working effectively at the interface of forest science and ... guldi… · working effectively at...

Inte

rnat

iona

l Uni

on o

f For

est

Rese

arch

Org

aniza

tions

Working Effectively at theInterface of Forest Scienceand Forest Policy

Guidance for Scientists andResearch Organizations

Richard W. Guldin, John A. Parrotta,and Eeva Hellström

IUFRO Task Force on theForest Science-Policy Interface

International Union of Forest Research OrganizationsUnion Internationale des Instituts de Recherche ForestièreUnión Internacional de Organizaciones de Investigación ForestalInternationaler Verband Forstlicher Forschungsanstalten

IUFRO Occasional Paper No. 17ISSN 1024-414X

Working Effectively at the Interface ofForest Science and Forest Policy

Guidance for Scientists andResearch Organizations

IUFRO Task Force on theForest Science-Policy Interface

Prepared by:Richard W. Guldin, John A. Parrotta,

and Eeva Hellström

Supported by:USDA-Forest Service

IUFRO Headquarters, Vienna, Austria, 2005Copyright by IUFRO and the authors

International Union of Forest Research OrganizationsUnion Internationale des Instituts de Recherches ForestièresUnión Internacional de Organizaciones de Investigación ForestalInternationaler Verband Forstlicher Forschungsanstalten

IUFRO Occasional Paper No. 17 ISSN 1024-414X

IUFRO Occasional PapersThe IUFRO Occasional Paper Series was initiated in 1994 and is intended for rapid dissemina-tion of publications reflecting IUFRO activities, reports of meetings, frameworks for TaskForces, and collaboration with other organizations. This in-house publication series has beenconverted into an electronic series in early 2005, underlining its ambition of bringing forwardIUFRO’s immediate position on important forest-related issues.

Publications in this series are available on our website www.iufro.org under Publications ordirectly at http://www.iufro.org/publications/series/occasional-papers/.

Occasional Paper No. 1 - Global Change and Terrestrial Ecosystems (GCTE) - Effectsof Global Change on Managed Forests

Occasional Paper No. 2 - Actas de la Reunión Internacional sobre La Red de InformaciónForestal para América Latina y el Caribe (out of print!)

Occasional Paper No. 3 - Planning a ConferenceOccasional Paper No. 4 - IUFRO Task Force “Forest, Climate Change and Air

Pollution” - Final Report of the Period 1991 - 1995Occasional Paper No. 5 - Do we have enough forests?Occasional Paper No. 6 - Ecosystem-Based Management of Natural Resources:

a Step Towards Sustainable DevelopmentOccasional Paper No. 7 - Perceptions and Attitudes of the Population Towards Forests

and Their Social BenefitsOccasional Paper No. 8 - International Bibliography of Dictionaries, Glossaries and

Terminological Publications in Forestry and Related SciencesOccasional Paper No. 9 - Sustainable Forest Management: Contribution of ResearchOccasional Paper No. 10 - Financing Forest Sector Research: Theory and European TheoryOccasional Paper No. 11 - Is Sustainable Development of the Russian Forest Sector

Possible?Occasional Paper No. 12 - Global Forest Information Service - Papers presented at the

Global Forest Information Service Side Event of the ThirdSession of the United Nations Intergovernmental Forum onForests (IFF 3)

Occasional Paper No. 13 - IUFRO Task Force “Forest Science-Policy Interface” - Paperspresented at a Side Event of the Third Intergovernmental Forumon Forests (IFF 3)

Occasional Paper No. 14 - Forest Terminology - Living Expert Knowledge. How to getSociety to Understand Forest Terminology

Occasional Paper No. 15 - Science and Technology - Building the Future of the World’sForests / Planted Forests and Biodiversity (Contributions to theThird Session of the United Nations Forum on Forests in 2003,Geneva, Switzerland

Occasional Paper No. 16 - Forest Research – Challenges and Concepts in a ChangingWorld. Proceedings of the International Symposium convenedon the occasion of the 110th anniversary of IUFRO on 9-10October 2002 in Vienna, Austria

For more information, please contact:IUFRO Headquarters, Hauptstr. 7, A-1140 Vienna.Website: www.iufro.org * E-mail: [email protected] * Fax: +43-1-8770151-50

IUFRO Occasional Paper 17 printed in Austria by:Eigner Druck, 3040 Neulengbach

Contents

Introduction .................................................................... 7

Purpose of the Guidelines............................................. 7

The Guidelines ............................................................... 8

I. In conducting research, researchers should addressquestions that are relevant to policy issues ........................... 9

Focus on Values & Needs ....................................................................... 9Conduct Interdisciplinary Research .................................................... 10Look to the Future ................................................................................. 11

II. Conduct research in a communicative andcollaborative manner ............................................................ 12Communicate Effectively, Often, and Through Multiple Channels .. 12Synthesize Knowledge and Identify Values Ascribed to Science ...... 15Create Partnerships .............................................................................. 16

III. Understand, serve and engage in policy processes ......... 17Understand Policy Processes ............................................................... 17Serve Policy Processes ......................................................................... 18Engage in Policy Processes ................................................................. 19Facilitate Relations between Stakeholders and Policy-Makers ....... 20

IV. Create organizational capacity and culture that enablesand encourages work at the science-policy interface .... 21Improve Capacity to Engage in Policy Processes .............................. 21Improve Policy Relevancy of Research ............................................... 22Maintain Independence and Neutrality .............................................. 23

Closing Commentary.................................................. 24

Appendix ........................................................................................ 26

Workshop Summaries and List of Case StudiesEvaluated by the Task Force ................................................................ 26

IUFRO Task Force on the Forest Science-Policy Interface

6

IUFRO Task Force on the Science-Policy Interface

Working Effectively at the Interface of Forest Science and Forest Policy

7

Introduction

In 1998, the International Union of Forest Research Organizations (IUFRO) established a TaskForce on the Forest Science-Policy Interface. The goal of the Task Force is to identify strategiesand mechanisms for improving communication between forest scientists and policy-makers to en-sure that sound science is considered in the formulation of forest policies and on-the-ground forestmanagement practices. The Task Force worked towards the goal in a two-step process:

Three regional workshops were held to gather case studies describing instances wherenew knowledge and technologies from research influenced policy deliberations. The work-shops focused on the Americas (Costa Rica: 2001), the Asia-Pacific region (India: 2002),and the Europe, Africa and the Middle East regions (Denmark: 2003). Results have beenpublished in three special issues of international journals and are available on the IUFROwebsite1 .

A final workshop was held in June 2004 in Switzerland that brought together leading re-searchers and forest policy experts to synthesize findings from the case studies and iden-tify recurring themes. The recurring themes were refined into guidelines for scientists,research teams, and leaders of research organizations. The full report from this workshopis also available on the IUFRO website.

Purpose of the Guidelines

Society is the ultimate beneficiary of forestry research. But to generate value for society, researchresults must be used by someone — policy-makers, forestry practitioners, landowners, educators,other researchers. The science-policy interface is all about utilizing scientific knowledge moreeffectively. Often, research is planned and conducted before giving adequate thought to exactlyhow the results will be transformed into usable information. The purpose of these guidelines is toprovide advice to researchers and research leaders on how to plan, conduct, and organize researchactivities so that results can more quickly and easily be transformed into usable information forproblem-solving and policy-making. Although not all research is focused on policy-relevant ques-tions, we believe that following the advice in this report can increase the impact of research onforest policy and improve the practice of forestry, thereby creating more value more quickly forsociety from forestry research.

Working Effectively at the Interface ofForest Science and Forest Policy

Richard W. Guldin, John A. Parrotta, Eeva Hellström

1 Revista Forestal Centroamericana No. 37, 2002; Forest Policy and Economics, Volume 5, Issue 4,December 2003; the Scandinavian Journal of Forest Research, Volume 19, Supplement No. 4, August 2004.http://www.iufro.org/science/task-forces/sciencepolicy-interface/


8

The Guidelines

The guidelines fall into four major categories:

Focusing research on questions that are relevant to policy issues;Conducting research in a communicative and collaborative manner;Understanding, serving and engaging in policy processes; andCreating organizational capacity and culture that enables and encourageswork at the science-policy interface

Although the guidelines may appear self-evident and not new, we believe that there are many situationswhere these principles are not currently being followed. As a result, some research has little or no impacton problems or policies and some research institutions lack vigor, have limited reputations, and lack thenecessary resources to fulfill their missions. Although these guidelines may appear simple, we believethat if they are taken to heart and applied diligently, science will create greater impact and more value forresearch clients, reinvigorate research, improve reputations of research institutions and individual scien-tists, and garner the resources needed to make a difference locally, nationally, and globally.

