3.1. CIFOR Priority Setting in an International Research Centre Context
3.2. Impact Assessment in CIFOR
3.3. Quality of CIFOR's Research
3.4. CIFOR's External Linkages
3.5. Outreach Functions: Training and Information in Capacity Building
A large number of initiatives and processes have developed in the past 20 years to identify and prioritize researchable topics, and these achieved a great degree of convergence. These match the general areas of CIFOR's ten projects.
As CIFOR moves ahead into the next MTP period, it will face a number of challenges with regard to how it sets priorities for its overall programme and the components within. It also will face the challenge of how to proceed in measuring the impacts of its work in terms of contributions towards the mission. Furthermore, while CIFOR has a distinguished Chief Scientist who has been able to establish checks on the quality of science at CIFOR, the broader issue of assessing the quality of research at different stages is one with which CIFOR has not yet come fully to grips. A more systematic process for research evaluation is needed - perhaps through a combination of peer reviews and broader ICERs.
Policies and strategies for CIFOR linkages and partnerships with outside groups will require definition and refinement, for example, questions related to (a) CIFOR's role in working with the other centres in the CGIAR System (b) the extent and types of linkages it should be fostering with NARS of various types, including numbers of partners, questions of regional balance and choice of countries and (c) the question of the role of outsourcing in CIFOR activities and links to consultants and other part time personnel. Cutting across all of these questions is the issue of outreach and what CIFOR should be doing about it.
All of these questions are important for CIFOR, central to the charge given to this EPMR to look at strategic issues, and key to improving the links between research and eventual impacts. The Panel discusses each of these topics briefly in the context of CIFOR's activities, following up with its own assessment of each and noting that resource allocation is not identical with prioritization.
3.1.1. The Priority Setting Process in CIFOR
3.1.2. Research Priorities and the International Public Goods Nature of CIFOR's Research
As discussed in Chapter 2, the main links from research to mission are not very explicit in CIFOR's Strategy and Programme documents. Thus, priority setting and assessment of impacts in terms of the Mission also remain defined only implicitly in operational terms, although well articulated conceptually. The current preparation of logical framework analyses (when completed) is a major step towards rectifying this, at least in relation to impact assessment.
An accurate portrayal of CIFOR's present resource allocation would be that it is based upon the above-mentioned global consensus, modified to take account of Stakeholder views (NARS and donors), the need to balance the portfolio and the expert judgement of management and the BoT based on a high level of participation of staff scientists.
CIFOR's priorities have evolved from a broad, participatory and global search for priorities for international forestry research in general. From hundreds of topics that emerged during this process of meetings, writing of papers, international conferences, CIFOR picked an initial set of issues to address. CIFOR now has further narrowed and focused its research themes to the ten covered by its ten projects. Research priority setting has generally resulted in CIFOR from a combination of response to stated needs of developing countries, informal assessment by scientists and CIFOR management, the interests of researchers, and indications of interest from potential donors.
CIFOR has established a checklist of questions or factors to consider when it is doing an evaluation of new and existing research activity. The list is extensive and includes questions related to (a) strategic requirements; (b) operational requirements; (c) adoption/implementation considerations; and (d) impact considerations, (see Box 3.1 for complete list). With a few exceptions noted below, the list includes the key factors to consider.
As of the present, there is no formal, systematic process of considering the factors in setting priorities, neither among projects, nor within them. CIFOR recognizes the need to develop more systematic approaches; and the Centre is moving in that direction, among other things with its conceptually attractive project strategy development process.
The Panel concludes that CIFOR needs to develop two quite distinct processes for setting priorities and allocating resources in response to the resulting priorities. First, it is the role of the Programme Committee of the BoT to lay out the broad strategic priorities; and to approve more operational priorities developed by management for allocations of resources among projects. Second, working from the other end, there is need for a more systematic and uniform process by which projects develop their priorities for activities within them and convey those priorities to management, through RESCO. The two processes need to be quite separate but coordinated, with the latter feeding into the former, and vice versa.
The Panel believes (in agreement with a main urging of the 1995 ICER) that as CIFOR evolves further, it needs to foster a more organized, transparent mode of operation, including in the area of priority setting. A more systematic process is needed, one that goes hand in hand with the well recognized need for a firmer grip on impacts of research in terms of CIFOR's Mission and the goals of the CGIAR. The role of the Management Group and the BoT'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) 1 research in which it has a comparative advantage.
1 IPGs are here defined using the conventional CGIAR interpretation: research that is important to at least several countries, yet would not be undertaken by any one country because the benefits to that country alone would not justify the costs (or because any one country does not have the incentive to undertake it).
The Panel hastens to add that it is not arguing for a structured quantitative priority setting process. Rather, it is arguing for a process that is more systematic and transparent in terms of (a) links to strategic goals, (b) likely impacts in terms of Mission (including spillovers beyond impacts in partner countries), (c) expected milestones and likelihood of reaching them (likelihood of success), (d) the IPG nature of the expected outputs, (e) the likely cost-effectiveness of CIFOR in undertaking a given research topic and (f) how the interests of potential partners and clients are considered. The process needs to include, first, the criteria for eliminating from the total array of possible topics, those that do not meet basic requirements (in terms of expected cost-effective contribution to the Mission); and, second, the criteria for choosing among the group of possibilities that remain within the bounds of CIFOR's strategic plan goals and its funding potentials. To this end, the Panel recommends that:
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.
