research frameworks often separate researchers from the practitionersand decision makers.

A professional communication of results to beneficiaries and guidelines foresearchers who work at the science/policy interface are valuable mechanisms fomaking research more efficient and meaningful, especially for decision makers

Moreover, performance indicators help to determine the efficiency ofresearch. Such indicators are highly desirable, adequate methodologies are cur-

Konstantin von TeuffelIUFRO

Ann BartuskaIUFRO

Peter MayerIUFRO


Address correspondence to Peter Mayer, IUFRO, Hauptstrasse 7,Vienna 1140, Austria. E-mail: [email protected].


IUFRO 6.06.00 3


7/109

rently developing. In general, indicators have to take into accountboth the task to be evaluated and the institution concerned in termsof size and type of tasks assigned to an institution.

Where Does the Money for Research Come From?The financial situation of forest-related research organizations

throughout the world varies significantly. As a general trend it can bestated that forest research institutions in Europe and North Americahave had to face declining budgets over the past few years. At the sametime, especially Asian countries have experienced rising research budgets.

One major challenge is the increasing need to compete for budgetwith other institutions and sectors while core budgets in general arediminishing. Nevertheless, innovative approaches, including newpartnerships, could help to overcome some of these constraints andplay an integral role in ensuring sustainable funding.

Finally, in order to stay in touch with reality, the business model oforestry needs to be updated. Forest research has to focus morestrongly on consumer and stakeholder demands and needs. In thiscontext, it is highly relevant to develop a coherent strategic plan andprioritize expenditures according to that plan.

4 IUFRO 6.06.00


8/109



Ihave had the honor of leading the Center for International ForestryResearch (CIFOR) for just over 6 months now. So this conference is a wonderful opportunity for me to renew acquaintances and meet for the firs

time some of the big names in the world of forestry research such as ProfessorDon Lee. Its especially an honor to share the podium with Chief Kimbell andAnn Bartuska. I cant help but appreciate the symbolism of this line-up for thechanging role of women in forestry!

For those of you unfamiliar with CIFOR, let me give you a quick snapshotCIFOR was established in 1993 as an international research organization undethe Consultative Group for International Agricultural Research, or the so-calledCG system. Our headquarters are in Indonesia, but many of our staff workfrom regional or project offices elsewhere in Asia, Africa, and Latin America. Wehave a staff of about 175, and an annual budget of about $17 million. We doresearch on environment and ecosystem services, on poverty and livelihoods, andon governance issues related to forests. We have a guesthouse on our lovely wood-ed campus in Bogor, so please come visit when youre in the neighborhood.

The Three ChallengesLet me commend the organizers for framing the conference around three key

challenges facing managers of forestry research:

how to set priorities among competing research topics; how to secure adequate and appropriate sources of funding for our work;

and how to assure quality and efficiency in our research.These are certainly the challenges Im grappling with as a newly-appointed

leader of an international forestry research organization. And I look forward tothe insights that will be generated in presentations and discussions of these questions over the next 2 days.

I know that each of the research organizations represented here faces thesequestions from a unique perspective, and that there is a lot of relevant experience in the room. My contribution will be to offer some reflections on the tensions that we at CIFOR have to manage as we address each of these challengeswith an emphasis on those that are important in an international context.

Setting the AgendaProfessor von Teuffel has posed the question in the conference program as fol

lows: How do stakeholders, governing institutions, other interest groups, and ofcourse researchers themselves set the agenda for relevant research topics and projectsto be selected?

This challenge is of particular relevance to CIFOR this year, as we are in themidst of a strategy development process. Our last Board-approved strategy wafinalized in 1996, so we are long overdue for a fresh look at our research priorities. But how to do that is not obvious. We are currently having an internal discussion about how to compare among alternative research domains according to

Frances SeymourDirector General, Center for International ForestryResearch, Bogor, Indonesia


Address correspondence to Frances Seymour, Jalan CIFOR, SituGede, Sindangbarang, Bogor Barat 16115, Indonesia. E-mail:

f. [email protected].


IUFRO 6.06.00 5


9/109

their relative potential to advance our mission, which relates to bothpoverty reduction and environmental protection.

Other agricultural research centers in the CG system haveemployed highly quantitative methods to calculate the prospectiveimpacts of alternative crop improvements: how many adopting farm-ers, how many hectares, how much of an income increment, and soon. If the assumptions are robust and the data is available, then by allmeans those calculations are useful.

But most of the research that CIFOR doesand, I would argue,most of the important research to be done in international forestrydoes not lend itself to such simple calculations of impact. Much ofour work is policy research, intended to inform decision-makersabout the implications of various policy options, and the pathwaysthrough which such research has impact on individual beneficiariesand particular patches of forest are rather circuitous and indirect.

For example, last year we published a study on forest law enforce-ment. The results suggested that illegal logging crackdowns tend to befocused on the little guy with the chainsaw rather than the big guywith the bank account. I would hope that such research results wouldlead governments and NGOs calling for increased law enforcement torethink their strategies. They might give more emphasis to the use oftools for fighting forest crime that are automatically targeted to the bigguys, such as anti-money laundering legislation. And if they did, thatshift in law enforcement effort might reasonably be expected to havea number of effects on forests, corruption, and local livelihoods. ButIm afraid Im not smart enough to imagine how you might quantifythat result in a way that would enable us to make a meaningful com-parison to the potential impacts of research in another area.

One reason quantitative comparisons are difficult is that many ofthe impacts of good policy research go beyond increasing economicefficiency. They include progress toward objectives such as increasingthe transparency of forest sector decision-making, conserving uniquebiological and cultural diversity, and empowering women as forestmanagers. These kinds of impacts dont easily lend themselves toquantification for ex ante priority-setting exercises. As a result, weneed to develop new methods for rigorously testing our assumptions,and for assembling the best possible data to project the prospectiveimpacts of our research. But at the end of the day, Im afraid that wewill need to make some subjective judgment calls about the relativeimportance of alternative options.

A second issue related to setting the agenda is who gets to partici-pate. Especially if we accept the inevitability of making subjectivejudgments about priorities, who is at the table will have a big impacton what gets decided.

I recall a few years ago compiling various statistics that illustrate theoverwhelming dominance of scientists and institutions based inindustrialized countries compared to those in developing countries. Whether you measure by numbers of scientists, research budgets,publications, or participation in international processes, its clear thatthe global North is setting the agenda on natural resources and envi-ronment issues.

In an era of globalization, we need to make special efforts to con-sult those who may be most affected, but whose voices may be under-represented at the tables where decisions are made. We need to active-ly seek out those who will challenge our views. But doing so takestime and money, and we are all chronically short of both. So to fol-low through will require a significant commitment.

A third issue related to setting the agenda is one that is particular-ly relevant to forestry research because of its inherently long-termnature. As research managers, we cant just compose research portfo-

lios to respond to the questions policy-makers are asking today. If wedid, policy-makers wouldnt remember having asked the question bythe time we came up with the answer, or a new administration wouldbe in place asking a new set of questions.

Instead, as research managers, our responsibility is to anticipate thequestions policy-makers will be askingor should be asking5years from now. Now of course thats more easily said than doneespecially given the rapid pace of change in a globalized environmentHow many of us anticipated the rapid rise of China in global woodproducts markets? How many of us anticipated the sudden explosionof interest in biofuels development?

