Research
that Matters
CIFOR Annual Report 2005
Center for International Forestry Research
Our Mission
Contents
CIFOR’s mission is to improve the well-being of
forest-dependent people, reduce poverty and
ensure the survival of the world’s tropical forests
through high-quality research.
• CIFOR’s research seeks to reduce poverty among
the hundreds of millions of people who rely on
forests for their livelihoods. In this way, CIFOR
believes it can help developing countries achieve
the United Nation’s Millennium Development
Goals of halving extreme poverty by 2015, and
reversing the process of forest loss.
• CIFOR is committed to alleviating rural poverty
by helping poor people retain access to forest
resources, create new resources and earn more
from those they have.
• CIFOR’s research encourages the sustainable use
of forests and the protection of biodiversity.
• CIFOR is committed to strengthening the
capabilities of developing country scientists,
governments, civil society organisations
and local communities so they can develop
and promote their own solutions to forest
problems.
• CIFOR is a learning organisation that constantly
seeks to expand its own institutional frontiers
by fostering new ideas and practices.
• As a ‘centre without walls’, CIFOR is committed
to collaborative research that makes a real
difference to people’s lives and the health of the
forests.
Foreword
Translating Research into Action
Forests and Livelihoods
Making forests work for the poor
2
4
7
7
8
10
12
14
Diet, disease and livelihoods in Borneo’s forests
Carving out a better future
Sharing science with the people in Mexico
Unlocking the secret of good forestry partnerships
Environmental Services
Promoting wise use
17
Forests and Governance
Improving the way we make decisions
27
How We Work
Collaboration and outreach
37
Annexes
Board of Trustees
44
17
18
20
22
24
Forests, floods and misleading headlines
Tackling climate change
Cash for conservation
Influencing plantation policy in China
27
28
29
30
32
33
34
35
Tackling forest conflict
Hope for Liberia’s forests
A fresh approach to rural development
Reflections on community collaboration
Forging new partnerships in Cameroon
A future for Indonesia’s forests? A new approach to fighting forest crime
37
39
40
41
42
43
Royal accolade for CIFOR scientist
Networking in the Sahel
Spotlight on forestry research
Getting the most out of Annual Meetings
CIFOR News – worth the effort
44
45
46
48
52
57
Donors
Financial Statements
Collaborators
Staff and Consultants
Publications
CIFOR Research Sites
China
Nepal
Mexico
India
Guatemala
Honduras
Costa Rica
Burkina Faso
Ghana
Laos
Cambodia
Cameroon
Ethiopia
Uganda
Ecuador
Congo, DRC
Peru
Bolivia
Brazil
Tanzania
Malawi
Zambia
Mozambique
Zimbabwe
Madagascar
Namibia
Botswana
South Africa
Vietnam
Philippines
Indonesia
Research
thatMatters
CIFOR Annual Report 2005
Foreword
Forests would get more serious attention if people
realised how important they are for addressing
extreme poverty and illness, violent conflict,
corruption, climate change and lack of clean
drinking water. Research can provide evidence for
that and help shape policy agendas.
Forest policies could benefit poor families,
women and ethnic minorities much more if those
groups’ voices were heard and policy-makers
understood the impacts of their actions. Research
can facilitate both those things.
Most forestry and conservation projects lack clear
objectives, strategies and systems for monitoring
and learning from their results. Research can provide
information that would enable project managers to
become more efficient and effective.
Small-scale forest enterprises and communities
need more information about markets and
technologies to be competitive and sustainable.
Research can help provide that.
For a dozen years now
CIFOR and its partners have
been doing precisely those
sorts of research, and there is
more and more evidence we
are getting results. Whether
it is in Cameroon or Burkina
Faso, Nepal or the Philippines,
Brazil or Nicaragua, governments, aid agencies, NGOs, researchers, journalists,
companies and communities have been using
information and tools from CIFOR to improve what
they do. This Annual Report tells a few of those
stories, but it does not do much more than scratch
the surface.
Angela Cropper
Chair, Board of Trustees
Perhaps the example
that
best
symbolises
what this effort was all
about in 2005 is Liberia’s
international workshop on
community forestry, held
outside Monrovia. After
years of darkness and
destruction in that heavily
forest-dependent country,
the workshop provided a ray of hope that forests
could benefit communities, instead of fueling
further violence. It was the first major event ever
held in Liberia to discuss how forests could improve
the lives of local people, and pretty much all the
groups concerned with forests showed up to share
experiences, learn from other countries and debate
what should happen in the future. CIFOR was proud
to be a part of that discussion.
2005 was also the last full year that the two of
us will serve as CIFOR’s Director General and Board
Chair, and we both feel honoured to have had that
opportunity. We would like to use this occasion to
thank all the many partners, staff members and
supporters who have helped make CIFOR such
an effective organisation over these past twelve
years, and made our own lives a little easier and
more enjoyable. You are the ones that made all this
possible. As we pass the baton to our successors,
Frances Seymour and Andrew Bennett, we are
confident that they will make CIFOR even better,
and that CIFOR’s research will continue to make a
difference for people and forests.
David Kaimowitz
Director General
Foreword
Foreword
The confluence of the Mamberamo and Wiri Rivers, near Kwerba, Papua, Indonesia. (Photo by Miriam Van Heist)
Translating Research
into Action
When the Consultative Group on International
Agricultural Research (CGIAR) announced that
CIFOR would undergo an External Program
and Management Review, beginning in late
2005, it seemed like a good time to reflect
on what the organisation had achieved since
the last review, some seven years earlier. ‘We
looked at everything we’d done during that
period and in many ways we were surprised
by how much we’d achieved,’ recalls David
Kaimowitz, CIFOR’s Director General. The
results of this self-assessment are described
in Achievements of the Center for International
Forestry Research (CIFOR) 1998 –2005. Here are
just a few of the highlights.
Much of CIFOR’s work has focused on how
forests can help to improve the livelihoods
of the 240 million people, many among the
poorest in the world, who live in forested
regions in developing countries. CIFOR has
raised awareness among policy-makers and
opinion leaders about the importance of
forests for rural livelihoods, and its research
has improved understanding of the links
between forests and poverty.
One of CIFOR’s largest research pro­
grammes analysed the harvesting, use
and sale of 61 non-timber forests products
(NTFPs). This was a classic example of CIFOR
acting as a ‘centre without walls’, with the
project bringing together 60 scientists from
47 institutions in 27 countries. This and other
research on NTFPs has provided information
of real practical benefit to development
agencies and local people. For example, over
Translating Research
four-fifths of the forest traders in Cameroon
who CIFOR provided with data on markets
prices said they had increased their incomes
as a result.
The world’s tropical forests have tangibly
benefited from CIFOR’s research too. For
example, the Forest Stewardship Council
used research on Criteria and Indicators
(C&I) of sustainable forest management,
conducted by CIFOR and its partners, in the
design of its standards. These have been used
to certify almost 6 million hectares of tropical
forest, and this has undoubtedly improved
the management of these forests.
Meanwhile, research in Indonesia
has highlighted the way in which false
assumptions about wood supply from
plantations encouraged financial institutions
to invest billions of dollars in pulp and paper
mills that have been responsible for massive
destruction of natural forests. The research
also highlighted the fact that Indonesia’s
debt-restructuring programme would award
a huge subsidy to financially risky businesses,
and at the same time cause further forest loss.
As a result of this research, the two largest
pulp and paper mills have begun to improve
their forest management practices, and some
financial institutions have adopted more
prudent lending policies.
At a very practical level, research by
CIFOR and its partners has helped plantation
companies as far afield as South Africa and
China to improve soil management and
increase their yields. Research into ‘reduced
Guarayo boy in Bolivia reading the children’s classis, The Giving Tree (Kristen Evans); primary forest in Gabon (Markku Kanninen); a young woman
making plates out of sal leaves in India (Charlie Pye-Smith), Multidisciplinary Landscape Assessment survey in Vietnam (Douglas Sheil); a pulp
and paper mill in China (Christian Cossalter); selling non-timber forest products in Cameroon (Michael Hailu). (clockwise, from top left)
impact logging’ has been widely used to
improve the harvesting practices in Indonesia
and Brazil, and CIFOR’s research on secondary
forests has influenced the design of Peru’s
new forestry laws.
CIFOR is a relatively small research
institute. It can’t hope to influence the way
forests are used by working in isolation.
That’s why it has sought to get its research
used by the organisations and policy-making
processes that largely define the global
forestry agenda. It seems to have succeeded.
Most policy document on forest-related
subjects produced by organisations like the
World Bank, the UN Food and Agriculture
Organisation and the Convention on
Biodiversity cite CIFOR research.
CIFOR has adopted a range of strategies to
influence policy-makers and opinion leaders.
One of the ways it has done this is through
POLEX, the Forestry Policy Experts Listserve.
These succinct summaries of recent forestrelated research, written by David Kaimowitz,
are regularly sent to 17,000 individuals.
Surveys have confirmed that these have
made a significant contribution to forest
policy dialogue. CIFOR also has one of the
most active communications departments
within the CGIAR, the number of media
stories related to its research increasing from
just a few in 2001 to over 500 by 2005.
Translating Research
Forests and Livelihoods
Tropical forests provide food, building materials, medicines and much else for tens of millions of people. A Punan hunter-gatherer harvests sago
palm, one of the many edible products found in the forests of East Kalimantan, Indonesia. (Photo by Edmond Dounias)
Forests and
Livelihoods
Making forests work for the poor
Almost a quarter of a billion people live in
or near tropical forests, and their well-being
depends on them. Forests provide building
materials, food, land on which to grow crops
and many other things. Two billion people
– a third of the world’s population – use
fuelwood and charcoal, most harvested in the
forests. Two billion people rely on traditional
medicines, many of which come from forests.
Forest-dependent people tend to
be politically weak and economically
marginalised, and they are among the
poorest in the world. CIFOR’s Forest and
Livelihoods Programme seeks to bring about
improvements in their livelihoods by helping
governments, conservation organisations
and development agencies work out how
to handle the trade-offs between livelihood
enhancement and forest conservation, and
how to take advantage of synergies between
the two, where they exist. The research
also aims to help raise the living standards
of forest-dwelling people by providing
information about markets, by improving
forest management, by creating viable
partnerships between industry and local
communities, and by enhancing povertyreduction policies.
One of the highlights of the year was
a restitution workshop at which CIFOR
scientists shared the results of a three-year
research project on health and indigenous
people. A comparative study of forestdwelling communities and their urbanised
relatives provided important insights into
the complex relationship between health
and forests. The workshop, held in Malinau,
East Kalimantan, helped establish new links
of communication between Punan huntergatherers and government officials.
The Non-timber Forest Product (NTFP)
Case Comparison project, described in
previous years’ annual reports, continued to
spawn important publications. New editions of
Riches of the Forest were published for Mexico
and Indonesia, and Carving out a Future
drew heavily on the research of scientists
involved in the Case Comparison project. This
book provided the most detailed description
to date of the remarkable richness of the
woodcarving trade. It assesses the impact
the trade has on resource sustainability and
livelihoods, and suggests how policy-makers
and consumers could act as a force for the
good.
Children in West Africa selling shea fruits, harvested from the tree
Vitellaria paradoxa. (Photo by Daniel Tiveau)
Forests and Livelihoods
Audrey Selzner (center), an intern
with CIFOR and IRD, conducts a
quantitative food survey in Kuala
Rian, East Kalimantan. (Photo by
Edmond Dounias)
Diet, disease and livelihoods
in Borneo’s forests
These are difficult times for many indigenous,
forest-dwelling communities. Over much
of the tropical world, forests are under
threat from logging, mining, road-building
and other activities. While contact with the
outside world has undoubtedly brought some
benefits to remote communities, the changes
which are occurring are frequently rapid and
often destructive. But how precisely, does
this affect the livelihoods of forest dwellers
such as the Punan of Borneo?
To find out, CIFOR scientists, seconded
from the Institut de Recherche pour
le Développement (IRD), conducted a
comparative study of two very different
Punan communities. Over a three-year
period they compared the health, diet and
livelihoods of a remote community which
still practises hunter-gathering in the Upper
Tubu Valley in East Kalimantan, with settled
Punan living in Respen Sembuak, a suburb
of the district capital, which is well-served by
medical facilities, schools and markets.
The research team analysed over 1200
individual food dishes in the Upper Tubu,
assessing the quality of diet and seasonal
fluctuations. They also measured the weight,
stature and fat condition of over 800 people,
and analysed blood, urine and faeces. This
enabled them to build up a detailed profile
of each individual’s health. Similar research,
measuring the same parameters, was
undertaken in Respen.
‘With their higher incomes, better
education and lower child and infant
mortality, the downstream Punan in Respen
Forests and Livelihoods
would appear to be much better off than
their cousins in the forest,’ explains agroeconomist Patrice Levang. ‘However, the
situation is much more complex than it
seems.’ The research revealed that for most
of the year, and contrary to expectations,
remote villagers have a healthier diet than
urban Punan and are better nourished.
But there is a downside to living in isolated
communities. From time to time epidemics
lead to significantly higher death rates in the
Upper Tubu, especially among children. For
example, during a two-month period in 2002,
28 children in two small villages – almost half
the children there – died during an epidemic.
Punan living in remote communities have
recently come into contact with diseases,
such as measles, to which they have little or
no immunity. In contrast, Punan who have
been living downstream for some time have
greater immunity to these diseases, as well as
access to health care.
The findings of the study were presented
to a ‘restitution workshop’ in Malinau, the
district capital, in April 2005. The research was
well received by the local authorities, and the
scientists believe the workshop discussions
and follow-up meetings are helping to change
their views. ‘The local authorities have always
assumed the best way to help the Punan is to
get them out of the forests and turn them into
farmers,’ explains ethno-ecologist Edmond
Dounias. ‘However, our research suggests this
isn’t necessarily the best solution.’
Dounias and Levang believe that the
experience of another remote – but accessible
– settlement provides a telling example of
how Punan can survive, and survive well,
far from places like Malinau. The village of
Sule Pipe has an airstrip. It also has a health
dispensary and a permanent school. The
Upper Tubu has none of these, and it shows.
Sule Pipe has levels of infant mortality similar
to Respen, but a third of those of the Upper
Tubu. The children of Sule Pipe are much
better educated than those of the Upper
Tubu, and household incomes are three times
higher. ‘Supplying remote communities with
an airstrip provides access to urban facilities,
such as health care, without opening up the
area to excessive exploitation by outsiders,’
says Dounias.
In the meantime, strenuous efforts are
being made to improve the health of the
Punan living in the Upper Tubu. In 2005, a
memorandum of understanding was signed
between CIFOR, the local health authority
in Malinau and Médecins du Monde, which
has recently begun work among remote and
seriously disadvantaged communities in
Indonesia. Doctors from Médecins du Monde
have made lengthy visits to the Upper Tubu,
accompanied by CIFOR
researchers, and five young
Punan have been trained
as health assistants. The
individual health profiles
provided by the research
team have provided the doc­
tors and health assistants
with valuable background
information.
Forest dwellers have
always had to adapt to
changes in forest ecosystems, but the changes
they face today are much
more dramatic than those of the past. Now
they must cope with the cash economy,
deforestation and other changes, including
their own shift from a nomadic to sedentary
lifestyle. Survival requires new strategies
and a new way of thinking. ‘We believe our
research can help forest dwellers evaluate
the choices open to them, so that they
can make decisions which not only satisfy
their immediate needs, but those of future
generations,’ says Dounias.
Meli Matius, a Punan health worker
trained by Médecins du Monde,
interviews a Punan woman. Punan
women in remote settlements have
on average 8.5 pregnancies. Only
half result in a child who lives beyond
the age of 5. (Photo by Misa Kishi)
Sharing
the research findings
All too often, scientists fail to share their findings with the people who have done most to help them – the individuals and communities
which have been the objects of their study. Not surprisingly, this frequently leads to resentment. From the outset, the researchers
from CIFOR/IRD pledged that they would share their results with the local community. This they did at a restitution workshop, held
in Malinau and Respen in April 2005. The workshop was attended by members of the Punan communities, government officials,
international donors and conservation groups. It received widespread coverage in the local and international media.
‘Our main goal was to give the research results back to the Punan and the local authorities,’ explains Edmond Dounias. The
researchers were able to show the Punan of the Upper Tubu that in many ways they were better off than they believed. ‘We also had
a clear message for the local authorities,’ says Dounias. ‘We wanted to show them that the Punan are not savages, and that if local
government wants to help them, they can do so without forcing them to leave the forest.’
Besides presenting local communities with the findings of the research, the workshop helped to establish new lines of
communication between the local authorities and the Punan. The researchers believe that this heralds a new era of better
communication. Haryanto, a Punan from the Upper Tubu, spoke for many when he said that the Punan and the local authorities
needed to work together. ‘The poor education in the Upper Tubu is not something we can tackle on our own,’ he said. ‘I propose that
the local government should provide buildings and maintenance costs, but we should find the teachers from our own community.’
Likewise, the Punan at the workshop recognised that health-care provision needs to be a joint venture between community and
local government.
Forests and Livelihoods A workshop to share research findings was held in Malinau and Respen in April 2005. (Photo by Misha Kishi)
Carving out
a better future
Scour the galleries and craft shops of virtually
any city in Europe or North America, and you’ll
find woodcarvings from as far afield as Bali
and Bolivia, Mexico and Madagascar. Some
will cost you just a few dollars; others might
set you back the equivalent of a month’s
wages, and occasionally more. Some will
come from places where woodcarving has
enriched local livelihoods and made good
use of forest resources. Others will come from
areas where woodcarving is an occupation
of last resort for the poor, and where the
demand for raw material – wood – has caused
significant damage to forests.
‘Woodcarving provides us with many
examples of non-timber forest projects that
have good scope for improving livelihoods,
but where various factors often prevent this
from happening,’explains CIFOR scientist Brian
Belcher, co-editor with Anthony Cunningham
and Bruce Campbell of Carving out a Future:
Forests, Livelihoods and the International
Woodcarving Trade. ‘What we wanted to do
in the book was look at a whole range of
different products and establish what factors
influenced their impact on livelihoods and
the environment.’
Many of the book’s authors were also
involved in CIFOR’s Non-timber Forest Product
Case Comparison Project, and the stories told
here present an insight into the remarkable
richness of the woodcarving trade. Certain
common elements link the various traditions.
For example, virtually all woodcarvers are
men, and the basic carving tools – saw, axe,
chisel and knife – are the same wherever you
go. Historically, the greatest diversity of items
comes from settled farming communities,
rather than from pastoralists or huntergatherers, and woodcarvers have tended to
make use of relatively few species of plants.
Tourism and globalisation have meant
that the trade has become increasingly
commercialised over recent years.
10
Forests and Livelihoods
The contrast between successful woodcarving industries and those which provide
relatively few benefits to local livelihoods is
stark. ‘If you look at somewhere like Bali, and
contrast it with Zimbabwe,’ explains Belcher,
‘you get a good idea about which factors
make for a successful woodcarving industry.’
In Bali, a combination of factors – highly
skilled and well-organised woodcarvers,
enlightened entrepreneurs who have
been willing to seek out export markets,
and supportive government policies – has
created an industry which is not only highly
profitable, but environmentally sustainable.
There are now 24,000 woodcarvers in Bali,
most making a good living from their trade.
In Zimbabwe, in contrast, large numbers of
woodcarvers produce large quantities of
relatively low-quality, low-value carvings from
an open-access resource. The result is overexploitation of some of the country’s forests
and widespread poverty among producers.
‘It’s essential that woodcarvers don’t
flood the market with the same product, and
that they make the best use of sustainably
harvested wood by going for quality,
rather than quantity,’
explains Anthony
Cunningham, director of the People and
Plants Initiative.
He illustrates his case with the example
of Spirostachys venenifera, commonly known
as African sandalwood, which is used
by woodcarvers in Kenya. At present,
Spirostachys, a tree restricted to certain clay
soils, is frequently used to make cheap items
such as salad bowls. ‘It’s an exceptionally highvalue wood, and it’s also used to make very
beautiful sculptures,’ explains Cunningham.
‘Using it to make salad bowls is a waste of
a valuable resource.’ There are many other
woods that could make just as good salad
bowls, and Cunningham believes it would
make sense if Spirostachys was simply used
for high-value carving.
The authors of Carving out a Future stress
that woodcarving industries will only thrive
if they make sustainable use of resources.
In some situations, this will imply switching
from one sort of wood to another. For
example, in a pilot project in Kenya, woodcarvers
are being encouraged to use neem, a tree in
plentiful supply which can be used for a variety
of purposes. And in Bali, the Ministry of Forestry
provided local people with seedlings to plant
on marginal land. Again, the species chosen,
Paraserianthes falcataria, was not only suitable for
woodcarving, but provided fodder for livestock
and fuel for humans.
The book suggests that importers can play
a role in improving the sustainability of the
woodcarving trade. A good example of what can
be done is provided by the US-based Mennonite
Central Committee, which for the past 20 years
has been running the Ten Thousand Villages jobcreation programme in Kenya. The programme
purchases handicrafts at a fair price for
producers, and these are sold in some 200 stores
in North America. Recently, the programme has
begun purchasing sustainably produced ‘good
wood’ products, and it has been funding carving
co-operatives to establish tree nurseries and
reforestation programmes.
Carving out a Future also provides guidance
for policy-makers. ‘All too often, the typical
response of government is to look at the rows of
woodcarvers and sellers sitting beside the road,
decide that conditions are deplorable and pay for
a new building where they can sell their goods,’
says Belcher. ‘But this doesn’t solve anything’. It
makes much more sense, he suggests, for policymakers to encourage woodcarvers to organise
themselves into associations so that they end
up working with each other, rather than against.
‘The associations which thrive will be the ones
that can distinguish their product from the rest
of the market, and guarantee high quality and
fair returns for producers,’ says Belcher. ‘Just like
Sunkist did for the orange growers in California.’
The book has a clear message for consumers.
It suggests that tourists visiting developing
countries with woodcarving industries, and
those buying imported goods at home, should
be prepared to pay a good price for good-quality
carvings. By doing so, they will be encouraging
industries which support local livelihoods and
sustain healthy forests.
Avondale market in Harare, Zimbabwe. The woodcarving trade is worth hundreds
of millions of dollars. The trade provides jobs and an income for significant
numbers of people, but in some areas – Zimbabwe being one – it has led to the
over-exploitation of certain tree species. (Photo by Peter Frost)
Forests and Livelihoods
11
Sharing science
with the people in
Mexico
All too often, scientists rely heavily on rural
communities to gather information for their
research, but fail to share their findings
with them. This may be because they have
got what they want, and feel no strong
obligations to those who assisted them. But
just as frequently, it is because they simply
don’t know how to package their research in
a way which is accessible to a non-scientific
audience. This means there is plenty of good
– and potentially useful – scientific research
that never reaches the public domain.
The Non-timber Forest Products (NTFP)
Case Comparison project, described in
last year’s annual report, produced three
books under the title Riches of the Forest,
one for Asia, one for Africa and one for Latin
America. Attractively illustrated and written
in layman’s language, these told the life
histories of some 60 different NTFPs, from
edible invertebrates in west Africa to fibres
and resins in Asia and fruits and waxes in Latin
Painting wooden
figures in Oaxaca,
Mexico. Wood
carving has provided
a dramatic boost in
income for many
families.
(Photo by Silvia Purata)
12
Forests and Livelihoods
America. ‘We wanted to make the knowledge
about the commercial potential and cultural
significance of NTFPs as widely available
as possible,’ explains CIFOR ethnobotanist
Citlalli Lopez, one of the co-editors.
The success of the Latin American book
prompted two government departments in
Mexico – the Programme for the Conservation
and Sustainable Management of Forest
Resources (PROCYMAF) and the Center
for Environmental Education and Capacity
Building for Sustainable Development
(CECADESU) – to suggest to CIFOR that a new
edition, specially tailored to Mexico, should
be produced with their support.
‘These departments publish lots of
technical and educational materials,’ explains
Lopez, ‘but they’d rarely produced anything
with such broad appeal as Riches of the Forest.
They decided this would be the ideal way
to inspire people across the country.’ CIFOR
and its government partners, who paid
for the printing and distribution of 10,000
copies, hoped that La riqueza de los bosques
mexicanos: más allá de la madiera – ‘The
Riches of the Mexican Forests’ – would spread
the NTFP message far and wide. Mexico is a
huge country and people at one end often
don’t know what’s happening at the other.
The book includes stories about eight
Mexican NTFPs which featured in the Latin
American version of Riches of the Forest, but
there are 11 new cases as well. The stories
are told not just by experts, as they were in
the first series of books, but by local people
involved in the harvesting, cultivation and
processing of NTFPs.
Take, for example, mezcal, the strong
liquor produced in the drier regions of
Mexico from several species of the maguey
plant. The book describes the cultivation
and harvesting of the plant, how it is baked
in underground pits, and how it is bottled
and blended. It describes the status of the
plants, the growing demand for mezcal
and the significance of the trade for local
livelihoods and local culture. The chapter is
a collaborative effort, written by a researcher
from a Mexican NGO and by members of a
farmers’ group. It thus blends hard science
with local knowledge.
La riqueza de los bosques mexicanos was
launched in September 2005 in Mexico
City. Among the 200 people who attended
were government officials, people who
collaborated on the book and the local press.
‘This wonderful book is an original work full
of deep commitment to the conservation
of forest ecosystems and the communities
who live in the forests,’ said Leticia Merino
of the Institute of Social Research, the
Autonomous University of Mexico. She told
the audience that the book was far more than
a compendium of information about different
forest species for which there is a use. It gave
a detailed account of traditions that stretch
back many generations and of the cultural
importance of many non-timber forest
products. It also highlighted the challenges
which rural communities, and the Mexican
government, face if the trade in NTFPs is to
prosper in the future.
‘The Mexican book provides a template for
the sort of publications other countries could
produce about non-timber forest products,
drawing on the Riches of the Forest series and
adding case studies of their own,’ explains
Citlalli Lopez. In the meantime, Indonesia
decided to go ahead with a direct translation
of The Riches of the Forest: Food, Spices, Crafts
and Resins of Asia from English into the
local language. This has been produced by
one of the country’s leading commercial
publishers, Gramedia, with the support of the
Department for International Development’s
(DFID) Multistakeholder Forestry Programme
and BP.