We also note that these guidelines represent primarily the views of the scientific community from ourvantage point on the science side of the forest science-policy interface. Although there may be thingsthat policy-makers can also do to improve the flow of information across the science-policy interface,those things are not the focus of these guidelines.

Participants of the Workshop of the IUFRO Task Force on theForest Science-Policy Interface held in Birmensdorf, Switzerland, 2004


9

2 For the purposes of this document, “interdisciplinary” research refers to the deliberate, targeted collaboration of individuals whoseskills represent different disciplines.3 The word “value” is used here in a generic and all-encompassing sense. Although it includes economic value, it is not limited to that. Alsoincluded in the concept of values are things such as contributions of forests to people’s quality of life and emotional or spiritual well-being. Forests create value for people in many different ways —both tangible and intangible. Understanding the multiple dimensions ofvalue that forests create for different people is central to this first guideline.

In conducting research,researchers should addressquestions that are relevant topolicy issues

Many of the problems of most interest to policy-mak-ers are complex, embracing broader environmentaland socio-economic issues that should be addressedthrough interdisciplinary2 and cross-sector research.If scientists want to have an impact on policy, theymust carefully assess what research is relevant. Asan example, if rural poverty reduction is a critical policyissue, then what may be needed is additional under-standing of the role of forests and how they might bemanaged to increase their socio-economic contribu-tions to rural communities. This will require a blendof biological, social, and economic research skills.Picking research questions that are relevant to themost pressing policy issues helps build interest andsupport for the research. Syntheses of case studiessuggest 6 specific guidelines.

Focus on Values & Needs

1. People’s values3 about forests should beconsidered in planning, conducting,and implementing research as well asin policy-making.

There is no substitute for scientists and policy-mak-ers having a clear understanding about the value thatpeople place on forests and how they are protected,managed, and used. Researchers who invest effortto become culturally aware and sensitive to alterna-tive value systems and who understand the depth offeeling that people have for forests have been moresuccessful in seeing their results influence policy andbe implemented on the ground.

The impetus for revising or implementing new forestpolicies typically arises from one of two situations.Either public values change or forest conditionschange in ways detrimental to the current values thepublic holds about their forests. In either case, un-

derstanding the values which different segments ofthe public hold regarding forests is central to plan-ning and conducting research to inform the policychange process. A related point is that scientific in-formation is rarely the primary driver of policy change.Rather, scientific information is, at best, informationthat illuminates the fact that values are changing orthat forest conditions are changing. Science may alsoshed light on how risks or uncertainties previouslyaccepted by policy makers are changing, or that newoptions for mitigating changes detrimental to currentvalues have been discovered. The role of new sci-entific information is primarily reshaping the founda-tion for dialogue about policies — a second-order ef-fect on policy development — rather than forcingpolicy change.

Many of the case studies evaluated by the Task Forcehighlighted the roles that cultural dimensions of soci-eties and communities played in creating and shapingpublic attitudes about forests. When cultural dimen-sions were recognized and built into the scientifichypotheses and the alternative treatments to be tested,research results were more relevant and credible inthe community and provided a stronger foundationfor policy-making than when the cultural dimensionswere ignored. This is particularly the case in regionswhere people are highly dependent on forests to meetdaily subsistence needs and/or provide jobs and in-comes. Forest researchers and policy-makers whoare sensitive to the cultural dimensions and subsis-tence needs of forest residents and other forest-de-pendent communities when planning and implement-ing management plans will have more success thanthose who overlook these realities. Indeed, scien-tists or policy-makers who are insensitive to theseneeds are often seen as arrogant and their proposalsare typically ignored. Local communities are veryperceptive about what facets of the forest are im-portant to their quality of life. Often, though, thosefacets are not neatly summarized for researchers’use. Thus, studies of how communities use forestsand the benefits they derive from them can be asimportant as studies of new protection or manage-ment or use activities.

I.


10

2. A clear focus on needs enhances theeffectiveness of forest research and itsinfluence on policy-makers.

Policy-makers respond more readily to research thataffects their constituents’ or clients’ needs — valuesthat are unsatisfied or at risk of being lost. Scientistswho integrate high priority constituent or client needsinto their research will improve the likelihood that theresearch results will be useful for making policy. Re-search carried out with a clear focus on meeting theneeds of end-users (e.g., land-holders, forest man-agers, communities) will have the greatest chance ofinfluencing policy-makers.

Sometimes the needs will be related to solving specificproblems, which may lead to some specific appliedresearch or perhaps even basic research if funda-mental relationships are not yet well established.Sometimes the needs may be related to understandingbetter what the problem really is, which may lead toresearch that is more conceptual or strategic thantactical. In some cases, the needs may even be relatedto improving policy processes, which may lead toresearch on policy making or decision support systems.The point is that clearly understanding and focusingon the needs will enhance research effectiveness andinfluence.

Conduct Interdisciplinary Research

3. Research that is both interdisciplinaryand integrative is needed to understandand deal with complex forest resourcemanagement issues.

Forest science is inherently interdisciplinary, requiringa range of scientific disciplines to fully consider allthe ecological, social, and economic dimensions ofissues. This is particularly important in regions wherepeople depend heavily on forests and their goods andservices for their subsistence, livelihood, and security.Interdisciplinary research is also important inidentifying and conceptualizing policy questions.Research is integrative when it blends informationfrom several disciplines to create broader or deeperunderstanding than is possible from any singlediscipline. Numerous case studies dealing with issuesat landscape (i.e., watershed) scales highlighted theimportance of integrative research.

Funding bodies are increasingly requiring inter-disciplinary, integrative approaches to forest research.In light of the worldwide downward trend in thenumbers of people being trained in forest science, anemerging challenge for forest science organizationsis to balance the need to train scientists who are well-rounded, having a basic knowledge of many facetsof forests and forestry, against the need to developthe in-depth expertise needed in specific fields tounderstand the complexity of the issues facing theforestry community today. Some breadth of know-ledge and some detailed knowledge are both neededfor research teams to be effective in dealing withcomplex forest resource management issues.

There are two pathways to gain the necessary breadthand depth of knowledge. One is to first gain somebreadth of knowledge, and then obtain additionaldetailed training in a specific field of science. This isthe traditional approach offered by universities. Thesecond pathway is to bring together specialists invarious fields and, over time, give them the cross-disciplinary training needed to broaden their know-ledge and enable them to work more effectivelytogether. This pathway is taken less frequently. Thecase studies suggest that the traditional pathway maynot always be the best pathway, or the one that allowsresearch institutions the most agility or flexibility intackling new problems or issues as they emerge.

To enhance the effectiveness of the second pathwayto interdisciplinary research, research organizationsmay need to introduce on-the-job training in teamworkand career-broadening training in various scientificdisciplines to boost the ability of teams of scientists,each from a different discipline, to work together moreeffectively. During academic training in specific dis-ciplines, some introduction to working in teams mayneed to be added to curricula. Innovations in teachingteamwork and integrative science are beginning toemerge in natural resources programs around theworld. Research organizations may also need toadapt their structures and reward systems to promoteinterdisciplinary and integrative work. For instance,the organization might move from individual per-formance evaluations to team evaluations or fromindividual awards for outstanding performance to teamawards.


11

4. Researchers should assess the impactsof a policy option in light of the valuesand needs of the different parties withan interest — a stake — in the policydecision. A thorough impactassessment will usually require a suite ofdifferent scientific disciplines.

In evaluating the potential impact of a policy option,researchers should consider possible conflictingobjectives, values, and needs of people andorganizations with an interest in the policy decision4 .For instance, different groups may use a forest fordifferent purposes (e.g., gathering mushrooms andwatching birds) and the proposed policy may affectthe different users differently. Different interestgroups may have varying degrees of influence withpolicy-makers (e.g., hunters who buy hunting licensesmay have more influence than bird watchers whodon’t pay license fees). Local interests who dependon a particular forest may experience differenteconomic or social impacts of a policy decision thanother interests who are concerned about all forestsin a region or nation.