Fortunately, sometimes we get lucky. In the mid-1990s, CIFORconducted a significant body of research on the underlying causes odeforestation. The research was in response to international interest inconserving tropical forests for their unique biological and culturadiversity. That interest has since waned. But just in the last 6 monthssince the release of the Stern Reviewsuddenly the world is interest-ed in avoiding deforestation again, but this time as a strategy to miti-gate climate change. So we are in the fortunate position of having rel-evant research results to offer, even though I cant say we anticipatedthis new demand. We need to do a better job of looking over the hori-zon, or at least develop research agendas likely to provide robustanswers to a changing context for asking questions about forests.

Funding and FinancingLet me turn now to the questions about funding and financing

which are never far from the attention of any research manager. Wereprobably all struggling with the decline of interest in funding fowork on forestry as such, and perhaps also the declining commitmento public sector investment in research more generally. We certainlyfeel it at the international level, although there are of course someimportant exceptions among our more enlightened donors!

We would probably all agree that in order to maintain our independence, research organizations need to maintain a de minimus leveof unrestricted fundingthat is, funding not tied to a particular topicor outputso that we are indeed free to set our own agendas, as dis-cussed previously. However, the temptation to fill gaps with fundsrestricted to specific projects and outputs is almost irresistible. And infact to resist would be inappropriate in many circumstances. If theproject is one that we would have done anyway, or is fully aligned withour research strategy, then by all means, we should take the moneyBut at least at CIFOR, we have found that restricted money has anumber of downside risks that we need to manage carefully.

The first risk is that we often end up subsidizing restricted projectwith our precious unrestricted funds, because donors are not willingto pay our real overhead costs. So unless the project really is some-thing that we would choose to invest in ourselves, we should proba-bly just say no if it doesnt pay its own way.

The second risk is that restricted project funding overall skews ourresearch portfolio in ways that subtly undermine the quality of ourwork or its consistency with our mission. For example, funding forrestricted projects tends to focus more on short-term results. I waover meeting with the World Bank forestry team last week. As is mycustom when interviewing colleagues for input to CIFORs strategyprocess, I asked how CIFOR had disappointed them in the past, as away of getting at their expectations of us for the future. One stafmember expressed disappointment that CIFOR research associatedwith a World Bank loan had failed to produce results in time to beincorporated into project implementation over a 2-year period. Twoyears doesnt sound like a very long time for most of the importan

6 IUFRO 6.06.00


10/109

questions in need of research, but thats what our clients want.Another challenge, particularly in the international arena is that in

recent years donor funding for international forestry has been increas-ingly tied to a narrowly defined poverty reduction agenda (which isperfectly legitimate). But the shift in resource allocation away frommore conservation-oriented programming has tempted organizationslike ours to reframe everything we do as if it were all part of a pover-ty alleviation program. But the truth is, forestry is seldom the mostexpeditious pathway out of poverty, and in many cases conversion offorests to other uses can be such a pathway. So we need to police theintegrity of our work and how we talk about it when funding temptsus to compromise.

In general, restricted funding also tends to pull us further into proj-ect implementation than we would like to go, and is often focused ona particular set of local problems. Weve found that in some cases,applied research has been too heavy on the applied and too lighton the research. As an international research organization, we needto keep our focus on doing research that generates so-called interna-tional public goods. A recurring theme in our internal strategy dis-cussions is how to link research activities to meet the needs of specif-ic locations to global or universal research needs.

One way that CIFOR tries to balance these potentially conflictingobjectives is to invest in international comparative research in suchareas as plantation management, decentralization, communityforestry, and the relationship between poverty and the environment.Such projects can both bring international experience to particularplaces, and bring the experience of particular places to the interna-tional community. Another approach is to focus our research ondeveloping assessment tools to help others find the right answers tocommon problems in particular places. So the research produces atool that can be used anywhere, but does not assume that there is aone size fits all answer everywhere.

Whats clear is that we need to maintain a balance between restrict-ed and unrestricted funds to maintain our independence. And weunderstand that doing so may require our forgoing opportunities forgrowthor even shrinkingto maintain that balance.

Ensuring Quality and EfficiencyLet me now turn to the questions about ensuring quality and effi-

ciency.Ive already mentioned the challenges of anticipating what policy

makers will need, and responding to the short-term interests of somesources of funding. I think theres an additional point to be madeabout the potential trade-offs between quality and timeliness, espe-cially when were in the business of doing research to inform policy.

As you all know, timing can be everything, and we do our best tohave research results published to a high quality standard in time toinfluence the deliberations of relevant policy arenas. But sometimesthe best laid plans are delayed, and we face what Ill call the Dilemmaof Two Cringes:

Do we rush out results that are not quite ready (but goodenough), and cringe at the compromise of our quality stan-dards and procedures? Or,

Do we insist on maintaining those standards and procedures,and cringe at having missed an opportunity to influence policy?

This dilemma is going to be especially difficult for us this year, aseveryone is asking CIFOR to produce various pieces of research on

IUFRO 6.06.00 7

forests and climate change in advance of the UNFCCC Conferenceof the Parties to be held in Bali in December. Id be interested in hearing any tips you have about managing the Dilemma of Two Cringesin similar circumstances.

Before closing, Id like to offer a few words about partnershipsbecause I think they are critical to both quality and efficiencyCIFOR was founded as a centre without walls, and has taken prideover the years in working with partners in almost everything we doOur partners are national research organizations, such as the researchbranches of the Indonesian Ministry of Forestry and the US ForesService, NGOs, universities, other international organizations, andsometimes private companies.

Well-managed partnerships enable an organization such as CIFORto leverage the expertise and legitimacy of other organizations, and toavoid unnecessary duplication and unhealthy competition. So iteasy to be in favor of partnershipsthey are kind of like motherhoodand apple piebut it turns out to be pretty hard to make them workeffectively. At the international level, partnerships require speciainvestment. They have to bridge both literal and figurative distanceacross geography and culture, and have to overcome the structuraimbalances in power, capacity, and funding between different partneorganizations. Even in the age of Skype, misunderstandings and miscommunications are common.

Since its founding, one of CIFORs objectives has been buildingthe capacity of partner organizations in developing countries. Andour strategy to do so has been through the involvement of partnerorganizations in our research in a learning by doing approachrather than through free-standing training programs. As a result, wesometimes face a trade-off between being true to our capacity-building objective and maintaining the quality and efficiency of ourresearch. Mentoring junior scientists takes time; collaborating withweak organizations is less efficient in producing high-quality resultthan working with those that are already strong. Im not saying thatthese trade-offs shouldnt be made, but we need to be clear about ouobjectives and relative priorities when we make them. And that mayrequire redefining the quality of a research product so as to includethe capacity-building that it embodies.

SummarySo, what are my key messages?On setting the agenda, ex ante quantification of prospective

impacts is not possible or appropriate for much of the internationaforestry research agenda, so we need to find other methods for settingpriorities. And to the extent that we are forced to make subjectivejudgments, we should pay attention to the composition of the stakeholders who are informing those judgments.

On funding, we need to protect our unrestricted funding in ordeto protect our independence, as well as the integrity of our work andits consistency with the missions of our organizations.

