The EPMR Panel's findings and recommendations are summarized below. These highlight aspects related to: CIFOR's evolution; linkage of CIFOR's programme to its mission and strategy; cross-cutting themes - research priorities, impact, quality, linkages and outreach; and governance and management. We conclude with a statement on CIFOR in the next decade. The Panel has also made a number of suggestions which should be considered in conjunction with the recommendations.
1. CIFOR's Evolution
Although CIFOR was established in 1992, the need for international forestry research was recognized some 15 years earlier. Since its inaugural meeting in July 1992, the CIFOR Board and senior management have been very effective in taking CIFOR forward. The Director General was appointed in April 1993 and remarkable progress has been achieved in all aspects of the Centre's work. After signing the Host Country Agreement with the Government of Indonesia, CIFOR established a temporary office in Bogor in May 1993; formulated, through a broad consultation process, its first Medium Term Plan in 1993, and its Strategic Plan in 1996; established an impressive research and outreach programme; and created for itself a strategic position within the international forestry research community. It achieved this through inputs from its own staff, discussions with a variety of stakeholders, and a series of Internally Commissioned External Reviews. In February 1997, CIFOR moved to its permanent premises in buildings constructed by the Indonesian Ministry of Forestry on a 10-hectare site on the outskirts of Bogor. By the end of 1997, CIFOR had 100 employees including 40 professional staff, and had established a field presence in Africa and Latin America. The Panel strongly commends the Board, management and staff of CIFOR for this substantial achievement.
2. Programme
CIFOR's research is conducted by 26 internationally recruited scientists, their collaborators, and support staff. The research involves 126 activities grouped into 10 projects that are focused on a number of outputs and topics. The projects encompass several themes including: sustainable use and development of non-timber forest products; multiple resource management of natural forests; plantation forestry on degraded or low potential sites; assessment of the sustainability of forest management; underlying causes of deforestation, forest degradation, and poverty in forest margins; local livelihoods, community-based management of forests and devolution; and conservation of biodiversity and genetic resources.
Links of CIFOR's Research Programme with its Mission and Strategy
The Panel concluded that CIFOR's portfolio of activities addresses key needs and important topics and is producing useful outputs. However, the Panel believes that the links between the activities in the ten projects and CIFOR's mission and objectives are not made explicit in CIFOR's Strategic Plan and MTP. Since a clear understanding of these links is essential, the Panel developed a schematic representation of linkages based on its interpretation of CIFOR documentation and discussion with management and staff. The resulting perspective draws attention to the essential links between CIFOR's mission and goals of the CGIAR, the forest-related needs implied by the mission and goals, the constraints on meeting those needs, the technological and policy interventions required to overcome the constraints, and finally CIFOR's programme (research and outreach) and objectives. Looking at CIFOR's programme in the context of this framework, the Panel concludes that, at the broad strategic level, CIFOR's research programme covers relevant and priority themes that address its mission. It also accepts that the current ten project structure is a flexible one, as would be expected, given the highly integrative and collegial ethos being sought by the Board and senior management.
However, the Panel concludes that the CIFOR programme's cohesiveness, logic, and orientation among scientists could be improved to focus more directly on outputs that relate to achieving its mission. This would also lead to improvement in focus and effectiveness of activities in terms of impacts, and to an expansion of the opportunity for generating international public goods with significant spillovers in countries beyond those in which CIFOR works. In this regard the Panel recommends that CIFOR should link its research activities and their expected outputs more closely and clearly to CIFOR's mission and to the broad thematic needs implied by it. If CIFOR decides to implement the above recommendation, then the question remains as to how best it should group its research activities. The Panel did not want to recommend a specific set of research projects, but presents one possible grouping of research activities based on an organizing framework that CIFOR might consider along with several others of its choice.
Priority Setting and Impact
The Panel believes that, as CIFOR moves ahead, it will face a number of challenges with regard to how it sets priorities for its overall programme and the components within it. It also will face the challenge of how to proceed in measuring impacts of its work in terms of contribution towards its mission. In the past, priorities appear to have been established or chosen on an informal basis in CIFOR's rapidly evolving programme. The Panel believes that, as CIFOR evolves further, it needs to foster a more systematic, transparent mode of priority setting and resource allocation. The role of management and the Board's Programme Committee in this process should be strengthened. The priority setting process needs to recognize from the outset the particular advantages of CIFOR as an international Centre and the concomitant expectation that CIFOR in its priority setting process should focus on production of international public goods (IPG) research in which it has a comparative advantage. To this end, the Panel has made a recommendation that CIFOR should develop a more systematic priority setting process that includes an explicit set of criteria for (1) judging exclusion or inclusion: appropriateness to mission, cost-effectiveness, IPG contribution; and (2) setting priorities among the group of included project activities and among projects. Further, the Board should be more closely involved in developing criteria for priority setting and judging the process proposed by management. Currently, whilst some Projects have measurable direct impacts, others have indirect impacts which are difficult to measure.