The challenge for the researcher and policy analystis to identify the potential impacts of a policy optionin all of their dimensions. A thorough assessment ofpotential impacts typically requires several differentdisciplines drawn from the fields of ecology,economics, and social science. The best assessmentsoccur when scientists from several disciplines worktogether on an assessment (interdisciplinary team) toproduce a single report rather than work independentlyto produce a set of separate reports. The case studiesillustrated that the impacts on various interests andtheir values and motivations usually emerge in a richerand fuller way with interdisciplinary teams conductingthe impact analysis than with independent disciplinaryanalyses, especially in the case of competing objec-tives.

5. Researchers should consider the role ofscience in policy implementation as wellas in policy definition and development.

Too often, research is only used to help define anissue or develop an appropriate response. Often over-looked is the important role that research can play in

shaping the implementation of policy decisions. Spe-cifically, research can help design protocols for moni-toring and evaluating policy implementation. Is thepolicy having the intended effect? Are the impactsbeing created those that were expected? Are therisks that were identified being mitigated effectively?If monitoring shows that the policy is not having thedesired effect or that impacts are different than whatwere expected, then the monitoring information canhelp policy-makers adapt the policy to overcome theunanticipated consequences. An interdisciplinaryteam should be involved in designing monitoring pro-tocols and evaluating monitoring information.

Over time, a succession of policies may be imple-mented to deal with complex issues. The case studiesshowed that from time to time, it is important to bringtogether a team of researchers and policy analysts toreview the cumulative effect of the policies. Twokinds of benefits emerge from periodic policy reviews.First, because complex natural resource issues some-times require a series of policy decisions to finallyresolve them, the overall efficiency and cost-effectiveness of the multiple decisions can only befully evaluated through a cumulative analysis. Some-times, the review may demonstrate the policy wasfine, but implementation was flawed. Or the oppositemay be found — implementation worked as planned,but the policy was flawed. Second, the results canhelp researchers model the response of complex sys-tems to a sequence of policy changes. Such modelscan provide useful feedback to the development offuture policies and implementation arrangements.

Look to the Future

6. Scientists should anticipate relevantissues and be prepared to contributeresearch and information to policydiscussions even though data may beincomplete or political awareness maybe lacking.

One of the foremost concerns of policy-makers isbeing surprised by an unexpected natural resourceissue or problem. What often causes the mostconsternation is the element of being surprised bythe unexpected. This is especially true when policy-makers are politicians or political appointees.

4 People and groups with an interest in a decision are sometimes called “stakeholders.” Their interest arises from the fact that the policydecision may affect values or needs important to them — both as gains or losses.


12

Conduct researchin a communicativeand collaborativemanner

Each researcher and leader of a research institutionshould be prepared to convince a skeptical world thattheir results have contributed to a better society. Thattakes solid information and solid communications skills.Researchers are information and knowledge brokers,communicating inside and outside their institutions.Research institutions are information and knowledgemanagers, creating and disseminating corporate mes-sages based on the sum of their researchers’ find-ings. Networks and partnerships — both of institu-tions and of individuals — can enhance effective com-munication across the science-policy interface. Tocommunicate effectively, scientists and research or-ganizations need to consider several strategic andtactical questions and be clear about their relativeroles as individual and institutional communicators.Syntheses of case studies suggest 10 specific guide-lines.

Communicate Effectively, Often, andThrough Multiple Channels

1. Researchers and research institutionsneed to be able to communicate clearlyand effectively with policy-makers andstakeholders. Communication shouldbe well-timed and should take place ona regular basis. Communicationstrategies should focus on targeting themessages and communication methodsto the audience.

Communication is critical to creating, building, andmaintaining the interest of policy-makers in scientificresults. To be effective, communication needs to bepersonal, frequent, and occur in multiple forms tomultiple audiences. The challenge of communicatingscientific results is that results need to be translatedinto words and proposals that are relevant andunderstandable to lay people, including most resourcemanagers and policy-makers. The results must beclearly linked to the audience’s values and needs. Themessage must be brief.

An excellent technique for avoiding unexpectedsurprises regarding natural resource issues is a typeof policy research called “futuring” or “foresighting.”The process of futuring provides research institutionsand policy-makers with a way to work together toidentify potential or emerging issues before they unfoldunexpectedly. Through futuring, researchers andpolicy-makers work together to consider recent trendsin both quantitative information, such as demographicand technological changes, and qualitative information,such as shifts in tastes and values. Models of bothquantitative and qualitative information can bedeveloped to help inform futuring activities, usingtechniques appropriate to the data and under theassumption that current trends will continue into thefuture (an assumption always worth testing as partof the modelling exercise). It is important that thedesign of futuring activities be deliberately broad andincludes many disciplines. Through thoughtful out-reach to experts in distant fields, insights into thepotential interactions of seemingly disparate eventsmay provide a rich context for considering alternativefutures and identifying potential natural resourceissues. Futuring in a group usually results in richer,more useful information than only consulting a few“experts”. Futuring together with policy-makers isan excellent way to build political awareness andreduce surprises.

The case studies highlighted several instances whereresearchers identified potential problems before theyemerged as full-fledged issues. The threat of invasivealien species, both plants and animals, is a primeexample. Researchers and research organizationsthat are skilled in futuring tend to be seen as morerelevant and responsive to policy-makers and oftenenjoy better public support. Three key elements towinning that support are: (1) periodically re-evaluatingpotential future issues; (2) remaining aware of whatis known about each issue — even though the currentdata may be incomplete; and (3) investing modestsums in research on issues that have not yet emergedas problems to build some minimal capacity, fill criticaldata gaps, and position the policy-maker and researchorganization to respond quickly if the issue emerges.

II.


13

getting to know each other builds relationships andrelationships build trust. So the scientist or policy-maker who hops into the field vehicle in the morningand promptly goes to sleep on the drive out to thefield has missed one of the best opportunities fordialogue and trust-building. Dialogue in small groupswhile traveling is a networking approach to influencingpolicy.

2. Partnerships among scientists, policy-makers and stakeholders are effectivevenues for communication.

The effectiveness of forest resource managementsystems and policies is enhanced through formal part-nerships. Those same partnerships among researchinstitutions, government agencies, NGOs, and stake-holders — both individuals and communities — canbe used to improve the effectiveness of communica-tions. Therefore, when designing and initiating re-search or resource management partnerships, payparticular attention to creating communications chan-nels and setting clear expectations about how infor-mation will be shared among the partners. Remem-ber that in addition to being important recipients ofinformation, stakeholders can also be effective asintermediaries to pass scientific information on topolicy-makers. Sometimes, a stakeholder may havebetter access to or more influence with a policy-makerthan the researcher or other partners. Finally, re-member that any partnership has a political compo-nent. Safeguards to avoid unintended politicizationof research activities, results, or personnel should beincluded in the formal partnership arrangements.

Members of the media can be especially influentialemissaries for communicating scientific information.Creating long-term partnerships can be quite useful— both to the journalist and the scientist. But bear inmind that journalists have specific needs, such as theneed to report independently as they see a story. Forthe partnership to be productive, both parties shouldclarify what their needs are.

Policy-makers and members of the media areinterested primarily in what impact the research resultswill have on the ground, to people who are directly

5 Different media—print, radio, television—require different approaches and skills. Researchers who are expected to conduct interviewsusing these different media should receive specialized training. For example, before sending a researcher to conduct their first televisioninterview, they should have some specialized training in working with television interviewers.

Preparing and participating in effective commun-ication activities takes time. Institutions can use pro-fessional public relations staff to help prepare anddeliver the key messages, saving time for re-searchers. Nonetheless, in many cases scientists willneed to be personally involved in communicatingdirectly with media or other stakeholders because theyadd to the credibility of the message. Therefore, it isoften helpful for scientists to receive specializedcommunications and public relations training.5 To bean effective communicator, a scientist must under-stand the dynamics of various settings and how tomost effectively get a message across in each one.

Prepare carefully for media interviews. Use video-taped rehearsals to provide immediate feedback toscientists. Reducing key messages to the desired“sound-bites” is hard work. Use unexpected ques-tions, some phrased in a deliberately hostile manner,to help researchers prepare for possible scenarios.Never go into an interview unprepared.