Amazon fruit book gets its just deserts
In last year’s annual report, we described the launch of Frutiferas e Plantas Uteis na
Vida Amazonica – ‘Fruit Trees and Useful Plants in the Lives of Amazonians’ – by CIFOR
ethnobotanists Patricia Shanley and Gabriel Medina. It was an astonishing event,
attracting over 400 people to Governor’s House in Belém. The culmination of a dozen years
of research, involving scores of scientists, the Fruit Book, as it is known, combines rigorous
scientific research with traditional knowledge to describe 30 trees and palms whose fruits,
nuts, fibres and resins are widely used in Amazonia. Its use of illustrations, cartoons and
popular songs make it accessible to rural people with minimal literacy skills.
But that was just part of the story. Further launches were held in 2005. The one in Brasilia, the
capital, was opened by the executive director of the Brazilian Agricultural Research Corporation
(EMBRAPA) and it attracted large numbers of politicians and civil servants. The Minister of the
Environment, Marina Silva, was so enthused by the Fruit Book that she declared: ‘Had I read this
book earlier in my life, I would have become a researcher of non-timber forest products, not a
politician.’
One of the great strengths of the book is that it appeals to a wide range of people, as was
apparent when it was launched, for the fourth time, in the Amazonian city of Santarém in June 2005.
Large numbers of local forest-dwelling women turned up for the launch, some coming from far
away. ‘The fact that these rural women, many of whom have had little formal education, responded
so enthusiastically to the book was a major endorsement,’ says Patricia Shanley.
The launch was timed to coincide with a meeting of some 30 World Bank representatives who
were in town to study local knowledge networks. They were as enthusiastic about the Fruit Book
as the forest women. Kevin Cleaver, the Bank’s Director of Agriculture and Rural Development,
suggested that the book deserved to be ‘scaled up to other regions’.
Shanley’s great talent for making serious science accessible was recognised by the Consultative
Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR) when she received the Science Award for
Outstanding Communications. ‘It is very difficult to take complex messages and make them
intelligible,’ said one of the experts on the award panel, Latifa Akharbar, Director of the Institut
Supérieur de l’Information et de la Communication in Tunis. ‘This book does exactly that.’ She even
recommended that the Fruit Book should be translated into Arabic for use in communications
curricula.
Forests and Livelihoods 13
CIFOR ethno-botanist Patricia
Shanley receives the Science Award
for Outstanding Communications
at the 2005 CGIAR Annual General
Meeting in Morocco. (Photo by
Chris Barr)
A young plantation of Eucalyptus
globulus, established on farmland
in Australia’s Green Triangle region.
Partnerships between plantation
companies and farmers can
help to defuse land-use conflicts
and provide an income for local
communities. A research project
involving CIFOR and partners in
Indonesia and Australia is helping
the two countries to learn from one
another’s experiences. (Photo by
Hugh Stewart)
Unlocking the secret
of good forestry
partnerships
Establishing plantations is often a tricky
business, even in countries which have
plentiful supplies of land and the ideal climate
and growing conditions. Take, for example,
Indonesia, where just 2 million hectares of
plantations have been established since 1985,
instead of the 6 million hectares originally
planned. This dramatic shortfall was partly
a result of conflict between companies and
local communities, with the former frequently
taking over land the latter considered theirs by
right. When you’re planting vast numbers of
trees, you need to make sure the locals are on
your side.
Since 1998, some Indonesian companies
have sought to defuse conflict by establishing
partnerships with local communities. These
have mostly taken the form of outgrower
schemes, and they involve smallholders and
communities growing and supplying timber to
pulp mills and other users in return for a share
of the benefits. Sometimes, the plantations are
established on company land; sometimes they
are established on land owned by the growers
themselves. Either way, such schemes provide
an income for local communities and a supply
of timber for the companies. The precise nature
14
Forests and Livelihoods
of the company/community partnerships
varies from one place to another, and some
have been more successful than others,
although the reasons for this are often poorly
understood.
‘There is an urgent need for research
which will provide communities, companies
and governments with better information
about the sort of arrangements that work
best for both companies and communities,’
explains CIFOR economist Ani Adiwinata
Nawir. A three-year research programme,
funded by the Australian Centre for
International
Agricultural
Research
(ACIAR), led by Indonesia’s Forest Research
and Development Agency (FORDA) and
launched in Bogor in 2005, will provide new
insights into the factors which favour fair
and sustainable partnerships. The project
members – FORDA, Australia’s Charles Stuart
University (CSU), WWF Indonesia’s Nusa
Tenggara programme and CIFOR – are now
working with a wide range of farmer groups,
government agencies and companies in
eastern Indonesia and south east Australia.
In terms of their ecology and social
systems, eastern Indonesia and south-east
Australia are worlds apart, but they do have
one thing in common: historically, farmers
and village communities have not played
an active role in commercial forestry. “This
project is looking at ways in which forestry
activities can be established beyond the
areas where commercial forestry has
traditionally been located,” explains project
leader Digby Race of CSU. “We believe that
company/community partnerships could
play an important role in expanding forestry
activities into new areas, involving farmers as
partners in commercial forestry.”
The Indonesian research is focusing on
Bulukumba district in Sulawesi and Sumbawa
district in Nusa Tenggara. In Bulukumba,
the research team is assessing three
existing small-scale company/community
partnerships. In Sumbawa, the project
partners are working with local farmers to
explore how current partnerships operate,
and investigating marketing opportunities for
timber grown by smallholders. ‘We have also
carried out a profit-sharing study,’ explains
Nawir, ‘and we have fed the results into a new
district regulation on community-based forest
management in Sumbawa.’ Among other
things, the regulation will provide guidelines
for sharing profits between companies and
communities.
The variety of partnership arrangements
is much greater in Indonesia than in Australia.
Company/community
partnerships
in
the Green Triangle region, the focus for
the Australian research, usually involve
annual payments to growers for forestry
companies to lease their land. However, this
arrangement is unlikely to suit all landholders
and Race believes there is the potential to
attract far greater numbers by using different
partnership arrangements which provide a
range of incentives for growers. ‘Indonesia is a
very rich source of information for us,’ explains
Race, ‘and the experiences there could provide
us with valuable information about the sorts
of arrangements that could be applied here.’
At present, companies, government,
communities and smallholders are often
uncertain how to share the profits fairly, and
how to share the risks. The researchers hope
that this project will provide them with the
analytical tools they need to work out what
sort of partnerships work best in particular
situations. The project is already building the
research capacity of partner organisations such
as FORDA and WWF, as well as that of District
Forestry Service staff. Ultimately, it could lead
to an increase in partnership schemes, and
an increase in the area under plantations
in regions where commercial forestry has
previously made only a small contribution to
rural livelihoods.
Indonesia’s
new forestry
network
Since 2000, CIFOR has established good working relationships with a range of Indonesian companies that have entered
into partnership schemes with local communities. CIFOR’s research has focused in particular on how company/community
partnerships can improve local livelihoods.
In January 2005, CIFOR hosted a communications forum which brought together private companies and representatives
from the Ministry of Forestry, including the Social Forestry Working Group. At the meeting, the companies shared their
experiences and identified the challenges they faced to make partnerships work more effectively. The meeting also led to
the creation of a new communications forum, the Company Community Forest Link, or ComForLink. Members include major
companies such as Riau Andalan Pulp and Paper (RAPP), Wirakarya Sakti (WKS), Arara Abadi and Finnantara Intiga.
During the course of the year, ComForLink met on eight occasions, mostly in Jakarta. ComForLink has provided a detailed
analysis of the impact which government regulations have had on company/community partnerships, and regular meetings
have been held with officials from the Ministry of Forestry. ComForLink has provided significant input into the formulation of
two ministerial decrees, one concerning community industrial forestry plantations, the other utilisation rights on community
forest lands.
‘We’re hoping that ComForLink will encourage the government to create a regulatory framework which is more conducive
to establishing successful company/community partnerships,’ explains Ani Adiwinata Nawir, who has facilitated the activities
of the new forum. ComForLink has undoubtedly raised awareness about this important issue within the Ministry.
Creating partnerships which benefit both companies and communities is one of the aims of the new plantations communication
forum, ComForLink. A WKS staff interacts with community members in Jambi, Indonesia. (Photo by Hari Witono, WKS)
Forests and Livelihoods
15
Pristine landscapes like this provide a range of environmental services. Danau Sentarum National Park, Indonesia. (Photo by Yayan Indriatmoko)
Environmental
Services
Promoting wise use
Tropical forests support over half of all
terrestrial plant and animal species. They
supply us with timber, food, fuel and fibre.
They also provide a range of environmental
services. For example, they soak up the
greenhouse gases which cause global
warming, recycle nutrients and stabilise soils.
If we lose the forests, we lose far more than the
trees, yet each year an area of forest the size
of Greece is destroyed or converted to other
land uses. Most of the losses are occurring in
the developing world.
CIFOR’s Environmental Services and
Sustainable Use of Forests programme aims to
improve the way we use forests, both natural
and planted, and provide the knowledge
needed to ensure that forests deliver a range
of goods and services. The programme works
at many levels, from the local to the global,
from the village farm to the city boardroom.
The beneficiaries range from governments
and development agencies to corporations
involved in industrial timber production and
small farmers who grow a few hectares of
trees to sell to their local pulp mill.
2005 saw the launch of a major new
project on climate change. CIFOR scientists
and their partners are now working in
countries around the tropics, exploring the
way in which climate change affects forests.
The research will enable governments to
develop policies to help them adapt to
climate change. CIFOR scientists continued
to explore the ways in which forests can be
used to reduce the levels of carbon dioxide,
and at the same time improve livelihoods.
Major publications included Carbon Forestry
– Who Will Benefit? and Tropical Forests and
Adaptation to Climate Change.
Using market forces to achieve
environmental goals by providing payments
for environmental services (PES) – for example,
by planting forests which sequester carbon
– has received much attention in recent years.
By drawing on research projects in Vietnam,
Bolivia and elsewhere, CIFOR scientists have
been able to provide an objective analysis of
the role which such payments could play as
incentives for conservation.
It is frequently claimed that logging
and deforestation are a significant cause of
disastrous floods. Forests and floods – drowning
in fiction or thriving on facts?, which was
jointly published by CIFOR and the UN Food
and Agriculture Organisation (FAO), poured
cold water on this theory. Marshalling all the
available scientific evidence, it showed that
there is no direct link between deforestation
and large-scale floods. This myth-busting
review received widespread media coverage
around the world.
A tree nursery in Machacos, Kenya. (Photo by Christian Cossalter)
Environmental Services
17
Forest clearance is not a cause of large-scale flooding, as is often claimed. Here, forests are being cleared for agriculture in Guarayos, Bolivia.
(Photo by Kristen Evans)
Forests, floods and misleading headlines
Scarcely a year passes without a headlinegrabbing flood wreaking havoc somewhere
in the developing world. In 1998, for example,
floods on the Yangtze River in China killed
thousands and caused $30 billion of damage.
Six years later, 46 million people in China were
affected by floods. In between, there were
dramatic floods in Honduras, Bangladesh,
Cambodia, Vietnam, Philippines and many
other countries – all causing significant loss
of life and massive damage to property and
farmland.
No matter where the floods were, the
headlines were nearly always the same,
with the media blaming the floods partly or
entirely on deforestation and logging in the
upper reaches of the affected watersheds.
There is only one problem with this seemingly
neat argument: it is probably wrong. This was
the major finding of a review published in
2005 by CIFOR and the United Nations Food
and Agriculture Organisation (FAO), and
endorsed by the World Agroforestry Centre
(ICRAF), the International Water Management
Institute (IWMI) and the International Centre
for Integrated Mountain Development
(ICIMOD).
18
Environmental Services
‘There is no scientific evidence at all of
any significant relationship between logging
and deforestation, on the one hand, and
large-scale floods on the other,’ explains
CIFOR Director General David Kaimowitz, one
of many contributors to the report, Forests
and Floods – Drowning in Fiction or Thriving
on Facts? It is, however, true that logging and
deforestation can lead to small-scale floods,
landslides and an increase in erosion. But that
is another matter.
The widely held perception that forest loss
is responsible for major floods has resulted
in some activities which have undoubtedly
been beneficial, most obviously the planting
of trees on degraded land. So does it matter
if there is confusion between fact and fiction?
Patrick Durst, FAO senior forestry officer
for Asia and the Pacific, believes it does.
‘Government decision-makers, international
aid groups and the media often blame
flooding on deforestation caused by small
farmers and loggers,’ he says. ‘The conclusion
is not only scientifically wrong. It has
frequently prompted governments to make
life harder for poor farmers by driving them
off the land and away from the forests, while
doing nothing to prevent future flooding.’
Major floods tend to occur after
prolonged periods of very heavy rain, when
forest soils are already saturated. When this
occurs, the water simply runs along the soil
surface. This is why many of the worst floods
happen towards the end of rainy seasons. ‘In
situations such as this, when there is massive
and prolonged rainfall,’ reflects Kaimowitz,
‘there are going to be floods, regardless of
whether or not the land is forested.’
There is no denying that the economic
damage done by floods, and the loss of
life caused by them, is much greater now
than ever before. This is not because there
has been an increase in floods – in fact, the
frequency of major flooding has remained
much the same for over a hundred years – but
because the areas affected by floods are now
much more densely settled and intensively
used than they were in the past. Population
growth and poverty have pushed more and
more people into vulnerable situations. That
is why the damage is so much worse.
The damage – in human terms – has been
made worse still by governments and aid
agencies that have formulated policies on the
basis of the erroneous belief that catastrophic
floods have been caused by deforestation.
Nowhere is this more evident than in China,
which introduced a ban on the logging of
natural forests in 1998 following the flooding
of the Yangtze River. The logging ban is
thought to have put a million people out
of work. It also led to a dramatic increase in
Chinese timber imports, and Chinese demand
can be directly linked to illegal logging in
countries such as Papua New Guinea and
the Russian Federation, and to human rights
abuses in Myanmar and elsewhere.
So what’s to be done? According to
the report, there are no easy solutions. The
authors suggest that effective watershed
and floodplain management is a complex
process which requires the identification and
assessment of a wide range of techniques and
strategies to improve land-use planning and
reduce the impact of floods in flood-prone
areas. The report draws on case studies to
show that significant progress has been made
in some parts of the world. It also stresses
that reforestation projects in the uplands are
not a solution.
The report received as much media
coverage as most large-scale floods. Over
a hundred different outlets, including
heavyweights such as the Economist, the
Guardian and the Washington Post, ran
stories related to the report. Most were at
pains to point out that the report made a
clear distinction between the causes of largescale and small-scale floods. Its findings,
however, caused consternation among some
environmental groups. The Environmental
Investigation Agency, for example, feared that
the report might be misused by politicians
and logging companies eager to reverse
protectionist policies in upland areas.
This is precisely what happened in the
Philippines. Shortly after the report was
published, the San Jose Timber Corporation
took out a one-page advertisement in the
Philippine Sun which made mischievous use
of the report. The company, it seemed, was
eager to open up an area of primary forest
in a protected area, and it tried to use the
report as justification. CIFOR immediately
issued a response. It suggested that industrial
logging in this particular area could cause
small floods and lead to loss of biodiversity.
There was also the possibility that it would be
economically unsustainable and fail to create
local jobs. However, CIFOR made it clear
that this in no way invalidated its belief that
logging does not cause large-scale floods.
CIFOR’s response was published in the local
press and used in the Filipino Senate during
deliberations on the issue.
Environmental Services
19
Flooding in Tonle Sap area of
Cambodia inundates agricultural
lands (courtesy of Mr Ty Sokhun,
Forest Management Office,
Department of Forestry and
Wildlife, Cambodia)
Tackling climate change
During 2005, CIFOR increased the scale of its
research on climate change. There are now two
distinct strands. One is devoted to exploring
the ways governments and communities can
adapt to climate change. The other focuses
on how forests and trees can be used to
reduce the levels of atmospheric carbon and
at the same time improve the livelihoods of
the rural poor.
Climate change may suit some people
– for example, farmers in temperate regions
could benefit from longer growing seasons
– but prove disastrous for others. The poor
in tropical countries are likely to be among
the worst affected, according to Markku
Kanninen, director of CIFOR’s Environmental
Services programme and co-editor of
Tropical Forests and Adaptation to Climate
Change. ‘One of the clear messages to come
out of the book is that climate change is
already happening, it’s going to cause severe
disruption, and the poor in developing
countries are going to suffer most.’
CIFOR scientists are now developing a
set of robust, innovative methodologies to
assess vulnerability to climate change and
to mainstream adaptation to climate change
into development agendas. When assessing
vulnerability to change, there will be a
strong focus on patches of forest within the
wider landscape. Adaptation strategies will
take into account the way in which diverse
landscapes provide many environmental
goods and services, and satisfy the needs of
a wide range of stakeholders.
The poor frequently make their living
on steep hillsides, on low-lying land and
beside the sea – in areas prone to droughts,
landslides, floods and tidal waves. Climate
change increases the vulnerability of the
poor in two ways: first, by exposing them to
more frequently occurring climate-related
natural events, such as droughts and floods;
and second, by affecting the long-term
productivity of the land on which they
depend by gradual changes in, for example,
precipitation patterns.
Tropical Forests and Adaptation to Climate
20
Environmental Services
Change, a collection of papers from a
workshop organised by CIFOR, the Tropical
Agricultural Research and Higher Education
Center (CATIE) and Intercooperation, provides a series of case studies which show that
adapting to climate change will require an
interdisciplinary approach involving policymakers, scientists and natural resource
managers. This strategy should combine
advances in science as well as systematisation
of local and traditional knowledge and the
promotion of institutional development.
In some situations, suggests Kanninen,
there are ‘no regrets’ measures which can
be taken immediately. For example, better
recovery of wood waste in sawmills and
its use as a substitute for fossil fuels when
drying wood not only reduces global
warming, but saves money. But adaptation
to climate change will often be a complex
and contentious issue. For example, it might
make sense for governments to prevent
the development of flood-prone areas, but
these areas might also be highly productive
in agricultural terms. Keeping people out of
flood plains will be no simple matter.
Adaptation to climate change is the central
theme of a four-year research programme
launched by CIFOR and CATIE in 2005,
and funded by the European Commission.
‘The research will help us to get a better
understanding of how climate change affects
tropical forests, and the impact this will have
on development,’ explains Claudio Forner, a
CIFOR climate-change specialist.
The precise focus of the research will vary
from place to place. For example, in Burkina
Faso, where 90 per cent the population use
fuelwood for cooking, the research will
assess the impact of climate change on
timber productivity, and its implications for
energy supply. In Costa Rica, forests have
an important role to play in regulating the
hydrological cycle, so the researchers will
analyse the impact of climate change on
forests and water supply. All of this will enable
governments to develop policies which will
help them adapt to climate change.
The Kyoto Protocol, an international
agreement whose aim is to reduce global
warming and at the same time encourage
sustainable development, finally came
into force on 16 February 2005. To mark
the occasion, CIFOR and the Canadian
International Development Agency (CIDA)
held a workshop on ‘Carbon Sequestration
and Sustainable Livelihoods’. The workshop
proceedings – Carbon Forestry: Who Will
Benefit? – provides insights into the ways in
which projects designed to trap atmospheric
carbon can benefit rural communities.
‘Some of the workshop case studies show
that carbon sequestration projects can reduce
global warming, and at the same time improve
local livelihoods,’ explains Daniel Murdiyarso,
a CIFOR climate scientist. For example, the
rehabilitation of degraded peatlands in
Kalimantan has not only increased their
carbon storage capacity, but led to higher
fish yields and closed down transport routes
formerly used by illegal loggers. However,
other projects – such as the vast pulpwood
plantations in Sumatra – may be good at
sucking carbon out of the atmosphere,
but they have proved detrimental to local
people.
‘Designing carbon projects carefully is
absolutely crucial if they are to benefit both
the environment and the rural poor,’ explains
Murdiyarso. At the international level, CIFOR
Carbon forestry
on the web
researchers have been involved in designing
afforestation and reforestation projects
and providing technical assistance about
the Kyoto Protocol’s Clean Development
Mechanism (CDM). The CDM enables
industrialised countries to meet some of their
greenhouse gas emission targets by financing
carbon-sequestering schemes in developing
countries. One of the eligible measures
involves planting trees on land that does
not have forests. ‘CIFOR scientists played a
significant role in promoting a system of rules
that makes the CDM smallholder-friendly,’
says Claudio Forner, who worked on forestryrelated CDM rules at the UNFCCC secretariat
before coming to CIFOR.
CIFOR has also been working on
issues related to the Kyoto regulations
at the national level. In 2005, the Asian
Development Bank launched a project to
help Indonesia establish pilot sites which will
earn emission reduction credits under the
Clean Development Mechanism. The project
is being managed by Winrock International,
with technical assistance from CIFOR and
the World Agroforestry Centre (ICRAF).
‘This is very much a learning process for the
government and for communities involved
in carbon forestry,’ explains Murdiyarso. ‘One
of the key stumbling blocks to establishing
CDM sites is the methodology, and we hope
this project will provide the Government
of Indonesia with the skills and technical
knowledge necessary to choose, set up and
apply for CDM sites.’
Photo by Sven Wunder
Trapping carbon;
improving livelihoods
For anyone interested in research on carbon forestry, CIFOR’s new website, CarboFor, should be one of their first ports of call. The
website – www.cifor.cgiar.org/carbofor – has been developed as a service for scientists working on the technical aspects of carbon
forestry, and on issues related to regulations governing land-use change and forestry activities under the Kyoto Protocol. The website
lists recent publications, describes projects conducted by CIFOR and its partners, and provides tools and methodologies that can
be used to develop and monitor carbon forestry projects. This is not an ivory tower for CIFOR scientists, but an open-access site that
encourages others to contribute their ideas and data.
Environmental Services 21
These two women in Nueva
America, Pimampino, Bolivia,
are benefiting from a Payments
for Environmental Services
(PES) scheme. Water consumers
downstream are paying farmers
upstream to protect forests in
the headwaters. (Photo by Sven
Wunder)
Cash for
conservation
Over the past decade, farmers in the lower
reaches of the Los Negros River in Bolivia have
noticed that the water level has been steadily
decreasing, especially in the dry season.
As the local economy is based on irrigated
agriculture, this represents a serious threat to
their livelihoods. The farmers have attributed
22
Environmental Services
the declining water flows to the clearance
of cloud forest and an increase in irrigation
higher up the valley.
You will hear stories such as this
across the mountainous tropics. But this
story doesn’t end there. Four years ago
negotiations began between the lowland
and upland farmers. A local organisation,
Fundación Natura Bolivia, helped to broker a
deal which seeks to create a system whereby
some of the former make annual payments
to some of the latter. In return, the upland
farmers have agreed conservation contracts
that cover over 1000 hectares. The deal is
designed to help ensure a steady supply
of water in the future, and it is a classic
example of what is known as ‘payments for
environmental services’, or PES.
As human pressures on natural
ecosystems become greater, and the
services they traditionally provide free of
charge – clean water, biodiversity and so
on – become scarcer, schemes such as this
are likely to become more widespread. ‘Our
deforestation research over the past 10
years has shown that landowners normally
clear forests because it’s profitable to do
so,’ explains CIFOR economist Sven Wunder.
‘If you want to conserve the forests and
maintain the environmental services they
provide, you need to work out ways of
compensating landowners for the loss of
income they incur. One way of doing this
is through payments for environmental
services.’ It is not, however, a simple matter,
as research by CIFOR and its partners has
revealed.
In the Occasional Paper, Payments for
Environmental Services: Some Nuts and Bolts,
Wunder defines a PES scheme as a voluntary
transaction with at least one seller, one buyer
and a well-defined environmental service.
Payment should be conditional on delivery
of the service. Most schemes focus on four
services: carbon sequestration, watershed
protection, biodiversity conservation, and
tourism based on fine landscapes and
wildlife.
By examining schemes in Vietnam, Bolivia
and elsewhere, Wunder and his colleagues
have gained valuable insights into the factors
which determine why they succeed or fail.
In Vietnam, they found that the command
and control economy is so strong that PESlike schemes remain relatively ineffectual.
It is strong law enforcement, rather than
payments to provide environment services,
which dictates what farmers do, even in
areas where some form of payment is made.
However, the outlook in Bolivia is far more
encouraging.
‘I think the existence of many of the
Bolivian initiatives owes much to the
innovative environmental legislation that was
introduced in the 1990s,’ says Nina Robertson,
co-author with Wunder of Fresh Tracks in the
Forest, which analyses the experiences of
17 PES-like initiatives. ‘We were continually
impressed by how dynamic the process was
and how the organisations involved – the
villagers, NGOs and funders – were eager to
experiment with different models to make
the schemes work.’
Experience around the world suggests
that payment schemes related to the
provision of water have a relatively good
chance of success. People who depend on
water, either for drinking or irrigation, are
unlikely to balk at having to pay, say, an extra
10 per cent on their water bills if it means
that they are guaranteed secure, high-quality
supplies. For poor farmers in the uplands, and
households or farmers in the lowlands, the
benefits are easily understood: cash for the
former, and reduced risk of water shortages
for the latter.
The same cannot be said for biodiversity
conservation schemes, which can prove
much more difficult to finance. ‘For one
thing,’ explains Wunder, ‘it’s not a question of
making a one-off payment, or setting up a
conservation project that takes X amount of
time – after which the problem will be solved.’
In most cases, the buyers need to keep on
paying year after year, and that means they
have to set up something like a trust fund
which will yield continuous returns.
Conservation can also be a very
expensive business when looked at in terms
of opportunity costs. Studies in the Brazilian
Amazon suggest that the payments that
would need to be made to encourage a
farmer not to clear forest to grow, say, soya
beans would be prohibitively high. However,
on marginal lands where the opportunity
costs of forsaking agricultural activities are
modest, PES schemes may offer a feasible
conservation strategy. Here, a relatively small
annual payment could tip the balance in
favour of conservation.
Eco-tourism schemes have proved
particularly successful in Bolivia. For example,
the creation of Chalalán Ecolodge in the
Bolivian Amazon has significantly improved
local incomes by providing rotational
employment opportunities for some 60
people. It has also helped to stem the
migration of young people to distant cities.
