View
419
Download
5
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
The International Model Forest Network (IMFN) is a global community of practice whose members work toward a common goal: the sustainable management of forest-based landscapes through the Model Forest approach. This presentation gives a brief overview of IMFN and of lessons learned from their experiences in long-term, large-scale, multi-site experimentation and research for sustainable forest management. This presentation formed part of the CRP6 Sentinel Landscape planning workshop held on 30 September – 1 October 2011 at CIFOR’s headquarters in Bogor, Indonesia. Further information on CRP6 and Sentinel Landscapes can be accessed from http://www.cifor.org/crp6/ and http://www.cifor.org/fileadmin/subsites/crp/CRP6-Sentinel-Landscape-workplan_2011-2014.pdf respectively.
Citation preview
IMFN experience in long-term, large-scale,
multi-site experimentation / research in
sustainable forest management
Presentation to CIFOR Sentinel Landscapes Workshop
Bogor, Indonesia, 30 September – 1 October 2011
What we are?
Launched at Rio (UNCED) Summit in 1992.
Voluntary international learning network comprised of +/- 60
large-scale landscapes in +/- 30 countries.
Globally shared framework for addressing sustainable forest
resource management (SFM).
Idea – at model forest level - is to use broad-based
partnerships to translate policies of SFM into practice, at a
landscape scale, in real time and for real benefits
Idea – at the international network level – is to link the needs
and knowledge of network members in order to accelerate
innovation at all levels.
Model Forest Framework Principles
IMFN Site Locations by Forest Type
• RECOFTC
• INBAR
• GPFLR
• CATIE
Local level: typically large partnerships, highly
diverse and non-traditional
1,000+ field-level partners across the network
Country/national-level partners
Numerous institutional partners at site,
regional, and international levels, including:
Model Forest Partnerships
• FAO (Asia,
LAC, Africa)
• UNDP-GEF
(LAC & Asia)
• CUSO-VSO
• CIFOR
• CIDA
• IUCN
Site Selection
IMFN Secretariat has developed guidelines
(non-prescriptive) for site selection.
Multiple approaches:
• Competitive process (Canada)
• Capacity/infrastructure driven (path of least resistance)
• Issue/policy driven (go to where the problems are)
• Stakeholder (bottom-up) driven
• Policy (top-down) driven
Partnerships
As complex as the landscape/land-uses
(academic, research, industry, govt., indigenous,
landless, etc)
Must include policy makers
Competitors and adversaries
They build it, own it, drive it
They understand that they belong to and work within
a larger regional and global IMFN community
Given time to define their modus operandi
“Funding Permanence”
No such thing – focus on risk mitigation strategies.
Scaleable: scale of effort ebbs and flows with opportunity and
initiative but with minimum thresholds
Important to engage and strategize with key stakeholders from
the beginning
Build capacity and awareness in non-traditional actors
Keep costs low from outset (proxy or “para-technical”
expertise)
Ensure that the work has buy in/relevance to those charged with
maintaining and supporting it over time
Understand local players as assets and (potential) allies
>95% of Model Forests ever established since early 1990s are still operational (with varying levels of effectiveness) – why?
Many partners = many more resources to deploy and draw upon + political clout
Developed country experiences with similar efforts to SL should be explored (CMFN)
Working at this scale, governance and relevance are key to continuity/permanence (comprehensive, locally driven, transparent, accountable, empowered, etc.) which takes time and resources – not aware of any shortcuts.
Observations and Lessons Learned
Lessons Learned
Need to link explicitly to higher policy levels and
external communities of common interest (network[s])
Communicate/brand/promote
Process rather than project
Cultivate leaders (plural)
The social component of sustainability is one of the
most complicated: how do we manage ourselves and
the demands we place on our landscapes?
Lessons Learned cont’d.
National forest and other resource-focused agencies are key enablers but should also be understood as key beneficiaries and partners just as local communities are.
There is substantial value in peer-to-peer and site-to-site networking, a process that allows sharing of innovative practices and that builds confidence and important skills in participants.
Meaningful engagement of local stakeholders is a prerequisite to sustaining buy-in, momentum, direction and support.