On quality and efficiency, we have to manage the trade-offs inher-ent in producing timely results to influence policy, and in workingwith partners in capacity-building efforts.

I thank you for your kind attention, and look forward to hearingyour reflections on these challenges. And if you have any tips on howCIFOR should manage them, or see any opportunities for collabora-tion with your organization, please see me at the coffee break!

Thank you.


11/109


Forest Research Institutes in the World:Results of a IUFRO Survey

In the year 2004, the European Forest Institute (EFI) carried out a survey(Houllier et al. 2005) concerning the resource basis of forest research-relatedinstitutions in Europe. It showed for the first time ever that the financial basof forest research in Europe is to be seen somewhere around 600 million Euro() a year and an input in manpower of 3,000 person years. The surveyshowed the potential of forest research in Europe and it was very useful to utilize these numbers in various discussions with public authorities, funding

agencies, etc.

Keywords: forest research, funding, resources, staff, questionnaire.

T he IUFRO unit 6.06 Managing Forest Research decided to organizea conference dealing with questions around the title Management oForest Research in an Era of Globalization. In this context it deemednecessary to undertake an attempt to assess the order of magnitude in which forest research is carried out worldwide. To this end, IUFRO unit 6.06 with theassistance of IUFRO headquarters and EFI developed a questionnaire whichwas sent out in January 2007 to more than 400 IUFRO member institutions

The first consolidated results were discussed at the IUFRO 6.06 conferenceManagement of Forest Research in an Era of Globalization taking place inWashington DC 1821 April 2007. After the conference some additional forestresearch institutions gave input. Finally 70 questionnaires were available to theevaluation team. We owe special thanks to Professor Dr. Marc Hanewinkel andhis colleague Norbert Br from the Forest Research Institute of Baden-Wrttemberg, Germany, who have taken the duty to analyse the available data

Explicitly there were four main objectives for the survey: To assess the capacity of Forest Research Institutions (FRIs) on a world-

wide scale; To analyze the funding structure of FRIs; To obtain information on the fields of research of FRIs; and To assess the role of EU funding for FRIs in Europe.

The last bullet point refers to the fact that it deemed sensible to assess thegroup of the European research institutions separately with respect to the 2004survey and the possibility to compare results.

It has to be stated clearly that the results of this survey are based on a rathersmall sample and unfortunately that there were some incomplete or invalidentries. Thus interpretation for sensitive data (e.g., financial) is limited. Due tothe fact that the questionnaire was to be filled in on an online basis, we have tostate that the results are most probably not representative and statistically nosound. Also there is no information on a country level available. On the otherhand, presently there are no better datasets around to give a more generalizedpicture of the situation of forest research in the world.

Having said this the geographical distribution is shown in Figure 1.

Konstantin von TeuffelForest Research Institute of Baden-Wrttemberg,Freiburg, Germany


Address correspondence to Konstantin von Teuffel, Forest ResearchInstitute of Baden-Wrttemberg, Wonnhaldestrasse 4, 79100Freiburg, Germany. E-mail: [email protected].


IUFRO 6.06.00 9


12/109

With 47% of all answers it is clear that there is a strong dominanceof European research institutions. It is interesting that 6% of the par-ticipating institutions have an international status.

Exactly two-thirds of the institutions are research institutes, 24%universities, and 10% are private companies involved in forest-relat-ed research. Also here it is quite obvious that there is a below averageparticipation of universities worldwide. Due to this fact it is logicalthat the working profile of the answering institutions is emphasising

applied research as a main characteristic (Figure 2).Forest research clearly to a vast degree is a public matter. Eighty-seven percent of the participating institutions are public institutions,only 10% private, and 3% NGOs. The topics covered by the institu-tions are ranging widely (Figure 3). Among the most important onesare forest management and forest ecology. The lesser important onesseem to be forest technologies, forest policy, and wood science. Thisfinding may well contrast with the need to bring forest research needsmore to the attention of politicians.

We also asked the participants in the survey about quality controland efficiency measurement. About half of the institutions report thatthey have frequent quality and efficiency follow ups, some 40% dothis occasionally, whereas only 10% approximately say there is no

quality control system at all. When it comes to the quality indicatorsused by the institutions, the most important is assessed impact ofresearch followed by peer review and satisfaction of clients. Dueto the nature of the survey it remains open how exactly the impact ofresearch and satisfaction of clients are measured. The most importantefficiency indicator used in the various institutions is research pub-lications before popular scientific articles and competitive fund-ing (Figure 4).

Sixty-five institutions answered the question related to stakeholderinvolvement. Figure 5 shows that stakeholder involvement takes placemostly at the institute level based on the input of a board or steeringcommittee or at project level case by case. Sixty-two percent of theinstitutions report that projects are initiated within the organisation,

whereas 38% of the answering institutions receive their project initi-ation from outside.With 46% the majority of the participants expect major organisa-

tional changes in the future, 31% expect moderate changes, whereasonly 23% see minor organisational changes coming up. This showsthe dynamic organisational setting in which forest-related researchpresently is.

Sixty-two organisations answered the question for staff, adding upto a total of 13,236 person-years (Figure 6). With 25 institutions themajority of organisations has a total staff of up to 50, 19 employstaff from 51 to 200, and 15 organisations have staff exceeding thenumber of 200 employees.

Going into more detail we can see that with 82% of the total staffa rather high proportion of employees are permanently employed

Only 16% of the person-years involved have a degree in forestrywhich leads to the conclusion that the vast majority of researcherhave degrees in disciplines other than forestry. In the coming years upto 2010 the answering organisations envisage a reduction in total stafby almost 5% (down to 12,661) with a relative increase of researcherholding a degree in forestry.

With respect to the funding structure we can say that the 69answering institutions stand for a total of approximately $550 million (Figure 7). Unfortunately this figure does not give a realistic pic-ture of the worldwide resources available in forest research as a wholedue to the poor reply to the questionnaire. In Europe (institutionwith a reply in figures), 28 organisations took part in the survey

10 IUFRO 6.06.00

Figure 1. Geographical distribution. Figure 2. Working and research profile.

Figure 4. Efficiency indicators.

Figure 3. Topics covered in forest research.


13/109

with an average of some $8 million (6 million) budget per institu-

tion, whereas the dollar-world (31 institutions calculating their fig-ures in $) shows an average of more than $10 million budget perorganisation. The share of the budget acquired from internationalsources for Europeans with 4% is double the one in the dollar-calcu-lating group. National public funding with 68% is significantly high-er in Europe than in the dollar group with only 59%. It is very inter-esting to see that within the coming years (Figure 8) the organisationsin Europe expect significantly decreasing budgets whereas the dollargroup counts on even higher rising budgets by the year 2010.

As a conclusion of the survey as a whole it can be stated that unfor-tunately there was only a limited participation. This shows a limitedawareness in forest research institutions for the added value to pro-vide for a set of reliable figures depicting the organisational and finan-

cial structure available in forest research. Approximately 50% of theparticipating organisations are from Europe ( figures), 50% fromother parts of the world. The majority of the research institutions(40%) includes staff of less than 50 persons, 30% employ between 50and 200 persons, and another 30% more than 200. Considering allthe shortcomings of this survey, nevertheless it appears to make senseto periodically repeat such an exercise simply for the fact to havesome (limited) information about the structure, which is better thanhaving none at all. Finally it is remarkable that in Europe the forestresearch institutions expect decreasing resources whereas they seem toincrease in other parts of the world. It can be assumed that this is dueto the rapid development of countries in transition.