The scheme has strengthened community
organisation and encouraged villagers to
protect an area which is outstanding for its
scenic beauty and wildlife. It has also had a
knock-on effect, stimulating others to set up
small eco-tourism operations in the area.
Using market forces to achieve
environmental goals is an attractive idea.
But will PES schemes ever take off in a big
way? ‘I think it’ll take time to demonstrate
that this is a workable proposition, and that’s
not going to happen until there are more
schemes, which means getting more buyers
involved,’ explains Wunder. He believes it is
essential to get marketing people involved
in PES research and development so that a
good business case can be made to attract
the private sector. Development agencies
should also consider using PES schemes as a
way of supporting biodiversity projects. Nina
Robertson emphasises that it is essential to
build trust among stakeholders and address
local concerns about PES schemes. ‘If local
people feel that the schemes are being
imposed from outside,’ she says, ‘then they
won’t develop successfully.’
Besides publishing an Occasional Paper,
an Infobrief and two books on payments for
environmental services during 2005, CIFOR
co-hosted, with the University of Bonn, a
high-level international workshop on the
subject at Titisee, Germany, in June 2005.
Environmental Services
23
A wood yard at a pulp mill in Guangzhou, and a plantation of Chinese fir, Cuninghamiana lanceolata, in Zhejiang, China.
(Photos by Christian Cossalter)
Influencing plantation policy in China
Research by CIFOR scientists Christian
Cossalter and Chris Barr, described in last
year’s annual report, examined China’s
ambitious programme to develop a
plantations-based wood-pulp industry.
The researchers found that although the
Chinese government was encouraging the
development of some 6 million hectares of
fast-growing pulpwood plantations, there
would be significant shortfalls in domestic
supply for some time to come. This meant
China was likely to continue importing wood
fibre, possibly harvested from natural forests
in countries like Indonesia.
In 2005, the researchers were invited by
the World Bank to conduct a more detailed
analysis of plantation development and
industrial wood demand in just one province,
the Guangxi Zhuang Autonomous Region.
The research, a collaborative effort between
CIFOR, the Guangxi Provincial Forestry Bureau
and the Guangxi Forest Survey and Design
Institute, has had a significant influence
on a major World Bank loan for plantation
development.
‘During recent years, the province has
seen a rapid expansion in its production of
both fibreboard and paper, mirroring the
trends throughout China as a whole,’ explains
Cossalter. Since the mid-1990s, China’s
production of medium-density fibreboard,
or MDF, has risen some 30-fold, and Guangxi
is now one of the largest producers. China
has also dramatically increased its pulp and
paper production; once again, Guangxi has
been a significant player.
‘On
paper, you might expect the
fibreboard and wood-pulp industries to be
competing for the same wood supply,’ says
Cossalter, ‘but our research showed that
they are tapping into different resources.’
24
Environmental Services
This is because some 90 per cent of the
MDF is manufactured for the local market,
where price matters more than quality.
MDF manufacturers use small, low-quality
products that come from wood waste and
from thinning pine plantations. In contrast,
producing high-quality paper requires highquality pulp produced from larger diameter
eucalyptus logs. So there is little overlap in
demand.
The worrying news for the MDF industry,
highlighted by the research, is that the
rapid growth of a modern paper industry
in Guangxi is leading to a rapid expansion
in eucalyptus plantations, and these are
frequently being established on wasteland
and old pine forests – the very resource on
which the MDF industry depends.
These and other findings of the research
have encouraged the World Bank to revise
the specifications for its US$100 million loan
to the Guangxi Forestry Bureau. Originally,
the intention was to use most of the loan
to establish new eucalyptus plantations. ‘As
a result of the research, the focus has now
changed,’ explains Cossalter. ‘The amount of
land which will be devoted to eucalyptus has
been cut by half, and the new plantations
will not only serve the pulp and paper
industry, but other sectors, such as the MDF
manufacturers, as well.’
The Guangxi Forestry Bureau had
originally planned to spend most of the
loan on state farms, but there will now be a
much stronger focus on providing assistance
for farmers and village groups to establish
new plantations. This will be of considerable
benefit to local livelihoods in some of the
poorer rural areas. This is a good example of
research that really makes a difference.
Making scientific
waves
Mention tropical rainforest to most people and they’ll probably think of lush vegetation dripping with moisture. The
last thing that’s likely to come to mind is drought. Yet droughts do occur in some tropical rainforests, and they can cause
immense damage. This was the key finding of research conducted in Borneo by Douglas Sheil, a CIFOR biologist, and
Mark van Nieuwstadt. The research was published in the Journal of Ecology in 2005, and it immediately attracted the
attention of Science, the prestigious American journal, which nominated it as one of the highlights of recent scientific
research in ‘Editors’ Choice’.
Scientists have always found it difficult to disaggregate the effects of fire and drought in tropical forests, as fires
rarely happen without a drought first. Subsequent changes are then blamed on the fire, but what about the impacts of
the drought? ‘In the past, most people overlooked the impact of drought on tropical forests, and assumed that fire does
more damage,’ explains Sheil. ‘But we’ve shown that’s not what happens.’
The researchers worked on adjacent sites in East Kalimantan, one exposed to a severe drought, the other to fire.
They discovered that drought had a much more pronounced impact on large, mature trees than fire, killing almost
half of those with a diameter of over 80 cm. Fire, in contrast, caused relatively little damage to large trees, but killed far
greater numbers of small saplings than drought. The good news is that significant quantities of biodiversity appear to
survive both fire and drought. ‘Those who argue that fire- or drought-stricken forests should be cleared for agriculture
or other uses should think twice,’ says Sheil. ‘Given time, they will recover.’
This wasn’t the only Sheil research project to capture the attention of the scientific world in 2005. Before he joined
CIFOR, Sheil worked in Uganda in an area which had been cleared of elephants in the 1960s. He wondered whether the
absence of elephants had influenced the nature of the vegetation, and he set up a project to observe their impact on
the flora of a protected area where they were still plentiful.
With the help of Agus Salim, a CIFOR statistician, Sheil was able to make sense of the perplexing data he had
gathered. This showed that different trees possess different strategies and responses to elephants, and it proved
conclusively that elephants have a significant impact on forest structure and species composition. This is of more than
academic interest. It means that areas which are now devoid of elephants are probably undergoing significant botanical
changes, while the vegetation in protected areas with unnaturally high elephant populations may also be subject to
profound change.
The research paper ‘Forest tree persistence, elephants, and stems scars’ was published in the journal Biotropica in
2004. The following year, Sheil and Salim received the 2005 Biotropica Award for Excellence in Tropical Biology and
Conservation. This award recognises outstanding contributions in the field of natural history research in tropical
regions.
CIFOR scientist Douglas Sheil conducting fieldwork in the Malinau Research Forest, East Kalimantan, Indonesia.
(Photo by Miriam Van Heist)
Environmental Services
25
Consultant
Patricia
describes
objectives
of aNational
CIFOR project
in Bolivia.
(Photo
by Kristen Evans)
Leboyan
River,
NangaMiranda
Leboyan
village - the
Danau
Sentarum
Park (photo
by Yayan
Indriatmoko).
Forests
and
Governance
Improving the way we make decisions
Forests are used – and misused – by a
remarkably diverse array of different interests.
They range from logging companies to
hunter-gatherers, from government forestry
departments to conservation groups, from
swidden cultivators to fuelwood collectors.
Some wield great influence and power;
others have little or none at all. At present,
the decision-making agenda in most
countries is dominated by state agencies,
private companies, donor organisations
and conservation bodies. All too often, the
people who live in the forests have the least
influence.
Research conducted under CIFOR’s Forests
and Governance programme promotes good
forest governance. Good governance means
that decisions are made in a manner that
is just and fair to all stakeholders; that the
decision-making processes are transparent;
and that decision-makers are held to account.
The research seeks to enhance the capacity of
forest-dependent communities and excluded
groups to participate in the decision-making
process. It promotes greater social and
environmental corporate responsibility
in the forest sector. And it supports the
strengthening and transformation of national
and local government policies so that they
promote more effective and equitable forest
management.
The news from Africa is often bleak,
but workshops organised by CIFOR and its
partners in Mali and Burkina Faso in 2005
on the theme of Nature, Wealth and Power
suggest there is room for optimism too.
Nature, Wealth and Power provides a new
framework for evaluating rural development
and progress towards reducing poverty. The
framework has caught the imagination of
governments and development workers, and
CIFOR will continue to use it in the future.
During recent years CIFOR has helped
to raise awareness about the significance
of violent conflict in forested areas. CIFOR’s
Director General wrote the key chapter on
forests and conflict for FAO’s 2005 State of
the World’s Forests report and guest-edited a
special edition on the subject for the European
Tropical Forest Research Network News. These
publications, and a workshop held in Brussels,
suggest measures that governments could
take to defuse conflict in forested areas.
CIFOR scientists continued to play
a prominent role on discussions about
Indonesia’s
timber
industry.
CIFOR
collaborated on a report which suggests that
if Indonesia is to establish a sustainable timber
industry, and reduce illegal logging, it needs
to dramatically increase its plantations and
reduce processing capacity. An Occasional
Paper on money-laundering and the timber
business highlighted the important role that
banks have to play in the battle against illegal
logging.
Illegal logging is one
of the most obvious
manifestations of poor
governance. Illegally
harvested timber is
loaded on to a truck in
Jambi, Indonesia. (Photo
by Carol J.P. Colfer)
Forests and Governance
27
As profits from Liberian timber were used to buy arms, the United Nations banned their export. After sanctions were introduced, logs like these were simply
abandoned. The Monrovia Declaration, if put into practice, will usher in a new era of sustainable forest management. (Photo by Yemi Katarere)
Tackling forest conflict
Liberia is one of many
forested countries which have
experienced violent conflict. The
civil war is now over, and UN
forces help to keep the peace.
(Photo by UN Photo/Eric
Kanalstein)
Over the past 20 years, some 30 armed
conflicts have occurred in and around
forested areas. Civil wars in Colombia, the
Democratic Republic of Congo, Liberia,
Myanmar, Nepal and Rwanda – to name but
a few of the better-known conflicts – have
led to the displacement and death of forestdwelling people on a massive scale. Other
conflicts, such as those in Suriname and the
Solomon Islands, have scarcely troubled the
headline writers, but they have still caused
considerable suffering and disruption.
The relationship between forests and
conflict was one of the key themes of FAO’s
State of the World’s Forests report for 2005.
‘Forestry people need to recognise the
importance of this issue, because their
behaviour can make things either worse or
better,’ explains CIFOR Director General David
Kaimowitz, who contributed the chapter
on ‘Forests and war, forests and peace’. ‘And
people working outside the forestry sector
also need to pay more attention to this issue,
because forests, for one reason or another,
are frequently linked to violent conflict.’
As FAO’s Assistant Director General
of Forestry, Hosny El-Lakany, points out,
forests often make the ideal setting for
war. ‘It’s in the forest that one often finds
poor, isolated populations who are either
ignored or mistreated, and they often need
little encouragement to take up arms,’ he
28
Forests and Governance
says. Forests often contain valuable timber,
minerals and other resources which people
are prepared to fight over. Besides which,
forests also provide the perfect refuge for
those engaged in an armed struggle.
The report suggests that governments
need to take bold steps to recognise the
rights of ethnic minorities and others living in
forested regions, before their grievances lead
to conflict. Forest-dependent people also
need to be better integrated into the wider
economy. Kaimowitz believes that when wars
do break out, forest issues can offer a path to
peace. He cites the case of Colombia. There,
forestry and environmental issues featured
prominently in the peace talks between the
government and rebel forces, although the
negotiations ultimately broke down.
These issues were explored in greater
depth in a special issue published by the
European Tropical Forest Research Network
(ETFRN) and guest-edited by Kaimowitz.
There was so much material that ETFRN
decided to make it a double issue, and such
was the interest generated that extra copies
had to be printed. ‘It has now become clear
to us that this is an issue that requires a lot
more attention,’ explains ETFRN coordinator
Willemine Brinkman. She believes that CIFOR,
through the work of Kaimowitz, has been
a key player in raising awareness about the
issue.
Hope for Liberia’s forests
In 2004, scientists from CIFOR and the World
Agroforestry Centre (ICRAF) had to use
armoured vehicles when venturing into the
field on a research trip in Liberia. The civil
war had come to an end, but there was still
sporadic fighting. ‘Since then, there has been
a dramatic transformation in Liberia,’ explains
Ravi Prabhu, who led the research team. ‘The
country recently elected Africa’s first female
president, and people are enthusiastically
embracing democracy.’ Nowhere has this
been more apparent than in the forestry
sector.
On two separate research trips, the
second of which was funded by the United
States Agency for International Development
(USAID), Prabhu and his colleagues explored
the way in which local communities were
using the country’s forestry resources. ‘What
we found’, says Prabhu, ‘is that local people
had made use of forests in the past, but not
been able to exploit the timber commercially.
Government forest policy had been all about
two “C”s – concessions and conservation
– but the third “C” – communities – had
never featured on the agenda.’ One of the
biggest handicaps to community forestry,
the researchers found, was the lack of formal
tenure for rural communities.
This is an issue of great importance, not just
for rural communities, who have historically
benefited so little from the country’s natural
resources, but for Liberia’s economic future.
This is because the United Nations’ sanctions
on timber exports will only be lifted when
Liberia can demonstrate that timber profits
will not be used to fuel violent conflict, as they
were in the past; and – just as importantly
– that exploitation of the country’s timber will
benefit local communities.
How to get communities involved in
Liberian forestry was the key theme of an
international workshop, co-organised by
CIFOR and held in Monrovia in December
2005. The event brought together a wide
range of stakeholders, from logging
companies to local communities, from NGOs
to government departments. This was the first
major event ever held on community forestry
in Liberia. The researchers from CIFOR and
ICRAF were able to present their findings, and
four days of vigorous debate concluded with
the adoption of the ‘Monrovia Declaration’.
This emphasises the need to harness Liberia’s
forest wealth – the country has 42 per cent
of the remaining Upper Guinea Forest
– for the benefit of all Liberians by ensuring
that community interests and industrial
exploitation are closely aligned.
‘We must literally kick inequalities out
of natural resource management,’ Wilbur
Thomas, Director of USAID in Liberia, told
the workshop. ‘As we all know, one of the
central dilemmas throughout Liberia’s history
has been that Liberia’s rich natural resources
benefited only a small number of people.’ The
Monrovia Declaration, if put into practice,
will put an end to this era of inequitable
resource management. The Declaration calls
on the government to recognise customary
rights to the land and to reform the Forestry
Development Authority so that it can
provide effective support for community
forestry. The Declaration recognises that
local communities, civil society and the
international community also have an
important role to play in this process.
The workshop co-organised by CIFOR in Monrovia was the first major event ever held
on community forestry in Liberia (Photo by Daniel Tiveau)
Forests and Governance
29
Over 70 per cent of Africans depend for their livelihoods and survival on natural resources. A young girl watches over the family’s cattle
in Burkina Faso. (Photo by Daniel Tiveau)
A fresh approach
to rural development
Good news doesn’t sell newspapers, so it’s
probably not surprising that most of the press
coverage about rural Africa tells a harrowing
story of poverty, conflict, widespread disease
and faltering economic growth. In many
places, this is indeed the reality. But there
is another side of Africa that attracts less
attention, and this was the Africa which a range
of development and research agencies – led
by the United States Agency for International
Development (USAID) and including CIFOR
– were keen to highlight when they launched
Nature, Wealth and Power: Emerging Best
Practice for Revitalising Rural Africa at the 2002
Earth Summit, held in Johannesburg.
‘We were concerned that some of the good
lessons coming out about rural development
were being ignored, and we wanted to get
away from all the Afro-pessimism,’ recalls Jon
Anderson, a policy adviser to USAID. Nature,
Wealth and Power provided a new framework
for evaluating rural development and progress
30
Forests and Governance
towards achieving such pressing goals as
the alleviation of poverty. It also highlighted
some telling examples of rural communities
improving their livelihoods and restoring the
environment.
During the years since the Earth Summit,
this framework has been used to analyse
rural development problems and formulate
strategies for the future in Uganda, Senegal
and Madagascar. Now it is helping to change
the way people think about development
in Mali and Burkina Faso, largely as a result
of a series of workshops co-organised by
CIFOR and USAID. The Mali workshop was
held in Bamako in February 2004; the Burkina
workshops in Ouagadougou and BoboDioulasso in February 2004 and June 2005
respectively.
‘People often look at the issues of
environment, economy and governance in
isolation, but we need to look at all three
together if we are to solve the problems that
face rural communities in Africa,’ says Daniel
Tiveau, CIFOR’s regional coordinator for west
Africa. ‘Nature, Wealth and Power has proved
to be an excellent tool for doing that.’
In Africa, over 70 per cent of the
population depend for their livelihoods and
survival on natural resources, which provide
them with food, grazing, building materials
and much else. Natural resources are also
a major source of wealth for governments
and business. However, poverty in rural
Africa remains widespread, largely because
resources are frequently mismanaged
and rural people remain disenfranchised.
Alleviating poverty depends, crucially, on
better and fairer resource management.
This will only happen when there is better
governance. For people living in rural Africa,
that means improved access to, and control
of, natural resources.
At both workshops, separate meetings
were held with different constituencies. For
example, in Burkina there were meetings
for government technical staff, for NGOs, for
researchers, for farmers’ organisations, and for
development agencies. Tiveau believes that
at this stage it was important to keep these
groups separate. ‘If we’d had them all mixed
together the more powerful constituencies
would have dominated.’ he says. ‘Some of the
most vibrant meetings involved the farmers.
By doing it this way, they were able to make
their voices heard – something which is
rare.’ Afterwards the organisers were able to
transmit the views of the farmers to the other
constituencies. The workshop also helped
to initiate better communications between
government ministries, among whom there
is frequently little consultation.
Tiveau hopes that the Nature, Wealth
and Power dialogue will make a positive
contribution to the decentralisation process
currently underway in Burkina. ‘We are trying
to influence people involved in transferring
power over natural resource use to the local
level,’ explains Tiveau. ‘It’s important that the
mistakes made by central government aren’t
repeated.’
In Mali, the Nature, Wealth and Power
process has had a significant impact. For
example, around 200 communes in which
USAID has a democracy programme have
been using the framework to evaluate how
natural resources are used and shared, and
to plan for the future. CIFOR also organised
a Nature, Wealth and Power workshop
in Cameroon to raise awareness among
decision-makers.
According to Anderson, the conceptual
framework provided by Nature, Wealth and
Power has influenced USAID’s strategies for
agriculture and rural development. It has
also had an impact elsewhere. For example,
a major policy document, The Wealth of the
Poor, a collaboration between the World
Resources Institute, the World Bank, the
United Nations Development Programme
and the United Nations Environment
Programme, leans heavily on Nature, Wealth
and Power for its conceptual foundation.
Nature, Wealth and Power is clearly an
idea whose time has come. It may have
started off as an African dialogue, but it is
set to spread further afield. ‘We’ve had lots of
feedback from people working in places like
Guatemala, Nepal and Cyprus saying that this
resonates with them, and wanting to know
if we’re thinking of expanding our range,’
explains Anderson. The plan now is to produce
a new global version of Nature, Wealth and
Power, building on the African experience.
Meanwhile, CIFOR and USAID will continue to
promote Nature, Wealth and Power in Africa.
More workshops were planned for Burkina
Faso and Guinea in 2006.
A Nature, Wealth and Power policy discussion with locally elected officials in
Bobo-Dioulasso, Burkina Faso. (Photo by Daniel Tiveau)
Forests and Governance
31
Reflections on community collaboration
Learning and acting together is
the driving force behind Adaptive
Collaborative Management. An
ACM meeting in Gunung Leuser,
Indonesia. (Photo by Yayan
Indriatmoko)
In 1998, a team of CIFOR researchers
concluded a lengthy research project
developing and testing Criteria and Indicators
(C&I) for sustainable forest management.
They had good reason to be pleased: the
research helped to give a more precise
meaning to the term ‘sustainablility’, and
provided some tools to measure it. But the
satisfaction was tempered by the knowledge
that C&I would do nothing, in themselves,
to address the problems faced by forestdwelling communities. What was needed,
they realised, was a fresh approach to forest
management.
Since 1998, some 90 researchers, working
at 30 sites in 11 countries around the world,
have pioneered a new process known as
Adaptive Collaborative Management (ACM).
This involves communities, local govern­
ments,
non-government
organisations
and other forest users managing forests
collaboratively, and analysing the process,
reflecting on it, and adapting it to suit
changing needs and circumstances. The
results of this research are synthesised in The
Complex Forest – Communities, Uncertainty,
and Adaptive Collaborative Management,
written by CIFOR anthropologist Carol
Colfer.
So what has the ACM research achieved?
‘At some sites, and in some countries, the
impact has been immediate and obvious,’
says Colfer. ‘For example, in the communities
where we worked in
Nepal, the lower castes
and women now have
a much greater say
in
decision-making
processes which affect
forests than they had
in the past. The same is
true in our Zimbabwe
sites.’ In study villages
in Indonesia, ACM
has improved local
people’s ability to
negotiate successfully
with
policy-makers
for better control and
32
Forests and Governance
access to forest land, and in sites in Cameroon
and Bolivia ACM has played an important role
in reducing conflict in and around forests.
When the project was established, the
research team identified seven conditions
or issues which they thought might have a
bearing on the success of the ACM approach.
Contrary to expectations, they discovered
that ACM seemed to work most effectively
in sites where there was no formal process
of devolving powers, for example for forest
management, away from central government
to the local level. One of the most thoughtprovoking observations was that ACM
seemed to work best in the most difficult
and chaotic settings – for example, in places
where there were high levels of national and
local conflict.
But other factors proved even more
crucial than the seven conditions examined.
Colfer found that many of the differences
in impact between sites could be explained
by such things as the motivation and skill of
individual facilitators, and their integration
into the wider team, or‘community of practice’.
Indeed, if she has any regrets, it is that not
enough time was spent training facilitators in
some countries and strengthening their ties
to the larger team.
The Complex Forest suggests that
researchers have succeeded in coming up
with a process that can be used anywhere in
the world to help communities and others
work together to achieve common goals.
Furthermore, the flexibility of ACM means that
it can be used in many different situations.
‘There is no reason why you couldn’t apply
ACM to any natural resource,’ says Colfer.
This is a book which should appeal to
development specialists, academics and
anybody who wishes to work in a collaborative
way with local communities. As Choice, the
journal of reviews for academic libraries in
the United States, put it: ‘This outstanding
book addresses a growing global humanresource conflict through the application
of adaptive collaborative management
techniques, bureaucratic flexibility, and locallevel problem-solving.’
Forging new
partnerships
in Cameroon
When funding for Cameroon’s adaptive
collaborative management (ACM) project
came to an end in 2003, CIFOR researchers were
determined to continue working in a similar,
participatory vein on forest management
issues. ‘We came across the concept of model
forests,’ explains Chimère Diaw, CIFOR’s
programme coordinator for forest governance
in central Africa, ‘and the more we looked at it,
the more attractive it seemed.’
It is easy to see why the concept chimed
with Diaw and his colleagues. Partnerships are
at the heart of ACM. They are also central to
the success of model forests. The model forest
approach was originally designed in Canada,
and since it was brought to the world’s
attention at the 1992 Earth Summit, some 40
model forests have been established under
the umbrella of the International Model Forest
Network Secretariat (IMFNS). ‘Model forests
are about creating voluntary partnerships
to help plan and manage large-scale, multifunctional landscapes,’ explains Diaw. ‘They
are not about setting aside beautiful bits of
forest for conservation.’
In 2003, CIFOR and IMFNS arranged
a series of workshops in Cameroon and
Canada. A range of organisations, including
IMFNS, the Commission des forêts d’Afrique
Centrale (COMIFAC), the Cameroon Ministry
of Forestry, the Canadian International
Development Agency (CIDA), the UN Food
and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) and the
World Conservation Union (IUCN), agreed to
work together to plan for the development of
model forests in the Congo Basin. Meetings
were chaired by Cameroon’s Ministry of
Forestry with CIFOR acting as facilitator.
It was agreed that a competition would
be developed to choose a model forest in
Cameroon that could serve as a pilot site for
the Congo Basin. Ten sites were invited to
a workshop discussing how the pilot sites
should be selected. Field visits were made to
the three which produced the most impressive
dossiers.
A change of government at the
end of 2004 delayed the process
of choosing a site, but CIFOR and
its partners pressed ahead by
holding meetings and workshops
in potential pilot sites in Campo
Ma’an, in the south west, and
in Dja and Mpomo, in the east.
In June 2005, CIFOR’s Assistant
Director General, Yemi Katerere,
visited the Prime Minister of
Cameroon,
Inoni
Ephraim,
who expressed his support for
the model forest approach. In
August, the government decided
to choose both sites, rather than just one, and
the Minister of Forests officially requested that
the IMFNS accept Cameroon as a full member
of the network.
There has been widespread enthusiasm
for this new approach to land management,
and meetings have attracted every possible
interest group, from logging companies to the
managers of protected areas; from local NGOs
and organisations representing Bantu and
pygmy communities to national politicians.
‘This is not the first time in Cameroon that
all the different stakeholders involved in forest
and land management have agreed to plan
and act in a collaborative way,’ reflects Chimère
Diaw, ‘but this is the first time it’s happened
on such a scale. People are still pursuing their
own goals, but they respect the views of those
who have a different perspective.’ There is now
widespread acceptance that collaboration lies
at the heart of good management. As Vincent
Ovono, a Bagyeli pygmy who spoke at one of
the meetings, put it: ‘Protecting the forests is
something we have to do together.’
‘The uptake of the model forest concept at
both sites, and at the national level, has been
very strong,’ says Peter Besseau, Executive
Director of IMFNS. ‘Our partnership with
CIFOR as a lead facilitator in Cameroon has
turned out to be a really effective pairing of
skills, mandates and creative energy, and I see
these two model forests as a dynamic way
to anchor a process that is highly relevant to
resource management issues in Cameroon
and the Congo Basin.’
Forests and Governance
33
The Prime Minister of Cameroon,
Inoni Ephraim, greets CIFOR’s
Assistant Director General, Yemi
Katerere. Cameroon has been
highly supportive of the model
forests initiative. (Photo by Patrick
Nyemeck)
Unless Indonesia’s timber industry significantly reduces processing capacity, the country will continue to lose its forests at an alarming rate.
