Generating and communicating science information to support policy and

decision-making in forestry

‘The whole life of policy is a chaos of purposes and accidents. It is not at all a matter of the rational implementation of the so-called decisions through selected strategies.’ Clay and Schaffer (1984).

The policy change process

‘Constraints to successful management of sustainable forest management over the years largely relate to the adoption of recommendations - not the generation of ‘best practice’. Dawkins & Phillip (1998).

The gap between knowledge and

practice

Who needs to know?

Policy knowledge . . . is not effective if retained in the hands of the producer.

Policy makers . . . do not generally go about seeking knowledge to assist them in understanding every decision they must make.

Policy knowledge . . . must be expressed, communicated, channeled, explained or otherwise distributed to policymakers if it is to affect policy decisions' (Webber 1991).

Research for change…

Uptake / Adoption Curves

Early Adopters Laggards

Time

Number of users

Research shows that when 10 to 25% of a target ‘population’ has adopted an innovation, the whole process becomes self-sustaining. ONLY THEN DO ‘GOOD PRODUCTS SELL THEMSELVES’

Early Majority

Late Majority

Cumulative

Frequency Pioneers

The Impact Pathway model

Inputs (e.g. finance, staff, equipment,

systems, etc…)

SRF 4 system-level

outcomes

Impacts (e.g. reduced deforestation

and degradation) Outcomes (e.g. forests and tree resources are better

managed)

Outputs (e.g. publication, training,

databases)

In fact it is probably more like this…

From http://boru.pbworks.com/w/page/13774906/Learning-Selection-Change-Model

KASA: knowledge, attitudes, skills, aspirations

From Outputs to Impacts

The bushmeat issue

Liaison group on NTFP

Keynote to CBD (2001)

Support from African Parties

Scientific work: PhDs, review, papers, etc. (2002-2008)

Bushmeat CBD priority at COP 9

(2008)

Liaison group on bushmeat

(2009)

Recommendation to SBSTTA (2010)

COP 10 Decision (2010)

Scientific work with actors

(2009-2011) Tools, guidelines

(2012, OT) Policy changes (2011-2012)

Improved, more sustainable practices (2012-)

Impact Pathway

Impact Pathway: inputs to outputs Inputs: CRP6

5 components 15 research themes + Gender, Capacity building, Sentinel landscapes

SRF 4 system-level

outcomes

Impacts (e.g. reduced deforestation

and degradation)

Outcomes (e.g. forests and tree resources are better

managed)

Outputs (e.g. publication, training,

databases)

Original research and capacity building with

research partners

THINKING beyond the canopy

Research outputs Overall, the production

of science outputs is not a major issue

but Publication results can

be improved in terms of quality and quantity Other types of outputs

(e.g. capacity building, gender) are not yet adequately considered and/or recorded

THINKING beyond the canopy

Research outputs: New (?) Thinking

Original scientific pieces in reputable journals with good research partners Syntheses pieces

channeled through “big” players (e.g. WB) Communication strategy

in place before publishing • “Derived” products for non-

science users (policy briefs, blogs, etc.)

New incentive structures for rewarding outputs

1

10

100

1000

10000

1 4 7 10 13 16 19 22 25 28 31 34 37 40 43 46 49

Num

ber o

f cita

tions

Stern Lomborg Tilman

H factor: D. Tilman 51 N. Stern 19 B. Lomborg 09

Impact Pathway: outputs to outcomes

Inputs: CRP6 5 components 15 research themes + Gender, Capacity building, Sentinel landscapes

SRF 4 system-level

outcomes

Impacts (e.g. reduced deforestation

and degradation)

Outcomes (e.g. forests and tree resources are better

managed)

Outputs (e.g. publication, training,

databases)

Original research with partners

Synthesis research and outreach

THINKING beyond the canopy

Outputs to outcomes

We are generally able to claim a few significant outcomes per year

but This is a painful

exercise Few of these outcomes

are real IPGs Supporting evidence is

somewhat scant and/or attribution disputable

Why? • Improper project design • Passive expectations of

outcomes • Inappropriate

communication or outreach • Lag time between outputs

and adoption • Change in donor or societal

interests • “It simply didn’t work…”

THINKING beyond the canopy

Outputs to outcomes: “Forcing” Opportunities

Project for change Write for “impact” Do not over-commit Plan M&E properly “Force” recognition Work with the right

partners (research partners for research; development partners for outcomes…)

Use PIPA methods (http://boru.pbworks.com/w/page/13774889/Background)

Improved certification schemes - FSC, UNEP, CIFOR; GEF funded - Brazil, Mexico, Cameroon - Preparation phase 2002-2004

- Several stakeholder workshops - Agreement on what needs to change (e.g. SLIMF certification

standards) - Selection of right partners (CIFOR: backstopping research;

FSC-IC: develop approve standards; country partners and certification bodies: develop and test new standards)

- Implementation 2005-2009 - Production of several outputs - Database for monitoring aspects of HCVF and biodiversity in

FSC certified forests - FSC step-by-step guide - Good practice guide to meeting FSC

certification requirements for biodiversity and HCV Forests in SLIMF

- Guide to markets for forest products and services for smallholders

- FSC guide to certification for smallholders - National SLIMF standards for Mexico, Brazil and Cameroon

- Outcome 2010: endorsement of the new SLIMFs standards for the 3 countries by FSC

Impact Pathway: outcomes to impacts

Inputs: CRP6 5 components 15 research themes + Gender, Capacity building, Sentinel landscapes

SRF 4 system-level

outcomes

Impacts (e.g. reduced deforestation

and degradation)

Outcomes (e.g. forests and tree resources are better

managed)

Outputs (e.g. publication, training,

databases)

Original research with partners

Synthesis research and outreach

???

