For CIFOR, collaborative research is seen as vital in influencing both major forest policy issues and public opinion at the global, national and local levels.

But the question increasingly asked is: does research with partners actually have the impact desired?

Approximately 70 percent of CIFOR’s research is conducted away from its headquarters in Bogor, Indonesia. This is done through collaborative arrangements with national scientists and institutes, and especially with partners in developing countries.

The most common underlying assumptions about collaborative research argue that findings enhance scientific productivity, improve accountability, and have high applicability. CIFOR decided to test these assumptions by measuring the impact of CIFOR’s ten years of research by drawing parallels between science at one end and policy at the other.

CIFOR initiated a study in early September 2003 to assess it research partners’ perceptions of doing collaborative science with CIFOR. The aim of the study was to gather facts about how collaborative research findings influence forest policy.

One of the major challenges of the study was to reach out across the globe to a maximum number of research partners in order to get their feedback. Through informal interviews and an email survey, a first attempt was made to get an overview of CIFOR’s collaborative research from its partners’ perspectives. Several limitations to the survey methods became immediately apparent, including the ability of partners to respond in time, language issues and the use of email as the medium of communication.

Within fifteen days of launching the email survey, CIFOR received responses from more than 70 institutional and individual partners, embracing a total of 16 developing countries and seven developed countries.

Of the total respondents, about 80 percent had partnered with CIFOR for more than five years, with the remaining 20 percent less than five years. Survey respondents represented almost all research programs conducted in collaboration on various issues such as adaptive collaborative management, community forestry, illegal logging, plantations, non-timber forest products, biodiversity, policy and networking.

Most of the respondents said collaborative research had, over the long-term, yielded a high rate of return through multiple effects. The advantages of working in collaboration included benefiting from the credibility of the partner institution, the expertise of scientists, the use of multidisciplinary approaches, networking, and the wider recognition of research publications.

According to one partner, Professor Gill Mendoza from the University of Illinois, CIFOR has taken a strong leadership position at the interface between research and development particularly in forestry and natural resources.

“I believe this is a niche (and that) CIFOR is recognized internationally as a key institution in advancing not only ‘cutting edge’ research, but (also for) its relevance and application to ‘real’ issues and problems,” Mendoza said.

An important aspect of CIFOR’s collaborative research is the active involvement of its partners in choosing and planning research topics. Respondents were asked to comment on their participation in research topic selection. About 42 percent of survey respondents stated they played an active role, right through from the conception of the research project. Thirty-nine percent said research topics were already well-set in advance, but that they played an important role in process planning. A further 19 percent said that topic and planning ware to some degree set in advance.

As a partner in Brazil put it, “Although the mainstream of the project was preset, all collaborators had the freedom to choose the level of their participation. Project leaders were totally open to proposals to improve any aspects of the project, even offering infrastructure.”

From the partners’ perspective, CIFOR’s collaborative research findings are highly utilized at local, regional and global levels by policy makers and donors. Dr. J. P.D. Bouillet, Head of Research Team Cirad-Foret, who has been involved with CIFOR for more than seven years, said “the findings had helped convince ECO-sa a Congo eucalypt company, to manage organic matter in an environmentally-friendly way.

According to another partner, Anne Larson of Nitlapan in Managua, “World Bank projects as well as individual Bank consultants incorporated findings in new projects. The Mexican government’s new forestry law incorporated decentralization of some responsibilities to local governments after workshop presentations discussing results from CIFOR’s Latin American research”.

Improving future collaborative research findings, according to Nicodeme Tchamou of CARPE, will require “using field research results to actually lobby target groups for change is somehow missing”. Tchamou argues that to have policy influence, collaborative research findings should be fed-in to the public debate more strategically, and have better follow-up procedures and evaluation of research projects.

Findings of CIFOR’s study corroborate the finding of similar research studies that research ‘partnerships’ on forests and people are successful due to strong, strategic, shared leadership that purposely seeks collaborative advantages. CIFOR’s study also confirmed other similar research findings that collaborative research has a higher mutual accountability and provides a shared vision with a sense of purpose. Overall, CIFOR’s study suggests that collaborative research yields greater utility value through dissemination and implementation of research outputs.

In conclusion, the study found that:

• partnerships are best understood as social instruments that can enhance policy effectiveness
• collaborative research is a slow process but it can influence major decision through its findings
• collaborative research plays a crucial role in establishing networks and thereby wider dissemination of research findings.

A further conclusion is that, while the impact of research on policies changes quite constantly and is unpredictable, one thing that remains constant is the partnership.

By Purabi Bose from CIFOR’s impact assessment team. The adoption study was presented at the Amsterdam congress on ‘Globalization, Localization and Tropical Forest Management in 21st Century’, October, 2003.