Training in timber tracking in Berau, East Kalimantan. (Photo by Agung Prasetyo)
A future for Indonesia’s forests?
Indonesia’s forests are disappearing at an
alarming rate. Every year, timber-related
industries consume the equivalent of some
50–60 million cubic metres of round wood.
Yet the sustainable yield from natural forests
earmarked for production is around 8–9
million cubic metres a year, while plantations
currently yield less than that. Another 7 million
or so cubic metres are probably harvested
legally – but not sustainably – from land
cleared for new plantations. This still leaves
an enormous gap between demand and legal
supply. The result is rampant illegal logging,
significant loss of income for government
and the destruction of resources used by local
communities.
In 2005, Indonesia’s Ministry of Forestry,
CIFOR and the UK Department for Interna­
tional
Development’s
Multistakeholder
Forestry Programme (MFP) collaborated on a
report on industrial revitalisation – one of the
five priorities identified by the Ministry for the
period 2004–2009. ‘Three significant studies
had already been undertaken during the
previous year, related to timber supply and
the need to restructure the country’s timber
industries,’ explains CIFOR policy scientist
Chris Barr, ‘and senior managers at the Ministry
of Forestry asked us to provide a synthesis of
their findings and recommendations.’
Working closely with FORDA, the Ministry’s
research branch, CIFOR gathered together
analysts who had been involved in the three
studies and hired economist Timothy Brown
to co-ordinate the work of the synthesis team.
The team decided to present its findings in
the form of future scenarios. ‘Researchers
have been telling policy-makers for years
that the country is losing 2 million hectares of
forest a year, but this hasn’t had great impact,’
explains Brown. ‘We decided to look forward
and use economic arguments to show what
the implications of these losses will be in 10
34
Forests and Governance
or 20 years – for the industry, employment,
tax revenues and the landscape.’
The synthesis team came up with three
contrasting scenarios. The first of these
– business-as-usual – shows that if current
trends continue, illegal logging, forest
degradation and declining industrial output
are inevitable. The second scenario envisages
an increase in plantations and imports. This
is an improvement on the business-as-usual
scenario, but even with a strong plantations
programme and a significant increase in
imports, illegal logging will continue to be a
major problem for at least another 15 years.
The third scenario – favoured by the
authors – envisages an increase in both
plantations and imports, accompanied,
crucially, by significant restructuring of the
industry’s processing capacity. This shows that
illegal logging can be brought under control
within a reasonably short period of time, but
that will only happen if timber-dependent
industries reduce their production.
When the report was presented by FORDA
to Minister M.S. Kaban in September 2005, it
was warmly received. According to David
Brown, an economist with MFP, the Minister
recognised that the report represented
a credible, quantitative assessment of
Indonesia’s timber industry, and the need to
restructure it.
At the meeting it was agreed that CIFOR,
FORDA and MFP would organise a national
seminar on forest-industry restructuring.
This was held in Jakarta in December 2005,
and among those who attended were
representatives from the Ministries of Forestry,
Industry and Trade, as well as key individuals
from five provincial forestry offices, various
industry groups, civil society organisations
and donor agencies.
A new approach to
fighting forest crime
Illegal loggers, like drug smugglers, need
to launder their profits through compliant
banks. While there has been a concerted
effort, both nationally and internationally,
to clamp down on drug smuggling, those
peddling illegally harvested timber have
tended to get away with their crimes. But this
is beginning to change, and illegal loggers,
like drug smugglers, would be well advised
to watch their backs in future.
In 2003, Indonesia introduced a law
classifying forestry crimes as ‘predicate
offences’ for money laundering. This was a
direct response to the collaborative research
undertaken by CIFOR financial analyst
Bambang Setiono and the government’s
Reporting and Financial Transaction Analysis
Centre (PPATK). The following year, the Asia
Pacific Group on Money Laundering invited
PPATK to organise a special working group
on illegal logging, following a presentation
by Setiono and PPATK director, Yunus Husein,
at a workshop in Brunei.
During 2005, CIFOR continued to lead
the debate on money laundering and illegal
logging. In an Occasional Paper – Fighting
forest crime and promoting prudent banking
for sustainable forest management – Setiono
and Husein laid out a comprehensive new
approach to tackling illegal logging by using
anti-money laundering legislation.
‘Forestry laws alone are insufficient,’
explains Setiono. ‘They tend to catch the
small people in the villages, while the big
players – the cukong – escape. If we’re going
to stop their activities, then we need to make
sure they are apprehended when they try
to move their profits through the banking
system.’ At present it is estimated that 90 per
cent of the profits made from illegal logging
in Indonesia end up abroad.
The approach advocated by CIFOR and
PPATK is having a significant influence on
a wide range of organisations, including
the World Bank, which funded a high-level
workshop on money laundering and illegal
logging in Jakarta in November 2005.
Organised by the Ministry of Forestry and
PPATK, this brought together policy chiefs
from heavily forested provinces in Indonesia.
According to Setiono, police in some
provinces are now beginning to use the new
laws to tackle illegal logging. The banks, too,
are asking for help to identify those who are
using them as a conduit to channel their illegal
logging profits into other (frequently) legal
activities. Indonesia is taking the lead when it
comes to using anti-money-laundering laws
to curb illegal logging. If it succeeds, Setiono
believes other countries will follow suit.
It’s not
all the
foreigners’
fault
If you believe what you read in the newspapers, you probably reckon that the
smuggling of timber from Indonesia to neighbouring countries, and Malaysia
in particular, is a major driver of illegal logging. And it’s not just the mass
media that peddles this view, but Indonesian forestry officials, the local timber
industry and many non-governmental organisations. ‘You get the impression
that if we stopped the timber smuggling, it would dramatically reduce the
problem of illegal logging,’ says CIFOR researcher Krystof Obidzinski. ‘But
that’s simply not the case.’
In 2005, Obidzinski and colleagues in CIFOR’s Forests and Governance
Programme made the first comprehensive analysis of timber-smuggling
activities between Indonesian Borneo and Sarawak and Sabah, in Malaysian
Borneo. They discovered that the level of illegally traded timber had fallen
dramatically over the past two years, largely as a result of a government
clampdown on illegal logging. ‘Not long ago 3–4 million cubic metres of
illegal timber were smuggled out of Indonesia into Malaysia each year,’ says
Obidzinski. ‘In 2005, this had dropped to a million cubic metres.’
A number of measures could be taken to reduce further the cross-border
trade in illegal timber – including the elimination of red tape, the streamlining
of export licensing and closer collaboration between forestry officials, police
and customs – but even at present levels, the trade is relatively insignificant
when seen in the context of illegal logging throughout Indonesia. Illegal
logging to supply domestic timber industries is far more significant than
cross-border smuggling. Clamping down on this should be seen as the
priority.
Most of the illegal timber harvested in Indonesia is used domestically. (Photo by
Krystof Obidzinski)
Forests and Governance
35
An Amazonian forest dweller peruses the Frutiferas book by Patricia Shanley and Gabriel Medina at a book launch. The book helps farmers to
weigh up the costs and benefits of selling or retaining their forests. (Photo by Chris Barr)
How We Work
Collaboration and outreach
CIFOR is committed to strengthening the
capabilities of developing country scientists,
governments, civil society organisations and
communities. The ultimate aim is to help them
develop and promote their own solutions to a
wide range of forestry problems. CIFOR does
this through collaborative research, and by
providing high-quality, unbiased and timely
information to everyone from policy-makers
to local communities, from forest-related
industries to research scientists.
During 2005, CIFOR scientists played a
prominent part in the12th World Congress
of the International Union of Forest Research
Organizations (IUFRO), and many contributed
to a major new IUFRO publication, Forest
in the Global Balance. CIFOR scientists
played a leading role in the Crawford Fund
conference in Canberra on ‘Forests, Wood
and Livelihoods’, and two members of CIFOR’s
board of trustees and a programme director
served on the 15-member panel responsible
for overseeing the technical work of the UN’s
Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, whose
key findings were published in 2005.
CIFOR continued to encourage networking among research institutes. CIFOR’s
West Africa team played a leading role in
establishing a new network for scientists
working on the productivity of arid woodlands
– vital for fuelwood and livestock grazing – in
countries like Mali and Burkina Faso.
The Information Services Group had
another busy year. Besides publishing over
40 Occasional Papers, reports and books, it
continued to seek a wide audience for CIFOR’s
research findings by using the international
and national media. During 2005, over 500
separate stories appeared in newspapers and
on the internet, radio and television, either
about CIFOR’s research or quoting CIFOR
scientists.
How We Work
37
Eko Prianto, from CIFOR’s
communications team, interviews
villagers in Respen Sembuak,
Malinau, East Kalimantan about
the effectiveness of CIFOR’s
communication work in the district.
(Photo by Yani Saloh)
Auditing planet earth
Millennium Ecosystem Assessment
2005 witnessed the completion of the most ambitious audit ever undertaken of our impact on Planet
Earth. Launched in 2001 by the United Nations’ Secretary General, Kofi Annan, the Millennium Ecosystem
Assessment provides an exhaustive analysis of how humans have affected the ability of ecosystems to
provide us with goods and services, such as fresh water to drink, timber for building and food to eat. Much
of the 2500-page assessment makes bleak reading, but it is by no means all doom and gloom, and the
report offers a range of responses which could help us to overcome some of the most pressing problems
we face.
Over 1300 scientists from 95 countries were involved in the assessment. The 15-member Assessment
Panel, which was responsible for overseeing the technical work, was co-chaired by Angela Cropper, chair
of CIFOR’s Board of Trustees. Panel members included Doris Capistrano, Director of CIFOR’s governance
programme, and Christian Samper, Director of the Smithsonian Museum of Natural History and a member
of CIFOR’s Board of Trustees. All three were closely involved in the writing process. A number of other
CIFOR staff also served as authors and reviewers of different chapters.
The assessment has already had a significant impact on various international processes, such as the
Convention on Biological Diversity, and it has been widely used by governments, especially of those
countries in which sub-global assessments were carried out, for example in the Caribbean, South Africa
and China.
A Samburu woman from the acacia woodlands in Kenya (Koen Kusters); CIFOR collaborators in Jharkland, India
(Brian Belcher); primary forest in Papua, Indonesia (Miriam Van Heist); collecting rubber in Liberia (Daniel Tiveau);
catching fish in East Kalimantan, Indonesia (Yani Saloh); rice paddies in China (Christian Cossalter). (clockwise,
from top left)
38
How We Work
Royal accolade for CIFOR scientist
Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II presented
Ravi Prabhu, CIFOR’s regional coordinator
for southern and eastern Africa, with the
Queen’s Award for Forestry on 24 February
2005 at a ceremony in Buckingham Palace.
Prabhu was awarded the prize in recognition
of his outstanding contribution to work
on sustainable forest management, and
especially his work on criteria and indicators
(C&I). A forester by training, Prabhu joined
CIFOR in 1994. He has played a leading role in
CIFOR’s Adaptive Collaborative Management
(ACM) research. He recently served on the
Task Force on Environmental Sustainability
for the United Nations Millennium Project,
established by Kofi Annan and led by Jeffrey
Sachs.
Prabhu is the fourth person associated
with CIFOR to win this prestigious award. The
others were John Turnbull, Jerry Vanclay and
Yemi Katerere, currently CIFOR’s Assistant
Director General.
The Queen’s Award for Forestry
was presented to Dr. Ravi
Prabhu at Buckingham Palace
on 24 February 2005. (Photo by
Buckingham Palace Press Office)
Paving the way in Papua
The media frenzy which greeted the announcement, on 7 February 2005, that a
team of scientists had discovered a veritable Noah’s Ark of hitherto unknown species
in a remote part of Indonesia was to be expected. Stories like this don’t come round
very often. The media concentrated on the stars of the story – 20 new species of
frogs, four new butterflies, five new palms, the magnificently coloured Berlepsch’s
six-wired bird of paradise, and of course the scientists, funded by Conservation
International (CI), who penetrated the Foja Mountains in Papua to discover ‘a lost
world’.
CIFOR also played a minor, though significant, role in this story. The year before
the expedition, CIFOR scientists had been hired by CI to work in two villages in the
Foja Mountains. ‘CI realised that they couldn’t operate in remote areas of Papua
unless they worked closely with local people,’ explains CIFOR ethnobotanist Manuel Boissière, who has spent many years
working in Papua. ‘If you go into these areas and fail to co-operate with the local people, you’ll have a serious problem. They
have a very strong notion of ownership, and they can be very physical with outsiders if they’re unhappy.’
CIFOR scientists trained 16 students, lecturers and civil servants from Papua, together with two CI staff, how to
conduct multidisciplinary landscape assessments, a technique which acknowledges the central role local people play in
the management of nature and land. Local people had had trouble with outsiders in the past, and at first they viewed
the newcomers with suspicion. However, by the time Boissière and his colleagues left, the villagers and Conservation
International had forged a good understanding. Without this understanding, the now famous expedition might never have
happened.
As soon as the new discoveries were announced, there were calls from conservationists for the Foja Mountains to be
designated a protected area. However, this shouldn’t mean we lose sight of the people who live there. In a letter published
in Nature, responding to an article about the new discoveries, Douglas Sheil and Manuel Boissière pointed out that the
villagers they had recently worked with had been solely responsible for protecting the Foja in the past, and it was they who
made the recent expedition possible. ‘Local communities must not be viewed as a problem, but as central to the solution,’
they wrote.
Berlepsch’s six-wired bird of paradise, Parotia berlepschi, was one of several new species discovered by Conservation International
scientists in the Foja Mountains, Papua, in November 2005. (Photo by © Conservation International)
How We Work
39
Networking in the Sahel
West African scientists on a field visit during the savanna productivity workshop
in Mali. (Photo by Daniel Tiveau)
CIFOR at the Researchers’ World
Congress
If you want to know what’s happening to the world’s forests, and you’d like
an insight into the latest thinking in forestry research, then you could do no
better than consult Forests in the Global Balance – Changing Paradigms, one
of whose editors was Markku Kanninen, director of CIFOR’s Environmental
Services programme. The book was launched at the 12th World Congress
of the International Union of Forest Research Organizations (IUFRO), held in
Brisbane in August 2005. Over 20 CIFOR scientists attended the Congress,
and many had contributed to the book. The book launch was just one of
many activities to which CIFOR scientists contributed, or organized, at
Brisbane.
Forest in the Global Balance is the main output of IUFRO’s Special
Project on World Forests, Society and Environment (WSFE), whose mission
is to provide a critical analysis of existing knowledge about the state of
the world’s forests and the way they are used. The project is supported
by a core group of ten organisations, including CIFOR. The book is already
being used as a reference work at Yale University, the Australian National
University, CATIE in Costa Rica, the University of Helsinki and other
academic and research institutes.
‘The book is mainly addressed to researchers and specialists in forestry
and related fields,’ explains Gerardo Mery, the IUFRO-WFSE coordinator, ‘but
we were also determined to get the messages across to policy-makers.’ The
same editorial team launched a policy brief, Forests for the New Millennium
– Making Forests Work for People and Nature, at the 5th Session of the
United Nations Forum on Forests, held in New York in May 2005. Written
in plain, jargon-free language, the policy brief provides a consensual view
of the sort of policies which are needed if forested land is to be managed
more sustainably, for the benefit of both people and nature.
40
How We Work
For people who live in the dry savannas of west Africa,
firewood and charcoal are among life’s essentials.
They supply about 80 per cent of domestic energy
requirements in Burkina Faso and Mali. Such is the
demand that many people are forced to travel long
distances in search of wood fuel. If the resource is to
be managed sustainably, there needs to be a balance
between supply and demand. And if that’s to happen,
we need to know precisely how much wood the
savannas produce, and how much people use.
Right now, there is much uncertainty about
savanna productivity, which is why CIFOR, the
Centre International de Recherches Agronomiques
pour le Développement (CIRAD) and Mali’s Institut
d’Economie Rurale brought together about two
dozen researchers to explore the subject in Bamako
in October 2005. The workshop gave the researchers
the opportunity to present their work and share their
data with representatives of organisations concerned
with conservation, forest management and energy
production.
‘There have been plenty of inventories measuring
biomass productivity in arid areas in the Sahel,’ explains
CIFOR’s Daniel Tiveau, ‘but the data has often been
inconsistently analysed, which makes comparative
studies difficult.’ At the workshop, CIRAD statistician
Nicolas Picard provided the researchers with guidance.
In future, this should lead to greater consistency of
data collection and analysis.
According to CIRAD scientist Denis Gautier, the
workshop provided some important guidance for
policy-makers. ‘The bad news for them is that a lot
more research is needed before we have a clear
understanding about the productivity of the savannas,’
he says. ‘But the good news is that the workshop has
shown precisely what kind of research should be
supported in future.’
Gautier believes the workshop, which led to
the creation of a savanna productivity network,
Savafor, provides an excellent example of regional
collaboration between different research institutes. ‘In
the past, researchers in the region have worked very
much in isolation,’ he says. ‘The workshop helped to
bring them together, and provided us with common
aims for future research.’
Spotlight on forestry research
Every year the Crawford Fund holds an annual
conference in Canberra to discuss and debate
an important research and development issue
related to agriculture and natural resource
management. The Fund was established in
1987 in memory of Sir John Crawford, one
of the pioneers of the Consultative Group on
International Agricultural Research (CGIAR).
In 2005, the theme was ‘Forests, Wood and
Livelihoods: Finding a Future for All’. You can
gauge just how important these events are by
the list of those who attend them. The Minister
of Foreign Affairs, the Minister of Forestry, the
Shadow Minister of Forestry, several heads of
industry and 30 Australian parliamentarians
joined key thinkers in the world of forestry
research for the one-day event at New
Parliament House. The conference was widely
reported in the media.
Australia has made a significant
contribution to forestry research, as Alexander
Downer, Australia’s Foreign Affairs Minister,
stressed when he opened the conference.
‘Australia contributes to international
sustainable forestry efforts because we
recognise the critical and multidimensional
role forests play in developing countries,
particularly in the Asia-Pacific region,’ he
said. He pointed out that for many people
in developing countries, forests provide life’s
essentials: food, shelter, fuel, medicines and a
source of income.
The keynote speech was delivered by
David Kaimowitz, CIFOR’s Director General.
‘When it comes to forests and forestry, the
region needs Australia, and Australia needs
the peace and prosperity that good forest
management can bring,’ said Kaimowitz.
Another CIFOR scientist to contribute to the
meeting was Brian Belcher, who urged policymakers to include forests in their global
efforts to reduce poverty. ‘Government and
donor budgets are increasingly targeted at
poverty alleviation,’ he said, ‘and yet forestry
and forestry resources have received very
little attention in most poverty-reduction
strategy papers.’
Kaimowitz praised the work of the
Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research (ACIAR), an organisation which
played a key role in the founding of CIFOR
in 1993. ‘Their researchers have had great
successes with eucalyptus plantations in
southern China, and they are tackling crucial
issues such as how to make decentralisation
work in Indonesia, and how to get farmers
more money from timber in Papua New
Guinea,’ he explained.
Before the conference, Neil Andrew,
chairman of Crawford Fund, pointed out that
the debate about how to use the world’s
forests is often highly emotional. ‘I hope that
this year’s annual conference will get beyond
the emotion by highlighting the significant
role of international forestry research in
finding a balance between the competing
demands for forest products and services, and
the ability of natural and plantation forests to
supply them,’ he said. Judged by these terms,
the conference was undoubtedly a success.
How We Work
41
Forests provide numerous goods
and services on which the rural poor
depend. A farmer in Jharkland, India,
transports grass harvested from
forest land to the market.
(Photo by Brian Belcher)
Getting the most out of Annual Meetings
Annual meetings can be very predictable
affairs, with their large plenary sessions and
rigid agendas. But in September 2005, CIFOR
decided to do things differently. ‘We’re going
to give you space and opportunity to talk
about the things that really concern you, that
worry you, that excite you,’ explained Director
General David Kaimowitz in his welcoming
speech at CIFOR’s HQ in Bogor.
The objectives of the five-day meeting
–Working Together to Make a Difference–
were to improve understanding about
CIFOR’s future, provide a range of forums
for discussion and interaction, and increase
understanding of CIFOR’s global programmes
and regional strategies. This was achieved by
adopting a radical new knowledge-sharing
approach, already piloted at several other
centres supported by the Consultative Group
on International Agriculture Research (CGIAR)
with help from the CGIAR Knowledge Sharing
Project.
The meeting began with a ‘Knowledge
Fair’ featuring workshops, presentations,
poster displays and videos related to research
conducted by CIFOR and its partners. Most
of the next two days was devoted to
Open Space, during which the rhetoric of
institutional democracy was made a reality.
There were six different Open Space sessions,
with the topics for debate being chosen by
participants. The third innovative approach
was Peer Assist, which enabled small groups
to come together to share experiences and
solve problems. The week concluded with
‘Fiesta Friday’, a dinner-dance with a LatinAmerican theme.
‘The meeting exceeded all my expectations in terms of creating a renewed sense
of excitement about CIFOR and the work we
do,’ says Michael Hailu, Director of CIFOR’s
Information Services Group. His enthusiasm
was reflected in a survey conducted at
the end of the week. The vast majority of
participants welcomed the new approach,
which they considered more enjoyable and
inclusive than the standard annual meeting.
The main conclusion was: Let’s have more of
the same in future, please.
Knowledge Fair
Knowledge Fair set the scene for the week by giving participants a wide range of choice.
They could look at presentations, videos and poster displays, or attend workshops
covering a variety of topics, all proposed and presented by CIFOR staff. ‘It was very
important for me to find out about research carried out by other scientists,’ explained
Mathurin Zida, who had recently joined CIFOR’s Dry Forest Programme in Burkina Faso.
‘I learned a lot during the Knowledge Fair and gained a better global vision about what
CIFOR is doing.’
Open Space
Open Space allows individuals to choose a topic and invite anybody interested
to join a discussion and debate. During a period of just 10 minutes on the
second morning, 27 people came up with 29 separate topics, ranging from
the managerial to the scientific, from the broad and philosophical to the very
specific. ‘I liked the way people could put things on the table and discuss them
in a very open way,’ said Marieke Sandker, a young Dutch scientist who had just
joined CIFOR. Eighty-five per cent of participants said they would like to use the
Open Space approach again.
Peer Assist
Peer Assist is a process which brings together a small group to help one person
solve a particular problem with which he or she is grappling. This was a novel
approach for most CIFOR scientists, and many said they would use it in the
future. For example, Daniel Tiveau from CIFOR’s Burkina office – his question
was, ‘How do you live up to the expectation of national partners?’ – said that
although his group didn’t come up with much he hadn’t already considered,
he liked the exercise. ‘I would like to try this process with a scientific problem
42 How We Work
next time,’ he said.
Getting
the message out
During 2005 CIFOR was mentioned in at least 560 known media stories – equivalent to two
stories each working day. We say ‘at least’ because there were probably many more which the
Communications Unit was unable to track. Getting research results into the press and on to the
airwaves is one way of reaching policy-makers and opinion-formers. To give just one example, an
article about illegal logging and money laundering, written by David Kaimowitz and Bambang
Setiono and published in the South China Morning Post, was forwarded by a senior Indonesian
forestry official to his Minister.
Stories about CIFOR and its research appeared in a wide range of publications, from internationally renowned heavyweights like Time, the Economist, the Washington Post, El Pais and Le Figaro to local papers in remote parts of Borneo and the Congo Basin. The media took a particular
interest in research related to forests and floods, forests and violent conflict, illegal logging and
money laundering, Cameroon’s Model Forest programme and CIFOR’s Malinau Research Forest.
Speakers at the Crawford Fund Forestry seminar in Parliament House, Canberra (from left to right): Dennis
Garrity, Director General of ICRAF, David Kaimowitz, CIFOR’s Director General, and Hosny El-Lakany,
Assistant Director-General of FAO’s Forestry Department. (Photo by Toni Langley, Crawford Fund)
CIFOR News – worth the effort
A CIFOR News reader survey, conducted at the end of 2005, showed just how popular the
newsletter is. ‘We received an overwhelmingly positive response,’ says Greg Clough, CIFOR’s
Communications Specialist and editor of CIFOR News. ‘It was pleasing to learn that readers
find CIFOR News useful and interesting.’ Had the survey found otherwise, CIFOR would have
probably halted production.
The survey sought readers’ opinions on design and language, as well as the length,
quality and choice of stories. The vast majority of respondents – over 270 people filled in
the questionnaire – said they liked CIFOR News just as it is. Still, there is always room for
improvement, and several suggestions from readers have already been implemented.
The survey found that 80 per cent of respondents, most of whom are researchers,
donors, policy-makers and trainers, read CIFOR News for job-related reasons, and 87 per
cent consider it an important source of information about forestry issues outside their
own country. Over two-thirds read more than half the newsletter and a third share it with
colleagues. Around half the respondents would like four editions a year instead of three,
with a few optimistic souls suggesting it should be monthly.
CIFOR News can be read online at www.cifor.cgiar.org
How We Work
43
Board of Trustees
Ms. Angela Cropper
(Chair of the Board of Trustees of CIFOR)
President, The Cropper Foundation
Building #7, Fernandes Industrial Centre
Laventille, Port of Spain
Trinidad and Tobago
Dr. Andrew John Bennett, CMG
Executive Director
Syngenta Foundation for Sustainable
Agriculture
WRO-1002.11.66 Postfach
CH-4002 Basel
SWITZERLAND
Dr Jürgen Blaser
Head Forest-Environment Team
Intercooperation - Swiss Organization for
Development and Cooperation
Maulbeerstrasse 10
P.O. Box 6724, CH-3001 Berne
SWITZERLAND
Dr. Benchaphun Shinawatra Ekasingh
Associate Director
Multiple Cropping Center
Faculty of Agriculture
Chiang Mai University
239 Huay Kaew Road, Tambon Suthep,
Amphoe Muang, Chiang Mai 502000
THAILAND
(joined in November 2005)
Dr. Walter Phillip Falcon
Co-Director and Professor
Center for Environmental Science and
Policy
Stanford University
E404, Encina Hall
Stanford, CA 94305-6055
U.S.A.