Communication must be a two-way flow of inform-ation. Being open and receptive to feedback frompolicy-makers and their constituents is vital to ascientist’s ability to work at the science-policyinterface. Sometimes, the scientist is misinformed oruninformed about the key elements of the policy issueor key values of constituents. Effective, activelistening skills are crucial to a scientist’s success.

Choosing the right setting for communicating researchresults to policy-makers is particularly important.Discussions of the case studies highlighted the factthat getting policy makers “out to the field” is a veryeffective way to communicate directly with them forseveral reasons. First, seeing results in the field helpsa policy-maker to visualize the effects and outcomesof management options. Demonstration forests havebeen exceptionally useful in many countries andcultures as part of long-term forest policy communi-cations strategies. Second, taking the policy-makerto the field helps to focus their attention on the topic.The many distractions that normally exist in the officeare left behind. Third, never underestimate the valueof the time in transit as an informal communicationsopportunity. The social camaraderie that is built by


14

6 Bob Behn. 2005. Driving Government Performance. Cambridge Massachusetts: Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University.7 Stories that lack an element usually have the opposite characteristic. For example, stories that are complex and hard to describe in a fewwords are not simple. Stories that don’t affect specific individuals are impersonal. Stories that don’t appeal to an important humaninterest or value are not dramatic. Stories that are not connected symbol-ically to a larger group or larger value lack symbolism.

affected, and to society as a whole. Therefore,researchers need to transform their research resultsinto a story, carefully framing the story to addressthese interests. To encourage media coverage, keepthe story simple, personal, dramatic, and symbolic.6A simple story is one where the complexity of anissue is distilled to a sharp focus on only the keyelement. A personal story is one that explains theimpact of the research result or policy proposal on aparticular person (e.g., a forest landowner, a forestvisitor; a “face” for a photo). A dramatic story is onethat appeals to the readers’ or listeners’ interests. Asymbolic story is one where the reader/listener canassociate the individual who is highlighted with a largerportion of society who will all be similarly impactedor a larger social value (e.g., social equity, justice,civil rights). Stories lacking one or more of theseelements7 usually won’t get reported.

3. Informal channels can be effective waysto inform policy.

Where possible and appropriate, researchers shoulddevelop informal channels to communicate withpolicy-makers —a wide personal network of contacts.The nature of such channels and how they can beused effectively will depend on the socio-politicalcontext. In some cases it may be possible to developa personal relationship with a policy-maker, while inother cases it might be more effective to rely on anintermediary who has the ear of a key policy-maker.Because personnel changes occur frequently bothinside and outside government, it is important forresearchers to build networks of diverse contacts anduse those networks responsibly.

Stories are often very effective when communicatedinformally too. The same attributes that make a storyappealing to the media pull them along throughinformal communications channels. Sometimes, acouple of good stories, told simply and offeredanecdotally, can be more effecting at shaping listeneropinion than reams of statistical data or dry researchreports or journal articles. Researchers who wereeffective story-tellers were among the bestcommunicators in our task force workshops.

4. Researchers should stay abreast of thecurrent thinking and composition of keystakeholders and groups who mayinfluence policy.

Scientists have a role in identifying and understandingthe stakeholder community that is interested in andinfluenced by an area of policy. Because bothsituations and values are continually changing, stayingabreast of how the stakeholder community is changingrequires continual attention too. Depending on theissue, stakeholders may include groups of people that,on their face, differ considerably from one anotheryet upon closer examination share common values.Sometimes, changes in laws or results of electionscan empower new stakeholders not previouslyinvolved in an issue, or vice versa.

Popular grass-roots initiatives and movements havebeen very effective mechanisms for forest policyreform and forest landscape rehabilitation in manycountries, notably in India and Korea. Researchersshould seek ways of working with initiatives andmovements to provide appropriate technical assis-tance commensurate with their needs.

5. Each communication opportunity is alsoan opportunity to receive feedback fromclients about the usefulness andimportance of research results. Goodcommunicators are good listeners.

Effective communication is always two-way com-munication. Whenever a message is shared, look forfeedback. Feedback comes in several different forms.Verbal feedback is the most common type. But some-times, verbal feedback is filtered or stifled. The re-spondent may not feel comfortable telling you howthey really feel about your message. Reading non-verbal feedback can provide additional insights intohow your message was received, even when verbalfeedback is not forthcoming. Changes in body posi-tion, gestures, and facial features can provide usefulfeedback that is sometimes more accurate and in-sightful as to true feelings than verbal feedback. Goodcommunicators can read non-verbal body languageof their audience effectively.


15

Feedback may be relatively quick and direct, or itmay take longer and be delivered indirectly. Be alertto the possibility of a delayed response, especiallywhen the immediate response seems noncommittal.Sometimes the audience needs time to digest yourmessage and think through its ramifications for them.Only afterwards may they be prepared to share feed-back with you. Sometimes, feedback will be relayedindirectly to you through intermediaries. Often, thoseintermediaries may be peers (which also tells yousomething about the extent of your network), but theymay also be your superiors or occasionally, politicianswho have been contacted by constituents. Indirectfeedback is valuable not only because of the contentof the message that is received; it is also valuable asa way of understanding the communication networksof your audience. The pathway back can reveal link-ages and connections that you were previously un-aware of and also the strength or intensity of the re-lationship. Consider using those pathways for futuremessages to keep all parties “in the loop.” Often,when a message is conveyed back indirectly, it isuseful to reconnect with the original listener to con-firm that you’ve received the feedback and its con-tent. Content can get altered, sometimes slightly,sometimes significantly, if a feedback message passesthrough several intermediaries.

Keep records of the feedback received from varioussources — notes of personal communications, lettersreceived, newspaper articles and editorials, transcriptsof radio or television stories, and reports and personaleditorials (web “blogs”) on internet websites. Publicrelations experts can do content analyses of feedbackand identify the most salient points for differentstakeholders. Results of content analyses can helpone improve the content and delivery mechanism forfuture communications. The ability to discuss thetypes of feedback being received from differentstakeholders can also be an important part of policydeliberations.

Synthesize Knowledge and IdentifyValues Ascribed to Science

6. Traditional knowledge has an importantrole to play in both policy and scienceof sustainable forest management. Sci-entists have a role in bridging the gapthat exists between traditional knowl-edge and modern forest science.

Traditional ecological knowledge8 (TEK), generallyignored or undervalued by policy-makers, can be akey to fostering sustainable forest management. Re-search organizations and scientists can play an im-portant role by working at the interface between tra-ditional and modern forest-related knowledge, engag-ing traditional and local communities in collaborativeresearch that addresses the needs of these commu-nities, by working together to develop sound man-agement practices based on local knowledge andmodern science, and in helping to communicate theresulting approaches (tools) to community members,policy-makers, and relevant government agencies.

Indigenous communities in particular may be reluc-tant or skeptical about sharing TEK with research-ers for many reasons, including cultural norms and/or religious beliefs, and concerns over intellectualproperty rights. At issue may be the degree to whichand the circumstances under which TEK can beshared with or used by people outside the indigenouscommunity. These are often very delicate issues andshould be discussed with great sensitivity, serious-ness and respect for the views and wishes of theholders and users of TEK. If such knowledge isshared with a researcher, then it must be handledrespectfully and accorded appropriate protection.Great harm can be done to research and relation-ships by failing to respect the community’s culturalnorms, religious beliefs, and intellectual propertyrights. Research institutions may need to fashion spe-cial agreements protecting the rights and interests ofindigenous peoples in knowledge they use to createunique values for their communities.

8 Traditional ecological knowledge: “a cumulative body of knowledge, practice and belief, handed down through generations bycultural transmission and evolving by adaptive processes, about the relationship between living beings (including humans) with oneanother and with their environment”.from Berkes et al. (Ecological Applications 10(5): 1251-1262).


16

7. Researchers should be aware of thevalues that people—both influentialindividuals and communities—ascribeto science and the scientific process,because these values are importantdeterminants of whether science is seenas credible and a useful basis forimproving the quality of policies.

