In 1993 you were given the mandate of establishing a new kind of research institute, a ‘centre without walls’. Have you succeeded?

Compared with the way most scientific research centres work, our research networks are more dispersed and closer to our partners in tropical developing countries. We are collaborating with a more diverse array of partners than anybody else working on forest issues. But to those who were looking for a ‘centre without walls’ in the sense of a virtual research centre—totally dependent on the Internet and with no infrastructure—we may be a disappointment. We soon realised we had to have a critical intellectual mass somewhere to drive the collaborative partnerships. We had to have an institutional capacity to learn and adapt, and a high level of collegial interaction. Our headquarters in Bogor has enabled us to have that.

What are CIFOR’s greatest strengths?

For certain, our greatest strength is our excellent staff and the network of partners in collaborating research organisations. They all work together as a team and are highly motivated. They all communicate well with each other and show a strong willingness to learn and to challenge each others’ ideas. What’s more, they share a vision of the kinds of outcomes we are seeking in improved management and protection of forests in tropical countries. We have also been very fortunate to have a Board of Trustees that is highly committed, diverse and supportive of new approaches to research management.

You say the staff shares CIFOR’s vision of tropical forests.
What is that vision?

It begins with the recognition that tropical forests have multiple functions that must be balanced and managed to improve the lives of poor people in the tropics while protecting the many important environmental services that forests provide. CIFOR also believes there is no single solution to the complex problems of tropical forests, and that solutions must be tailored to the unique conditions of each forest type. This differs from the conventional approach to forest management in the past, which was state dominated and operated by command and control. CIFOR wants to see how a redistribution of control away from the centre and toward the people in the forest can best be done—to improve the capacity of local communities so they can come up with their own solutions, but with checks and balances to ensure that public goods values and long-term sustainability are also achieved.

What are CIFOR’s most significant achievements so far?

Certainly many individual areas of our research have had significant impact, such as developing criteria and indicators for forest management and CIFOR’s work on underlying causes of deforestation. These and other specific results have changed the way many national and international institutions do business. But overall, I think CIFOR’s greatest achievement is how we have changed the way others see forestry problems and forest research needs. People have been talking for a long time about ‘holistic approaches’, ‘extra-sectoral influences’ and ‘multi-disciplinarity’ in dealing with problems of forests and other natural resources. But CIFOR is one of the first to look at what this really means and to incorporate it into the way we work. I like to think that CIFOR has been a catalyst for changes in scientific approaches at research institutes and universities around the world.

Indonesia, with its renowned forests, seems like the ideal host country for CIFOR. But its record of forest protection is far from exemplary. Has this and the country’s economic and political troubles hampered CIFOR’s  ability to do its work?

Just about every problem related to forests can be found in Indonesia, so yes, it’s a natural laboratory. It has been disheartening for our scientists to see the many abuses of Indonesia’s wonderful forests due to a range of causes deeply entrenched for decades. But has this created special problems for CIFOR? I would have to say no. Nobody has tried to muzzle us or interfere in our work. We have always reported honestly on what our fieldwork and research has shown, and have not felt inhibited. Inadequate human, technical and financial resources of many of Indonesia’s institutions, including those concerned with forests, has limited our ability to apply the results of our work. The reality is that if you want to solve difficult problems, you are probably going to have to work in difficult places, to develop solutions suited to local conditions. There are no simple technical solutions to the problems of tropical forests. Technical choices have to be made to suit local economic and social contexts, and I think our location in Indonesia has helped us greatly to remain in contact with reality.

Now that tropical forests have been the focus of increased research attention over the past decade, do you see much progress in tackling some of the problems you’ve discussed?

Not as much as I would have hoped. People are investing large amounts of money to address the symptoms of forest misuse without having the scientific capacity to understand the real underlying problems. Investments in forest research are inadequate, the quality and relevance of much of the research is poor, and in many countries the national capacity to do forest research is getting worse, not better. Many people are disappointed that the enormous amount of money ploughed into technical assistance projects for conventional forestry and forest conservation in the past decade has produced so few results. I think much of the blame for that lies in past patterns of international development assistance. Donors have often responded to forestry problems by sending in teams of experts armed with ready-made solutions rather than providing support to help national scientists strengthen their ability to solve the problems themselves. Most assistance has reflected the rich countries’ views of what was good for poor countries’ forests. The time, energy and limited resources of national institutions have been wasted in responding to donors’ ever changing agendas. This has been counter-productive in building national capacity. CIFOR’s close partnerships with collaborators in many developing countries are helping to build some scientific capacity. But our efforts are very modest in relation to the huge need.

What lies ahead for CIFOR?

I am certain the world needs CIFOR and the kind of work it does, but what organisational changes may lie ahead—in regard to CIFOR’s position in both the CGIAR system and the international arena—is unclear. As the forestry community shifts from ‘one size fits all’ solutions to recognising the need for locally generated solutions, CIFOR could play a pivotal role, especially with its research on more people-centered management strategies. But the scientific basis for forest management has to be increased globally by an order of magnitude. CIFOR is well positioned to help this happen and I would like to see us greatly expand our presence in Africa and South America in order to respond to the needs of these regions.

What advice would you give your successor?

My message is quite simple: the success of CIFOR depends on recruiting the best possible scientists and support staff, creating the conditions that enable them to work collegially and with a shared vision of what CIFOR is trying to achieve, and then managing with minimal interference to let good things happen. It’s essential to make sure the staff is diverse and mutually tolerant in representing a wide range of views about forests and what they mean to different people.
I would urge my successor to avoid thebureaucratisation that stifles initiative and enterprise at many international institutions as they mature. In our research programme weare critical of command-and-control approaches to forestry, and that should apply as well in managing CIFOR as an institution. CIFOR should be a challenging but enjoyable place to work—a place the world’s best and most committed scientists are eager to come to.

What do you plan to do next?

I’ll continue doing what I’ve done forthe past 30 years: seek opportunities to bring about practical improvements in the conservation ofimportant forests. But I hope I can become more directly involved, for long periods, in helping to protect some very special forests—to really learn about them and what needs to be done. I’m especially interested in forests as part of island and mountain ecosystems, so I hope to spend some time in eastern Indonesia and the Himalayas. And because I enjoy writing, I want to spend some time writing about approaches to address some difficult forest conservation problems.

Top