Dr. David Kaimowitz
Director General
Center for International Forestry Research
(CIFOR)
Jl. CIFOR, Situ Gede, Sindangbarang
Bogor 16680
INDONESIA
Dr. Stephen Karekezi
Director
African Energy Policy Research Network
(AFREPREN/FWD)
P.O. Box 30979, 00100 GPO
Elgeyo Marakwet Close, Nairobi
KENYA
Dr. Sunita Narain
Director
Centre for Science and Environment
41, Tughlakabad Institutional Area
New Delhi 110 062
INDIA
(joined in November 2005)
Dr. Christine Padoch
Mathew Calbraith Perry Curator of
Economic Botany
Institute of Economic Botany
The New York Botanical Garden
Bronx, NY 10458
U.S.A.
Dr. Hadi Susanto Pasaribu
(Host Country representative)
Director General
Forestry Research & Development
Agency (FORDA)
Ministry of Forestry
Manggala Wanabakti Building, Block I,
11th Floor
Jl. Jendral Gatot Subroto
Jakarta 10270
INDONESIA
(left in November 2005)
Dr. Cristián Samper
Director
National Museum of Natural History
Smithsonian Institution
10th Street & Constitution Avenue, NW
Room 421, MRC 106
Washington, D.C. 20560
U.S.A.
CIFOR Board of Trustees 2005. (Photo by Widya Prajanthi)
Ms. Yumiko Tanaka
Senior Regional Advisor (Monitoring/
Evaluation and Gender)
Japan International Cooperation Agency
(JICA)
Regional Support Office for Asia
1674/1 New Petchburi Road
Bangkok 10320
THAILAND
Professor François Tchala-Abina
Inspector General
Ministry of Environment and Protection of
Nature
P.O. Box 12489
Yaoundé
CAMEROUN
Dr. Eugene Terry
Vice Chair
African Agricultural Technology Foundation
(AATF)
C/o Meridian Institute
1101 14th St. NW, Suite 420
Washington, D.C. 20005
U.S.A.
Dr. Jacques Valeix
Director of Operations
Office National des Forêts (ONF)
2 avenue de Saint-Mandé
75570 Paris Cedex 12
FRANCE
Mr. Wahjudi Wardojo, MSc
(Host Country Representative)
Director General
Forestry Research & Development Agency
(FORDA)
Ministry of Forestry
Manggala Wanabakti Building,
Block I, 11th Floor
Jl. Jendral Gatot Subroto
Jakarta 10270
INDONESIA
(joined in November 2005)
Donors
SCHEDULE OF GRANT REVENUE
FOR THE YEARS ENDED 31 DECEMBER 2005 AND 2004
(in US Dollar 000s)
UNRESTRICTED
Australia
Belgium
Canada
China
Finland
France
Germany
Indonesia
Israel
Japan
Netherlands
Norway
Philippines
Sweden
Switzerland
USA
United Kingdom
World Bank
SUB TOTAL, UNRESTRICTED
2005
217
548
10
395
89
323
50
50
137
1,329
984
7
400
414
725
1,101
900
7,679
2004
197
166
617
10
455
96
298
56
206
1,306
956
5
440
396
700
368
1,200
7,472
TOP TEN DONORS 2005
Norway
6%
Germany
5%
Sweden
5%
Switzerland
4%
Others
28%
Canada
4%
World
Bank
7%
Netherlands
11%
United
States
6%
European
Commission
11%
United
Kingdom
13%
RESTRICTED
Asian Development Bank
Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research
African Wildlife Foundation
Brazil (EMBRAPA)
Belgium
Canada
CARPE
CGIAR Secretariat
CIRAD-Foret
Conservation International Foundation
CORDAID
European Commission
Finland
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Ford Foundation
Forest Trends
France
Germany (GTZ/BMZ)
Indonesia
IITA
INRENA
International Centre for Research in Agroforestry
International Development Research Centre
International Food and Policy Research Institute
International Fund for Agricultural Development
International Tropical Timber Organization
Italy
INIA (Spain)
Japan
Korea
Netherlands
Organisation Africaine du Bois
Overseas Development Institute
Others
Netherlands Development Organization
PI Environmental Consulting
RSCI-Peruvian Secretariat
Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences
Sweden
Switzerland
Swiss Agency for Env. Forests & Landscape
The Overbrook Foundation
The Nature Conservancy
Tropical Forest Foundation
Tropenbos International
USA
United Kingdom (DFID)
United Nations Environment Programme
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Waseda University
World Bank
World Conservation Union (IUCN)
World Resources Institute
World Wildlife Fund for Nature
SUB TOTAL, RESTRICTED
TOTAL UNRESTRICTED AND RESTRICTED
Donors
45
2005
42
143
30
57
163
339
2
53
1,884
81
30
302
188
414
113
333
51
137
2004
54
250
9
1
36
31
6
20
265
47
1,190
49
296
5
225
496
2
2
7
55
210
21
122
220
276
94
89
399
313
558
144
106
551
381
6
44
4
3
6
4
2
6
27
21
18
7
433
379
233
203
18
77
101
167
74
107
97
11
305
91
1,120
1,278
153
3
- 11 266 267 9 (5)
85 116 2 5
9,167 7,479 16,846 14,951 Financial Statements
STATEMENTS OF FINANCIAL POSITION
31 DECEMBER 2005 AND 2004
(in US Dollar 000s)
ASSETS
CURRENT ASSETS
Cash and cash equivalents
Accounts receivable
Donors, net
Employees
Others
Prepaid expenses
TOTAL CURRENT ASSETS
2005
2004
8,876
10,237
3,906
274
728
314
14,098
2,838
297
699
370
14,441
1,648
46
1,694
1,698
1,698
15,792
16,139
CURRENT LIABILITIES
Accounts payable
Donors
Others
Accrued expenses
TOTAL CURRENT LIABILITIES
4,017
49
946
5,012
4,265
53
685
5,003
NON-CURRENT LIABILITIES
Employee benefits obligation
2,294
2,285
NET ASSETS
Unrestricted
Undesignated
Designated
TOTAL NET ASSETS
5,483
3,003
8,486
5,848
3,003
8,851
15,792
16,139
NON-CURRENT ASSETS
Property, plant and equipment, net
Other assets
TOTAL NON-CURRENT ASSETS
TOTAL ASSETS
LIABILITIES AND NET ASSETS
TOTAL LIABILITIES AND NET ASSETS
STATEMENTS OF ACTIVITIES
YEARS ENDED 31 DECEMBER 2005 AND 2004
(in US Dollar 000s)
2005
UNRESTRICTED RESTRICTED
REVENUES
Grants
Other revenues
Total revenues
EXPENSES
Program related expenses
Management and general expenses
Indirect expense recovery
Total expenses
CHANGES IN NET ASSETS
46
Financial Statements
TOTAL
2004
TOTAL
7,679 473 8,152 9,167 - 9,167 16,846 473 17,319 14,951 226
15,177 5,751
3,427
9,178
(661)
8,517
9,167
- 9,167
- 9,167
14,918
3,427
18,345
(661)
17,684
13,187
2,590
15,777
(494)
15,283
(365)
- (365)
(106)
STATEMENTS OF CHANGES IN NET ASSETS
YEARS ENDED 31 DECEMBER 2005 AND 2004
(in US Dollar 000s)
UNDESIGNATED
Balance as at 31 December 2003
Depreciation for the year ended 31
December 2004
Additions of property, plant and
equipment during the year
ended 31 December 2004
Changes in net assets for the year
ended 31 December 2004
Balance as at 31 December 2004
Depreciation for the year ended 31
December 2005
Additions of property, plant and
equipment during the year
ended 31 December 2005
Changes in net assets for the year
ended 31 December 2005
Balance as at 31 December 2005
5,954 -
DESIGNATED
Invested in
property,
plant and
equipment
1,650
(306)
-
354
(106)
TOTAL
Reserve for
replacement of
property, plant
and equipment
1,353
306
8,957 -
(354)
-
-
-
(106)
5,848 -
1,698
(345)
1,305
345
8,851 -
-
295
(295)
-
(365)
5,483 1,648 -
(365)
1,355
8,486 STATEMENTS OF CASH FLOWS
YEARS ENDED 31 DECEMBER 2005 AND 2004
(in US Dollar 000s)
CASH FLOWS FROM OPERATING ACTIVITIES
Changes in net assets
Adjustments to reconcile changes in net assets to net cash (used in)
provided by operating activities:
Depreciation
Gain on the disposal of property, plant and equipment
Provision for doubtful accounts
Changes in:
Accounts receivable
Donors
Employees
Others
Prepaid expenses
Other assets
Accounts payable
Donors
Others
Accrued expenses
Employee benefits obligation
NET CASH (USED IN) PROVIDED BY OPERATING ACTIVITIES
CASH FLOWS FROM INVESTING ACTIVITIES
Acquisition of property, plant and equipment
Proceeds from the disposal of property, plant and equipment
NET CASH USED IN INVESTING ACTIVITIES
NET (DECREASE) INCREASE IN CASH AND CASH QUIVALENTS
CASH AND CASH EQUIVALENTS, BEGINNING OF THE YEAR
CASH AND CASH EQUIVALENTS, END OF THE YEAR
2005
2004
(365)
(106)
345 (8)
- 306 (14)
8 (1,068)
23 (29)
56 (46)
534 (23)
(79)
26 - (248)
(4)
261 9 (1,074)
696 (13)
(412)
214 1,137 (295)
8 (287)
(354)
14 (340)
(1,361)
10,237 8,876 797 9,440 10,237 Financial Statements
47
Collaborators
Australia
ATSE Crawford Fund
Australian Centre for International Agricultural
Research (ACIAR)
Australian National University
Charles Darwin University
Charles Stuart University
Department of Primary Industries and Fisheries
Queensland
Forestry and Forest Products Division,
Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research
Organisation
Murdoch University
Queensland Forestry Research Institute
Bolivia
Fundacion José Manuel Pando para el Desarrollo
Sostenible del Bosque Amazónico (FJMP)
Fundacion Natura Bolivia
Instituto Boliviano de Investigacion Forestal (IBIF)
Municipal government of El Sena in Pando, Bolivia
Programa de Manejo de Bosques de la Amazonía
Boliviana (PROMAB)
Proyecto de Manejo Forestal Sostenible (BOLFOR)
Research Center for Labor and Agrarian Development
(CEDLA)
Universidad Técnica del Beni
Botswana
Southern African Development Community, Forestry
Sector Technical Coordination Unit (SADC FSTCU)
Brazil
Embrapa Amazônia Oriental
Empresa Brasileira de Pesquisa Agropecuaria
(EMBRAPA)
Escola Superior de Agricultura ‘Luiz de Queiroz’
(ESALQ)
FSC Brazil
Instituto de Florestas Tropicais (IFT)
Instituto de Pesquisa Ambiental da Amazônia (IPAM)
Instituto do Homem e Meio Ambiente da Amazônia
(IMAZON)
Instituto Internacional de Educacão Brasileiro (IIEB)
Juruá Florestal Ltda
Museu Paraense Emilio Goeldi (MPEG)
Suzano de Paper e Celulose, Brazil
Universidade Federal Rural da Amazônia
Burkina Faso
Amicale des Forestieres du Burkina (AMIFOB)
Apex
Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique et
Technologique (CNRST)
Centre National des Semences Forestières (CNSF)
Permanent Interstates Committee for Drought Control
in the Sahel (CILSS), Ouagadougou
Conseil National pour l’Environnement et le
Developpement Durable (CONEDD), Ouagadougou
Deuxième Programme National de Gestion des
Terroirs (PNGT 2)
Direction Générale de l’Inventaire des Ressources
Hydrauliques (DGIRH)
Direction Générale de la Conservation de la Nature
(DGCN)
Economic Commission for West African States
(ECOWAS), Ouagadougou
Groupe de Recherche et d’Action sur le Foncier (GRAF)
Institut d’Environnement et de Recherches Agricoles
(INERA)
Meteorological department
Ministry of Environment
48
Collaborators
Netherlands Development Organisation (SNV),
Ouagadougou
Secrétariat Permanent du Conseil National pour le
Développement Durable (SP/CONEDD)
Tree Aid West Africa
Union Economique et Monétaire Ouest Africaine
(L’UEMOA), Ouagadougou
Université de Ouagadougou (UO)
Université Polytechnique de Bobo (UPB)
Cambodia
Forestry Administration of Cambodia
World Wide Fund for Nature - Cambodia
Cameroon
Association pour le Développement des Initiatives
pour l’Environnement (ADIE)
Association pour le Développement Intégral des
Exploitants Agricoles du Centre (ADEAC)
Cameroon Environmental Watch (CEW)
Campo Ma’an National Park, Campo
Centre de Recherche et d’Action pour le
Développement Durable (CERAD)
Centre pour l’Environnement et le Développement (CED)
Cercle de Promotion des Forêts et des Initiatives
locales de Développement (CEPFILD), Ma’an
Cercle des Agroforestiers du Cameroun (CERAF)
Commission des Forêts d’Afrique Centrale (COMIFAC)
Concertation des Associations Paysannes pour le
Développement Rural de la Mvila (CAPDR)
Conservation International (CI), MLW landscape, DRC
Dja Biodiversity Reserve/ECOFAC (Lomie, Cameroon)
FAGAPE,local NGO, Kribi, Cameroon
Fondation Fritz Jakob
ConFéderation des Organisations Rurales pour le
Cameroun Economique (FORCE) (National Farmer
Confederation)
Forest Steward Council (FSC), Cameroon
Foundation for Environment and Development in
Cameroon (FEDEC)
Global Forest Watch
HEVECAM, (Rubber company )Niete
Institut de Recherche Agricole pour le
Développement (IRAD)
L’Unité Technique Opérationnelle (UTO) Dimako/
Doume
Evaluation and Planning Mission for the Ocean
(MEAO)
Memve’ele Dam Socioeconomic project, Kribi
Ministry of Forestry and Wildlife (MINFOF)
Ministry of the Environment and Nature Protection
(MINEP)
Model Forest site of Dja et Mpomo Model forest site of
Campo-Ma’an
Municipalities (6 in the campo-Ma’an area in southand
4 in Dja et Mpomo of east Cameroon)
National Agency for the Support of Forest
Development (ANAFOR)
Network for the Environment and Sustainable
Development in Central Africa (NESDA-CA),
PALLISCO, (Logging Company)
ROCAME (local NGO Network, Kribi
ROLD (local NGO Network, Lomié,)
SCIEB,(Logging Company) Campo
Twantoh Mixed Farming Common Initiative Group
UGAO (local women training NGO, Kribi
University of Dschang
University of Yaounde I
University of Yaounde II
WIJMA, (Logging Company ) Ma’an, Cameroon
Canada
CARE Canada
Department of Rural Economy, University of Alberta
International Model Forest Network
Royal Road University
University of British Columbia
University of Manitoba, Center for Earth Observation
Science
China
Agricultural Economic Department, Business School,
Guangxi University
Center for Chinese Agricultural Policy, Chinese
Academy of Sciences (CCAP, CAF)
China Forestry Publishing House
China National Forestry Economics and Development
Research Center (FEDRC)
Chinese Academy of Forestry (CAF)
International Forestry Cooperation Centre, State
Forestry Administration
Research Institute of Subtropical Forestry, Chinese
Academy of Forestry (RISF, CAF)
Research Institute of Tropical Forestry, Chinese
Academy of Forestry (RITF, CAF)
Colombia
Corporacion Ecoversa
Costa Rica
Asociacion Coordinadora Indigena Campesina
Forestal de Costa Rica (ACICAFOC)
Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC)
Institut National de Recherche Agricole (INERA)
Unité de Recherche sur la Productivité des
Plantations Industrielles (UR2PI)
Denmark
Danish Forests and Landscape Research Institute
(DFLRI)
Royal Agricultural and Veterinary University,
Copenhagen
Ecuador
EcoCiencia
Fundación Servicio Forestal Amazónico
El Salvador
Programa Salvadoreño de Investigación sobre
Desarrollo y Medio Ambiente (PRISMA)
Ethiopia
Wondo Genet College of Forestry
Finland
European Forest Institute (EFI)
Finnish Forest Research Institute (METLA)
World Forest, Society and Environment - Research
Program (WFSE)
France
Centre de cooperation internationale en recherche
agronomique pour le developpement (CIRAD)
CIRAD-Forêt
Ecole Nationale du Génie Rural et des Eaux et Forêt
(ENGREF)
Institut de Recherche pour le Développement (IRD)
Institut national pour la recherche agronomique
- Centre de Nancy
Gabon
L’Institut de Recherche en Ecologie Tropicale/
Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique et
Technologique (IRET/CENAREST)
Ghana
Forestry Research Institute of Ghana (FORIG)
Ghana Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
Kwame Nkrumah University of Science, Kumasi
Ghana
Meteorological department
Ministry of Environment
Germany
Deutsche Gesellschaft für Technische
Zusammenarbeit (GTZ)
University of Freiburg, Institute of Forest Policy
Markets and Marketing Department
Guatemala
Universidad Rafael Landivar
Asociación de Comunidades Forestales de Petén
(ACOFOP)
Guinea
Direction Nationale des Eaux et Forets (DNEF)
Honduras
Escuela Nacional de Ciencias Forestales (ESNACIFOR)
India
Birsa Agricultural Institute (BAU)
India Forest Service
Jharkhand Ministry of Forests and Environment
Kerala Forest Research Institute
North Eastern Hill University (NEHU), Meghalaya
North Eastern Region Community Resource
Management Project for Upland Areas (NERCRMP),
Meghalaya, India
PATRA
Indonesia
Badan Perencanaan Pembangunan Daerah
(BAPPEDA), Kabupaten Bungo, Jambi
Bogor Agricultural University, Faculty of
Hydrometeorology
Bogor Agricultural University, Faculty of Forestry
Biosfer manusia (BIOMA) NGO, Indonesia
Center for Forestry Education and Training (CFET),
Ministry of Forestry
Center for the Study of Law and Regional Autonomy
(Pusat Studi Hukum dan Otonomi Daerah) PSHK
ODA, Jambi
Conservation Training and Resource Centre (CTRC)
FSCEDC, FORDA, Indonesia
Forestry District Agency Sumbawa, West Nusa
Tenggara
Forestry Research and Development Agency
(FORDA), Ministry of Forestry
Forestry Research Institute of Sulawesi
Forest Watch Indonesia (FWI), Bogor
Forum Kerjasama Pengelolaan Hutan Antar Kab./Kota
di Propinsi Kalimantan Timur (FKPHD)
Government of Bungo District, Jambi
Government of Jepara District , Central Java Province
Government of Kuala Tungkal District, Jambi
Government of Kutai Barat District, East Kalimantan
Government of Malinau District, East Kalimantan
Government of Kapuas Hulu District, West
Kalimantan
KOPPESDA, Indonesia
Hydrometeorology Laboratory, Department of
Geophysics and Meteorology (FMIPA-IPB)
Indonesian Financial Transaction Reports and
Analysis Center (INTRAC)
Indonesian Institute of Sciences (LIPI)
Indonesian Working Group on Forest Finance (IWGFF)
Inspirit Innovation Circles
International NGO Forum on Indonesian
Development (INFID)
LATIN-Lampung Indonesia
Lembaga Alam Tropika Indonesia (LATIN)
Collaborators
49
Medecins du Monde (MDM)
Ministry of Environment
Mulawarman University (UNMUL-PPHT), Tropical Rain
Forest Research Center
Multistakeholder Forestry Program, DFID
Musi Hutan Persada, PT
National Institute for Space and Aeronautics (LAPAN)
National Meteorological and Geophysical Agency
(BMG)
Natural Resouce Conservation Agency at Provincial
Level (BKSDA), West Kalimantan
Perhimpunan untuk Studi dan Pengembangan
Ekonomi dan Sosial (PERSEPSI)
Perum Perhutani
Pionir Bulungan, Yayasan
Pusat Informasi Lingkungan Indonesia (PILI)
South Sumatra Forest Fire Management Project
(SSFFMP)
Tropenbos Indonesia
University of Gadjah Mada (FOF-UGM), Faculty of
Forestry
University of Hasanuddin, Faculty of Forestry
University of Mulawarman (FOF-UNMUL), Faculty of
Forestry
University of Papua Province, Faculty of Forestry
Wetlands International, Indonesia
World Wide Fund for Nature - Indonesia Programme
(WWF-IP)
WWF Nusa Tenggara Program
Yalhimo, Manokwari, Papua
Yayasan Almamater, Merauke, Papua
Yayasan AYO Indonesia
Yayasan PELANGI
Yayasan Riak Bumi
Yayasan Titian, Pontianak, Indonesia
Yayasan Gita Buana, Indonesia
Japan
Forestry and Forest Products Research Institute,
Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries
(FFPRI)
Institute of Developing Economies, Japan External
Trade Organization (IDE-JETRO)
Japan Center for Area Studies, the National Museum
of Ethnology (JCAS)
Japan Overseas Plantation Center for Pulpwood
(JOPP)
Kyoto University, Graduate School of Asian and
African Area Studies (ASAFAS) and Center for
Southeast Asian Studies (CSEAS)
The Forest Tree Breeding Center (FTBC)
Waseda University, Graduate school of human
sciences
Lao PDR
National Agriculture and Forestry Extension Service
Liberia
Forestry Development Authority (FDA)
Greenstar (Liberia) Inc.
Liberia Forest Initiative (LFI)
Malawi
Forestry Research Institute of Malawi
Mali
AMADER (Agence Malienne pour le Developpement
d’Energie Rurale) Bamako
CNRST (Centre National de Recherche Scientifique et
Technologique) Bamako
Meteorological department
Mali Folk Centre Bamako
Ministry of Environment
Netherlands Development Organisation (SNV),
Bamako
World Conservation Union (UICN), Bamako
50
Collaborators
Malaysia
Forest Research Institute of Malaysia (FRIM)
Universiti Putra Malaysia, Faculty of Forestry (FOFUPM)
Mexico
El Colegio de la Frontera Sur (ECOSUR)
FSC Mexico
Mozambique
Eduardo Mondlane University
Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries – DNNFBDepartment for Wildlife and Forestry
Nepal
Forest Action
Federation of Community Forest User Groups Nepal
(FECOFUN)
Leasehold Forestry and Livestock Program,
Department of Forests
Local Initiatives for Biodiversity, Research and
Development (LI-BIRD)
New Era Limited
Netherlands
Netherlands Development Organization
TROPENBOS International
Wageningen University
Niger
Regional Centre for Agro-Hydro-Meteorology
(AGRHYMET), Niamey
Norway
Agricultural University of Norway
Norway University of Life Sciences
Panama
Central American Agricultural Frontier Program (PFA)
Papua New Guinea
University of Papua New Guinea
Peru
Asociación para la Investigación y el Desarollo Integral
(AIDER)
Instituto Nacional de Investigacion Agraria (INIA)
Peruvian Research Institute for the Amazon (IIAP)
Philippines
University of the Philippines Los Banos (UPLB)
World Agroforestry Center (ICRAF) - Philippines
Republic of South Korea
College of Agriculture & Life Sciences, Seoul National
University (CALS-SNU)
Korea Forest Research Institute (KFRI)
Russia
Economic Research Institute, Khabarovsk
Institute of Geography, Vladivostok
South Africa
Institute for Commercial Forestry
University of Port Elizabeth
Spain
Instituto Nacional de Investigacióny Tecnologia
Agraria y Alimentaria (INIA)
Universidad Autonoma Madrid
University of León
Sweden
Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences (SLU)
University Uppsala
Switzerland
Intercooperation
Swiss Agency for the Environment, Forests and
Landscape (BUWAL), Swiss Forest Agency
Swiss Federal Institute of Technology (EPFZ)
Tanzania
Sokoine University of Agriculture (SUA)
Tanzania Forestry Research Institute (TAFORI)
United Kingdom
Institute of Development Studies (IDS)
International Alliance of Indigenous and Tribal
Peoples of the Tropical Forests
London School of Economics
Overseas Development Institute (ODI)
Oxford Forestry Institute
People and Plant International (PPI)
University of Reading, International & Rural
development Dept.