Box 3.1 CHECKLIST FOR EVALUATION OF NEW AND EXISTING RESEARCH ACTIVITY
STRATEGIC REQUIREMENTS/CONSIDERATIONS
|
· Has the problem been clearly defined and appropriate hypotheses generated? · Does CIFOR have comparative advantage for the proposal activity? · Is the research of global or regional significance? · Will the research outputs be generalisable? · Have the intended " targets" and beneficiaries of the activity been clearly identified? · Is there a clear linkage between research output and the intended impact? · Congruence with CIFOR eco-regional foci? · Congruence with TAC priorities? · To what extent will the outputs/outcomes of the activity contribute to the project objectives? What will the activity contribute to other CIFOR projects? |
OPERATIONAL REQUIREMENTS/CONSIDERATIONS
|
· Have all potential inputs from CIFOR staff been identified? · Are suitable research partners available? (Do they have a comparative advantage? Do they have "latent" capacity?) · Is the scientific and statistical design appropriate to test the hypotheses? · Extent of stakeholder and partner consultation in project design. · Probability of producing stated research "deliverables" in the specified time-frame. · Will the scientific design account for the counter-factual? (Assessing what would happen in the absence of interventions resulting from research: "before/after" or "with/without"). · What are the verifiable "milestones" to indicate research progress? · What is the anticipated time requires (in CIFOR SSYs). · What is the anticipated cost of the activity? (Total cost to CIFOR, funds from CIFOR to partners and partner contributions). · What is the likelihood of obtaining sufficient funds? (CIFOR core or donor specific?) |
ADOPTION/IMPLEMENTATION
|
· What are the requirements and assumptions regarding dissemination, adoption and use of research outputs relating to the extent and distribution of direct targets or beneficiaries? · Probability of adoption (likely relevance and acceptability to intended target group). · What is the estimated extent of adoption? (e.g., numbers of potential users, area or numbers of people influenced by policy change). · What is the potential for dissemination, who?, where?, how many?, how? · Likely research and development lag-time. |
The Panel emphasizes that the BoT needs to become more closely involved in the priority setting process. This includes both in the development of criteria and in judging the processes proposed by Management, both for priority setting and for impact assessment. This point is discussed further in Chapter 4. It should be noted that distinct processes will be needed for judging between projects and between activities within projects.
The third element (item (3) in the recommendation) includes helping to establish criteria for budget adjustments in case of funding shortfalls.
The explicit concern with the IPG criterion is specifically included since the Panel found that a number of CIFOR researchers did not seem to be aware fully of the need to focus on international public goods, nor of what the IPG criterion implies operationally in the context of setting priorities and in choosing the design of specific field site activities.
The CGIAR members expect CIFOR to be a world class institution doing state-of-the-art applied research addressing the major opportunities for forests to contribute more to poverty alleviation, food security and environmental protection. Along with this expectation comes an acceptance of the fact that CIFOR's research will be high cost per senior researcher. In order to justify the high cost, funders expect that CIFOR will be doing IPG research that offers the opportunities for, and indeed high probabilities of, large spillovers of research benefits across countries. Thus, while the research is expensive per unit of senior researcher, the broad application and the large spillovers are expected to reduce the research cost per unit of impact on reduction of poverty, increase in food security, and protection of the environment. These impacts are, after all, the ultimate goal of the CGIAR. For the above reason, the IPG criterion is of particular interest to many CGIAR members.
The Panel found that some CIFOR researchers are frustrated with the IPG criterion because they view it as being associated with shallowness of research at the specific site level. The Panel wishes to point out that this is (or should be) a false assumption. The IPG nature of CIFOR's work should not make it incompatible with in-depth research on particular sites. In fact, significant generalizations based upon a profound understanding of the nature of crucial variables at multiple sites is what CIFOR projects should, and in most cases do, seek to achieve. A misunderstanding of this basic concept will, axiomatically, lead to research that is neither cost-effective nor IPG related. The need for cost-effectiveness of CIFOR research must not deter in-depth research. When expensive senior staff cannot engage in time-consuming field activities, they should recruit and supervise students in the field and develop mutually beneficial links with other appropriate, lower cost and locality focused partners who can carry out the in-depth field work in the overall IPG context of the research.
The implication of the above is that the IPG criterion is a necessary one, but not sufficient alone to justify inclusion of a project in the CIFOR portfolio. In addition, the research has to be designed in such a fashion that (a) a number of countries actually do benefit from the research because it relates to their priorities; (b) some linkage can be drawn in impact assessment between the research and poverty alleviation, food security, and environmental protection; and (c) site specific research as part of a broader programme is not shallow and superficial. CIFOR should be the most cost-effective producer of the research. These criteria are especially relevant to any centre that wants to be a "centre without walls."
In this regard, the Panel is satisfied that CIFOR does consider the IPG criterion in planning its research but, beyond that, it should strive to maximize the realization of potential spillovers from its work in order to reduce further its costs per unit of impact. CIFOR is strong in terms of its cross-country synthesis work, although weak so far in terms of developing methodological advances in the IPG category, but there are indications that such advances are in the pipeline. The Panel fully recognizes that 3 to 4 years of work is not enough to develop clear and readily visible advances in research methods and techniques.