IUFRO 6.06.00 11

Literature CitedHOULLIER, F., J. NOVOTNY, R. PIVINEN, K. ROSN, G. SCARASCIA

MUGNOZZA, AND K. VON TEUFFEL. 2005. Future Forest ResearchStrategy for a Knowledge-Based Forest Cluster: An Asset for a Sustainable Europe. European Forest Institute Discussion Paper 11, 50 p.

Figure 5. Stakeholder involvement.

Figure 6. Number of staff in 2005.

Figure 7. Funding structure of $- and -calculating institutions.

Figure 8. Diverging expectations in budget of $- and -calculatinginstitutions.


14/109


Setting the Agenda

Participants from eight countries offered their insight into a most challenging question posed by IUFRO members and conference organizersHow do stakeholders, governing institutions, other interest groups, and

of course researchers themselves set the agenda for relevant research topics andprojects to be selected? Despite the substantive differences in forest researchacross these eight countries, a number of common themes emerged from thepresentations and discussions.

Setting a New AgendaThe nature of forest research has changed dramatically as a result of socio-

political and economic changes resulting from globalization. Research needhave become more complex and research priorities have shifted. Whereas in thepast national research priorities may have been driven by production for thenational economy, global demands are increasingly calling greater attention tothe demands of global markets.

Beyond the substantive changes to the forest research agenda, the complexityinduced by globalization has engendered a need to cross disciplinary boundariesand integrate social, political, economic, and biological dimensions of foresresearch. One contributing factor to this realization is that biological researchmay have little clout in the absence of an accommodating socio-political and

economic climate.While the current socio-political and economic climate does not rank fores

research high on the agenda (perhaps due to a lack of practical utility), there aa growing recognition that forestry research will only become increasinglyimportant as research in areas such as nanotechnology, biofuels, and climatechange continue to develop,

Unfortunately, a limiting constraint to the development of forest research pro-grams is waning budgets. Limited research budgets force a prioritization oresearch, and in many cases, a re-prioritization. The reality of declining budgetrequires research organizations to use their financial resources more efficiently andpool larger resources by building research teams or alliances among organizations

The Changing Nature of How the Agenda Is SetGlobalization has resulted in at least three important changes in the process

of setting the forest research agenda. First, whether a cause or effect, democratization has accompanied globalization, and with that are increasing demands forstakeholder engagement and opportunities for input. As a result, agenda prior-ities are either being directly influenced by stakeholders, or decision-makers arerecognizing the need to make research as relevant as possible to stakeholders andare basing their research priorities on that realization. The process of setting theagenda is becoming more user-driven than in the past and valuable opportuni-ties exist for gleaning insights from a wide variety of stakeholders as researchorganizations are confronted with increasingly complex research needs.

Second, globalization has introduced agendas of scale. As an illustration

MODERATOR

Marc HanewinkelForest Research Institute of Baden Wrttemberg

RAPPORTEURS

Diana Jerkins

US Department of Agriculture, Cooperative StateResearch, Education, and Extension Service,Competitive Programs Unit

Randy TannerThe University of Montana


Address correspondence to Marc Hanewinkel, Forest ResearchInstitute of Baden-Wrttemberg, Wonnhaldestrasse 4, 79100Freiburg, Germany. E-mail: [email protected].


IUFRO 6.06.00 13


15/109

forest research organizations that may be heavily funded by interna-tional donor agencies are setting their research agendas on the basesof global demands or demands of the donor institution (e.g., povertyalleviation). These demands may be much different than what maybe seen as national priorities (e.g., production tailored to the nation-al economy). A similar trend can be identified with local versusnational and global priorites.

Third, because of the problems associated with change outpacingresearch (whether market-driven, legal, or regulatory), there is anincreasing need to be attentive to long-term visions, scenario plan-ning, and the consideration of temporal research scales. Attentivenessto these factors will inevitably make research both more timely andrelevant.

Criterion for Setting the AgendaBearing in mind the ways in which the agenda has changedboth

substantively and procedurallya number of criterion for selectingitems to be included on the research agenda were offered:

Salience/relevanceGiven the limited resources with whichinstitutions must conduct research and, in some cases, declin-ing support for forest research, a dominant theme throughoutmany presentations was that research must be responsive tothe demands of users and decision-makers. Nevertheless, thiscriterion was by no intended to imply that there was no longera need for basic or pure research, which often provides thefoundational frameworks for applied research. In fact, basicand applied research must be blended or risk a loss of funda-mental knowledge.

FeasibilityAgain, recognizing that forest research operates within constraints, there must be an ex ante assessment ofwhether or not it will be possible to accomplish research goalsin the face of such constraints

Timelessness/urgencyRecalling the futures approach toagenda setting, institutions must not only consider the mostimportant issues of today, but what will manifest tomorrow, as

well. Scope of benefitsWill the research will serve a broad sector

of the public? Will the research product be innovative?Does the research

in question meet current needs and not duplicate existing

research? For example, providing users credibility. CredibilityWill the research produce results that can be

confidently trusted? LegitimacyCan the research be produced in a way that is

legitimate? How, for instance, will the considerations of stake-holders be legitimately incorporated?

Challenges and OpportunitiesGlobalization introduces a number of challenges and opportunitie

for setting the forest research agenda. For instance, national researchorganizations may operate more efficiently by identifying particularniches that they can fill, which may give rise to increased opportunities for partnerships. In terms of challenges, forest research organizations are not currently communicating the relevancy and value of forest research. Better communication will be necessary in order toestablish partnerships among organizations and between stakehold-ers. Finally, in an era of globalization, research organizations musnecessarily reconcile the competitive and cooperative dimensions ofresearch. Often, it may be the case that the incentives for cooperationare greater than competition.

Some Emergent Themes for the Agenda

Sustainability of forests and management Biodiversity Climate change Forest products needs change Genetics and breeding Land-use change Support of policy decisions Agroforestry Poverty alleviation Conservation and restoration New science of integration Forest ecosystem services Human attitudes and behaviors

Conflict Uncertainty and decision-making Technology advancement and applications New applications for forest and products Urban ecosystems

14 IUFRO 6.06.00


16/109


Funding and Finance Synthesis

Nine speakers from Europe, Latin America, Asia, and Africa sharedexperiences on innovative ways to mobilize resources to meet forestresearch organization needs, drawing on experiences and case studies

from their respective countries. The major challenge they outlined is that funding in the forest research sector has significantly diminished from all donorsources. While core operating funds are low, project-based, restricted fundingsources are representing a larger percentage of operating budgets. In light of

harder financial times, participants articulated several additional challengesFirst, forestry as a sector per se is declining in national and international prior-ity. Other natural resource and environmental interests are sometimes in direccompetition for funds that could sponsor forest research. Second, the businessmodel in forestry is outdated; a change in customer demands and needs areemerging. Real commodity prices are in steady decline within the forestry sec-tor. Lastly, research entities are experiencing decreasing viability on their own.