Uruguay
Ministerio de Ganadería, Agricultura y Pesca de
Uruguay (MGAP)
World Rainforest Movement (WRM)
USA
Academy for Educational Development (AED)
Care International
Cornell International Institute for Food, Agriculture
and Development (CIIFAD)
Environmental Systems Research Institute (ESRI)
Forest Action Network
Global Forestry Services (Inc.) (GFS)
International Resources Group (IRG)
North Carolina State University
School of Forestry and Environmental Studies, Yale
University (Yale F&ES)
State University of New York, College of
Environmental Science and Forestry (SUNY/ESF)
United States Department of Agriculture Forest
Service (USDA-FS)
University of Indiana
Venezuela
CIDIAT, ULA Mérida
Vietnam
Department of Forestry
Forest Science Institute of Vietnam
Forestry Sector Support Programme and Partnership
Coordination Office (FSSP-CO)
International Cooperation Department (ICD)
Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development
Tropenbos International, Vietnam Programme
Vietnam Forest Sector Support Program and
Partnership
Vietnam National University
World Wide Fund for Nature Indochina Programme
Zambia
Copperbelt University, School of Forestry and Wood
Science
University of Zambia, Department of Biological
Sciences
Zambia Revenue Authority
Zambia Forestry Department
Zimbabwe
AREX
Chivi Rural District Council
Forestry Commission
Gokwe North District Council
Shanduko, Centre for Agrarian and Environmental
Research
Southern Alliance for Indigenous Resources (SAFIRE)
University of Zimbabwe, Institute of Environmental
Studies
International and Regional Organisations
African Timber Organization
African Wildlife Foundation
Amazon Initiative
Asia Pacific Association of Forestry Research
Institutes (APAFRI)
Asian Development Bank
CAB International
Central Africa Regional Program for the Environment
(CARPE)
Centro Agronómico Tropical de Investigación y
Enseñanza (CATIE)
Centro Internacional de Agricultura Tropical (CIAT)
Conservation International
CORDAID Foundation
European Forest Institute (EFI)
European Tropical Forestry Research Network (ETFRN)
Flora and Fauna International
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United
Nations
Forest Stewardship Council
Forest Trends
Forest Watch
Helvetas, The Swiss Association for International
Cooperation
INHUTANI II
Instituto Nacional de Recursos Naturales (INRENA)
Instituto Interamericano de Cooperación en la
Agricultura (IICA)
International Alliance, Thailand
International Centre for Integrated Mountain
Development (ICIMOD)
International Food and Policy Research Institute
(IFPRI)
International Foundation for Science (IFS)
International Institute for Tropical Agriculture (IITA)
International Livestock Research Institute (ILRI)
International Plant Genetic Resources Institute (IPGRI)
International Tropical Timber Organization (ITTO)
International Union for Forest Research Organisation
(IUFRO)
International Water Management Institute (IWMI)
Partnership for Governance Reform in Indonesia
(PGRI)
People Plants International
Perum Perhutani, PT
PI Environmental Consulting
Regional Community Forestry Training Center
(RECOFTC)
Rhodes University
Riau Andalan Pulp & Paper, PT
RSCI-Peruvian Secretariat
Suzano de Paper e Celulose, Brazil
Telapak, Indonesia
The Nature Conservancy International
The World Conservation Union (IUCN)
The Overbrook Foundation
Tropenbos International
Tropical Forest Foundation
United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity
Secretariat (CBD)
United Nations Convention on Combating
Desertification Secretariat
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural
Organization (UNESCO)
United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP)
United Nations Forum on Forests (UNFF)
United Nations Framework Convention on Climate
Change (UNFCCC)
United Nations Global Environment Facility Secretariat
(GEF)
World Agroforestry Center (ICRAF)
World Bank
World Conservation Union (IUCN)
World Resources Institute
Worldwide Fund for Nature – International (WWF)
WWF-Central Africa Program
Collaborators
51
Staff and Consultants
Office of the Director General
David Kaimowitz (USA), Director General
Yemi Katerere (Zimbabwe), Assistant Director
General
Ninta Karina Bangun (Indonesia), Executive
Officer
Purabi Bose (India), Social Policy Analyst/Impact
Assessment Analyst (until October 2005)
Fiona Chandler (Canada), Programme
Development Coordinator
Ketty Kustiyawati (Indonesia), Secretary
Michael Spilsbury (UK), Forest Ecologist/Impact
Assessment Analyst (until April 2005)
Ratu Wina Widyawati, (Indonesia), Programme
Development Assistant
Lucya Yamin (Indonesia), Secretary
*Consultant
Rizalina Gonzalez (Philippines), ‘EPMR’
Coordination/Development Management
Masruloh Ramadani (Indonesia), Programme
Development Assistant
Regional Offices
Latin America (based in Brazil)
Alvaro Luna Terrazas (Bolivia), Regional
Coordinator South America
Graci de Oliveira Anjos (Brazil), Secretary (until
March 2005)
Carlos André Cunha (Brazil), Office Assistant
Michael Pereira de Lira (Brazil), Office
Administrator
Tereza Cristina Ribeiro (Brazil), Secretary
Daniela Clàudia Duarte de Souza, (Brazil),
Secretary (since April 2005)
West Africa (based in Burkina Faso)
Daniel Tiveau (Sweden), Regional Coordinator
West Africa (since July 2005)
Paul Bama (Burkina Faso), Driver
Augustine Ouedraogo (Burkina Faso), Secretary
(since February 2005)
*Intern
Drissa Soulama (Burkina Faso), Environmental
Sciences
Central Africa (based in Cameroon)
Ousseynou Ndoye (Senegal), Regional
Coordinator
Martin Ahanda (Cameroon), Driver
Cecile Effila (Cameroon), Administrative and
Financial Controller
Ivo Ekane (Cameroon), Driver
Louis Lekegang (Cameroon), Driver
Florence Munget Munoh, (Cameroon), Secretary
52
Staff and Consultants
*Consultant
Georgette C. Mato (Cameroon), Secretary
Sgan B.P. Nyemeck (Cameroon), Computer
Technician
*Intern
Yelem Basile (Cameroon), Forest Agronomy
William Mala (Cameroon), Forestry and Natural
Resources Science
Beatrice Ngum (Cameroon), Botany
Abega Pascal (Cameroon), Geography
Julius Tieguhong (Cameroon), Ecotourism
Valuation/Economics
Southern & Eastern Africa (based in Zimbabwe)
Ravindra Prabhu (India), Regional Coordinator
Dzingirai Dingwiza (Zimbabwe), Driver
Consilia Gwaka (Zimbabwe), Administrative
Assistant
Eunice Kanaka (Zimbabwe), Office Assistant
Lovemore Mafuta (Zimbabwe), Driver
Stephen Mupiwi (Zimbabwe), IT Administrator
(since February 2005)
Pauline Nechironga (Zimbabwe), Secretary
Information Services Group
Michael Hailu (Ethiopia), Director
Zaenal Abidin (Indonesia), Computer Systems
Officer
Tan Bandradi (Indonesia), Computer Systems
Administrator
Greg Clough (Australia), Communications
Specialist
Irvan Rianto Isbadi (Indonesia), Programmer/
Analyst
Indra Kaliana (Indonesia), Programmer (since
June 2005)
Budhy Kristanty (Indonesia), Information Services
Assistant
Yuan Oktafian (Indonesia), Library Assistant
Widya Prajanthi (Indonesia), Communications
Assistant
Eko Prianto (Indonesia), Communications
Assistant (since April 2005)
Atie Puntodewo (Indonesia), GIS Specialist
Janneke W. Romijn (Netherlands),
Communications Officer (since September
2005)
Nia Sabarniati (Indonesia), Communications
Administrator
Mohammad Agus Salim (Indonesia), GIS Assistant
Yani Saloh (Indonesia), Public Awareness/
Publication Officer
Yahya M. Sampurna (Indonesia), Multi-media Web
Administrator
Dina A. Satrio (Indonesia), Information Services
Administrator
Joris Siermann (Netherlands), Information
Technology/GIS Analyst (until July 2005)
Melling V.P. Situmorang (Indonesia), Computer
Technician
Sri Wahyuni (Yuni) Soeripto (Indonesia),
Information Officer/Librarian
Luluk Darojati Suhada (Indonesia), Library
Assistant (until July 2005)
Gideon Suharyanto (Indonesia), Desktop
Publishing Officer
Yuliardi Yuzar (Indonesia), Computer Systems
Manager
*Consultants
Adiseno (Indonesia), Translator
Catur Wahyu Andito (Indonesia), Desktop
Publishing Assistant
Dien Fiani Ratna Dewi (Indonesia), Programmer
Megan James (USA), Editor
Guy Robert Manners (UK), Editor
Daniel Nash (Bolivia), Translator
Edwin Yulianto Nugroho (Indonesia),
Programmer
Rizka Taranita Razuani (Indonesia), Database
Assistant
Charlie Pye-Smith (UK), Writer
Sally Wellesley (UK), Editor
*Interns
Nathan Victor Schenkman (USA), Translator/
Editor
Environmental Services and
Sustainable Use of Forests
Programme
Markku Kanninen (Finland), Forester, Director
Popi Astriani (Indonesia), Secretary (since April
2005)
Imam Basuki (Indonesia), Forester
Manuel Boissiére (France), Ethnobotanist
(Seconded Scientist)
Unna Chokkalingam (India), Forest Ecologist
Christian Cossalter (France), Forester
Rosita Go (Indonesia), Secretary
Philippe Guizol (France), Socio-economist and
Silviculturist (Seconded Scientist)
Tini Gumartini (Indonesia), Forester
Philippe Hecketsweiler (France), Forest Ecologist
(based in Gabon)
Hety Herawati (Indonesia), Forester
Enrique Ibarra (Costa Rica), Economist
Monica Ebele Idinoba, (Nigeria), AgroClimatologist (since December 2005)
Ulrik Ilstedt (Sweden), Forester/Soils Scientist
Haris Iskandar (Indonesia), Forester
Piia Koponen (Finland), Ecologist (since
February 2005)
Nining Liswanti (Indonesia), Silviculturist
Julia Maturana (Nicaragua), Natural Resources
Economist (until June 2005)
Daniel Murdiyarso (Indonesia), Forest
Meteorologist
Robert Nasi (France), Forest Ecologist (based in
France)
Johnson Ndi Nkem (Nigeria), Ecologist (since
December 2005) (based in Burkina Faso)
Michael Padmanaba (Indonesia), Forester
César Sabogal (Peru), Silviculturist (based in
Brazil)
Levania Santoso (Indonesia), Forester
Marieke Sassen (Netherlands), Natural Resources
Ecologist (based in France) (until July 2005)
Douglas Sheil (Ireland), Ecologist
Indah Susilanasari (Indonesia), Secretary
Takeshi Toma (Japan), Forest Ecologist (until
March 2005)
Elke Verbeeten (Netherlands), Physical
Geographer (based in Burkina Faso)
Meilinda Wan (Indonesia), Agronomist
*Senior Associates
Wilhelmus de Jong (Netherlands), Social Forester
Laura Snook (USA), Forester
*Consultants
Nguyen Hoai An (Vietnam), Translator
Marco Boscolo (Bolivia), Forest Policy Analyst/
Forest Economist
Antonio Carandang (Philippines), Forester
Jorge E. Catpo (Peru), Forest Engineer
Violeta Colan-Colan (Peru), Forester
Kristen Evans (USA), Writer/Photographer
Claudio Forner (Spain), Climate Policy Specialist
Isnan Franseda (Indonesia), Information
Technology
Herlina Hartanto (Indonesia), Ecologist
Sofyan Kurnianto (Indonesia), Hydrologist
Daniel Marmillod (Swiss), Forest Engineer
Dwi R. Muhtaman (Indonesia), Forester
Paian Sianturi (Indonesia), Forester
Miriam van Heist (Netherlands), GIS Analyst
*Interns
Motoshi Hiratsuka (Japan), Human Science
Chiharu Hiyama (Japan), Development
Management & Development
Romain Pirard (France), Environment & Natural
Resources Economics
Forests and Livelihoods Programme
Bruce Campbell (Zimbabwe), Ecologist, Director
Ramadhani Achdiawan (Indonesia), Statistician
Abdon Awono (Cameroon), Agronomist (based in
Cameroon)
Brian Belcher (Canada), Natural Resources
Economist
Z. Henri-Noël Z. Bouda (Burkina Faso), Forester
(based in Burkina Faso)
Sonya Dewi (Indonesia), Theoretical Ecologist and
Modeler (until May 2005)
Edmond Dounias (France), Ethno-ecologist
(Seconded Scientist)
Christiane Ehringhaus (German), Environmental
Scientist (based in Brazil)
Petrus Gunarso (Indonesia), Policy Analyst
Staff and Consultants
53
Syarfiana Herawati (Indonesia), Executive
Assistant
Habtemariam Kassa (Ethiopia), Social Scientist
(based in Ethiopia)
Chetan Kumar (India), Forester (based in India)
Dany Kurniawan (Indonesia), Programmer (until
December 2005)
Iwan Kurniawan (Indonesia), Remote Sensing/GIS
Analyst
Koen Kusters (Netherlands), Geographer (until
November 2005)
Feby Littamahuputy (Indonesia), Secretary
Crispen Marunda (Zimbabwe), Forester/
Landscape Ecologist (based in Zimbabwe)
Gabriel Medina (Brazil), Forester (based in Brazil)
Manyewu Mutamba (Zimbabwe), Economist
(based in Zambia)
Ani Adiwinata Nawir (Indonesia), Socioeconomist
Danielle Lema Ngono (Cameroon), Sociologist
(based in Cameroon)
Hari Priyadi (Indonesia), Forester (since February
2005)
Marieke A.A.H Sandker (Netherlands), Ecologist
(since September 2005) (based in Cameroon)
Kresno Dwi Santosa (Indonesia), Natural
Resources & Environmental Management
Specialist (since February 2005)
Patricia Shanley (USA), Ecologist
Soaduon Sitorus (Indonesia), Forester
Titin Suhartini (Indonesia), Secretary
William Sunderlin (USA), Rural Sociologist
Jusupta Tarigan (Indonesia), Forester (until
January 2005)
Makmur Widodo (Indonesia), Forester (since
December 2005)
Sven Wunder (Denmark), Economist (based in
Brazil)
Mathurin Zida (Burkina Faso), Environmentalist
(since June 2005) (based in Burkina Faso)
*Senior Associates
Arild Angelsen (Norwegia), Natural Resources
Economist
Tonny Cunningham (Australia), Ethno-ecologist
Marty K. Luckert (UK), Forest and Natural
Resources Economist
Manuel Ruiz Perez (Spain), Ecologist
Sheona Shackleton (UK), Ecologist
*Consultants
Zakaria Ahmad (Indonesia), Forester
Emmanuel Chidumayo (Zambia), Biologist
Riskan Effendi (Indonesia), Forester
Dai Guangcui (China), Forest Resource Economist
Sokh Heng (Cambodia), Forester
Pamela Anne Jagger (USA), Public Policy &
Political Science
Wilhelmus A. De Jong (Netherlands), Social
Forester
Elise Noubissie Kouemeni (Cameroon), Forester
Witness Kozanayi (Zimbabwe), Agricultural
Management
54
Staff and Consultants
Sarah Laird (USA), Ethnobiologist
Patrice Levang (France), Agro-Economist
Citlali Lopez (Mexico), Social Scientist
Trilby Macdonald (USA), Anthropologist
Philip Sabar Tua Manalu (Indonesia), Forester
Frank Matose (Zimbabwe), Sociologist
Fadjar Pambudhi (Indonesia), Surveyor
Deep Narayan Pandey (India), Forester
Bishnu Hari Pandit (India), Forester
Luke Thomas Wyn Parry (Brazil), Ecologist
Ririn Salwa Purnamasari (Indonesia), Economist
Erin Sills (Australia), Economist
Mary Stockdale (USA), Forest Ecologist
Anton Suhartono (Indonesia), GIS Specialist
Arrita Suwarno (Indonesia), GIS Analyst
Julius Chupezi Tieguhong (Cameroon), Forester
Soni Trison (Indonesia), Forester
Dawn Ward (USA), Ecologist/NTFPs
Karah Wertz (USA), Proposal Development &
Project Management
Whiwhin Widyati (Indonesia), Forester
*Interns
Andrea Martin Funk (Switzerland), Environmental
Science
*Visiting Scientist
Misa Kishi (Japan), Public Health/Medical Doctor
Forests and Governance Programme
Doris Capistrano (Philippines), Resource
Economist, Director
Panca Ambarwati (Indonesia), Secretary
Agus Andrianto (Indonesia), Forester (since March
2005)
Christopher Barr (USA), Policy Scientist
Paolo Omar Cerutti (Italy), Forester & GIS
Specialist (based in Cameroon)
Carol J.P. Colfer (USA), Anthropologist
Peter Cronkleton (USA), Anthropologist (based in
Bolivia)
Ahmad Dermawan (Indonesia), Agriculturist
Chimere Diaw (Senegal), Anthropologist (based
in Cameroon)
Herlina Hartanto (Indonesia), Ecologist (until May
2005)
Dina Juliarti Hubudin (Indonesia), Secretary
Yoo Byoung Il (Korea), Forester
Yayan Indriatmoko (Indonesia), Anthropologist
Rahayu Koesnadi (Indonesia), Secretary
Heru Komarudin (Indonesia), Forester
Ruben De Koning (Netherlands), Developmental
Scientist (based in Cameroon)
Moira Moeliono (Indonesia), Social Scientist
Muriadi (Indonesia), Administration Assistant
Samuel Assembe Mvondo (Cameroon), Jurist
(based in Cameroon)
Joachim Nguiebouri (Cameroon), Forester (based
in Cameroon)
Krystoff Obidzinski (USA), Anthropologist
Pablo Pacheco (Bolivia), Geographer (since
February 2005)
Ferdinandus Agung Prasetyo (Indonesia),
Forester
Ida Ayu Pradnja Resosudarmo (Indonesia),
Policy Analyst (on study leave)
Bambang Setiono (Indonesia), Financial Analyst
Yulia Siagian (Indonesia), Forester
Charlotte Soeria (Indonesia), Secretary
Hasantoha Adnan Syahputra (Indonesia),
Anthropologist
Luca Tacconi (Italy), Economist (until April 2005)
Yunety Tarigan (Indonesia), Secretary (since
April 2005)
Nugroho Adi Utomo (Indonesia), Forester
Eva Wollenberg (USA), Natural Resources
Management/Anthropologist (until August
2005)
Yurdi Yasmi (Indonesia), Forester (on study
leave)
Elizabeth Linda Yuliani (Indonesia), Ecologist
*Associates
Deborah Barry (USA), Economic & Cultural
Geographer (since October 2005)
Sian McGrath (UK), Policy Analyst
Cynthia McDougall (Canada), Social Scientist
Nontokozo Nabane Nemarundwe (Zimbabwe),
Anthropologist
*Consultants
Muhamad Adnan (Indonesia), Statistician
Bayu Agung (Indonesia), Statistician
Marco Antonio Albornoz (Bolivia), Forester
Eddy Mangopo Angi (Indonesia), Ecologist
Jeremy Stephen Broadhead (UK), Agroforester
Timothy Brown (USA), Agricultural & Resource
Economics
Ade Cahyat (Indonesia), Facilitator
Timothee Fomete (Cameroon), Forester
Paul Gellert (USA), Sociologist
Christian Gonner (Germany), Forester
Ramses Iwan (Indonesia), Field Researcher
Aseh Tony Joseph (Cameroon), Translator/Editor
Emile Jurgens (Denmark), Financial Analyst
Judith Mangani Kamoto (Malawi), Agriculturist
Gaku Kato (Japan), Economist
Trikurnianti Kusumanto (Netherlands), Tropical
Crop Scientist
Godwin Limberg (Netherlands), Agriculturist
Anne Margaret Larson (USA), Resource
Sociologist
Lusayo Mwabumba (Malawi), Forester
Tendayi Mutimukuru (Zimbabwe), Agricultural
Economist
Neldysavrino (Indonesia), Field Facilitator
Ngateno (Indonesia), Office Assistant
Patricia Miranda (Bolivia), Sociologist
Brihannala Morgan (USA), Government and
Law in Society
Agus Mulyana (Indonesia), Natural Resources
Management
Rene Phil Oyono (Cameroon), Rural Sociology
Ian Penna (Australia), Anthropologist
Guntur Cahyo Prabowo (Indonesia), Research
Assistant
Herry Purnomo (Indonesia), Modeler/Computer
Analyst
Rita Rahmawati (Indonesia), Data Analyst
Rennaldi (Indonesia), Agricultural Economist
Fabiola Roca (Bolivia), Administrative Assistant
Erna Rositah (Indonesia), Researcher
Rolando Haches Sanchez (Bolivia), Research
Assistant
Bintang Simangunsong (Indonesia), Forest
Economist
Brian Leslie Stafford (Australia), Forest Finance
Analyst
Eddy Harfia Surma (Indonesia), Jambi Field
Coordinator
Peter Taylor (USA), Sociologist
Ilyas Teba (Indonesia), Forester
Anne Marie Tiani (Cameroon), Socio-Ecologist
Brian Walker (Australian), Ecologist
Catur B. Wiati (Indonesia), Forester
Dede Wiliam (Indonesia), Social Forester
Chandra Irawadi Wijaya (Indonesia), Forester
Yentirizal (Indonesia), Filed Facilitator
*Interns
Gusti Z. Anshari (Indonesia), Geography and
Environmental Science
Agusnawati (Indonesia), Gender and
Development
Hendra Gunawan (Indonesia), Natural Resources
and Environmental Science
Kubo Hideyuki (Japan), Environmental Science
Mayang Meilantina (Indonesia), Agriculture
Socio-Economics
Novasyurahati (Indonesia), Biology
Charles Palmer (UK), Development Research
Steve Rhee (USA), Socio-cultural and political
aspects of natural resource management
Hery Romadan (Indonesia), Forestry
Management
Aula Sakinah Muntasyarah (Indonesia),
Conservation, Forest Resources
Samsu (Indonesia), Forestry Management
Tantra Panca Skober (Indonesia), Anthropology
Sudirman (Indonesia), Law
*Visiting Scientist
Ganga Ram Dahal (Nepal), Social Scientist (since
September 2005)
Corporate Services
Norman Macdonald (Canada), Deputy Director
General, Corporate Services
Jennifer Crocker (Canada), Manager, Human
Resources
Susan Kabiling (Philippines), Financial Controller
Hudayanti Abidin (Indonesia), Human Resources
Assistant
Agung Saeful Alamsyah (Indonesia), Guest House
Assistant
Staff and Consultants
55
Rubeta Andriani (Indonesia), Human Resources
Officer
Henty Astuty (Indonesia), Systems Support
Assistant
Mohammad Nuzul Bahri (Indonesia), Office
Assistant
Purnomo Djatmiko (Indonesia), Facility Services
Officer (until February 2005)
Umar Djohan (Indonesia), Driver
Anastasia Elisa (Indonesia), Management
Accountant
Nina Handayani (Indonesia), Receptionist
Kusuma Hendriani (Indonesia), Accountant
Suhendar Husain (Indonesia), Guest House
Assistant
Heny Pratiwi Joebihakto (Indonesia), Human
Resources Officer
Elfi Joelijarty (Indonesia), Banking Assistant
Nurjanah Kambarrudin (Indonesia), Accountant
Sylvia Kartika (Indonesia), Accountant
Henny Linawati (Indonesia), Programme
Accountant
Ismed Mahmud (Indonesia), Procurement Officer
Johannes P. Manangkil (Indonesia), Receptionist
Hani Mardhiyah (Indonesia), Administrative
Support Assistant
Edward Martin (Indonesia), Financial Accountant
Didi Marudin (Indonesia), Dispatcher
Esa Kurnia Muharmis (Indonesia), Procurement
Assistant
Kusnadi Muhi (Indonesia), Guest House Assistant
Siti Nadiroh (Indonesia), Office Assistant
Ocim (Indonesia), Driver
Karina Veronika Palar (Indonesia), Cashier
Juniarta L. Panjaitan (Indonesia), Human
Resources Assistant
Pendi (Indonesia), Office Assistant
Sisi Ratnasari (Indonesia), Human Resources
Assistant
56
Staff and Consultants
Rina (Indonesia), Programme Accountant
Supandi Rodjali (Indonesia), Office Assistant
Ukat Sanusi (Indonesia), Office Assistant
Henny K. Saragih (Indonesia), Executive Assistant
Murniati Sono (Indonesia), Operations Officer
Kustiani Suharsono (Indonesia), Operations
Assistant
Hari Sukmara (Indonesia), Programme
Accountant
Suratman (Indonesia), Driver
Iie Suwarna (Indonesia), Driver
Tony Syafei (Indonesia), Driver
Lely Pingkan C. Taulu (Indonesia), Human
Resources Officer
Ani Tentrem (Indonesia), Cook
Tina Turtinawati (Indonesia), Cook
Lia Octari Wan (Indonesia), Facility Services
Officer (since June 2005)
*Consultants
Orit Ahmed Adus (Ethiopia), Systems Analyst
Jeremy Akester (UK), Property Engineer
Lazaro Diaz (USA), Human Resources Consultant
Peter Fowler (UK), System Analyst
Imas Kurniati (Indonesia), Accountant
Fitriani Mulyana (Indonesia), Human Resources
Data Management Assistant
*Interns
Panji Pamungkas Arsyad (Indonesia), Hospitality
Study
Valeria Castelon (Nicaragua), Business
Administration
Ferry Kusumawardani (Indonesia), Hospitality
Study
Suci Eka Ningsih (Indonesia), Accounting
* The associates, consultants and interns listed above are those
who had contracts for a minimum duration of 6 months.
Publications
General
Books, Monographs
Angelsen, A., Aryal, B. 2005. Contributing to the
scientific literature: citation analysis of CIFOR
publications. Impact Assessment Papers, no.
6. Bogor, Indonesia, CIFOR. 37p. ISBN: 979-244602-8.
CIFOR. 2005. Achievements of the Center for
International Forestry Research (CIFOR) 1998–
2005. Bogor, Indonesia, CIFOR. 53p.
CIFOR. 2005. CIFOR annual report 2004: forest for
people and the environment. Bogor, Indonesia,
CIFOR. 68p. ISBN: 979-3361-84-0.
CIFOR. 2005. CIFOR publications 1993-2004. Bogor,
Indonesia, CIFOR. 2 CD-ROM (CD-ROM no. 4).
CIFOR. 2005. Contribuer au developpement de
l’Afrique a travers les forets: strategie pour
l’engagement en Afrique Sub-Saharienne.
Bogor, Indonesia, CIFOR. 34p.
CIFOR. 2005. Contributing to African development
through forests: strategy for engagement in
sub-Saharan Africa. Bogor, Indonesia, CIFOR.
34p.
CIFOR and FAO. 2005. Forests and floods: drowning
in fiction or thriving on facts? Bogor, Indonesia,
CIFOR and FAO Regional Office for Asia and
the Pacific. 38p. ISBN: 979-3361-64-6. Forest
Perspectives, no. 2.
CIFOR. 2005. Forests and floods: drowning in
fiction or thriving on facts? [Chinese]. Bogor,
Indonesia, CIFOR and FAO Regional Office for
Asia and the Pacific. 30p. ISBN: 979-3361-76-X.
Forest Perspectives, no. 2.
CIFOR. 2005. Forests and floods: drowning in
fiction or thriving on facts? [Vietnamese].
Bogor, Indonesia, CIFOR and FAO Regional Office
for Asia and the Pacific. 30p. ISBN: 979-3361-77-8.
Forest Perspectives, no. 2.
CIFOR. 2005. Hutan dan banjir: tenggelam dalam
suatu fiksi, atau berkembang dalam fakta?.
Bogor, Indonesia, CIFOR and FAO Regional Office
for Asia and the Pacific. 30p. ISBN: 979-3361-75-1.
Forest Perspectives, no. 2.
CIFOR. 2005. Informe Anual de CIFOR 2004:
Bosques para la gente y el medio ambiente.
Bogor, Indonesia, CIFOR. 68p. ISBN: 979-336184-0.
CIFOR. 2005. Rapport annuel 2004 de
CIFOR: Forêts pour les populations et
l’environnement. Bogor, Indonesia, CIFOR. 68p.
ISBN: 979-3361-84-0.
Chapters
Katerere, Y., Mohamed-Katerere, J.C. 2005. From
poverty to prosperity: harnessing the wealth
of Africa’s forests In: G. Mery, R. Alvaro, M.
Kanninen, M. Lobovikov, (eds.). Forests in the
global balance - changing paradigms. Vienna,
Austria, IUFRO. 185-208. (IUFRO World Series,
vol.17).