Science should reflect the breadth of public values.If hypotheses are too narrow or one-sided, if they donot include or respect TEK or community values, thenthe public will not accept the results or policies basedon those results. When implementing the scientificmethod in studies that have direct implications forforest resource management by local communities,scientists should seek the participation of local com-munities in designing their research. Further, scien-tists should take positive steps to honor and respectthe community’s views throughout the research pro-cess and even into the policy making process. Thisrequires scientists to have a cultural and political as-tuteness for working with people from different back-grounds and cultures and an understanding of how toincorporate the views and values of outside partiesinto the scientific process. By turning participantsinto stakeholders, the credibility of science and thescientific method is enhanced.

Create Partnerships

8. Partnerships are critical to enhanceeffective communication amongscientists, policy-makers and the public.Collaboration is an especially effectiveway to build trust and influence policy.

To work effectively in the science-policy interface,scientists must understand the interests of policy-makers and their constituents. When scientistsestablish a level of trust with the policy maker andtheir constituents that their interests are fully andcompletely understood and that the impacts ofproposed policy options on their interests areaccurately displayed, then the scientist’s informationis better received. Collaboration—working togetheron resolving issues—builds trust and promotes sharedlearning. The higher the level of trust that exists, the

smoother the interactions at the science-policyinterface. The most complex forest policy issues takeconsiderable time to solve. The longer-termcommitment inherent in collaboration builds the trustneeded to sustain a focus on complex forest policyissues.

9. Networks are important. It is verydifficult to do research that will have abearing on policy by working alone.Strategic partners are needed.

Communication and coordination among scientistsengaged in research related to specific policy-relevanttopics are important to build broad-based support fora policy innovation. When several scientists, whoare working on different studies focused on the sameissue, all draw similar conclusions from their data,their conclusions will be more convincing to policy-makers and stakeholders. For example, issues allegedto have a broad spatial impact will require studiesthroughout the potentially affected zone to test theidea that impacts are widespread. Likewise, potentialsolutions to wide-spread issues need to be tested indifferent parts of the affected zone to evaluate theirefficacy. Networks — both informal as well as formalones — that bring scientists from different institutionstogether to work on the same problem are particularlyimportant for finding solutions and developing policiesfor widespread problems.

Complex problems are unusually difficult to resolve.Often, they must be broken down into componentparts and a strategy developed for solving the variouscomponents and then integrating the results. It isoften difficult for a single research institution to bringall the skills needed to solve all of the pieces ofcomplex problems. Therefore, the strategy developedwill usually benefit from the skills and resources ofseveral different research institutions, perhaps foreignas well as domestic. When building strategicpartnerships across institutions to address complexproblems, it is often good to formally document thestrategy developed, including the responsible partiesfor each component and the shared responsibilitiesfor working at the science-policy interface. Do notforget to document intentions regarding sharing creditand any intellectual property that may arise from


17

research success. Documenting these arrangementsat the beginning can avoid misunderstandings later.

10. Identify and clarify the domains forwhich policies are relevant.

It is important for scientists and researchers tounderstand more about the policy arena in which theirresearch results might be used, including what kindof policy organizations exist (e.g., governmental,NGO, industry, etc.), what their policy focus is, whothe key policy-makers are, and whether and how theymay exercise or yield their power in the policy-makingarena. In finding answers to these questions, keeptrack of who the constituents or clients are for eachpolicy organization or policy-maker. Seek to under-stand their values and what values may help distinguishone policy group from another. With greater under-standing of the policy arena, scientists can identifyrelevant policy domains where research may beimportant or needed, who the constituents or clientsare for them, and what the salient values9 of particularclients may be.

Just as networks are important assets in definingstrategies for attacking complex research problems,networks of policy organizations are important assetsin defining potential policy solutions to the issues. Byunderstanding more about policy domains and thegroups active in them, researchers can also identifyother relevant policy domains and establish and/ortap into cross-sector policy networks. A researcheror research institution that is well connected to bothresearch networks and policy networks is able to bemore influential than one whose network of contactsis smaller or more isolated.

9 A salient value may be one that makes a certain policy organization very unique. It may also be one that two disparate policyorganizations share in common or in direct opposition; creating the possibilities of alliances for or against a potential policy. Indeed, thepower of such alliances may even extend to who gets the resources to conduct research on an issue or whose results are given credenceas a basis for developing policies.

Understand,serve andengage inpolicy processes

In democratic systems key interactions betweenpolicy-makers and stakeholders and their constituentstake place in the context of the political process.Researchers should pay attention to how the politicalprocess influences policy-making and how sciencecan contribute to the political process. Researchersshould keep in mind that science is only one sourceof information used by politicians and stakeholders.Syntheses of case studies suggest 7 guidelines.

Understand Policy Processes

1. Scientists who understand the policyprocess and how it differs from thescientific method will be more effectiveat the science-policy interface.

To be successful in their engagement in the policyarena, scientists must become proficient in both thescientific and the policy processes. Most researchersare well trained in the scientific method, particularlythat branch of the method that is well founded in theirscientific discipline. Just as the scientific method hassome key tenets or “rules of the game” that help tobring credibility to the research results, the policymaking process also has some key tenets that helpassure that policies are sound, efficient, and don’timpose unintended burdens on constituents. Bybecoming more familiar with these rules and the rolesthat researchers and scientists can play, they arebetter able to contribute to the policy-making process.Understanding the policy process depends on ongoingengagement because the rules, roles, and valuesevolve over time, just as does the cumulative under-standing of the scientific state-of-the-art.

III.


18

the Collaborative Partnership on Forests). However,it should be recognized that policy processes are notuniform and can deviate from rules and mandates.Researchers should be flexible and should be preparedto engage in the policy-making process if an un-expected opportunity to provide information arises.

2. Researchers should conduct policyresearch and evaluate policies andtheir implementation.

Policy research, including organizational issues andpolicy impact assessment, can help researchers andtheir institutions enhance their contributions to thedevelopment of sound forest policies and improvedforest resource management and utilization. Forestpolicy research can be both retrospective andprospective. Retrospective policy research looks backat the development of current or previous policies,the assumptions that were made, and then comparesthem to the events that actually occurred. Forexample, if a certain forest policy was implementedto reduce illegal logging, have events since the policywas implemented resulted in a reduction in illegallogging. Prospective policy research is forwardlooking. It evaluates policy options for dealing with aparticular issue, often in terms of the positives (pros)and negatives (cons), by projecting how each optionmight affect the situation at hand. Often, theimplementation arrangements for a policy option canbe as important to the set of pros and cons as thepolicy itself. In short, how a policy is implementedcan be as influential on sustainable forest managementas what the proposed policy is.

Many countries are trying to make policy processesmore transparent. The research community shouldtake advantage of this development. At the inter-national level, there are several venues that offeropportunities for forest scientist involvement (e.g.,IUFRO, United Nations Forum on Forest (UNFF),the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), and

Serve Policy Processes

3. Researchers should promote under-standing of the value of science inguiding policy decisions. They shouldserve policy processes by producingsynthesized information, defining therole of scientists when involved in thepolicy process, and providing adviceon how to improve policy-making.

Know your target audience to select an outreachmethod and tailor the message so it appeals to theaudience. Policy-makers are often attempting to dealwith a large number of issues simultaneously. Rarelydo they have the time or the luxury of learning a greatmany facts and all the facets of an issue. So all thefacts and facets of an issue must be condensed to avital few points and simple, straightforward messagesabout them prepared. Policy staff normally does thishard work of condensation and preparation; they aretypically very astute politically and understand com-munity values and social aspects of issues very well.What they may lack is an understanding and appre-ciation of the scientific information. Scientists whoare both good listeners and good presenters areneeded. Listening is the important — often-over-looked — first step for scientists. Scientists need tolisten carefully to the policy-makers’ and their staffmembers’ descriptions of the issue, for in that de-scription lie kernels of wisdom about what values areinfluencing the policy process and what perceptions— accurate or not — exist. Only after listening care-fully can the scientist begin to assemble the informa-tion pertinent to the policy decision and organize itinto a simple, concise presentation for policy staff,which is often the primary audience.

A second important role for researchers and researchorganizations is helping to evaluate ongoing policyprocesses and advising policy-makers on how toimprove the policy-making process. Examples includeevaluating the openness of the policy process andthe effectiveness of the communications strategiesemployed, retrospectively examining whether theenvironmental, economic, or social impacts forecastprior to the project actually occurred, and providingadvice on improving public participation and impactassessment procedures for future processes.