Quality
CIFOR, a young institution doing pioneering research, has a complex mandate that requires interdisciplinary approaches. It presently is engaged in appropriate strategic and applied research and it ensures that synthesis research is suitably combined with original research.
While recognizing that most of CIFOR's partners are both appropriate to the task and deliver research of high quality, CIFOR scientists must continue to take measures to ensure that the quality of research done by partner institutions is consistent with CIFOR's objectives and standards. Further, CIFOR needs to assure itself that locating research sites in all three regions for a given project is essential for achieving global outputs. The Panel suggests that in some cases an ecoregional, rather than a global scope of projects, could be equally conducive to high quality IPG work. Further, it suggests that stronger partnerships be developed with relevant non-forestry institutions. Special consideration should be given to the host country for including scientists as equal partners in CIFOR's research, including the activities being planned for the Bulungan Forest Reserve.
The Panel is concerned about the current plans for field placement of scientists, leading in some cases to single internationally recruited scientists working in isolation The Panel feels that fewer field stations - say one each in India, Africa and Latin America - but with a cluster of scientists at each location, will help better in promoting the CIFOR culture at field sites.
Some consideration should also be given to ensuring uniformity in the collection of high quality data and its sound analysis from both social and biophysical perspectives. Though some of the current projects are doing very well in this respect, the differences in training and tradition between biophysical and social scientists do pose a problem in others. The Panel suggests that CIFOR commission a review (or workshop) on the development of methodologies for interdisciplinary work; this would consider the latest techniques that could help in the integration of data and methods in interdisciplinary work of this nature.
The Panel recognizes the quality and value of many of the publications produced by CIFOR scientists and with/by partners and encourages peer-reviewed articles. The Panel notes with satisfaction that there is already a good review and monitoring system in place to move in this direction. The in-house publications, including the products of synthesis research, are valuable globally.
External Linkages and Outreach
CIFOR has formed good linkages with other CGIAR Centres and international programmes. Its links with ICRAF are productive, although in Latin America the two Centres are still seeking a satisfactory and mutually beneficial level of cooperation. In Indonesia, ICRAF's Southeast Asia Programme is located in CIFOR (at Bogor). The Panel believes that there is scope to strengthen CIFOR's linkages with international programmes such as GCTE, DIVERSITAS, IHDP.
The Panel accepts the Centre-without-walls concept of CIFOR - which attempts to promote an organizational culture that minimizes barriers to in-house collegiality and interdisciplinarity, and maximizes opportunities for external partnerships. CIFOR expects to take advantage of partnerships by increasing the number of its scientists who are based outside headquarters, usually within or close to partner institutions. Already, CIFOR has a small number of internationally recruited scientists out-posted at partner institutions away from Bogor (e.g., Brazil, Cameroon, Costa Rica, Gabon and Zimbabwe), although the Panel recognizes the difficulties in supporting them from Bogor.
CIFOR's research and capacity building agenda is implemented primarily through partnerships. Several partnership models, differing in level and type of participation by CIFOR scientists, have been employed. Most arrangements have been in operation for less than two years so it is difficult for the Panel to assess their long-term effectiveness. The Panel believes that CIFOR's mandate to conduct its work in an interdisciplinary and cost-effective manner makes the choice of research and training partners a demanding task for project scientists and coordinators.
In common with other CGIAR Centres, CIFOR has an implicit commitment to enhancing skills and knowledge for human capacity building in the regions. The Panel believes that CIFOR should strengthen its training activities and also consider establishing a separate training unit (at least for standardized support in arranging training) rather than holding each Project responsible for this function. Such an approach would result in the saving of CIFOR scientists' time and ensure a level of uniformity in quality while at the same time maintaining and promoting the CIFOR image and culture.
3. Governance and Management
The Panel's assessment and recommendations with respect to governance and management are made in the recognition - shared by management - that these functions are themselves becoming more complex as the Centre grows and diversifies its scope of activities.