Kleine, M., Appanah, S., Galloway, G., Simula, M.,
Spilsbury, M.J., Temu, A.B. 2005. Capacity
development
for
sustainable
forest
management. In: G. Mery, R. Alvaro, M. Kanninen,
M. Lobovikov, (eds.). Forests in the global balance
- changing paradigms. Vienna, Austria, IUFRO.
161-172. (IUFRO World Series, vol.17).
Research Papers
Bose, P. 2005. Bringing forests-and-people science
to young researchers: an impact assessment
study of capacity building. Impact Assessment
Papers, no. 1. Bogor, Indonesia, CIFOR. 72p.
Bose, P. 2005. CIFOR’s role in research collaboration:
learning from partners’ perspective. Impact
Assessment Papers, no. 5. Bogor, Indonesia,
CIFOR. 65p.
Spilsbury, M.J., Haase, N. 2005. An evaluation of
POLEX (CIFOR’s Forest Policy Experts Listserv):
targeting key forest agenda-setters. Impact
Assessment Papers, no. 3. Bogor, Indonesia,
CIFOR. 82p.
Spilsbury, M.J., Bose, P. 2005. Influencing the global
forest policy agenda: an evaluation of CIFOR’s
research. Impact Assessment Papers, no. 2.
Bogor, Indonesia, CIFOR. 53p.
Spilsbury, M.J. 2005. The sustainability of forest
management: assessing the impact of CIFOR
criteria and indicators research. Impact
Assessment Papers, no. 4. Bogor, Indonesia,
CIFOR. 126p.
Environmental Services
Articles
Chokkalingam, U., Kurniawan, I., Ruchiat, Y. 2005.
Fire, livelihoods, and environmental change
in the middle Mahakam peatlands, East
Kalimantan. Ecology and Society 10(1): 26
[Open Access Journal online] URL: http://www.
ecologyandsociety.org/vol10/iss1/art26/.
Dennis, R.A., Mayer, J., Applegate, G., Chokkalingam,
U., Colfer, C.J.P., Kurniawan, I., Lachowski, H.,
Maus, P., Permana, R.P., Ruchiat, Y., Stolle, F.,
Suyanto, Tomich, T.P. 2005. Fire, people and
pixels: linking social science and remote
sensing to understand underlying causes and
impacts of fires in Indonesia. Human Ecology
33(4): 465-504.
Dudley, N., Baldock, D., Nasi, R., Stolton, S. 2005.
Measuring biodiversity and sustainable
management in forests and agricultural
landscapes. Philosophical Transactions of the
Royal Society of London, Series B, Biological
Sciences 360(1454): 457-470.
Publications
57
Gourlet-Fleury, S., Blanc, L., Picard, N., Sist, P., Dick,
J., Nasi, R., Swaine, M., Forni, E. 2005. Grouping
species for predicting mixed tropical forest
dynamics: looking for a strategy. Annals of
Forest Science 62: 785-796.
Hiratsuka, M., Toma, T., Mindawati, N., Heriansyah,
I., Morikawa, Y. 2005. Biomass of a man-made
forest of timber tree species in the humid
tropics of West Java, Indonesia. Journal of Forest
Research 10(6): 487–491.
Hope, G., Chokkalingam, U., Anwar, S. 2005. The
stratigraphy and fire history of the Kutai
peatlands, Kalimantan, Indonesia. Quaternary
Research 64: 407– 417.
Ilstedt, U., Singh, S. 2005. Nitrogen and phosphorus
limitations of microbial respiration in a
tropical phosphorus-fixing acrisol (ultisol)
compared with organic compost. Soil Biology
and Biochemistry 37: 1407-1410.
Ishida, A., Toma, T., Marjenah. 2005. A comparison
of in situ leaf photosynthesis and chlorophyll
fluorescence at the top canopies in rainforest
mature trees. Japan Agricultural Research
Quarterly 39(1): 57-67.
Ishizuka, S., Iswandi, A., Nakajima, Y., Yonemura, S.,
Sudo, S., Tsuruta, H., Murdiyarso, D. 2005. Spatial
patterns of greenhouse gas emission in a
tropical rainforest in Indonesia. Nutrient Cycling
in Agroecosystem 71: 55-62.
Ishizuka, S., Iswandi, A., Nakajima, Y., Yonemura,
S., Sudo, S., Tsuruta, H., Murdiyarso, D. 2005.
The variation of greenhouse gas emissions
from soils of various land-use types in Jambi
Province, Indonesia. Nutrient Cycling in
Agroecosystem 71: 17-32.
Karsenty, A., Lescuyer, G., Nasi, R. 2005. Est-il possible
de determiner des criteres et indicateurs de
gestion durable des forets tropicales?. Revue
Forestière Française 56(5): 457-472.
Kennard, D.K., Putz, F.E. 2005. Differential responses
of Bolivian timber species to prescribed fire
and other gap treatments. New Forests 30(1):
1-20.
Montagnini, F., Cusack, D., Petit, B., Kanninen, M.
2005. Environmental services of native tree
plantations and agroforestry systems in
Central America. Journal of Sustainable Forestry
21(1): 51-67.
Nakajima, Y., Ishizuka, S., Tsuruta, H., Iswandi, A.,
Murdiyarso, D. 2005. Microbial processes
responsible for nitrous oxide production
from acid soils in different land-use patterns
in Pasirmayang, Central Sumatra, Indonesia.
Nutrient Cycling in Agroecosystem 71: 33-42.
Perez, D., Kanninen, M. 2005. Effect of thinning on
stem form and wood characteristics of teak
(Tectona grandis) in humid tropical site in Costa
Rica. Silva Fennica 39(2): 217-225.
Perez, D., Kanninen, M. 2005. Stand growth scenarios
for Tectona grandis plantations in Costa Rica.
Forest Ecology and Management 210(1-3):425441.
58
Publications
Picard, N., Gueguen, K., Abdoulaye, H.A., Diarisso,
D., Karembe, M., Birnbaum, P., Nasi, R. 2005. Tree
formations in relation with soil and grasses in a
dry savanna in Mali, West Africa. African Journal
of Ecology 43(3): 201-214.
Ruiz Perez, M., De Blas, D.E., Nasi, R., Sayer, J.A., Sassen,
M., Angoue, C., Gami, N., Ndoye, O., Ngono, G.,
Nguinguiri, J.-C., Nzala, D., Toirambe, B., Yalibanda,
Y. 2005. Who is logging the Congo? Forest
Ecology and Management 214: 221–236.
Segura, O., Kanninen, M. 2005. Allometric models
for estimating volume and total aboveground
biomass of seven dominant tree species in a
tropical humid forest in Costa Rica. Biotropica
37(1): 2-8.
Sist, P., Garcia-Fernandez, C., Sabogal, C. 2005. IUFRO
international seminar-workshop towards
better management practices in tropical
humid forests: developing principles and
recommendations for the Amazon Basin. Bois
et Forets des Tropiques 285(3): 71-75.
Snook, L.K., Camara-Cabrales, L., Kelty, M.J. 2005.
Six years of fruit production by mahogany
trees (Swietenia macrophylla King): patterns of
variation and implications for sustainability.
Forest Ecology and Management 206(1-3): 221235.
Snook, L.K. 2005. Sustaining mahogany: research
and silviculture in Mexico’s community forests.
Bois et Forets des Tropiques 285(3): 55-65.
Toma, T., Ishida, A., Matius, P. 2005. Long-term
monitoring of post-fire aboveground biomass
recovery in a lowland dipterocarp forest in
East Kalimantan, Indonesia. Nutrient Cycling in
Agroecosystem 71(1): 63-72.
Ueda, S., Go, Chun-Sim U., Ishizuka, S., Tsuruta,
H., Iswandi, A., Murdiyarso, D. 2005. Isotopic
assessment of CO2 production through soil
organic matter decomposition in the tropics.
Nutrient Cycling in Agroecosystem 71: 109-116.
van Nieuwstadt, M.G.L., Sheil, D. 2005. Drought,
fire and tree survival in a Borneo rain forest,
East Kalimantan, Indonesia. Journal of Ecology
93(1):191-201.
Walter, B.B., Sabogal, C., Snook, L.K., de Almeida, E.
2005. Constraints and opportunities for better
silvicultural practice in tropical forestry: an
interdisciplinary approach. Forest Ecology and
Management 209(1-2): 3-18.
Books, Monographs
Azevedo-Ramos, C., de Carvalho, O, Jr., Nasi, R. 2005.
Animais como indicadores: uma ferramenta
para acessar a integridade biologica apos a
exploraçao madeireira em florestas tropicais?.
Belem, Brazil, Instituto de Pesquisa Ambiental da
Amazonia(IPAM). 62p.
Azevedo-Ramos, C., de Carvalho, O, Jr., Nasi, R. 2005.
Animal indicators: a tool to assess biotic
integrity after logging tropical forests?.
Belem, Brazil, Instituto de Pesquisa Ambiental da
Amazonia(IPAM). 68p.
Basuki, I., Sheil, D. 2005. Local perspectives of forest
landscapes: a preliminary evaluation of land
and soils, and their importance in Malinau,
East Kalimantan, Indonesia. Bogor, Indonesia,
CIFOR. 114p. ISBN: 979-3361-72-7.
Cossalter, C., Pye-Smith, C. 2005. Fast-wood
forestry: myths and realities [Japanese].
Bogor, Indonesia, CIFOR. 50p. ISBN: 979-3361-093. Forest Perspectives, no. 1.
Elias, Applegate, G., Kartawinata, K., Machfudh,
Klassen, A. 2005. Reduced impact logging
guidelines for Indonesia (Vietnamese). Bogor,
Indonesia, CIFOR. 123p.
Iskandar, H., Santoso, K.D. 2005. Panduan singkat
cara pembuatan arang kayu: alternatif
pemanfaatan limbah kayu oleh masyarakat.
Bogor, Indonesia, CIFOR. 43p. ISBN: 979-336185-9.
Meijaard, E., Sheil, D., Nasi, R., Augeri, D., Rosenbaum,
B., Iskandar, D., Setyawati, T., Lammertink, A.,
Rachmatika, I., Wong, A., Soehartono, T., Stanley,
S., O’Brien, T. 2005. Life after logging: reconciling
wildlife conservation and production forestry
in Indonesian Borneo. Bogor, Indonesia, CIFOR.
345p. ISBN: 979-3361-56-5.
Mery, G., Alvaro, R., Kanninen, M., Lobovikov, M.,
Vanhanen, H., Pye-Smith, C., eds. 2005. Bosques
para el nuevo milenio: bosques que beneficien
a la gente y sustenten la naturaleza. Helsinki,
Finland, Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Finland
and International Union of Forest Research
Organizations (IUFRO). 36p. ISBN: 951-724-488-6.
Mery, G., Alvaro, R., Kanninen, M., Lobovikov, M.,
Vanhanen, H., Pye-Smith, C., eds. 2005. Des forets
pour le nouveau millenaire: des forets a gerer
dans l’interet des gens et de la nature. Helsinki,
Finland, Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Finland
and International Union of Forest Research
Organizations (IUFRO). 36p. ISBN: 951-724-489-4.
Mery, G., Alvaro, R., Kanninen, M., Lobovikov, M.,
Vanhanen, H., Pye-Smith, C., eds. 2005. Forests
for the new millennium: making forests work
for people and nature. Helsinki, Finland, Ministry
of Foreign Affairs of Finland and International
Union of Forest Research Organizations (IUFRO).
36p. ISBN: 951-724-487-8.
Mery, G., Alfaro, R., Kanninen, M., Lobovikov, M., eds.
2005. Forests in the global balance - changing
paradigms. IUFRO World Series, vol.17. Vienna,
Austria, IUFRO. 318p. ISBN: 3-901347-55-0.
Montero M., M., Kanninen, M. 2005. Terminalia
amazonia: ecologia y silvicultura. Turrialba,
Costa Rica, CATIE. 32p. ISBN: 9977-57-404-9. (Serie
Tecnica. Informe Tecnico/CATIE, no. 339).
Murdiyarso, D., Herawati, H., eds. 2005. Carbon
forestry: who will benefit? Proceedings
of Workshop on Carbon Sequestration and
Sustainable Livelihoods, held in Bogor on 16-17
February 2005. Bogor, Indonesia, CIFOR. 215p.
ISBN: 979-3361-73-5.
Murdiyarso, D., Herawati, H., Iskandar, H. 2005. Carbon
sequestration and sustainable livelihoods: a
workshop synthesis. Bogor, Indonesia, CIFOR.
22p. ISBN: 979-3361-79-4.
Nampindo, S. 2005. The role of elephants
(Loxodonta Africana Blumenbach) in forest
savanna vegetation in Rabongo forest,
Uganda. Kampala, Uganda, Makerere University,
Faculty of Forestry and Nature Conservation.
93p.
Rachmatika, I., Nasi, R., Sheil, D., Wan, M. 2005. A
first look at the fish species of the middle
Malinau: taxonomy, ecology, vulnerability
and importance. Bogor, Indonesia, CIFOR. 34p.
ISBN: 979-3361-67-0.
Robledo, C., Kanninen, M., Pedroni, L., eds. 2005.
Tropical forests and adaptation to climate
change: in search of synergies. Bogor,
Indonesia, CIFOR. 186p. ISBN: 979-24-4604-4.
Chapters
Can Liu, Lobovikov, M., Murdiyarso, D., Oka, H., Yeo
Chang Youn. 2005. Paradigm shifts in Asian
forestry. In: Gerardo Mery, Rene Alvaro, Markku
Kanninen, Maxim Lobovikov (eds.). Forests in the
global balance - changing paradigms. Vienna,
Austria, IUFRO. 209-208. (IUFRO World Series,
vol.17).
Chokkalingam, U., Sabogal C., Almeida, E.,
Carandang, A.P., Gumartini, T., de Jong, W.,
Brienza, Jr., S., Meza Lopez, A., Murniati, Nawir,
A.A., Wibowo, L.R., Toma, T., Wollenberg, E., Zhou
Zaichi. 2005. Local participation, livelihood
needs, and institutional arrangements: three
keys to sustainable rehabilitation of degraded
tropical forest lands. In: Stephanie Mansourian,
Daniel Vallauri, Nigel Dudley (eds.). Forest
restoration in landscapes: beyond planting trees.
New York, USA, Springer. 405-414.
de Jong, W. 2005. Understanding forest landscape
dynamics. In: International Tropical Timber
Organization (ITTO). Restoring forest landscapes:
an introduction to the art and science of forest
landscape restoration. Tokyo, Japan, ITTO. 53-60.
ISBN: 4-902045-23-0. (ITTO Technical Series, no.
23).
Guizol, P., Purnomo, H. 2005. Modeling multistakeholder forest management: the case of
forest plantations in Sabah. In: Bousquet, F.,
Trebuil, G., Hardy, B. (eds.). Companion modeling
and multi-agent systems for integrated natural
resource management in Asia. Los Banos,
Philippines, International Rice Research Institute
(IRRI). 275-291. ISBN: 971-22-0208-9.
Kanninen, M., Pedroni, L., Robledo, C. 2005.
Presentation to the book. In: Robledo, C.,
Kanninen, M., Pedroni, L.(eds.). Tropical forests
and adaptation to climate change: in search of
synergies. Bogor, Indonesia, CIFOR. 1-4. ISBN:
979-24-4604-4.
Mery, G., Alfaro, R.I., Kanninen, M., Lobovikov,
M. 2005. Changing paradigms in forestry:
repercussions for people and nature. In: G.
Mery, R. Alfaro, M. Kanninen, M. Lobovikov,
(eds.). Forests in the global balance - changing
paradigms. Vienna, Austria, IUFRO. 13-20. (IUFRO
World Series, vol.17).
Publications
59
Murdiyarso, D. 2005. Sustaining local livelihoods
through carbon sequestration activities: a
search for practical and strategic approach.
In: Murdiyarso, D. and Herawati, H. (eds.). Carbon
forestry: Proceedings of Workshop on Carbon
Sequestration and Sustainable Livelihoods, held in
Bogor on 16-17 February 2005. Bogor, Indonesia,
CIFOR. 4-16. ISBN: 979-3361-73-5.
Murdiyarso, D., Robledo, C., Brown, S., Coto, O.,
Drexhage, J., Forner, C., Kanninen, M., Lipper, L.,
North, N., Rondon, M. 2005. Linkages between
mitigation and adaptation in land-use
change and forestry activities. In: Robledo, C.,
Kanninen, M., Pedroni, L.(eds.). Tropical forests
and adaptation to climate change: in search of
synergies. Bogor, Indonesia, CIFOR. 122-153. ISBN:
979-24-4604-4.
Pirard, R. 2005. Pulpwood plantations as carbon
sinks in Indonesia: methodological challenge
and impact on livelihoods. In: Murdiyarso, D.
and Herawati, H. (eds.). Carbon forestry: who will
benefit? Proceedings of Workshop on Carbon
Sequestration and Sustainable Livelihoods, held in
Bogor on 16-17 February 2005. Bogor, Indonesia,
CIFOR. 74-91. ISBN: 979-3361-73-5.
Robledo, C., Kanninen, M., Pedroni, L. 2005.
Conclusions. In: Robledo, C., Kanninen, M.,
Pedroni, L. (eds.). Tropical forests and adaptation
to climate change: in search of synergies. Bogor,
Indonesia, CIFOR. 184-186. ISBN: 979-24-4604-4.
Sabogal, C. 2005. Site-level rehabilitation strategies
for degraded forest lands. In: International
Tropical Timber Organization (ITTO). Restoring
forest landscapes: an introduction to the art and
science of forest landscape restoration. Tokyo,
Japan, ITTO. 101-108. ISBN: 4-902045-23-0. (ITTO
Technical Series, no. 23).
Sabogal, C. 2005. Site-level restoration strategies
for degraded primary forest. In: International
Tropical Timber Organization (ITTO). Restoring
forest landscapes: an introduction to the art and
science of forest landscape restoration. Tokyo,
Japan, ITTO. 81-89. ISBN: 4-902045-23-0. (ITTO
Technical Series, no. 23).
Sabogal, C. 2005. Site-level strategies for managing
secondary forests. In: International Tropical
Timber Organization (ITTO). Restoring forest
landscapes: an introduction to the art and science
of forest landscape restoration. Tokyo, Japan,
ITTO. 91-100. ISBN: 4-902045-23-0. (ITTO Technical
Series, no. 23).
Sabogal, C., Nasi, R. 2005. Restoring overlogged
tropical forests. In: Stephanie Mansourian, Daniel
Vallauri, Nigel Dudley (eds.). Forest restoration in
landscapes: beyond planting trees. New York,
USA, Springer. 361-369.
Schlamadinger, B., Ciccarese, L., Dutschke, M.,
Fearnside, P.M., Brown, S., Murdiyarso, D. 2005.
Should we include avoidance of deforestation
in the international response to climate
change?. In: Murdiyarso, D. and Herawati, H. (eds.).
Carbon forestry: who will benefit? Proceedings
of Workshop on Carbon Sequestration and
60
Publications
Sustainable Livelihoods, held in Bogor on 16-17
February 2005. Bogor, Indonesia, CIFOR. 26-41.
ISBN: 979-3361-73-5.
Sheil, D., van Heist, M. 2005. Ecology for tropical
forest management. In: Jeffrey A. Sayer. The
Earthscan reader in forestry & development.
London, UK, Earthscan. 371-387.
Szaro, R.C., Angelstam, Per, Sheil, D. 2005. Information
needs for ecosystem forestry. In: Jeffrey Sayer,
Stewart Maginis(eds.). Forests in landscapes:
ecosystem approaches to sustainability. London,
UK, Earthscan. 31-46.
Research Papers
Hiyama, C., Widiarti, A., Indarti. 2005. Pembagian
peran gender dan dampak kegiatan
rehabilitasi:
penelitian
aspek
gender
dan tipologi masyarakat dalam kegiatan
rehabilitasi hutan di PHBM Sukabumi. Bogor,
Indonesia, Badan Penelitian dan Pengembangan
Kehutanan (FORDA). 29p.
Maturana, J. 2005. Biaya dan manfaat ekonomi
dari pengalokasian lahan hutan untuk
pengembangan hutan tanaman industri
di Indonesia: Economic costs and benefits
of allocating forest land for industrial tree
plantation development in Indonesia. CIFOR
Working Paper, no. 30(i). 24p. + annexes
Maturana, J. 2005. Economic costs and benefits
of allocating forest land for industrial tree
plantation development in Indonesia. CIFOR
Working Paper, no. 30. 24p. + annexes
Maturana, J., Hosgood, N., Suhartanto, A.A. 2005.
Menuju kemitraan perusahaan–masyarakat:
elemen-elemen yang perlu dipertimbangkan
oleh perusahaan perkebunan kayu di
Indonesia. CIFOR Working Paper, no. 29(i). 52p.
Maturana, J., Hosgood, N., Suhartanto, A.A. 2005.
Moving
towards
company-community
partnerships: elements to take into account for
fast-wood plantation companies in Indonesia.
CIFOR Working Paper, no. 29. 49p.
Policy Briefs
CIFOR. 2005. A/R clean development mechanism
project activities: development of PDD. CIFOR
Carbon Brief, no. 4. 6p.
CIFOR. 2005. A/R clean development mechanism
project activities: project cycle. CIFOR Carbon
Brief, no. 5. 6p.
CIFOR. 2005. A/R clean development mechanism
project activities: legal framework in Indonesia.
CIFOR Carbon Brief, no. 6. 6p.
CIFOR. 2005. Penyusunan dokumen rancangan
proyek
aforestasi/reforestasi
mekanisme
pembangunan bersih. CIFOR Carbon Brief, no.
1. 6p.
CIFOR. 2005. Perangkat hukum proyek karbon
hutan di Indonesia. CIFOR Carbon Brief, no. 3. 4p.
CIFOR. 2005. Siklus proyek karbon hutan dalam
mekanisme pembangunan bersih. CIFOR
Carbon Brief, no. 2. 4p.
Forests and Governance
Articles
Assembe Mvondo, S. 2005. Decentralisation
des ressources forestieres et justice
environnementale: analyse des evidences
empriques du sud-Cameroun. Law, Environment
and Development Journal 1(1): 37-49.
Capistrano, D. 2005. Storehouses and safety nets.
Our Planet 16(2): 30-31.
Gellert, P.K. 2005. The shifting natures of
‘‘development’’: growth, crisis, and recovery
in Indonesia’s forests. World Development
33(8): 1345–1364.
Jum, C.N., Oyono, P.R. 2005. Building collaboration
through action research: the case of Ottotomo
Forest Reserve in Cameroon. International
Forestry Review 7(1): 37-43.
Kaimowitz, D. 2005. Skoger for folk. Regnskogens
tilstand (1-2005): 10-11.
Kato, G. 2005. Forestry sector reform and
distributional change of natural resource rent
in Indonesia. Developing Economies 43(1): 149170.
Mendoza, G.A., Prabhu, R. 2005. Combining
participatory modeling and multi-criteria
analysis
for
community-based
forest
management. Forest Ecology and Management
207(1-2): 145–156.
Oyono, P.R., Kouna, C., Mala, W.A. 2005. Benefits
of forests in Cameroon: global structure,
issues involving access and decision-making
hiccoughs. Forest Policy and Economics 7(3):
357-368.
Oyono, P.R. 2005. The foundations of the conflit
de langage over land and forest in southern
Cameroon. African Study Monographs 26(3):
115-144.
Oyono, P.R. 2005. Profiling local-level outcomes of
environmental decentralizations: the case of
Cameroon’s forests in the Congo Basin. Journal
of Environment and Development 14(2): 1-15.
Palmer, C. 2005. The nature of corruption in forest
management. World Economics 6(2): 1-10.
Pokorny, B., Cayres, G., Nunes, W. 2005. Participatory
extension as basis for the work of rural
extension services in the Amazon. Agriculture
and Human Values 22(4): 435-450.
Purnomo, H., Mendoza, G.A., Prabhu, R. 2005.
Analysis of local perspectives on sustainable
forest management: an Indonesian case
study. Journal of Environmental Management
74(2): 111-126.
Purnomo, H., Mendoza, G.A., Prabhu, R., Yasmi, Y.
2005. Developing multi-stakeholder forest
management scenarios: a multi-agent system
simulation approach applied in Indonesia.
Forest Policy and Economics 7(4): 475-491.
Wadley, R.L., Eilenberg, M. 2005. Autonomy, identity,
and ‘illegal’ logging in the borderland of West
Kalimantan, Indonesia. Asia Pacific Journal of
Anthropology 66(1): 19-34.
Wollenberg, E., Nawir, A.A. 2005. Turning straw into
gold: specialization among damar agroforest
farmers in pesisir, Sumatra. Forests, Trees and
Livelihoods 15: 317-336.
Books, Monographs
Agusnawati. 2005. Pengambilan keputusan dalam
rumah tangga pengelola hutan kemiri di
kelurahan Mario Pulana kecamatan Camba
kabupaten Maros: ditinjau dari perspektif
gender. Makassar, Indonesia, Universitas
Hasanuddin. 114p. (Thesis-Master degree).
Cahyat, A., Iranon, B., Edna, B., Dalip, D., Tiaka,
D., Haripuddin, Tugiono, K., Himang, M.G.D.,
Muksin, S., Supiansyah, Goenner, C. 2005. Profil
kampung-kampung di Kabupaten Kutai Barat:
kondisi sosial ekonomi kampung-kampung.
Bogor, Indonesia, CIFOR. 375p
Capistrano, D., Samper, C., Lee, M.J., RaudseppHearne, C., eds. 2005. Ecosystems and human
well-being: multiscale assessments: findings
of the Sub-global Assessments Working Group
of the Millenium Ecosystem Assessment.
Washington, D.C., USA, Island Press. 388p. ISBN:
1-55963-186-4. (The Millenium Ecosystem
Assessment Series, vol. 4).
Carter, J., Gronow, J. 2005. Recent experience in
collaborative forest management: a review
paper. Bogor, Indonesia, CIFOR. 48p. CIFOR
Occasional Paper, no. 43.
CIFOR. 2005. Towards a shared vision and action
frame for community forestry in Liberia:
proceedings of the First International
Workshop on Community Forestry in Liberia,
Monrovia, 12-15 December 2005. Bogor,
Indonesia, CIFOR. 110p. ISBN: 979-24-4617-6.