19

4. The values that people ascribe toscience and the scientific process areimportant. How scientific results aredisseminated is a key part ofinfluencing policy. While peer review isa necessary precursor to effectiveinformation dissemination, it is notsufficient. Targeted, tailored,translations of results must be preparedto reach policy-makers.

Because of the breadth and diversity of stakeholdergroups affected by forest policy, it is essential todevelop and follow a communication strategy that willmeet the particular challenges and needs of eachstakeholder group. One size does not fit all.Researchers should develop interpersonal channelsto communicate with policy-makers. The nature ofsuch channels and how they can be used effectivelywill depend on the socio-political context. For instance,in some cases it might be beneficial to developpersonal relations with a policy-maker. In other cases,it might be more effective to rely on an intermediarywho has the ear of a key policy-maker. Due to therealities of political power changes and their effecton government staffs, it is often very important tobuild networks of diverse contacts and use thosenetworks responsibly. In addition to informalinterpersonal interactions, websites, e-mail lists andlist servers (e.g., CIFOR’s POLEX) can offerinformal mechanisms to provide information to policy-makers.

Engage in Policy Processes

5. Increase mutual understanding of therole of scientists in policy makingprocesses; be aware of the boundariesbetween “informing” and “advocating”.

Some scientists misunderstand their role in the policyprocess. Their role is not to become an advocatefor a particular viewpoint. Becoming an advocateusually has a negative effect on the credibility of ascientist’s results, because advocacy is equated tobeing biased in favor of the particular viewpoint.Advocacy is best left to others. Instead, researchersshould focus on informing policy-makers about policyoptions and the impacts of those options. Researchinstitutions have a role to play in working with their

scientists to establish clear guidelines on the roles in-dividual scientists can play in policy processes. Sci-entists should be clear about the guidelines they useand the role they play, so that a mutual understandingexists between scientists, policy-makers and stake-holders about the role the scientist plays in a particu-lar policy process.

6. Researchers who decide to engage inpolicy processes should be aware of theassociated risks and trade-offs in orderto successfully operate in the science-policy interface.

Scientists who have been successful at seeing theirresearch results influence policy are often stronglymotivated by a desire to “make a difference.” Thisoutlook increases their willingness to engage in thedebate that surrounds policy issues. A key challengeis how to engage in a way that simultaneously retainsthe scientist’s credibility and reputation in the scien-tific community as well as makes a positive contribu-tion to the policy process. A key aspect of scientificcredibility is scientific independence, that is, the abil-ity to present one’s research results as unbiased andwithout being perceived as advocating for a particu-lar policy option. The line between presenting factsaccurately and advocating a particular policy or ac-tion based on those facts is sometimes blurry. Step-ping over that line to become, or to be perceived as,an advocate or apologist for a particular policy is det-rimental to one’s scientific credibility and indepen-dence, and can even jeopardize the standing of thescientific community in the eyes of the public. Thisis among the most noteworthy risks associated withoperating at the science-policy interface. There mayalso be other risks. For example, groups opposed toa particular policy may transfer that opposition to thescience and scientist seen as supporting that policy.Or if a policy becomes the subject of litigation, ex-pert witnesses for opponents will do their best to ex-plain why science supporting the policy is insufficient,inappropriate, or invalid. Scientists who have exten-sive experience at the science-policy interface canprovide advice and mentoring on ways of engagingwithout compromising independence or reputation.

Risk-taking and willingness-to-engage occur not onlyon the individual level but also the organizational level.


20

It is difficult to draw conclusions about whichorganizations provide the most freedom or supportfor risk-taking and engagement in the policy process.Universities, tend to be more permissive about theinvolvement of professors in science-policy issues,while public agencies tend to be more sensitive.Industrial firms tend to permit engagement only whenit supports their business strategies. Community andinterest groups tend to support engagement when itbrings publicity and support to their cause. It is moredangerous for an individual to take risks and engageat the science-policy if their employing organizationdoes not sanction or support such activities. Forestresearch organizations operating at the interfaceshould consider development of codes of ethics,integrity, or conduct that provide additional guidelinesfor their employees.

Facilitate Relations betweenStakeholders and Policy-Makers

7. Scientists can play a role in policymaking by facilitating relationshipsamong stakeholders and policy-makers.

Researchers can play an important role in informingpolicy-makers about the nature of communities andtheir interests and how the policy options being con-sidered are likely to affect those interests. Scientistscan gather information on community needs, values,attitudes and knowledge to help policy-makers betterunderstand the communities with which they areworking. Some of this information can be collectedfrom demographic sources, such as census recordsor economic data. But often the most useful infor-mation comes from discussing issues and interestswith stakeholders. Stakeholder feedback can be es-pecially valuable in highlighting misperceptions andunanticipated or unforeseen consequences aboutpolicy options. Feedback can also help expose gapsin the science and shape the agenda for future sci-ence. To hear, understand, and synthesize the feed-back, scientists working at the science-policy inter-face must be excellent listeners.

Sometimes, a key to informing the policy-makingprocess is not just effective listening on the part ofthe scientist, but rather creating effective opportunitiesfor stakeholders and policy makers to listen to eachother. Scientists can help by serving as facilitators of

two-way communication between stakeholders andpolicy-makers. Being an effective facilitator requiresa different set of skills than technical expertise in thesciences. One must be a student of human inter-actions, group dynamics, and decision-making pro-cesses. Further, one must be adept at working witha wide variety of people from different cultures, socialclasses, and backgrounds. Sometimes these abilitiesare collectively referred to as “strong people skills.”Skill in dealing with people depends on one’s per-sonality as much as one’s academic knowledge andexperience. Skill in building relationships amonggroups and in working with people from differentbackgrounds and interests can be taught and learnedjust like any scientific discipline. Scientists who wantto work effectively at the science-policy interfaceneed to understand how to build and managerelationships among multiple parties in addition to theirtechnical expertise.

When engaged in this facilitative role, scientists shouldtake care to preserve their independence and beneutral in their dealings with all stakeholders. Thegoal of a facilitator is to bring parties together whileserving as a neutral broker of the dialogue, not forthe facilitator to become a stakeholder in the dialogue.

Central Yemeni Highlands (photo by John Parrotta)


21

Create organizationalcapacity and culturethat enables andencourages work at thescience-policy interface

Science organizations that want to ensure that soundscience be considered in the formulation of forestpolicies should include this objective in their missionand mandate. These institutions should develop thenecessary structure to achieve their mission, striveto improve the policy relevancy of their research pro-grams, and their ability to learn from successes andfailures and to anticipate and adapt to changing soci-etal needs while maintaining their long-term vision,independence and neutrality. In many, if not most,research institutions, this will require a special effortto improve the capacity of scientists and other staffto engage effectively at the science-policy interface.Syntheses of case studies suggest 7 guidelines.

Improve Capacity to Engage in PolicyProcesses

1. Research institutions should invest inbuilding capacity to deliver/communicate science or sciencemessages. This need is particularlygreat in developing countries.

Research organizations in some countries do notcurrently invest resources in improving their capacityto pursue policy-related research, effectively engagingwith stakeholders, and informing policy processes.While discussions at the task force’s workshopssuggest that further investment in this area is neededin many developed countries if their scienceorganizations are to engage more effectively at thescience-policy interface, the need is more acute forresearch organizations in most developing countries.Research institutions in developed countries have arole and responsibility in providing assistance to helptheir counterparts in developing countries move fastertowards having the capacity to effectively integratescience in policy-making processes.

2. Research institutions should createincentive structures to rewardresearchers and project teams foreffectively informing policy processes.

Research institutions need staff that are interested inand understand policy processes, and that have theskills necessary to work with policy-makers and otherstakeholders. Not all scientists may be interested inworking at the science-policy interface. Some maybe more interested in advancing their scientific ca-reers by writing and publishing scientific papers andtransferring results to users. Particularly for youngscientists, getting established professionally by com-pleting several research studies after completing theiracademic degree is most important. Developing pro-ficiency as a researcher and building a reputation asa competent scientist are necessary preconditions tobeing effective at the science-policy interface. Butby mid-career when their scientific credentials arewell established, researchers are at the point wherebecoming active at the science-policy interface canmake meaningful contributions both to policy-makingand to furthering their scientific careers.