As mentioned earlier in this chapter. CIFOR needs to link its potential impacts more directly and closely to its Mission, since the latter is, after all, the reason why CIFOR exists. This is all the more important since that ultimately is how the CGIAR and other funders will judge CIFOR's success and future funding requests.
CIFOR has a separate project (Project 9) that focuses on impacts and impact assessment. The Centre has made considerable strides over the past year in establishing an "impact culture" among CIFOR staff. Its insistence on each project's establishing "impact pathways" within its project strategy is a positive step and one for which the Panel commends CIFOR (see Figure 3.1 for CIFOR's overview of the impact pathway concept within the broader CIFOR Project Strategy Development Process).
CIFOR has not been doing research long enough to have had any major impacts in terms of its Mission. Second, many of the types of research in which CIFOR is engaged are not conducive to having direct impact measures. Thus, only some of CIFOR's project activities can be expected to have direct impacts on the well-being of people and on environmental protection. At the same time, the Panel notes that CIFOR has not made much progress in actually establishing empirical measures of its specific impacts. Many of the activities in Projects 7 and 8, and to some extent 5 and 3 fall in this category. These are activities that could, in the context of Column 2 of Figure 2.1, more or less directly affect employment, incomes, and availability of products for poor, forest dwelling and other rural communities in developing countries.
FIG. 3.1. CIFOR's Project Strategy Development Process
For most of the CIFOR activities that are focused primarily on knowledge generation and on understanding processes, relationships, and policy linkages, (e.g., most of the activities in Projects 1, 2, 6, 9 and 10), the impacts will be indirect and difficult to identify in concrete terms. CIFOR has a challenge in trying to link project outputs and the intermediate measures of outcomes therefrom with poverty alleviation and prevention and with environmental protection. The Panel is pleased to note that the challenge is being addressed by CIFOR; and all Project Leaders are required to give an increased focus to impact relationships, as indicated above in relation to the impact pathways work. CIFOR recognizes that it is not enough, in this era of accountability, merely to say: "we are producing information." Information production needs to be linked to its likely uses. The Panel encourages CIFOR to continue to explore the options, and in the meantime to continue to require each project to consider its impact pathways explicitly.
3.3.1. Strategic and Applied Research
3.3.2. Quality of Formulation of Research Activities
3.3.3. Quality of Research Inputs and Methods
3.3.4. Quality of Published Research Output
CIFOR has a complex mandate. Each aspect of that mandate (to improve the well-being of forest-dependent people in the tropics, to conserve forests and their diversity, etc.), requires innovative research that combines and integrates the tools and insights of several scientific disciplines. This type of research, both multi-disciplinary and interdisciplinary, has rarely been successfully carried out by forestry institutes in developing countries. The Panel's comments on CIFOR's programmes and projects are offered with the recognition that the young institution and its scientists are being asked to do pioneering work. There are few models of successful, interdisciplinary, international or strategic research for them to follow. There are, moreover, few scientists anywhere who successfully overcome the barriers in understanding between marginalized forest-dependent people with their needs and the expertise of research institutions with their traditional scientific methods. Mere interdisciplinarity is not enough; relevance and impact are the ultimate goals.
As shown in the Strategic Plan (pages 26 - 27), CIFOR's research straddles the strategic and applied sectors in the continuum of research from basic, through strategic and applied, to adaptive. The strategic research seeks understanding of the principles underlying social and biophysical processes; they should be generalizable and have a potentially significant impact on human well-being. The problem-solving approach of CIFOR's research makes it inherently applied, leading towards prototype technologies to solve problems of regional or global importance. CIFOR's projects, with very few exceptions, have fallen in the strategic or applied categories.
There is, however, a greater problem in determining the current and desirable balances between original and synthesis research (e.g. the compilation of information into databases and books). CIFOR has produced several major syntheses including the book on miombo woodland in Africa and the CD-ROM Manual of forest fruits, seeds and seedlings. These are clearly international public goods that have major value; the main question for management each time is whether they and similar products could be provided as effectively but more cheaply by out-sourcing. In these two particular cases external support was involved but in principle there are many such needed syntheses that could be undertaken by CIFOR, albeit with some loss of scientists' research time and still with some external assistance. The Panel feels that such products, in addition to their technical value, strengthen the public awareness of CIFOR, its scientific reputation and its ability to provide foundation resources for solving the central problems of its Mission. The Panel recognizes that original research is a major task for CIFOR but believes that the synthesis of existing information, including the results of its own research, is a valuable contribution globally and to partner institutions that have limited library resources (see Section 3.5).
The Panel concludes that the majority of CIFOR's research is of high quality and is done by a group of dedicated researchers. Within the broad spectrum of research activities undertaken by CIFOR's scientists, however, there is a mix of ways in which problems are addressed, ranging from problem-oriented innovative, strategic research to limited, apparently donor-driven activities, frequently with a more adaptive or extension bias. Differences in the scope and orientation of CIFOR research reflect to some degree the several pathways through which research questions are formulated, proposals evaluated, and projects implemented.
Many activities originate within CIFOR with a concept note or paper written by a scientist, that is then circulated for review by RESCO. This relatively recent innovation in CIFOR is designed to promote high scientific quality and interdisciplinarity at an early stage in the research process. It works well when sufficient attention is given to a project by several scientists with a broad spectrum of skills. Some proposals do not, however, receive adequate attention because of staff involvement with multiple activities and frequent travels, or because project formulation needs to be completed urgently (in response to a particular donor's deadline). The contributions of other viewpoints and other disciplines will often then not brought in at all, or only added well after the main activities, etc. of the project are set.