As CIFOR grows, additional competencies are required at the Board level: Trustees familiar with the CGIAR System should be an important element of the Board's overall composition. Similarly, linkages with the private sector are increasingly important as CIFOR seeks to work with the sector in developing solutions; hence private sector representation at the Board level is encouraged. Finally, as the Centre grows, the financial and managerial functions grow concomitantly - both in scale and complexity. A strengthened competency at the Board level in these crucial areas is highly desirable for effectively carrying out the Board's fiduciary responsibilities.
In a number of sections of the Report, the Panel has recommended improvements in priority-setting and resource allocation processes at CIFOR. At the Board level, the Panel recommends that the Programme Committee, meeting twice a year, carefully review and clarify the linkages between mission and programme strategy, on the one hand, and the approved set of projects and activities on the other. A research organizing framework is suggested to aid this process, the ultimate purpose of which is to ensure that all research activities are aligned with the Centre's mission and objectives. With the changing nature of the Centre's research and its external environment, the Panel suggests that CIFOR may be well served with added flexibility to alter quickly the scientific composition of the Board. For this, the Panel is suggesting that Trustees be appointed initially for one 3-year term, and then for up to three 1-year terms as appropriate to the Centre's prevailing needs.
CIFOR's early practice of hiring its scientists on short term (typically 3-4 years) contracts was appropriate. One effect of this is that succession planning, and the maintenance of CIFOR's institutional memory is a complex issue and the Panel suggests the development of succession planning processes to address it.
CIFOR needs to upgrade its management information system - particularly in respect of its usefulness to Project Leaders in matters of financial reporting on projects. Of greater importance to the Panel, however, is the need to give the Project Leaders clear authority and accountability for the resources under their control; to be held accountable for output quality carries with it the requirement that they also have authority over the inputs required to achieve the agreed outputs. Under this model, Project Leaders would also be held responsible for stewardship of these resources. Clearer lines of authority are strongly suggested for CIFOR as it grows and diversifies its activities - particularly as its out-posting activities increase.
The Panel believes that CIFOR's management must carefully review the Panel's suggestions and build a management structure and staff capability that enable CIFOR to demonstrate close linkages between the mission and programme of work and budget; that incorporate the managerial fundamentals outlined in this Report, and yet are responsive to the specific needs of the institution.
4. CIFOR in the Future
CIFOR's challenge for the future is to find the right balance in its research to satisfy multiple constituencies:- (i) the developing countries with millions of rural poor and forest-dependent people and various demands on CIFOR's resources, (ii) the international research community with its focus on peer-reviewed science, (iii) the donor community with its emphasis on IPG, poverty alleviation, food security, natural resource conservation, and (iv) the private sector with its profit outlook and need for technologies that increase efficiency while meeting standards set by countries.
CIFOR cannot be everything to everyone. It must maintain its course as a cost-effective supplier of international public goods that contribute toward meeting the needs implied by its mission. In holding this course, it also needs to keep in mind the trends of the future - a greater ease in using electronic media in transferring and even generating new technologies; a shrinking world, as transportation and communication improve; an expanded set of linkages between forestry and other sectors; and a more central role for the private sector, both in research and in development. The Panel considers that CIFOR is well positioned to meet the challenges ahead and to take advantage of the opportunities to contribute to poverty alleviation, food security, and environmental protection and enhancement.
RECOMMENDATIONS
CHAPTER - 2. LINKING CIFOR'S RESEARCH PROGRAMME TO ITS MISSION AND STRATEGY
1. CIFOR should evolve its current grouping of research activities into a framework that links more closely and clearly its research activities and their outputs to CIFOR's mission and to the broad thematic needs implied by it.
CHAPTER - 3. ASSESSMENT OF CROSS-CUTTING THEMES - PRIORITIES, IMPACT, RESEARCH QUALITY, LINKAGES AND OUTREACH
2. CIFOR should develop a more formal, transparent and systematic priority setting process that includes an explicit set of criteria for (1) judging exclusion or inclusion: appropriateness to mission, cost-effectiveness, international public good contribution; and (2) setting priorities among the group of included project activities and among projects.
CHAPTER - 4. GOVERNANCE AND MANAGEMENT
3 The BoT should seek Trustees who. between them, have broad managerial and financial competencies, and familiarity with the CGIAR System and with the private sector.
4. CIFOR should carefully consider re-establishing the link between performance evaluations and salary increases.
5. Management should develop and implement an organizational arrangement that:
(a) filters all potential, and present, projects and their component activities through an organizing framework such as that outlined in Chapter 2 to ensure consistency with CIFOR's mission and strategic objectives; and(b) maintains the essential underpinnings of good management processes.