Institutions should foster an institutional culture thatencourages scientists and researchers to work at thescience-policy interface. Science organizations mayneed to develop strategies and incentives to encouragescientists — individually or as members of teams —to participate in the policy process. This may requirechanges in human resources management practices,including adjusting assignments and offeringappropriate incentives such as promotions, per-quisites, or bonuses for successful support of policy-making.

3. Researchers should evaluate the impactof science on policy and policyimplementation.

Scientists want to become involved at the science-policy interface because they believe that they addvalue to the policy-making process. From time totime, the hypothesis that scientists add value shouldbe tested. Retrospective evaluations of the impactof science on policy-making and policy implementationare essential to test that hypothesis. Due to the com-plexity and diversity of policy processes it may bedifficult to identify cause-and-effect relationships, andtherefore determine if an institution or individual


22

scientists have informed policy as soon as it is made.We have found that evaluating impact becomes easierif some time is allowed to pass between the time thatthe policy is made or implemented and the evaluationis conducted.

Some institutions are beginning to look at how theirscience is influencing policy. CIFOR, for example, islooking at references made by policy-makers tounpublished manuscripts as an indicator of policyinfluence. This IUFRO task force has benefited fromreviewing the case studies presented at the threeregional workshops. Findings emerging fromevaluations should be used to develop guidelines toimprove future interactions.

Improve Policy Relevancy of Research

4. Scientists and research organizationsshould develop feedback and otherlearning mechanisms to continuouslyimprove their relevancy to, and impacton, policy processes.

To positively influence policy-makers, research resultsmust be relevant to current policy issues and framedin ways that policy makers and stakeholders canunderstand. A critical part of maintaining relevanceis obtaining feedback about emerging issues andchanges in biophysical, social and economic systems,and using that feedback to guide research prioritiesand selection of appropriate hypotheses. Successfulresearch organizations and researchers recognize theimportance of learning and have developed thecapacity to learn. For example, opportunities forresearchers and managers to work together to testnew research results in ongoing management activitiescan be very helpful in building trust and confidenceand in fine-tuning proposed policies. Trans-boundaryinstitutions and organizations such as CIFOR, CATIE,and IUFRO that foster shared learning and stimulatefresh thinking and innovation help keep scienceprograms fresh and innovative and more responsiveand relevant to policy-makers. An important part ofinnovation in science is the willingness to take risksby advancing new ideas for consideration by policy-makers.

5. Scientific organizations are moreinfluential in policy discussions whenthey lead flexible and resilientprograms that combine a long-termvision with delivering relevant results inthe near-term.

To play an effective and constructive role in policydevelopment, scientific organizations must have thecapability to anticipate future changes. Scientific or-ganizations must be forward looking. They must beable to provide early alerts about emerging issues andpotential changes in resource conditions, economies,and societies, and values. Beyond just signaling thatcertain changes may occur, scientific organizationsmust be able to launch studies and generate resultsfar enough in advance to provide the basis for policyresponses to the changes before negative impactsbecome insurmountable.

Flexible and resilient organizations are able to adapteasier to changes in priorities as issues emerge andpotential changes are identified. They have a broadarray of expertise in their scientific cadre and a strongnetwork of partnerships with other research organi-zations to augment their in-house talent, both of whichcontribute to resiliency. They also control their staff-ing and overhead costs to assure that sufficient oper-ating funds exist to move quickly into new researchstudies. They also set clear expectations for theirresearchers that changes in research priorities willoccur and rapid responses are necessary. Keepingreasonable operating budgets and creating the ex-pectation that changes in research focus will occurcontribute to flexibility.

Scientific organizations that have both a long-termvision and an ability to continuously deliver near-termrelevant results are most influential. When anorganization can reliably deliver results quickly, butlacks a long-term vision, stakeholders and policy-makers often detect a lack of focus and they sensethat the organization is adrift on a windy sea, headingwhichever way the wind blows. Those perceptionsdetract from credibility and trust. In contrast, focusingso intently on long-term objectives that useful resultsare not delivered in a timely fashion to respond tocurrent issues also makes an organization irrelevant.Both a long-term vision and an ability to deliver resultsrelevant to current issues are essential. An organiz-ation must have sufficient long-term vision that


23

emerging issues and changes in values rarely take itby surprise and that complex issues taking a long timeto solve can be studied efficiently. An organizationmust also have the capacity to respond to contempo-rary issues through ongoing applied research anddevelopment activities. In short, the best scientificorganizations are adept at both strategic and tacticalissues. Continuing political and financial support alsodepend on maintaining the right blend of these capab-ilities.

Maintain Independence and Neutrality

6. To span boundaries between scienceand policy, forest research institutionsthat are independent, neutral, andunbiased are more credible.

Organizational structure and independence of the re-search enterprise has a strong influence on the cred-ibility and standing of forest research in the policyarena. The concept of independence means that theresearchers are free to draw whatever conclusionstheir data suggest and to report their results withoutbeing censored or pressured by policy makers to al-ter their findings. When policy makers direct whatthe results should be, often to buttress previous policydecisions or predilections, researchers have lost theirindependence and objectivity. Losing objectivity leadsto loss of credibility and trust. Not only are theselosses attached to the results of a particular study orthe particular researcher who conducted the study,the losses in credibility and trust are attached to theentire research organization employing the individual.Sometimes the standing of science and professional-ism in the community also suffers.

There is often a tension within research institutionsbetween the desire to be independent, neutral andunbiased and appearing to be closely associated withcertain policy-makers and/or stakeholders as a resultof close collaboration on policy issues. Someindependence may be lost when a scientist or researchinstitution “owns” and “sells” scientific informationto inform policies, and stakeholders may feel that theresearcher is not unbiased or neutral. To addressthis potential loss of independence and neutrality,institutions should try to be transparent about biasesand values that play a part in developing their researchprograms and that may influence research outcomes.

A final word on independence is warranted. Somescientists mistakenly believe that independence meansworking alone on a problem or issue. Issues todayare often too complex for one scientist to attack allalone. A team of scientists composed of people withdifferent scientific backgrounds is usually needed toattack complex problems. Working with researchcolleagues on a team does not compromise “inde-pendence” as we have used the term here. Nor doescollaboration with team members from other dis-ciplines compromise the credibility of any teammember. If the team has the collective ability to drawconclusions from their body of work free fromcensorship, pressure, or bias, that team is independentand objective.

7. The values that people—both influentialindividuals and communities—ascribeto science and the scientific process areimportant determinants of whetherscience is seen as credible and a usefulbasis for improving the quality ofpolicies.

Trust and credibility in a researcher and a researchinstitution are the accumulated public and private per-ceptions of many people over long periods of time.They are slow to accumulate — years and decades—and easy to tear down. Therefore, forest research-ers and research administrators as well as forestpolicy-makers must take special care to conserve andprotect trust and credibility. Both groups have spe-cial roles. Researchers and research administratorsshould assure that the whole scientific process is fol-lowed. Peer review is the most widely accepted andeffective approach for independently validating thecredibility and soundness of a study’s findings. Re-searchers should also avoid becoming advocates forparticular policy positions and administrators shouldrein in researchers who stray over the line and be-come advocates. Advocacy is inconsistent with ob-jectivity. Policy-makers should limit their influenceto calling for research studies and helping to shapethe hypotheses to be tested, but should then assumea hands-off position until after the conclusions havebeen drawn and passed peer review. At that point,the results can be considered, along with other infor-mation, as part of the policy development process.Any attempts to interfere with research studies andpredetermine what the results should be will inevita-


24

Closing CommentaryIn recent years, the forest science community hasbegun to take advantage of new opportunities to con-tribute to the development of forest policies aimed atadvancing sustainable forest management at local,national, and international levels. The growing em-phasis on stakeholder consultation in internationalpolicy forums and wide variety of ongoing regionaland national forest policy formulation processespresent both an opportunity and an obligation for for-est scientists and research organizations. Increasingly,scientists and research organizations are being calledupon to provide policy-makers and stakeholders withscientifically sound information, both to inform policydiscussions and to assess the likely implications ofpolicy options on forest resources and the communi-ties that depend upon them. Ultimately, forest poli-cies affect not only the sustainability of forest eco-systems but also the sustainability of communities andeconomies that depend on forests.