While some CIFOR project activities continue to be largely disciplinary, the Panel finds that CIFOR has made very significant progress in promoting interdisciplinarity in its overall projects over the last five years. CIFOR already has much to show and teach the majority of its partner institutions.
The Panel stresses the need to implement the RESCO terms of reference fully but also suggests that when experts in crucial areas of expertise are not available within a CIFOR project or its partner institutions, experts from outside should be asked to review and evaluate the project and advise on crucial issues such as methodologies, sites, and project staffing. Some of the areas that stand out as meriting more attention in several CIFOR projects include use of a more holistic landscape management approach and incorporation of locally developed technologies in project plans. All project plans should include details of design, sampling, and analysis plus termination dates or "sunset clauses".
3.3.3.1. Quality of Researchers
3.3.3.2. Quality of Partners
3.3.3.3. Quality of Data
The quality of researchers is the most important research input. CIFOR scientific staff are recruited through careful procedures, with attention paid to their ability to work in teams and in innovative ways. As noted above, the level of genuine interdisciplinarity in CIFOR's work is increasing and a "CIFOR culture" and approach to research is taking hold. Many of CIFOR's young researchers come with impressive credentials and should be encouraged and allowed to develop as outstanding researchers. CIFOR's modus operandi places unusual demands on many staff to coordinate complex, international programmes, and travel extensively. All these demands on researchers' time may in some cases compromise research quality. The Panel encourages CIFOR to implement its policies that help less experienced scientists develop as researchers and maintain high standards of research; the proposals for improving research management below (in Chapter 4) seek to contribute to that process.
One of the best measures of the quality of science produced by researchers is their acceptance by peers in their particular fields of expertise. In this regard, publication in peer reviewed journals and books is a good indication of such acceptance. In the case of CIFOR, the record is relatively good in the view of the Panel. Around 20 percent of total CIFOR publications are in peer reviewed journals, which matches favorably with the general experience in the CGIAR. The experience by projects is highly variable, as might be expected, given the differences in approaches and objectives between projects. As such, the Panel is not concerned about these differences, although it encourages CIFOR to keep a careful watch on science quality in those projects that have low rates of peer reviewed publication
To maintain and develop scientific excellence CIFOR requires a balanced core of Internationally Recruited Staff; here balance implies a range of sciences, experiences, ages and possibly lengths of contract. Personal characteristics will, of course, vary so that some will seek while others will resist leadership roles, administrative tasks, isolation, direction and overall pressure.
It is not for the Panel to comment on the personal characteristics of current staff. This Section considers only the scientific balance. However, even this is difficult because it refers principally to both types of sciences (biophysical and social) and numbers in each. Since, recently, CIFOR has been organized into ten different projects with no apparent priority weighting, the numbers of scientists in a given project are not necessarily a good guide to the balance of the entire institution. Indeed, it is not expected that each scientific discipline be equally represented.
The recent historical profile of IRS (1994 - 97) is shown in Appendix VI together with the current distribution of all staff across the ten projects. The ratio of senior management posts (7) to senior scientists (18, excluding post-doctoral researchers and Associate Scientists) may at first sight indicate that CIFOR is over-administered but it must be remembered that most of the senior managers are also working scientists who do much for the IPG of CIFOR. The distribution of IRS by age approximates that of most research institutions with a high proportion of active scientists in the 31-50 age bracket.
In 1997 there were twice as many scientists from forestry-related disciplines
as social sciences represented in the IRS (14 and 7); in addition there were
ten scientists from biophysical disciplines. Half of the social scientists and
one sixth of the biophysical and forestry scientists were female. It is clear
that, in an institution that seeks interdisciplinary approaches to problems
of the rural poor, the continued active recruitment of women and social scientists
is very important.
Since CIFOR is committed to carrying out its activities together with partners
and away from its headquarters, the choice of appropriate collaborating institutions
and individuals is of paramount importance to the quality of research. The Panel
notes that most of CIFOR's partners are both appropriate to the task and deliver
research of high quality. The Panel does note, however, that CIFOR scientists
must continue to take measures to ensure that the quality of research done by
collaborators is consistent with CIFOR's criteria. The limited acceptance by
some NARS of a smallholder-focused and gender-sensitive research approach should
be of concern and CIFOR scientists should take care that all aspects of research,
including the more socially oriented are carried out by institutions or scientists
who are qualified to do excellent work in that field. The difficulty of selecting
appropriate research partners for CIFOR's complex and international projects
is further discussed in Section 3.4.3.
The methods of data collection employed by CIFOR scientists must be judged by new criteria often unfamiliar to scientists not accustomed to interdisciplinary research nor to applied research on international public goods. Perhaps the greatest challenge for multidisciplinary groups is to ensure high quality data are collected and analyzed through sound methods and yet to allow for the very different types of data used by different disciplines. Thus CIFOR projects must continue to learn to value objectively and link appropriately both the inputs of quantitative data more familiar to biophysical and economic scientists and the qualitative data that are often collected by sociologists and anthropologists. Allowance must be made also for different time requirements for field research and different styles of data presentation and interpretation. The Panel agrees that while CIFOR projects are not universally characterized by appropriate and high quality data collection in all relevant fields, several projects (see Appendix V) serve as models of high-quality, interdisciplinary data generation.