As a response to the general decline in funding, improving efficiency withlimited financial resources becomes increasingly important. Speakers discussedtargeting spending toward research priorities that are determined by multiplestakeholders, and increased dialogue and collaboration among research organizations, the public, and private sectors will help ensure that forest researchremains relevant to the needs of interested parties. Secondly, speakers empha-

sized the need to update business models, focus on consumer demand andneeds, and incorporate wood in new platforms using a value chain approachThe importance of developing a coherent strategic plan, and prioritizing spending according to that plan, was emphasized.

In the spirit of globalization, partnerships, and networking are also becomingan integral method of garnering financial and programmatic support. Regionanetworks can leverage financial support for groups with common research inter-ests. Networks can also prevent duplication of research efforts if information isshared, or interdisciplinary teams are assigned to investigate specific issuesExpanding partnerships can also improve technology transfer, and in turn create new funding and cost-sharing opportunities. Academic partnerships havebeen particularly successful among the case studies presented. Increased cooperation among local, regional, national, and global priorities and across sectors,

i.e., interdisciplinary efforts, can play an integral role in ensuring sustainablefunding while meeting research objectives. Organizations can also be proactiveby building on successes to leverage additional income and diversifying fundingsources. While speakers voiced concern over the current funding challenges, ingeneral they believed that innovative approaches, including new partnershipscould help overcome some of these constraints.

MODERATOR

Michael Goergen Jr.Society of American Foresters

RAPPORTEURS

Dana Roth

USDA Forest Service

Shawn YehDuke University


Address correspondence to Michael Goergen Jr., Society of American Foresters, 5400 Grosvenor Lane, Bethesda, MD 20814.E-mail: [email protected].


IUFRO 6.06.00 15


17/109


Stakeholder Convergence Modality:The Rallying Point for Multi-Sectoral R&D Partnership in UplandResource and Development Center

The Upland Resource and Development Center (URDC) is a 3-year-oldR&D arm under the Office of the President of the Isabela State University aCabagan, Isabela, Region 2, Philippines. It has the intention to provide a decision support system for program planners and policy makers as well as todemonstrate the economic viability and ecological soundness of certainupland technology mix that can address both concerns for increased foodproduction and biodiversity conservation. The center envisions to become a

resource and learning institution on upland development in Cagayan ValleyRegion, Northeastern Philippines with special focus on sustainable land-ustechnology transfer, buffer zone management, and landscape ecology.

Thus, through the stakeholder convergence modality under the scheme ointegration, counterpart funding/resource sharing, collaboration, networkingetc., the URDC, in its first year of operation, was able to form and organizea Local Agroforestry IEC Team, in partnership with the Philippine Agroforestry Education and Research Network (PAFERN) for financial assistancethe Local Government Unit of San Pablo, Isabela (LGU-SPI) for financial andtechnical assistance, and the local upland farmers of Limbauan, San PabloIsabela.

In its second year of operation, the URDC together with its newly organized Local Agroforestry IEC Team, came into further partnership with the

Department of Agriculture-Bureau of Agricultural Research (DA-BAR) fofinancial assistance in the implementation of its banner project Integratedand Sustainable Upland On-Farm R&D Project using the CommunityParticipatory Action-Research (CPAR) approach. It is expected to arrive at thebest combination of upland technologies that can give the highest economicreturns with the least pressure on the natural resources.

In its third year of operation, multiplier effect of the aforementioned projecis discerned through the establishment of replications in two other towns oIsabela. Nevertheless, one of these is not given much supervision due to dis-tance, inaccessibility, and lack of fund. There are more other local governmentunits or towns interested with the project but the university cannot at themoment go into partnership as it is wanting for its counterpart fund.

Keywords: sustainability, economic viability, technology mix.

The increasing demographic pressure on our remaining natural resourcethreatens to impair the continuous ecological functioning of many of oursupport systems, such as the forest. Heavy influx of people to the

uplands, alongside with wanton resource extraction, have resulted to rapid mar-ginalization of the natural resource base. In an effort to save the remaining forestsmany governments in Southeast Asia (SEA) began to place their entire primaryforest or other fragile but unique ecosystems under the Integrated Protect AreaSystem. Inside the protected area, different management zones are identified anddelineated specific function. One of these management zones is the buffer zone.

Florence Z. Tarun-AcayUpland Resource and Development Center,College of Forestry and Environmental Management,Isabela State Universit y


Address correspondence to Florence Z. Tarun-Acay, UplandResource and Development Center, College of Forestry andEnvironmental Management, Isabela State University, Cabagan,Isabela, Philippines. E-mail: [email protected] m.


IUFRO 6.06.00 17


18/109

The buffer zones, which delineate the peripheral boundaries ofprotected areas, function in two ways: protection and production.Having them as mere physical barrier without developing their pro-ductive capacity to support rural household economy may not serveas efficient deterrence against continuous human encroachment intothe protected areas.

In the Philippines, most buffer zones are the bastion of grasslandsor patches of savannah forest. Oftentimes, these vast areas if not non-arable are totally degraded. Considering that the buffer zones are thelast line of defense for protected areas against physical encroachment,urgent care and attention must be given in the way they should bemanaged.

The Cagayan Valley Region where the Northern Sierra MadreBiogeographic Zone lies is at the crossroad of development. It hasbeen envisaged to be the corridor for trade and commerce that willlink the northern part of the country to Taiwan, Hong Kong, and

Japan in the near future. Likewise, it houses one of the remaining fewbiodiversity reserves in the country, which has been under global

watch because of the potential threats to its high endemism.Although the region has the biggest watershed area in the country,

it does not translate, however, into big agricultural gains for the com-prising provinces because its topography is generally rugged and slop-ing. Its lowlands, with slope from 0 to 8 percent, cover only 8,293square kilometers or 31 percent of the total land area. About 7,751square kilometers or 29 percent have undulating to hilly terrain, withslopes greater than 8 to 30 percent. The largest portion consists ofmountainous areas with slopes greater than 30 percent. Almost halfof the total land-use area of 2,683,800 hectares are the bastion ofgrasslands.

With the passing of Republic Act 8435, known as the Agriculturaland Fisheries Modernization Act (AFMA) of 1997 in the Philippines,the agricultural sector has been targeted as the main springboard forthe countrys industrial take-off in the near future. Being the bannerprogram of the government, the Department of Agriculture (DA) asimplementing agency is faced with the task of putting the countrysland resources under optimum productive efficiency and sustainablemanagement.

Under AFMA, Region 02 has been primed up to be the food bas-ket of the country in the north. Undoubtedly, the pressure in theuplands would increase, as the search for more arable lands continuesover time. Likewise, problems associated with inorganic fertilizers,pesticides, and other agrochemical products application will conse-quently add health nuisance to the already polluted environment.

In the uplands, where the vast open public areas lie, many landlessand poor peasants rush in and strive to make a living from the alreadydegraded resources. Generally, people living in these areas live belowsubsistence level and are locked in the vicious cycle of poverty andenvironmental degradation. Under such continuously worseningcondition, the balance between burgeoning population and food sup-ply threatens to collapse as the natural resource base is shrinking anddegraded evermore.

Securing the food basket of a typical upland household amidstthe fast changing state of the natural landscape poses a big challengeto agricultural modernization in tandem with the countrys pursuit ofsustainable development.