This guidance document provides practical advice toscientists and research organizations. To address ques-tions that are relevant to policy issues, research shouldfocus on the values that people hold and how forestsmeet their needs. Interdisciplinary and integrativeresearch are emerging as better ways to respond tothe complex issues and associated public values thatare prevalent today. To be relevant, research alsoneeds to look to the future and identify issues as theyemerge because they are easiest to respond to ormitigate then.

Communicating effectively, often, and through mul-tiple channels to get information to stakeholders andpolicy-makers in a form they can comprehend anduse is increasingly important. Not all forest curriculaprovide the training needed to prepare forest research-ers to communicate effectively in person and throughthe media, so additional training on-the-job may oftenbe needed. To reach a wide variety of stakeholderswith useful information, ways are needed to under-stand how people’s values about forests influence theirthinking and to stay abreast of how people’s valuesare changing. Another facet of preparing to commu-nicate is the need to synthesize available information— both science and traditional knowledge — to cre-ate useful information products tailored to peoples’cultures and backgrounds. Partnerships and networks

bly lead to loss of objectivity, and negatively impactthe reputation, credibility, and trust of the public inthe researcher and their institution, and ultimately thepolicy-maker too.

Within individual countries, there are steps that theforestry community can take to increase the credibil-ity and trust placed in their forest research institu-tions. For example, national councils or “roundtables”of forest stakeholders have successfully elevated thestanding and prestige of forest research within fed-eral and state governments. Stakeholder groups havealso proven effective in providing support and politi-cal cover for research and development on institu-tional arrangements, policy-making structures, andgovernance issues that the research institutions bythemselves may not be able or willing to undertakewithout this external political support. Members ofinternational scientific networks can help build ca-pacity and support institutions that need reinforce-ment. Every country’s forest research institutionsneed to have the trust and credibility of the publicand policy-makers to help inform policy-making andimplementation.

Atlantic Forest, Serro do Mar, São Paulo State, Brazil(photo by John Parrotta)


25

are often critical to enhance communication. Some-times partners or others in a network can deliver mes-sages more effectively than a researcher or a re-search institution because the other parties have morecredibility or trust with segments of the public orpolicy-makers.

At an athletic contest, the spectators who sit on thesidelines play a different role than the competitors onthe field. Similarly in the science-policy arena,spectators who watch policy being made play a verydifferent role than the scientists, policy-makers, andstakeholders who are actually grappling with the issue.These guidelines are for the scientists who are actuallygrappling with issues at the science-policy interface.Before getting involved, scientists should take timeto understand the policy process. Just as athletesneed to know the rules of the game, scientists needto understand the policy playing field, where theboundaries are, and the rules of the policy-makinggame. Because policy-making is different in differentcountries and international forums, it is important forscientists to understand the policy process and howthey can serve it most effectively before they actuallyget engaged. Scientists should also expect to becomemore proficient and learn from their mistakes as theygain experience — policy-making is not an easy gameto play. Building good working relationships with policymakers and stakeholders is one of the keys to success.

These guidelines suggest that researchers, in addi-tion to being technically competent and well-respectedin their discipline, need to also be culturally aware,great communicators, excellent listeners, politicallyastute, and always well-connected to an extensivenetwork. These additional skills are often the missingpieces that may inhibit a researcher or a researchteam from engaging and being successful at the sci-ence-policy interface. Research leaders have a keyrole to play in coaching employees and building teamsthat reflect this broader skill set. Sometimes consult-ants, collaborators, or in-house experts with comple-mentary skills can offset what is lacking and improvethe chances of success.

Some of these guidelines apply to the individualscientist; others apply to the research institutions thatemploy scientists. Effective involvement of scientistsin policy-making does not happen by chance, nor willit continue without the active support of their research

institution. Effective involvement takes time and energy,and may require tradeoffs between generating morevalue from research already completed versus doingmore new research. However, institutions may benefitin the long run in terms of their credibility and prestige(which often translate into additional funding) when theiremployees are efficient and effective in the science-policy arena. Thus, it is in the institution’s self-interestto improve the capacity of their employees to engage inscience-policy work and to create incentives to protectand reward scientists who do so. Work at the science-policy interface provides excellent feedback on issuesand public values—two kinds of information that shouldbe used to help improve the strategic agenda ofinstitutions and the programmatic focus of their researchprograms. But these benefits only accrue whenscientists and institutions maintain their independenceand neutrality in the policy arena. The loss ofindependence and neutrality results in an erosion ofsupport, trust, credibility, and prestige. That erosion oftenoccurs much faster than these can be accrued throughgood work, so institutions and individuals should guardtheir independence and neutrality very carefully.

One of the challenges for IUFRO is to share its successstories of working across cultures; not only organizationalcultures within a country but also organizational and socialcultures among many countries. The need to strengthencapacities of forest scientists to work effectively at theforest science-policy interface is one of IUFRO’sgreatest challenges for the years ahead. IUFRO hasmore than a century of experience in buildingtransboundary and transorganizational networks ofresearchers. With the past decade, IUFRO hasrecognized the importance of providing leadership withinthe forestry community on modeling the newinterdisciplinary research approaches needed tointegrate more thoroughly the creation and delivery ofscience in forms that people and policy-makers can use.Through this task force and through the case studiesthat have been collected and synthesized, the importanceof IUFRO’s vision, leadership, and ability to sharesuccess stories have been amply demonstrated.

Our fervent hopes are that each reader will findsomething in these guidelines that can help improveyour ability to work successfully at the forest science-policy interface, and that you will share yoursuccesses with others through active involvement inIUFRO’s networks.


26

Reports and Publications fromRegional Workshops

Electronic copies of the following are availableon the IUFRO website: http://www.iufro.org/sci-ence/task-forces/sciencepolicy-interface/

Turrialba, Costa Rica (2001)

Meeting report & abstracts of presented casestudies. See also “Forest Science and ForestPolicy in the Americas: Building Bridges to aSustainable Future” Richard W. Guldin[published in Forest Policy & Economics 5(4),2003]

Chennai, India (2002)

Meeting report, abstracts and full papers ofcase studies; summary of lessons learnedthrough case studies (Chennai workshop)

Copenhagen, Denmark (2003)

Meeting report, abstracts and Powerpoint pre-sentations of presented case studies. See also“Forest Science and forest policy in Europe,Africa, and the Middle East: Building Bridgesto a sustainable future” R.W. Guldin, N. ElersKoch, J. Parrotta, C. Gamborg, & B.J. Thorsen[published in Scandinavian Journal of ForestResearch, 19(Suppl. 4): 5-13, 2004]

Birmensdorf, Switzerland (2004)

Full workshop report.

Papers Presented at RegionalWorkshops

October 30-November 1, 2001.Turrialba, Costa Rica

* Papers published in Forest Policy & Economics5(4), 2003.

** Papers published in Revista ForestalCentroamericana No. 37, 2002.

* “Poor regulatory capacity limits the ability ofscience to influence the management of ma-hogany”— Arthur G. Blundell & Ted Gullison(USA & Canada)

* “Analysis of environmental effects of prospec-tive trade agreements: the forest products ATL as acase study in the science-policy interface” —David J. Brooks (USA)

** “The national process of forest certification asinterface for forest research – forest policy andmanagement interactions: the cases of Costa Ricaand Guyana” — Bastiaan Louman, José JoaquínCampos, Susanne Schmidt, Roderick Zagt &Padmattie Haripersaud (Costa Rica)

** “Contribución de la investigación en la toma dedecisiones en el proceso de concesiones forestalesen Petén, Guatemala” — Fernando Carrera &Kees Prins (Costa Rica)

** “Las redes operativas y su papel en la políticaforestal - experiencias prometedoras en Hondurasy Nicaragua” — Glenn Galloway (Costa Rica)

* “Economic analysis in support of broad scaleland management strategies” — Richard W.Haynes (USA)

Appendix

Workshop Summaries and List of Case StudiesEvaluated by the Task Force


27

* “The incorporation of research into attempts toimprove forest policy in British Columbia” — JohnInnes (Canada)

* “Improving the flow of scientific informationacross the interface of forest science and policy”— Linda A. Joyce (USA)

* “The ecological sustainability of tropical forestmanagement: evaluation of the national forestmanagement standards of Costa Rica andNic

working effectively at the interface of forest science and ... guldi… · working effectively at...

Documents