The Panel notes that in the majority of research activities appropriate research sites are being selected. In a few, cases, however, site selection appears to have been somewhat arbitrary or done in response to a variety of donor-imposed and other non-scientific criteria. In these instances more attention to site selection that takes into consideration relevant ecological gradients as well as pertinent social diversity would generally enhance research quality, relevance of data and yield generalizations that are more widely applicable and meaningful. The Panel accepts that the choice of site often rests with partners but also acknowledges that CIFOR actively seeks sites to fill in gaps in network representation.
As noted in Section 1.3, CIFOR has commissioned six reviews on various topics. It responded adequately to their recommendations and comments, bearing in mind the variability in their quality and the changing circumstances at the time they were undertaken. It is now sensible to consider the need for new ICERs and the Panel suggests that CIFOR commission a review (or possibly a discussion workshop among experts) on the development of methodologies for interdisciplinary work. The differences in training and tradition between biophysical and social scientists may lead to misunderstandings and controversies in the design, conduct and interpretation of research. This is evident in CIFOR (and appeared in discussions among the Panel members themselves).
The need for both types of scientist to work together in the same areas and on the same problems is, of course, accepted; however, the statistical precision and replication expected of biophysical scientists does not merge easily with the problems of human variability, sampling and time duration of social scientists using participant observation, interview and questionnaire techniques, often when the exact nature of the ideal set of questions is not clear.
The ICER would consider the latest concepts for the integration of quantitative and qualitative data and the use of multivariate models for unreplicated (and perhaps unreplicable) experiments. This could be seen as an important extension of the recommendations of the previous ICER on modeling (December 1996 - see Appendix V) for which the CIFOR response noted the problems of lacking statistical evidence in process models. Attention should be given to methods used by epidemiologists and medical mathematicians.
Overall, the Panel finds CIFOR's publications to be of good quality and the number of important publications by CIFOR scientists to be increasing. The Panel does note, however, that too many CIFOR scientists may be confining much of their work to in-house publications such as CIFOR's series of Occasional Papers, Working Papers and Special Publications. While these are undoubtedly of great value to many partner institutions with limited library resources, the value of peer-reviewed publications cannot be overestimated for international public goods research. It is also, of course, of benefit to the individual scientist's career to publish in peer-reviewed journals. The Panel recognizes the quality and value of many of the publications produced with, and often by, partners.
CIFOR has instituted a quality review process for all publications. Scientists submit completed works to the Chief Scientist (CS), who manages the process of review. He does not attempt to review everything himself. He aims to read all publications submitted to him but refers those outside his field of scientific competence to CIFOR colleagues or external reviewers. More care is now being taken to review in house publications. He also plays a part in determining where papers should be published. Where papers are to go to journals which will review them independently the CS satisfied himself that the manuscript is of sufficient quality to be submitted. One of the checks the CS makes is that the manuscript is in an appropriate style for the journal to which it is to be submitted. The needs of CIFOR staff outposted to areas where research support may be very limited, should receive special attention.
3.4.1. Links to Other CGIAR Centres
3.4.2. Links with Other International Programmes
3.4.3. Partnerships
3.4.4. Out-posting and Out-sourcing
CIFOR has established links with other CGIAR Centres, including ICRAF, IITA, and IPGRI, mainly through its involvement in the two Systemwide programmes: The Global Alternatives to Slash and Burn Programme (ASB) and the Systemwide Genetic Resources Programme (SGRP). CIFOR has also been exploring future linkages with the joint project of UNEP/GRID and the CGIAR on the "Use of Geographic Information Systems in Agricultural Research". CIFOR expects to begin active participation in the project when data appropriate for GIS analysis are available.
ICRAF: CIFOR and ICRAF each has a unique mandate and its own approach to research. The two centres do share some common objectives and priorities and do take advantage of opportunities to work together on areas of mutual interest.
The Southeast Asia Regional Programme of ICRAF is physically located with CIFOR in Indonesia. There is sharing of facilities and opportunities for interaction between the scientists of the two organizations. There is also cross membership of Board members between ICRAF and CIFOR.
The levels of cooperation in the field between CIFOR and ICRAF have varied between sites and projects. Particularly good and mutually beneficial relations often depend on personal affinities between personnel as is reported from sites in southern Africa and Indonesia. There is active collaboration by CIFOR on biodiversity issues in the Global Alternatives to Slash and Burn Programme (ASB) led by ICRAF at several sites, most notably and successfully in Sumatra. CIFOR's Project 2 has had the most participation in ASB activities. In southern Africa, CIFOR researchers have found important complementarities in needs and strengths and look forward to increased cooperation on many levels including CIFOR's following up on earlier household economy surveys done by ICRAF and sharing of data and insights. In the western Amazon ASB site, ICRAF and CIFOR are still seeking a satisfactory and mutually beneficial level of cooperation. Ties through seconded personnel, as, for instance, through the Indonesian-based ORSTOM researchers, have also been very useful.
IPGRI: Project 6 on "Conservation of biodiversity and genetic resources" is linked to the CGIAR "Systemwide genetic resources Programme". CIFOR is to be a collaborator with IPGRI and several NARS, in research on in situ conservation of forest genetic resources in Asia and central America.
IITA: IITA has been active for many years in the Humid Forest Zone of West Africa, an area of great interest to CIFOR. In particular, IITA and CIFOR are collaborating on the ASB benchmark site near Mbalmayo, in Cameroon. IITA scientists have also contributed to Criteria and Indicators testing by Project 4.