Considering the unique natural endowment of Cagayan Valley ashaving a rich biodiversity reserve, the issue on hand is how to strikea balance between addressing the concern for increased food produc-tion and the need to preserve the remaining natural resources for bio-diversity conservation.

Convergence Modality for the Start-Up Project:The Soft Technology Phase

The creation of URDC was timely with the Philippine Agro-forestry Education and Research Network (PAFERN), which hasbeen assisting member institutions develop their agroforestry researchand extension capabilities, as its Swedish International Developmen

Aid (SIDA) funding came to an end in December 2004. URDC wasthen one of those qualified member institutions awarded by theNetwork seed money to implement a research and extension projectthat operates under partnership arrangement starting September2003. Thus, the URDC came into partnership with PAFERN undethis scheme for a start-up project.

The local government unit (LGU) of San Pablo is known as amongthe first towns in Isabela, Northeastern Philippines that developed amunicipal forestland use plan in the province. Being under the leadership of progressive-minded local executives, it seeks to fully imple-ment the said plan consistent with the principles of sustainable development. Its low technical capability, however, makes it difficult tomainstream the practice of sustainable land use among its constituents, especially in the uplands.

On the other hand, the Isabela State University (ISU), College oForestry and Environmental Management is one among the fourCenters for Excellence in Forestry Education in the country. Havinga pool of experts in agroforestry and sustainable agriculture, itendeavors (in collaboration with other colleges and departments ofthe university) to become an effective channel of upland technologiesin Cagayan Valley Region.

Thus, through the research fund of PhP 50,000.00 granted byPAFERN to ISU, Cabagan, Isabela in September 2003, a double tripartite agreement among LGU, academe, and PAFERN and LGUacademe, and farmer group/community for the implementation othe agroforestry extension project was forged (Figures 1 and 2). Thevice-mayor, in her power as the chair of the Sanguniang Bayan (SB)i.e., the legislative body of the LGU, open-heartedly endorsed andapproved their PhP 50,000.00 counterpart.

Thus, the end in view to create an Agroforestry Extension Teamfrom among the locals that comprise the first practitioners and extension agents of sustainable upland farming technology in the munici-pality has materialized through a series of project briefings, Lakbay

Aral (Guided Study Tour), consultative meetings and other forms ofsocial negotiations. This event coincided with the URDC teameffort to fine tune the joint ISU-Department of Agriculture-Bureauof Agricultural Research (DA-BAR) Integrated and Sustainable OnFarm Upland R&D Project. It was then later agreed by the URDCteam that both PAFERN and DA-BAR projects would have the samestudy site and farmer participants.

18 IUFRO 6.06.00

Figure 1. Diagram showing the tripartite agreement scheme/framework among the LGU, academe, and PAFERN and LGU, academeand farmer group/community.


19/109

Convergence Modality for the Banner Project:The Hard Technology Phase

The Integrated and Sustainable Upland On-Farm R&D (ISUR&D) Project, the flagship of URDC, commenced on August 24,2004 upon the release of the PhP 1,000,000,000.00 grant from DA-BAR. It is a 3-year project with the overall aim to demonstrate the eco-nomic viability and ecological soundness of certain upland technolo-gies that can address rural farm households concerns both for food andcash on a sustainable basis. It is at this juncture that the LGU San Pablomayor (the same person of LGU San Pablo vice-mayor under thePAFERN project) was all the more delighted for further partnership

with URDC with much hope that she might be able to cause povertyalleviation and enhance food security for the future generation amongher farmer constituents. Thus another tripartite agreement was forgedamong the LGU, Academe, and DA-BAR. The mayor approved their

PhP 500,000 worth of material and technical assistance as counterpartfor the project. It was just unfortunate that she was no longer themayor during the period of the project implementation. Nevertheless,she left a legacy to her constituents as the new mayor embraced theproject by releasing the previously approved fund by the prior mayor.

Being development-oriented people, the LGU officials embracedthe second offer of partnership by URDC due to the fact that they

were delighted with the promise that the future of their generationsgeneration is ensured through the adoption of the following distinc-tive of the project: conducts downstream research; engages in improv-ing and fine tuning already tested technologies; packages, dissemi-nates technologies and process documents, mode of transfer; andconcerns more on finding the best combination of technologies,

incentives, appropriate institutions, and partnership arrangements foran effective delivery system.All the above-mentioned premise of the project delighted the offi-

cials of two other LGUs of San Mariano (LGU-SMI) and Palanan(LGU-PI), Isabelaeach with an approved counterpart fund of PhP500,000. In April 2005, the mayor of LGU-SMI also embraced theproject (Figure 3).

In February 2005, the mayor of LGU-PI embraced the project. Inher power as the local community executive, she immediately appro-priated from her discretionary fund the PhP 500,000.00 counterpartfund for the improvement of a project previously planted and aban-doned on a LGU-DA farm (Figure 4).

IUFRO 6.06.00 19

Lessons Learned Building partnership through technology transfer among LGU

academe, and farmers requires organizational, coordinative, andfacilitative skills.

The LGU as a supra-local actor is a strategic conduit of technology transfer because of its socio-political influence on its con-

stituents. There is much to explore in terms of expanding the LGU institutional capacity for partnership, given the new role of LGU as thelocal manager of the natural resources as embodied in the local government code.

The LGU is much more motivated to enter into collaborativeundertakings with the academe if it perceives its role as co-imple-menter rather than just a project support.

Breaking farmers dole-out mentality requires strict rules, transparency, consistency in project implementation, and extra understanding of their socioeconomic realities.

Recognizing farmers initial good performance results in improved

Figure 2. A photo showing the signing of MOA among the LGU vice-mayor, URDC director, and the farmers group. (Photo byCDCAS faculty-partner.) Figure 3. The LGU-SMI mayors wife during an IEC with the

farmers.

Figure 4. The LGU-PI mayor together with her husband ex-mayoin the LGU-DA-established model farm.


20/109

confidence and level of participation. Farmers benefited more in the educational trips and on the job

training than classroom-type lectures or visits to simulated technol-ogy demonstration sites.

The farmer-to-farmer interactive extension approach is much moreeffective than scientist-to-farmer technology transfer mode.

Resource counterparting develops a greater sense of collectiveresponsibility and draws mutual respect among partners.

The experiential learning process takes time but it is effective inchanging rural farmers attitude toward technology adoption.

Conclusion and Recommendations Dynamic partnership in technology transfer among LGU, acad-

eme, and farmers is viable under a progressive thinker local execu-tive, participatory development-oriented university faculty staff,and highly motivated organized farmer participants. This kind ofpartnership should be upscaled countrywide.

The LGU is a potential organizational conduit for technologytransfer, being the intermediary link between the community andthe central government agencies for rural development. It has thepolitical influence and the required resources to make things hap-pen at the local level. However, we need to create more spaces forit to continue to come to the fore through provisions of enablingpolicies, institutional incentives, and capacity building, especiallyincreasing their involvement and tapping their leadership;

The academe best functions as training organizer and facilitator. Itshould refrain from being always the information source but ratherfunction as network of new ideas and support systems.