THINKING beyond the canopy

Outcomes to impacts: ouch!

Quantification of impact is difficult; all the more for policy research Attribution is generally

multiple and non documented Causality links between

outcomes and impacts are weak or unclear Lack of proper methods

to assess NRM and policy research impacts

“The evidence of impacts of CGIAR research on new or improved management practices and on natural resource management is insignificant.” (Science Council, 2006)

THINKING beyond the canopy

Outcomes to impacts: Some Hints

Specific research linking outcomes to impacts • Systematic reviews • Long-term monitoring

experiments (Sentinel Landscapes)

New monitoring & evaluation methods Impact evaluation as

integral part of project design

Outcomes as impacts on a different scale Carefully disaggregate

impact: • Via adoption of specific

outputs by farmers • Via institutional

innovation or policy-influence

Increase our capacity in research about impact of research

How to foster adoption and

implementation of good

research based practices and

policies?

Outreach and uptake efforts that have little or no effect

Educational materials (distribution of recommendations for changed practice; including practical guidelines, audiovisual materials, and electronic publications) Didactic educational meetings (lectures like this one!!)

Pile of 855 guidelines in general practices in the Cambridge and Huntingdon Health Authority : “The mass of paper we collected

represents a large amount of information, but it is in an unmanageable

form that does little to aid decision making”

Interventions of variable effectiveness

Audit and feedback (or any summary of performance) The use of local opinion leaders (practitioners

identified by their colleagues as influential) Local consensus processes (inclusion of

participating practitioners in discussions - problem focus & appropriateness of solutions)

UNFF 4, Brazzaville 2004

Consistently effective outreach efforts.

Educational outreach ‘visits’ ‘Social’ media (blogs, twitter, facebook, website). Repeated reminders (manual or computerized). Multifaceted interventions a combination that

includes two or more of the following: ‘audit’ and feedback, reminders, local consensus processes, or marketing). Interactive educational meetings (participation of

intended users in workshops that include discussion or practice).

Publications and impact?

Publications

Number of downloads /yr

Publications

Title Download (2005 - 2011)

Realising REDD+: national strategy and policy options 46,793 Hutan pasca pemanenan: melindungi satwa liar dalam kegiatan hutan produksi di Kalimantan

38,947

Moving ahead with REDD: issues, options and implications 29,252 Dari desa ke desa: dinamika gender dan pengelolaan kekayaan alam 28,974 Belajar dari Bungo: mengelola sumberdaya alam di era desentralisasi 22,992 Payments for environmental services: some nuts and bolts 22,350 Plantulas de 60 especies forestales de Bolivia: guia Ilustrada 22,035 Panduan singkat cara pembuatan arang kayu: alternatif pemanfaatan limbah kayu oleh masyarakat

21,875

Atlas industri mebel kayu di Jepara, Indonesia 20,014 Partisipasi masyarakat dalam pembuatan kebijakan daerah di kabupaten Tanjung Jabung Barat, Jambi: ketidakpastian, tantangan, dan harapan

19,712

Menuju kesejahteraan dalam masyarakat hutan: buku panduan untuk pemerintah daerah

19,160

Riquezas da floresta: frutas, plantas medicinais e artesanato na América Latina

18,623

Impact on scientific publication

754,017

3,374,799

0

500,000

1,000,000

1,500,000

2,000,000

2,500,000

3,000,000

3,500,000

4,000,000

1st 2008

2nd 2008

3rd 2008

4th 2008

1st 2009

2nd 2009

3rd 2009

4th 2009

1st 2010

2nd 2010

3rd 2010

4th 2010

1st 2011

2nd 2011

3rd 2011

Page views

Quarter

Launch of new CIFOR website

Social Media

New Blog

Web-based outreach

Journalist workshops

• 2011: 2 media workshops in Indonesia trained 37 journalists (Bali & Central Kalimantan)

• 2012: 3 media workshops in Vietnam training 40

journalists + 12 editors – Workshops planned in Peru and Papua

Conclusions • Passive dissemination of information is generally

ineffective • Best practice for dissemination and promoting

effective diffusion is well known but seldom implemented by research institutions

• Applied and strategic research institutions must reward success in uptake / adoption not just count publications

• Further empirical studies on the relative effectiveness and efficiency of different dissemination and uptake strategies is required – build this into the research process

THINKING beyond the canopy

www.cifor.org/crp6