IRRI: There are no collaborative research activities involving CIFOR and IRRI. However IRRI has cooperated with CIFOR to review CIFOR's library facilities and to offer follow up assistance in the form of training for CIFOR's library staff.
CIAT: CIFOR is developing close links with CIAT at the ecoregional site at Pucallpa in Peru in the context of its work as part of the ASB consortium.
ICARDA AND ICRISAT: In the event that CIFOR is able to undertake its planned expansion into drier zone forests it expects to develop links with ICARDA and ICRISAT and preliminary discussions with these two centres have been held. This is, however, contingent upon CIFOR's acquiring the additional resources to allow this expansion.
Project 2 links its work on using PFA's in global vegetation modeling with the Global Change and Terrestrial Ecosystem (GCTE) programme element of the International Geosphere Biosphere Programme (IGBP), which is concerned with issues related to carbon sequestration and global climate change research. The Panel notes that further links between Project 2 and GCTE on the topic of ecosystem complexity (at all spatial scales ranging from sub-specific, through specific, ecosystem and landscape levels) might be productive.
Monitoring biodiversity, biodiversity considerations in rehabilitation of degraded systems, ecological functions of biodiversity and human dimensions are all areas of interest to the DIVERSITAS programme of ICSU/IUBS/SCOPE/UNESCO/IUMS. A number of CIFOR projects might consider building appropriate linkages with DIVERSITAS. Other areas where productive ties might be established are in the area of the human dimensions of forest management and global change. CIFOR shares these concerns with the International Human Dimensions Programme (IHDP) of the International Council of Scientific Unions (ICSU) and the International Social Science Council (ISSC). These ties will help in strengthening the social component of CIFOR research.
CIFOR has particularly good relations with IUFRO and its various networks. The DG of CIFOR and the President of IUFRO sit as observers on each other's Boards and two senior staff of CIFOR are Divisional Coordinator and Deputy Coordinator of scientific Divisions in the Union.
CIFOR's DG and DDG have in turn served on the Board of the Tropical Forest Foundation which is a consortium of industry and environmental groups concerned with sustainable forestry. CIFOR has active collaboration with this group on reduced-impact logging research and sees this as useful in extending its influence to major forestry corporations.
CIFOR's DG is an officer of the IUCN Commission on Ecosystem Management and a number of CIFOR scientists are involved in joint activities with both IUCN and WWF. This provides valuable avenues of communication with the environmental community and NGOs.
Types of partnerships: CIFOR's research and capacity-building agenda is implemented primarily through collaborative partnerships. Several partnership models differing in levels and types of participation by CIFOR scientists have been employed. Most arrangements have been in operation for less than 2 years so it is difficult to assess the long-term effectiveness of the partnerships. CIFOR classifies partnerships into 4 basic types:
1. Relatively little involvement of CIFOR scientists but a major financial contribution (outsourcing).2. CIFOR has a major role in planning and coordination, a modest financial contribution and little involvement in the fieldwork.
3. CIFOR jointly plans the research with a partner organization and has significant direct involvement in the fieldwork.
4. Most research activities organized and conducted by CIFOR scientists.
Virtually all CIFOR projects include a mixture of all the above partnership types and there are examples of successful use of each kind of arrangement in CIFOR's portfolio of activities. Types 2 and 3 are said to prevail, although it is probably difficult to clearly distinguish some categories. There appear to be few true type 4 arrangements that include longer-term field research by any internationally recruited CIFOR scientists.
Selection of partners: CIFOR's mandate to conduct its work in a manner that is interdisciplinary, international, scientifically excellent, and cost-effective makes the choice of research and training partners a demanding task for project scientists and coordinators.
The difficulty of ensuring meaningful interdisciplinarity and effective orientation toward the needs of forest-dependent populations suggests that often partners other than traditional forestry or agricultural research services should be chosen and several CIFOR projects have turned to a variety of individual and institutional partners to accomplish complex, multi-faceted tasks. In the course of conducting a test in just one of its several locations, for example, Project 4 forged partnerships with scientists of another CGIAR institution (IITA), an independent consultant, scientists and students of a national university, as well as personnel from other projects.
The identification and selection of such appropriate, varied, but non-traditional partners, especially in countries that are relatively new to particular project scientists, in specialty areas other than the scientist's own, and in countries where scientific languages (and therefore much of the literature) may be unfamiliar to the individual CIFOR scientist, can be a nearly overwhelming task. Emphasis needs to be put not only on working with partners who balance the existing strengths and weaknesses of CIFOR project teams in particular sites but also on assuring the quality of all aspects of the research. The necessity of taking decisions quickly, when funds are available and deadlines looming, has led in some instances to poor initial choice of partners. Initiatives such as the surveys of research capacities of institutions in southern, central, and western Africa undertaken by Project 9 can help projects identify appropriate individual and institutional partners.
CIFOR documentation states that the Centre's research programme is being implemented with the participation of approximately 500 partners. The Panel suggests that CIFOR scientists should seek ways to increase the effectiveness of partnerships rather than to add to an already high number. The nature and duration of partnerships reflect the specific research problems being addressed, but CIFOR should ideally seek active involvement of national and regional partners at all phases, beginning with the identification of the scientific agenda. The actual manner in which partnerships are formed and joint research initiated and carried out varies greatly among activities, as does the transaction cost to CIFOR of working with such partners. Relationships with host country institutions require special attention. There may be more need to clarify that CIFOR's mandate limits its ability to work with local institutions on local problems. The perception on the part of some host country scientists that there has been a lack of genuine partnership in all phases of project planning and implementation should, however, be evaluated and where possible, remedied.