Breaking farmers dole-out mentality requires strict policy, incen-tive, and sanction measures to bring forth the desired resultingbehavior. Local counterparting and value transformation have tobe constantly introduced,

Farmers do respond more to on-the-job training and on-farmvisitation under farmer-to-farmer interactive teaching approachthan classroom monologue learning situations or through simulated demonstration set-ups. Training activities should do away withthe classical classroom-type learning. Rather, more interactive andexperiential adult education and gender-sensitive methods shouldbe employed.

Formation of a local agroforestry extension team through a gendersensitive, transparent, process-oriented, demand-driven, experientialand interactive on-farm learning approach can be easily achievedby partnership arrangement under a development-oriented LGUsocially equipped academe, and exploratory-nature farmers. Thereshould be more projects to be funded and tested of this kind.

Literature CitedCINCOTTA, R.P., AND R. ENGELMAN. 2000. Natures Place: Human

Population and the Future of Biological Diversity. Population ActionInternational.

CONSERVATION INTERNATIONAL-PHILIPPINES (CI-P)/DENR/BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION PROGRAM-UPLB. 2006. PhilippineBiodiversity Conservation Priorities: A Second Iteration of theNational Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan.

CI-P/DENR. 2004. Sierra Madre Biodiversity Corridor Design andImplementation Framework.

CONSERVATION INTERNATIONAL-WASHINGTON DC (CI-W). 2004Conserving Earths Living Heritage: A Proposed Framework foDesigning Biodiversity Conservation Strategies.

CI-W.A Future for Life: Vision, Action, Results: CIs Strategy for 2005-2010.

REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL 02. 2005. Cagayan ValleyRegional Physical Framework Plan (2001-2030). NEDATuguegarao City.

20 IUFRO 6.06.00


21/109


Developing Strategies for an International Research Organization

The European Forest Institute (EFI) was established in 1993 as a FinnishAssociation. Today, the Institute is an international organization with 17 member countries and more than 130 member organizations, and it has growingregional activities throughout Europe. This article describes the process odeveloping strategies for the Institute, starting from the mapping of the chang-ing business environment to formulation of vision, key functions, long- andshort-term goals, and finally the methods for measuring performance of the

organization towards its goals. It is concluded that both the results of the strategy development and the working process itself have value for the organization

Keywords: research strategies, networking.

The idea behind establishing the European Forest Institute (EFI) in 1993

was the need for a new organisation that would focus on pan-Europeanresearch issues and concerns, and serve as an information centre in spe

cific topic areas. EFI was founded as an association based on Finnish law inOctober 1993. From a modest base of 12 members, the Institute had extendedits membership base in 2005 to 135 member organisations in 34 Europeancountries and in five countries outside Europe. This positive development con

firmed both the relevance and the role of the Institute in Europe.Based on an extensive consultation of EFI member organisations and the

European States, a convention on EFI was agreed on and signed by 20 countriein August 2003. As the ratification process in the first eight countries was completed, EFI became an international organisation in 2005, and the Finnish

Association was abolished. The ratifying countries became thus called thMembers of EFI, and the organisational members became Associate and

Affiliate Members.At this stage, the re-established Institute started to revise its vision and strate

gies to achieve the long-term goals. The EFI strategy development is divided inthe following phases:

1. Development of the overall vision2. Defining the key functions of the Institute

3. Formulating strategic long-term goals for key functions4. Deriving short-term goals corresponding to the strategic goals5. Identifying critical elements in order to achieve the goals6. Developing methods to assess the performance towards the goalsToday, EFI is a forest research network consisting of the following core units

Headquarters (HQ) and network elements outside HQ, namely Regional Offices(ROs), Project Centres (PCs) addressing special issues on a fixed term basis, and

Associate and Affiliate Members, thus comprising a broad institutional andexpert network. EFI has 40 employees in the headquarters in Joensuu, Finlandan annual budget of 3 million Euros, Project Centres in seven countries, and aRegional Office in Barcelona, Spain covered by voluntary contributions.

Risto PivinenEuropean Forest Institute


Address correspondence to Risto Pivinen, European ForestInstitute, Torikatu 34, Joensuu 80100, Finland. E-mail: [email protected].


IUFRO 6.06.00 21


22/109

VisionWhen looking outside of the Institute, there are visible signs that

the forest research business environment is changing. There are sometrends having impact on forest research, its funding and organising

which can be identified as the following: Climate change is advancing, affecting ecosystems function-

ing and causing abrupt changes through natural disasters. Urban values are becoming more popular, creating new kind

of pressure towards forests and forestry.

European energy policies are changing the structure of woodand fibre consumption, and consequently also that of thewood markets.

Forestry and forests are often seen as a part of a larger entityfading away as a separate concept in research, education, andadministration.

All the facts above call for pan-European research with efficientorganising and networking with other research fields and other pro-fessions. The concept of EFI has proved to be suitable for these tasksand has therefore benefited from these developments.

The total forest research capacity in the National Forest ResearchInstitutes (NFRIs) in Europe is approximately 3,000 researcher-yearsannually (Figure 1). Universities and other forest-related institutes in

Europe account close to the same amount as the NFRIs. In other words, EFI represents only less than 1% of the European forestresearch capacity.

In this context the strengths of EFI are: a growing membership base and its broad geographic scope; the potential to represent the Institutes network in the

European scale issues; the establishment of regional activities concerning the

European dimension; the potential to become the main interface between forest pol-

icy-makers, and to analyse such policies on the Europeanscale; and

the Institutes track record as an information provider and dis-

seminator.In order to enforce the Institutes existing potentials describedabove, the following vision statement was formulated:

EFI is the leading institution conducting and advocating forestresearch and facilitating forest research networking at the pan-European level. It is a provider of, and major contact point forunbiased, policy-relevant information on European forests andforestry.

As there are many competent research centres in various Europeancountries, it is emphasised that the weight in the vision statement isin the expression networking at the pan-European level. In thisrespect, EFI is the sole actor.

Key FunctionsIn order to carry out the EFI vision, the following have been iden-tified as the key functions of EFI:

to facilitate and stimulate forest research networking at thepan-European level;

to conduct research and provide expertise at the pan-Europeanlevel;

to promote the supply of unbiased and policy-relevant infor-mation on European forests and forestry; and

to advocate for forest research and for scientifically soundinformation as a basis for policy-making on forests in Europe.

As for the networking, EFI will provide a platform, an effective infra-

structure, and networking services to Associate and Affiliate Membersand the forest and research community as a whole to allow efficientmobilisation of research capacities, to respond to emerging needs, andto facilitate cooperation with other relevant fields of research.

The research issues of pan-European interest are best addressed byan international research organisation with a network of leadingexperts. Conducting quality research of its own supports the integration of EFI into the scientific community and increases credibility inperforming its other core activities.

To satisfy the various needs for value-added, science-based infor-mation, EFI compiles and disseminates information on Europeanforests and forestry for a broad base of target groups which will beable to benefit from having easy access to information and expertiseat their disposal.

On one hand, the forest research community in Europe needs toaddress the role of science-based information in decision- and policymaking, and on the other hand it needs to maintain and upgrade itsresearch capacity in order to fulfil the information needs. The addedvalue of EFIs advocacy role for the research community is in theimproved access of forest research institutions to political and indus-trial decision-makers on the EC and Member State level thus enhancing support for the funding of scientific projects and programmes.