Developing research in the Bulungan Reserve Forest (BRF) presents an opportunity for CIFOR to increase substantive collaboration with Indonesian scientists The very recent appointment of a prominent Indonesian scientist with experience in East Kalimantan as a coordinator of activities in the BRF, can go far toward forging mutually beneficial partnerships with Bogor-based and other Indonesia-based research institutions. The new coordinator can also help assure that the hitherto somewhat scattered activities in the BRF by several CIFOR projects and contractors be well integrated into a more synergetic whole.
Larger research efforts frequently involve several "layers" of partners, with regional institutions assuming regional coordination functions, national institutions organizing research activities, and students or consultants actually carrying out the research. Such complex, hierarchical structures can and do lead to confusion and some dissatisfaction, as well as add to the need for management skills and time.
A key challenge in implementing the partnership approach has been to minimize costs, particularly those incurred in working with less well-established research systems CIFOR has found that research activities with a high capacity-building component require more time and effort and that managing multi-disciplinary teams may also demand greater management skills. In summary, problems, difficulties and delays can occur at all stages from initially reaching consensus on a research agenda and priorities, through conflicts over institutional loyalties, or lack of a shared vision during implementation, to how the final results are presented and communicated to prospective users.
CIFOR appears to have considerable freedom in choosing partners and sites, although donors have exerted influence on site and partner selection in some instances Management needs to assure itself that locating research sites in all three tropical continents for a given project is essential in order to achieve the global output. This multi-continent organization can be a burden and can lead to undue travelling time and cost and subsequent compromising of research quality, especially with younger scientists who have little experience in more than one region or site. There are notable differences in how successfully a three-region approach has been used In some instances meaningful comparisons are being made, in others not. The Panel suggests that other organizational schemes, including an ecoregional, rather than global scope for some research efforts might be more conducive to high-quality IPG work.
Locating several projects in one focal area, often in association with a limited number of partners, can also lead to difficulties and misunderstandings over commitments made, time allocated, and accusations of "monopolizing" of partners. Care should be taken especially in areas such as Cameroon, for instance, where the number of available scientists, especially competent social scientists working on forestry issues, is limited. CIFOR is, moreover, not the only agency funding or undertaking research in such areas and, perhaps, contributing to the "brain drain" from national institutions and their research efforts.
Partnerships in capacity building activities: CIFOR involves additional developing country institutions and researchers in training activities, workshops and dissemination of results, including programs run by strong regional and developing country institutions. CIFOR also supports research workshops and seminars where they are clearly relevant to the partners' research CIFOR's training and capacity-building activities are usually intimately linked to its research, but have not been explicit, publicized, or organized as a major CIFOR task.
CIFOR calls itself a "Centre without Walls", and attempts to promote an "organizational culture that minimizes barriers to in-house collegiality and interdisciplinarity, and maximizes opportunities for external partnerships". One of the ways in which CIFOR hopes to achieve the last of these goals is to increase the number of CIFOR scientists who are based outside headquarters, usually within or close to partner institutions.
There are currently eight regular staff members who are out-posted; plans call for a doubling of that number in the next two years or so. Most of CIFOR's growth in scientific staff is scheduled to be in out-posted staff, although no exact or maximum number has been decided. The selection of sites for out-posting has to date been based on a variety of considerations; the most important has been the location of a good research partner institution, but personal and donor-related issues have also been significant. Within the next few years the increasing importance of seasonally dry forests as a focus of CIFOR research will figure in out-posting locations and situations.
The arrangements under which out-posted staff now cooperate with host institutions are variable, and flexibility will continue in the future. There are two internationally recruited CIFOR scientists stationed in Costa Rica (CATIE), and one internationally recruited and two nationally recruited scientists in Cameroon (IITA). In the other three out-posting sites (Brazil, Gabon, Zimbabwe) CIFOR scientists are posted singly, although in both Brazil and Zimbabwe nationally recruited research assistants will soon be added. CIFOR plans to continue the policy of not concentrating CIFOR staff in any site other than headquarters. Two resident staff, a larger number of scientists temporarily visiting as part of project work, with perhaps an occasional scientist in the area for a few months on "mini-sabbatical" is currently considered the probable staffing situation at most sites. Management has not yet decided on all sites although the current pattern of maintaining two or more sites in both Latin America and Africa will probably be continued.
The duties of out-posted staff are expected to be no different than those of scientists at headquarters, i.e. research, coordination, and some administrative duties related with their research activities. There are and undoubtedly will continue to be considerable variation, however, in activities other than research in which individual out-posted scientists engage; these include helping other CIFOR researchers and Projects identify appropriate research partners and giving advice on local logistical necessities, etc.
CIFOR management recognizes that there is a potential problem of out-posted scientists' being isolated and not sharing in the collegial and interdisciplinary culture of CIFOR. Management's answer to this problem is preferentially to outpost scientists who have spent sufficient time in headquarters to have acquired CIFOR's research approach. In fact, several of the scientists now out-posted have never spent significant time in headquarters. The Panel, however, questions whether CIFOR's mode of multi- or interdisciplinary and innovative research would not be better served by concentrating more than two CIFOR scientists in one location. It recognizes that they would then have largely regional responsibilities in addition to ecoregional commitments. If resources permitted, the Panel would support the establishment of out-posting centres in wet and seasonally dry locations in Africa (e.g., Cameroon and Zimbabwe), Asia (e.g., South China/Northern Vietnam/Northern Thailand or, considering the importance of its seasonally dry forests, India) and Latin America (e.g., Peru and Brazil or Costa Rica).
The question of out-posted scientists participating in Project leadership has not yet been resolved. One Project Leader has recently been out-posted and his case is to serve as an experiment. Obviously he cannot participate in RESCO meetings and is always represented in meetings by another member of the Project. The Panel questions whether out-posted staff can continue as Project leaders and maintain sufficient contact with senior management, other Project Leaders, and their own Project personnel located at headquarters.
Management has attempted to be flexible in dealing with the special needs of out-posted staff. Special provisions can and have been made to ensure acceptable schooling for the children of staff and for research support needs.
CIFOR also employs few scientists as Associates located outside CIFOR headquarters. The precise arrangements vary. Several such positions are funded by aid agencies that provide funds to hire their nationals. Several Associates hired under such or similar agreements are senior scientists and have made contributions central to the formulation of particular programme. Others have kept specific activities on track by serving as periodic troubleshooters offering crucial advice as needed. Still others have served more as roving experts. CIFOR's success with such arrangements has varied and there is no plan to either eliminate or radically increase the number of people employed under such conditions.
CIFOR has included a variety of ways in which work is carried out with individual and institutional partners, and a balance struck between work done at and outside the Centre.
As mentioned above CIFOR's work with partners includes a continuum of arrangements from totally out-sourced work to projects involving the work of CIFOR scientists in virtually every phase. While relationships that include significant CIFOR participation in project planning, execution, and analysis predominate, a significant amount of work has also been done on a contractual or out-sourced basis. An exact accounting of the relative importance of such work in the institution is difficult to make, but it accounts for a not insignificant though still minor part of the work done. All projects include some contracted or out-sourced work, and some (e.g., Project 1) include more than others. Since this type of arrangement requires significant funds, it will necessarily remain limited and should be judged by the comparative advantage of the contractor.
Some of the better known CIFOR products were done on a contractual basis. These include the software product known as "POPGENE" developed by scientists at the University of Alberta to which CIFOR made a direct financial contribution. POPGENE is now used very widely in many population genetics laboratories in over 30 countries. Another example is the Miombo Woodlands book that gathers the scattered knowledge about ecology, management and use of the Miombo woodlands in southern and eastern Africa. The task was undertaken by one professor in Zimbabwe, who co-ordinated a very large group of researchers throughout the region (10 countries) and included internationally recognized specialists from outside the region. The book has already become a standard reference across the region, as well as being the basis from which extension materials, policy briefings etc. are derived.
In common with other CGIAR Centres, CIFOR has an implicit commitment to developing the research capacity of institutions in developing countries but it has not made this explicit. In fact it is committed to strengthening the skills and knowledge of research staff at all levels to design, monitor and manage research institutions, programs, projects and tasks; design, assess, analyze, interpret and publish research studies; present results of research in a variety of ways that are useful to peer scientists, resource managers and policy-makers.
Skills and knowledge of this type are expected to be developed through formal and informal training courses; hands-on experience (of research or publishing), especially in partnership with skilled staff; contact with peers through networking and workshops; and access to information through libraries, electronic databases, and document delivery services.
The Strategic Plan (pages 36 - 37) indicates that CIFOR's training and capacity-building activities will be closely linked to its research. Several Projects have incorporated training seminars and workshops in their strategic plans and some have been completed successfully; CIFOR provided centrally a seminar on research management and a course for forestry editors. Formally the Director of Information Services is responsible for training (see below) but CIFOR staff do not believe that a separate training unit is required; the Panel suggests that they reconsider this from the points of view of saving CIFOR scientists' time in the organization of such training, of establishing a level of uniformity in quality of presentation, and of maintaining and promulgating the CIFOR image and culture. The Panel emphasizes, however, that the recognition of training needs should remain with scientists.
Few collaborating scientists are financed by CIFOR to undertake graduate degree courses but many research students from national universities work in CIFOR projects and their networks. CIFOR scientists themselves should be aware of the considerable time that may be required to supervise and guide such students.
CIFOR contributes significantly to original literature through in-house publications (e.g. Occasional Papers), peer-reviewed publications in books and journals, and electronic materials (e.g. CD-ROMs on A global overview of forest conservation and Manual of forest fruits, seeds and seedlings). However, added value would be obtained by publishing key outputs in several languages. Considerable information about CIFOR itself is available on the Web Page (although an analysis of "hits" in 1998 indicate that by far the highest number come from CGIAR Members and other CGNET users and from educational users in North America and Europe).
The former Research Support Division was split into two Groups, each with a Director - Information Services (covering library, GIS, MIS, computer services, multimedia, and training); and Communications (covering Publications and Public Relations). The current staff feel that the separation into two groups has been beneficial in working relations and output. The two groups do provide excellent services to CIFOR and its partners; the Information Services Group is a major resource for CIFOR's in-house research and management while both Groups ably promulgate CIFOR's results and image.