Strategic Long-Term Goals for the Next 15 YearsThe tentative goals for networking until 2022 are the provision fo

Associate and Affiliate Members with increased efficiency in thei

tasks through better cooperation, mobilisation of research capacitiesand pooling of available resources. This includes a three-level infra-structure (Figure 2) in which each interested party may choose theappropriate level of participation:

integrated research network of Headquarters and RegionalOffices,

thematic Project Centres with limited duration, or support services for connecting forest researchers both within

the forest sector, with other relevant fields of research, andwith relevant stakeholders.

The ultimate research goal is policy relevant and high quality workResearch includes functions of capacity building based on research

22 IUFRO 6.06.00

Figure 1. Forest research years in the National Forest ResearchInstitutes (NFRIs) in Europe.


23/109

based expertise. Tentatively, the goals of the EFI research and expert-ise are as follows:

EFI research provides target groups with results useful for theirneeds. EFI continuously identifies policy relevant researchissues and builds know-how in the state-of-the-art of forest sci-ence in Europe, and defines strategic directions for its research.

EFI utilises the best expertise, methodology, and data availableby relying on highly qualified staff and a European network ofhighly competent research scientists, extending its researchcapacities through PCs, and through networking and cooper-ation with Associate and Affiliate Members and other relevantresearch bodies.

EFI provides research-based expert services to target groups inissues of pan-European relevance.

In order to efficiently serve policy-making and provide value-added information, the EFI research strategy needs to point outclear preferences in the research issues. The following researchdirections are potentially included in the EFI research activities andprovision of expert services: Foresight studies on future conditions

of forest-based well-being, state-of-the-art of forest research, forestsas renewable resources for wood, energy, water, and other goods andservices, effects of forest on economic, environmental, social, andcultural sustainability, impacts of climate change, supply, demand,trade, and value chains of timber and other forest products, com-petitiveness of forestry, and the best practices of governance in theforest sector.

As long-term goals of information provision strategy are: EFI is established as a major contact point for researchers and

decision-makers seeking unbiased and policy-relevant infor-mation on European forests and forestry. Besides disseminat-ing its own research results, EFI provides links to other exist-ing forest-related information, provides value-added synthe-

ses, foresight, conclusions, and options for decision-making. New and innovative ways of compiling and presenting infor-mation are continuously explored and developed.

The long-term goals of the advocacy function include: The forest research community in Europe is seen as a well-

organised group, able to react on policy needs by carrying outrelevant research, and willing to bring important scientificfindings to be discussed in the political arena. In this way, theforest research community contributes to the development ofthe science-policy interface.

At a global level, EFI represents Europe in various occasionsfor advocating forest science, respectfully.

IUFRO 6.06.00 23

Possible Critical Success Factors and IndicatorsAt institute level, there are a number of potential factors which cre-

ate the basis for successful implementation of strategies. First of allclear and communicated goals will make it possible to concretise thelinks between strategy and actions helping staff members in varioustasks to place themselves in the strategy. Secondly, without capableand motivated staff no organisation can survive. Special attentionshould be paid for in recruiting and keeping good staff members

Also a good working environment and the reputation of the instituteas an attractive employer are essential. Reliable service image amongresearch community and among the clients will contribute to theresearch networking and success in fund-raising. To keep the keyprocesses running smoothly, those have to be identified and priori-tised with the aim of being effective and transparent.

Critical success factors have a certain sequence, some of those beingprerequisites to the others. To start with, funding should be availablebefore recruiting staff members who will be able to create the goodreputation. The factors also have a feedback mechanism: more funding needs capable staff and good reputation. In case of an existingorganisation, such as EFI, all critical factors are there, some betterdeveloped than others. The strategy work and its implementation aimat identifying the critical success factors, and managing these factorto support the carrying out of the strategic goals.

Developing Methods to Assess Performance TowardsStrategic Goals

In order to systematise the planning and monitoring processes, thesteps towards the goals have to be measurable. Introduction of clearly defined success indicators increases transparency of the manage-ment and provide criteria for motivation and rewarding the staff.

The success indicators should cover various dimensions, such aimpact, quality, and effectiveness. The activities should have animpact to clients, policy-making, science, or other relevant sectors othe Institute. The impact assessment reflects the possibilities in forespolicies, forestry practices of public attitude towards forest sector dueto the research findings.

The quality of the activities does not only include the quality ofresearch, but also the supportive functions, such as administrationand internal communication. A standard way of measuring researchquality is the number of peer reviewed articles in scientific journals

With this success indicator it is possible to measure the effectivenes

Figure 3. Organogramme of EFI.

Figure 2. Networking levels of EFI.


24/109

of the activity by input/output ratio, such as workload/achieve-ments.

The approach is to select a set of success indicators for key process-es and/or key management units of the organisation. The indicatorsare used in communicating the strategic goals at all levels of theorganisation. The challenge is to select a limited amount of indicatorsand to address the organisational units responsible for performancemeasured by indicators.

OrganisationThe EFI organisation first developed its time as an association,which was then amended through the establishing of the internation-al organisation. The Convention on EFI defines the organs of theInstitute with the following division: a Council, a Conference, aBoard, and a Secretariat headed by a Director. EFI has also estab-lished other operative organs for implementing its purpose and func-tions (Figure 3).

EFI structure at the Headquarters in Joensuu, Finland, is based onfour Research Programmes and a Research Support group which isdivided into two teams, administration and communication. TheProject Centres in seven countries and the to-be-established RegionalOffice in Barcelona, Spain, complement the activities to have a trulyEuropean coverage.

The Research Programmes, RO, and PCs implement EFI strategiesas defined by the EFI Board and approved annually in the EFIConference by the Associate Members. Member countries set thehigher level of EFI policy framework in the Council meetings everythird year.

In addition, EFIs Scientific Advisory Board (SAB) advises the

Board and Director, and various administrative meetings at the HQassist the Director in the running of management issues. The finan-cial and substantial reporting takes place at the EFI AnnuaConference and it is prepared by the Secretariat and the Board.

In the organisational development, the operative organs and theitasks will be under discussion: Headquarters, Regional Offices andProject Centres, the Scientific Advisory Board, ResearchProgrammes, and various teams of the Secretariat. The aim is todefine the bodies and their tasks to maximise the cost-efficiency inachieving the strategic goals.

Over the recent years it has been noted that the development of theHQ has been stabilised whereas the PC and RO sector is growingfaster. For organisational and managerial structures this means thatthe distance-management is increasing. EFI needs to consider itsorganisational structure, of having more systematic managementools applicable everywhere, in the HQ, ROs, and PCs, and clearercommunication on how all staff members could work effectivelytowards the strategic goals selected.

ConclusionsThe strategy is of uttermost importance in communicating the

intentions of the organisation internally to its members, memberorganisations, and staff members, and externally to the clients ofresearch and to a broader general public. But it is not only the resultthat makes a difference. The process itself, the discussions among thestaff, member countries, member organisations, Board, and SAB members, has already in this stage helped to identify the potentials and chal-lenges of a network organisation, such as EFI, to utilise the possibilitiesand find its niche and clientele in the changing business environment

24 IUFRO 6.06.00


25/109


Forest Research in the United Kingdom:A View from the University Sector

The total area of woodland in Great Britain at March 2006 was 2.74m hectaresof which one-third was state-owned and two-thirds private; total annual woodproduct

iufro proceedings

Documents