Colfer, C.J.P. 2005. The complex forest:
communities, uncertainty, and adaptive
collaborative management. Washington, DC.,
USA, Resources for the Future and Center for
International Forestry Research (CIFOR). 370p.
ISBN: 1-933115-12-2.
Colfer, C.J.P., ed. 2005.The equitable forest: diversity,
community and resource management.
Washington, DC, Resources for the Future and
CIFOR. 335p. ISBN: 1-891853-78-3.
Colfer, C.J.P., Capistrano, D., eds. 2005. The politics of
decentralization: forests, people and power.
London, UK, Earthscan Publications. 322p. ISBN:
1-84407-205-3. Earthscan Forestry Library.
Fuentes, D., Haches, R., Maldonado, R., Albornoz,
M., Cronkleton, P., de Jong, W., Becker, M. 2005.
Pobreza, descentralizacion y bosques en el
norte amazonico boliviano. Bogor, Indonesia,
CIFOR. 125p. ISBN: 979-3361-62-X.
Kusumanto, T., Yuliani, L., Macoun, P., Indriatmoko, Y.,
Adnan, H. 2005. Learning to adapt: managing
forests together in Indonesia. Bogor, Indonesia,
CIFOR. 191p. ISBN: 979-3361-68-9.
Limberg, G., Iwan, R., Sudana, M., Hartono, A., Henry,
M., Hernawan, D., Sole, Mamung, D., Wollenberg,
E., Moeliono, M. 2005. Profil desa-desa di
Publications
61
Kabupaten Malinau: kondisi sosial ekonomi di
desa-desa. Bogor, Indonesia, CIFOR. 201p.
Millenium Ecosystem Assessment. 2005. Ecosystems
and human well-being: synthesis. Washington,
DC, Island Press. 137p. ISBN: 1-59726-040-1.
Newing, H., Pinker, A., Leake, H., eds. 2005. Our
knowledge for our survival: volume 1 regional case studies on traditional forest
related knowledge and the implementation
of related international commitments. Chiang
Mai, Thailand, International Alliance of Indigenous
and Tribal Peoples of the Tropical Forests (IAIPTF)
and CIFOR. 303p.
Ngakan, P.O., Achmad, A., Wiliam, D., Lahae, K., Tako,
A. 2005. Dinamika proses desentralisasi sektor
kehutanan di Sulawesi Selatan: sejarah, realitas
dan tantangan menuju pemerintahan otonomi
yang mandiri. Bogor, Indonesia, CIFOR. 76p. ISBN:
979-3361-95-6. (Case Studies on Decentralisation
and Forests in Indonesia, case study 11b).
Ngakan, P.O., Achmad, A., Wiliam, D., Lahae, K., Tako,
A. 2005. The dynamics of decentralization in the
forestry sector in South Sulawesi: the history,
realities and challenges of decentralized
governance. Bogor, Indonesia, CIFOR. 72p. ISBN:
979-3361-94-8. (Case Studies on Decentralisation
and Forests in Indonesia, Case study 11).
Palmer, C.E. 2005. The outcomes and their
determinants from negotiations for logging
agreements between communities and
companies in Indonesia. Bonn, Germany,
Rheinischen
Friedrich-Wilhelms-Universitat.
Hohen Landwirtschaftlichen Fakultat. 176p.
Thesis (PhD.) - Rheinischen Friedrich-WilhelmsUniversitat, Bonn.
Ribot, J.C., Larson, A.M., eds. 2005. Democratic
decentralisation through a natural resource
lens. Oxon, UK, Routledge. 260p. ISBN: 0-41534786-6.
Rositah, E. 2005. Kajian kemiskinan masyarakat desa
sekitar hutan dan upaya penanggulangannya
di Kabupaten Malinau propinsi Kalimantan
Timur. Samarinda, Indonesia, Universitas
Mulawarman. 243p. (Thesis – Master degree)
– Mulawarman University, Samarinda, Indonesia.
Setiono, B., Husein, Y. 2005. Fighting forest crime and
promoting prudent banking for sustainable
forest management: the anti money laundering
approach. Bogor, Indonesia, CIFOR. 25p. CIFOR
Occasional Paper, no. 44.
Setiono, B., Husein, Y. 2005. Memerangi kejahatan
kehutanan dan mendorong prinsip kehatihatian perbankan untuk mewujudkan
pengelolaan hutan yang berkelanjutan:
pendekatan anti pencucian uang. Bogor,
Indonesia, CIFOR. 29p. CIFOR Occasional Paper,
no. 44i.
Sudirman, Wiliam, D., Herlina, N. 2005. Local
policy-making
mechanisms:
processes,
implementation and impacts of the
decentralized forest management system in
Tanjung Jabung Barat District, Jambi, Sumatra.
Bogor, Indonesia, CIFOR. 48p. ISBN: 979-24-4600-
62
Publications
1. (Case Studies on Decentralisation and Forests
in Indonesia, case study 14).
Tokede, M.J., Wiliam, D., Widodo, Gandhi, Y., Imburi,
C., Patriahadi, Marwa, J., Yufuai, M.C. 2005. The
impact of special autonomy on Papua’s forestry
sector: empowering customary communities
(masyarakat adat) in decentralized forestry
development in Manokwari district. Bogor,
Indonesia, CIFOR. 33p. ISBN: 979-3361-98-0.
(Case Studies on Decentralisation and Forests in
Indonesia, case study 13).
Wollenberg, E., Edmunds, D., Buck, L., Fox, J., Brodt,
S., eds. 2005. Pembelajaran sosial dalam
pengelolaan hutan komunitas: social learning
in community forests. Bogor, Indonesia, Pustaka
LATIN and CIFOR. 264p. ISBN: 979-25-0785-X.
Wollenberg, E., Anderson, J., Lopez, C. 2005. Though
all things differ: pluralism as a basis for
cooperation in forests. Bogor, Indonesia, CIFOR.
101p. ISBN: 979-3361-71-9.
Yasmi, Y., Anshari, G.Z., Alqadrie, S., Budiarto, T.,
Ngusmanto, Abidin, E., Komarudin, H., McGrath,
S., Zulkifli, Afifudin. 2005. The complexities
of managing forest resources in postdecentralization Indonesia: a case study from
Sintang District, West Kalimantan. Bogor,
Indonesia, CIFOR. 29p. ISBN: 979-3361-92-1.
(Case Studies on Decentralisation and Forests in
Indonesia, case study 10).
Yasmi, Y., Anshari, G.Z., Alqadrie, S., Budiarto, T.,
Ngusmanto, Abidin, E., Komarudin, H., McGrath,
S., Zulkifli, Afifudin. 2005. Kompleksitas
pengelolaan sumberdaya hutan di era
otonomi daerah: studi kasus di Kabupaten
Sintang, Kalimantan Barat. Bogor, Indonesia,
CIFOR. 33p. ISBN: 979-3361-93-X. (Case Studies on
Decentralisation and Forests in Indonesia, case
study 10b).
Chapters
Anau, N., Iwan, R., van Heist, M., Limberg, G., Sudana,
M., Wollenberg, E. 2005. Negotiating more
than boundaries in Indonesia. In: Colfer, C.J.P.
(ed.). The equitable forest: diversity, community
and resource management. Washington, DC,
Resources for the Future and CIFOR. 19-41.
Blaser, J., Kuchli, C., Colfer, C.J.P., Capistrano, D.
2005. Introduction: background to a global
exchange. In: Carol J. Pierce Colfer and Doris
Capistrano (eds.). The politics of decentralization:
forests, power and people. London, UK, Earthscan.
1-9.
Bolanos, O., Schmink, M. 2005. Women’s place is
not in the forest: gender issues in a timber
management project in Bolivia. In: Colfer, C.J.P.
(ed.). The equitable forest: diversity, community,
and resource management. Washington, DC,
Resources for the Future and CIFOR. 274-295.
Campbell, C., Chicchon, Schmink, M., Piland, R. 2005.
Intrahousehold differences in natural resource
management in Peru and Brazil. In: Colfer, C.J.P.
(ed.). The equitable forest: diversity, community
and resource management. Washington, DC,
Resources for the Future and CIFOR. 207-228.
Capistrano, D., Colfer, C.J.P. 2005. Decentralization:
issues, lessons and reflections. In: Carol J. Pierce
Colfer and Doris Capistrano (eds.). The politics
of decentralization: forests, power and people.
London, UK, Earthscan. 296-313.
Capistrano, D., Lee, M.J., Raudsepp-Hearne, C.,
Samper, C. 2005. Multiscale assessments:
integrated assessments at multiple scales. In:
Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. Our human
planet: summary of decision-makers. Washington,
D.C., USA, Island Press. 83-96. ISBN: 1-55963-3875. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment Series.
Capistrano, D., Samper, C. 2005. Reflections and
lessons learned. In: D. Capistrano, C. Samper,
M.J. Lee, C. Raudsepp-Hearne (eds.). Ecosystems
and human well-being: multiscale assessments:
findings of the Sub-global Assessments Working
Group of the Millenium Ecosystem Assessment.
Washington, D.C., USA, Island Press. 279-289.
(The Millenium Ecosystem Assessment Series,
vol. 4).
Capistrano, D., Samper, C., Lee, M.J. 2005. Overview
of the MA sub-global assessments. In: D.
Capistrano, C. Samper, M.J. Lee, C. RaudseppHearne (eds.). Ecosystems and human wellbeing: multiscale assessments: findings of the
Sub-global Assessments Working Group of the
Millenium Ecosystem Assessment. Washington,
D.C., USA, Island Press. 29-41. (The Millenium
Ecosystem Assessment Series, vol. 4).
Colfer, C.J.P. 2005. Implications of adaptive
collaborative
management
for
more
equitable forest management. In: Colfer, C.J.P.
(ed.). The equitable forest: diversity, community
and resource management. Washington, DC,
Resources for the Future and CIFOR. 256-273.
Colfer, C.J.P. 2005. Introduction: the struggle for
equity in forest management. In: Colfer, C.J.P.
(ed.). The equitable forest: diversity, community
and resource management. Washington, DC,
Resources for the Future and CIFOR. 1-15.
Colfer, C.J.P., Colchester, M., Joshi, L., Puri, R.K., Nygren,
A., Lopez, C. 2005. Traditional knowledge and
human well-being in the 21st century. In:
G. Mery, R. Alvaro, M. Kanninen, M. Lobovikov,
(eds.). Forests in the global balance - changing
paradigms. Vienna, Austria, IUFRO. 173-182.
(IUFRO World Series, vol.17).
Colfer, C.J.P., Hartanto, H., Jum, C.N., McDougall,
C., Prabhu, R., Yuliani, L. 2005. Adaptive
collaborative
management.
In: Julian
Gonsalves, Thomas Becker, Ann Braun, Dindo
Campilan, Chavez, Hidelisa De Elizabeth
Fajber, Monica Kapiriri, Joy Rivaca-Caminade,
Ronnie Vernooy. Participatory research and
development for sustainable agriculture and
natural resource management: a source book.
Laguna, Philippines, International Potato CenterUsers’ Perspectives with Agricultural Research
and Development and IDRC. vol.1. 241-248.
Cronkleton, P. 2005. Gender, participation, and
the strengthening of indigenous forest
management in Bolivia. In: Colfer, C.J.P. (ed.).
The equitable forest: diversity, community
and resource management. Washington, DC,
Resources for the Future and CIFOR. 256-273.
Dangol, S. 2005. Participation and decision making
in Nepal. In: Colfer, C.J.P. (ed.). The equitable
forest: diversity, community and resource
management. Washington, DC, Resources for
the Future and CIFOR. 54-71.
Diaw, C. 2005. Modern economic theory and the
challenge of embedded tenure institutions:
African attempts to reform local forest
policies. In: Kant, Shashi; Berry, R. Albert (eds.).
Sustainability, institutions and natural resources:
institutions for sustainable forest management.
Amsterdam, Netherlands, Springer. 43-81. ISBN:
1-4020-3479-2. (Sustainability, Economics, and
Natural Resources, vol. 2).
Diaw, C. 2005. Scales in conservation theories:
Another clash of civilizations? In: Young, J.,
Báldi, A., Benedetti-Cecchi, L., Bergamini, A.,
Hiscock, K., van den Hove, S., Koetz, T., van Ierland,
E., Lányi, A., Pataki, G., Scheidegger, C., Török,
K. and Watt, A.D. (Eds). 2005. Landscape scale
biodiversity assessment: the problem of scaling.
Report of an electronic conference. Institute of
Ecology and Botany of the Hungarian Academy
of Sciences, Vacratot, Hungary. 145-146.
Diaw, C., Kusumanto, T. 2005. Scientists in social
encounters: the case for an engaged practice
of science. In: Colfer, C.J.P. (ed.). The equitable
forest: diversity, community and resource
management. Washington, DC, Resources for
the Future and CIFOR. 72-109.
Edmunds, D., Wollenberg, E. 2005. A strategic
approach to multistakeholder negotiations.
In: Jeffrey A. Sayer (ed.). The Earthscan reader in
forestry & development. London, UK, Earthscan.
395-414.
Hakim, S. 2005. Dealing with overlapping access
rights in Indonesia. In: Colfer, C.J.P. (ed.).
The equitable forest: diversity, community
and resource management. Washington, DC,
Resources for the Future and CIFOR. 42-53. ISBN:
1-891853-78-3.
Hlambela, S., Kozanayi, W. 2005. Decentralized
natural resources management in the Chiredzi
district of Zimbabwe: voices from the ground.
In: Carol J. Pierce Colfer and Doris Capistrano
(eds.). The politics of decentralization: forests,
power and people. London, UK, Earthscan. 255268.
Kaimowitz, D., Byron, R.N., Sunderlin, W.D. 2005.
Public policies to reduce inappropriate
tropical deforestation. In: Jeffrey A. Sayer (ed.).
The Earthscan reader in forestry & development.
London, UK, Earthscan. 239-263.
Kusumanto, T. 2005. Applying a stakeholder
approach in FLR. In: International Tropical Timber
Organization (ITTO). Restoring forest landscapes:
an introduction to the art and science of forest
landscape restoration. Tokyo, Japan, ITTO. 61-70.
(ITTO Technical Series, no. 23).
Publications
63
Larson, A.M. 2005. Democratic decentralization
in the forestry sector: lessons learned from
Africa, Asia and Latin America. In: Carol J. Pierce
Colfer and Doris Capistrano (eds.). The politics
of decentralization: forests, power and people.
London, UK, Earthscan. 32-62.
Mendoza, G.A., Prabhu, R. 2005. Participatory
modeling and analysis of sustainable forest
management: experiences and lessons learned
from case studies. In: Bevers, Michael and
Barrett, Tara M. (comps.). System analysis in forest
resources: proceedings of the 2003 symposium,
October 7-9, Stevenson, WA. Portland, U.S.
Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. Pacific
Northwest Research Station. 49-57.
Mutimukuru, T., Nyirenda, R., Matose, F. 2005.
Learning amongst ourselves: adaptive forest
management through social learning in
Zimbabwe. In: Colfer, C.J.P. (ed.). The equitable
forest: diversity, community and resource
management. Washington, DC, Resources for the
Future and CIFOR. 186-206.
Nemarundwe, N. 2005. Women, decisionmaking,
and resource management in Zimbabwe. In:
Colfer, C.J.P. (ed.). The equitable forest: diversity,
community
and
resource
management.
Washington, DC, Resources for the Future and
CIFOR. 151-170.
Obidzinski, K. 2005. Illegal logging in Indonesia:
myth and reality. In: Resosudarmo P. Budy (ed.).
The Politics and economics of Indonesia’s natural
resources. Singapore, Institute of Southeast Asian
Studies (ISEAS) Press. 193-206.
Oyono, P.R. 2005. From diversity to exclusion for
forest minorities in Cameroon. In: Colfer, C.J.P.
(ed.). The equitable forest: diversity, community
and resource management. Washington, DC,
Resources for the Future and CIFOR. 113-130.
Oyono, P.R. 2005. Les acteurs de l’exploitation
forestière au Cameroun. In: P.Bigombe Logo
(ed.). ‘Le retournement de l’Etat forestier: l’endroit
et l’envers des processus de gestion forestière
au Cameroun. Yaounde, Cameroon, Presses de
l’UCAC (Central Africa Catholic University Press).
107-124.
Oyono, P.R. 2005. The social and organizational
roots of ecological uncertainties in Cameroon’s
forest management model. In: J.C. Ribot and
A.M. Larson (eds.). Democratic decentralisation
through a natural resource lens. London,
Routledge. 174-191.
Pacheco, P. 2005. Decentralization of forest
management in Bolivia: who benefits and
why? In: Carol J. Pierce Colfer and Doris Capistrano
(eds.). The politics of decentralization: forests,
power and people. London, UK, Earthscan. 166183.
Pokorny, B., Cayres, G., Nunes, W. 2005. Improving
collaboration
between
outsiders
and
communities in the Amazon. In: Colfer, C.J.P.
(ed.). The equitable forest: diversity, community
and resource management. Washington, DC,
Resources for the Future and CIFOR. 229-241.
64
Publications
Porro, N.M., Stone, S. 2005. Diversity in living
gender: two cases from the Brazilian Amazon.
In: Colfer, C.J.P. (ed.). The equitable forest:
diversity, community and resource management.
Washington, DC, Resources for the Future and
CIFOR. 242-255.
Ritchie, B, Haggith, M. 2005. The push-me, pullyou of forest devolution in Scotland. In: Carol
J. Pierce Colfer and Doris Capistrano (eds.). The
politics of decentralization: forests, power and
people. London, UK, Earthscan. 212-228.
Saway, A.L.D.M., Mirasol, F.S., Jr. 2005. Decentralizing
protected area management at Mount
Kitanglad. In: Carol J. Pierce Colfer and Doris
Capistrano (eds.). The politics of decentralization:
forests, power and people. London, UK, Earthscan.
269-281.
Sithole, B. 2005. Becoming men in our dresses!:
women’s involvement in a joint forestry
management project in Zimbabwe. In: Colfer,
C.J.P. (ed.). The equitable forest: diversity,
community
and
resource
management.
Washington, DC, Resources for the Future and
CIFOR. 171-185. ISBN: 1-891853-78-3.
Thomson, A., Colfer, C.J.P. 2005. ICT and social issues.
In: Hetemaki, L., Nilsson, S. (eds.). Information
technology and the forest sector. Vienna, Austria,
IUFRO. 172-196. (IUFRO World Series, vol. 18).
Tiani, A.M., Akwah, G., Nguiebouri, J. 2005. Women
in Campo-Ma’an national park: uncertainties
and adaptations in Cameroon. In: Colfer, C.J.P.
(ed.). The equitable forest: diversity, community,
and resource management. Washington, DC,
Resources for the Future and CIFOR. 131-149.
Research Papers
Angi, E.M. 2005. Kebijakan pemerintah pusat di
bidang konservasi dari perspektif daerah
dan masyarakat: studi kasus kabupaten Kutai
Barat, Kalimantan Timur. Bogor, Indonesia,
CIFOR. 18p. ISBN: 979-24-4608-7. (Forests and
Governance Programme Series, no. 5).
Gunawan, H. 2005. Desentralisasi: ancaman dan
harapan bagi masyarakat adat - studi kasus
masyarakat adat Cerekang di Kabupaten
Luwu Timur, propinsi Sulawesi Selatan. Bogor,
Indonesia, CIFOR. 24p. ISBN: 979-3361-44-1.
(Forests and Governance Programme Series,
no. 2).
Jurgens, E., Barr, C., Cossalter, C. 2005. Brief on the
planned United Fiber System (UFS) pulp mill
project for South Kalimantan, Indonesia.
Bogor, Indonesia, CIFOR. 31p. ISBN: 979-3361-824. (Forests and Governance Programme Series,
no. 3).
Schroeder-Wildberg, E., Capistrano, D., Voils, O.,
Carius, A. 2005. Forests and conflict: a toolkit for
intervention. Washington, DC, USAID. Office of
Conflict Management and Mitigation. 25p.
Wiati, C.B. 2005. Kepentingan nasional atau lokal?:
konflik penguasaan lahan di hutan penelitian
Sebulu di Kabupaten Kutai Kertanegara,
Kalimantan timur. Bogor, Indonesia, CIFOR. 16p.
ISBN: 979-3361-82-4. (Forests and Governance
Programme Series, no. 4).
Wollenberg, E., Colchester, M., Mbugua, G., Griffiths,
T. 2005. Linking social movements: how
international networks can better support
community action about forests. Bogor,
Indonesia, CIFOR. 12p. CIFOR Working Paper, no.
31.
Policy Briefs
Affandi, O. 2005. Dampak kebijakan IPPK dan
IUPHHK terhadap perekonomian masyarakat
di Kabupaten Malinau. 6p. CIFOR Governance
Brief, no. 12.
Angi, E.M. 2005. Bagaimana kebijakan dapat
dikoordinasikan antara pusat, daerah dan
masyarakat?. 4p. CIFOR Governance Brief, no.
11.
Anshari, G.Z., Alqadrie, S., Budiarto, T., Ngusmanto,
Abidi, E., McGrath, S., Zulkifli, Komarudin, H.,
Afifudin. 2005. Continued marginalisation
of under privileged communities: forest
management following decentralization
in Sintang, West Kalimantan. 6p. CIFOR
Decentralization Brief, no. 5.
Anshari, G.Z., Alqadrie, S., Budiarto, T., Ngusmanto,
Abidin, E., McGrath, S., Zulkifli, Komarudin, H.,
Afifudin. 2005. Marginalisasi masyarakat
miskin di sekitar hutan: Studi kasus HPHH 100
ha di kabupaten Sintang, provinsi Kalimantan
Barat. 8p. CIFOR Decentralization Brief, no. 9.
Cahyat, A., Wibowo, S. 2005. Masyarakat mengawasi
pembangunan daerah: bagaimana agar dapat
efektif?. 6p. CIFOR Governance Brief, no. 23.
Cahyat, A., Moeliono, M. 2005. Pengarusutamaan
kemiskinan: apa, mengapa dan bagaimana?.
6p. CIFOR Governance Brief, no. 25.
Cahyat, A. 2005. Perubahan perundangan
desentralisasi. 6p. CIFOR Governance Brief, no.
22.
Cahyat, A. 2005. Perubahan perundanganundangan keuangan daerah tahun 2004:
bagaimana pengaruhnya pada program
penanggulangan kemiskinan daerah?. 6p.
CIFOR Governance Brief, no. 24.
Gunawan, H. 2005. Implementasi desentralisasi
salah masyarakat adat menuai masalah. 4p.
CIFOR Governance Brief, no. 8.
Lestiawati, Y. 2005. Kehutanan daerah di era
desentralisasi penghambat koordinasi?. 4p.
CIFOR Governance Brief, no. 5.
Limberg, G. 2005. How can communities be included
in district land use planning? Experience from
Malinau District, East Kalimantan. 6p. CIFOR
Governance Brief, no. 16.
Limberg, G. 2005. Opportunities and constraints
to community forestry: experience from
Malinau. 6p. CIFOR Governance Brief, no. 15.
Rositah, E. 2005. Kemiskinan masyarakat desa
sekitar hutan dan penanggulangannya:
studi kasus di Kabupaten Malinau. 6p. CIFOR
Governance Brief, no. 14.
Samsu, Komarudin, H., McGrath, S., Ngau, Y.,
Suramenggala, I. 2005. Kontribusi izin
pemungutan dan pemanfaatan kayu(IPPK)
100 ha terhadap pendapatan daerah: studi
kasus di kabupaten Bulungan. 8p. CIFOR
Decentralization Brief, no. 6.
Setiono, B. 2005. International Cooperation
against Financial Backers of Illegal Logging.
6p. CIFOR Governance Brief No. 21. Bogor,
Indonesia, CIFOR.
Setiono, B. 2005. KYC Principles for forestry related
customers. 6p. CIFOR Governance Brief, no. 20.
Setiono, B. 2005. Menggunakan UU tindak pidana
pencucian uang menjerat aktor intelektual
illegal logging. 6p. CIFOR Governance Brief, no.
17.
Setiono, B. 2005. Prinsip mengenal nasabah (PMN)
untuk nasabah sektor kehutanan. 6p. CIFOR
Governance Brief, no. 19.
Setiono, B. 2005. Using the anti money laundering
law: catching the intellectual actors behind
illegal logging. 6p. CIFOR Governance Brief, no.
18.
Sudirman, Wiliam, D., McGrath, S. 2005. Partisipasi
masyarakat dalam pembuatan kebijakan
daerah di kabupaten Tanjung Jabung Barat,
Jambi: ketidakpastian, tantangan, dan
harapan. 6p. CIFOR Decentralization Brief, no. 7.
Sudirman, Wiliam, D., McGrath, S. 2005. Public
participation in local forestry policy-making
after
decentralization:
uncertainties,
challenges and expectations in Tanjung
Jabung Barat District, Jambi Province. 6p.
CIFOR Decentralization Brief, no. 3.
Sukardi.
2005.
Mencari
benang
merah
kelangsungan hutan adat ongkoe di
Kabupaten Barru. 2p. CIFOR Governance Brief
No. 7. Bogor, Indonesia, CIFOR.
Sumarlan. 2005. Kupu-kupu sayap burung musnah,
masyarakat pegunungan Arfak menderita. 2p.
CIFOR Governance Brief, no. 6.
Tokede, M.J., Wiliam, D., McGrath, S., Gandhi,
Y. 2005. Akses masyarakat adat terhadap
peluang-peluang pembangunan kehutanan
di Kabupaten Manokwari. 8p. CIFOR
Decentralization Brief, no.8.
Tokede, M.J., Wiliam, D., McGrath, S., Gandhi, Y.
2005. Local people’s access to forest-based
development opportunities in Manokwari
district. 6p. CIFOR Decentralization Brief, no. 4.
Wiati, C.B. 2005. Apakah Setelah Desentralisasi
Hutan Penelitian Lebih Bermanfaat Untuk
Masyarakat Lokal?. 4p. CIFOR Governance Brief,
no. 13.
Yulianti, A. 2005. Kopermas: masyarakat hukum
adat sebagai tameng bagi pihak yang
berkepentingan. 4p. CIFOR Governance Brief,
no. 9.
Yusran. 2005. Mengembalikan kejayaan hutan
kemiri rakyat. 4p. CIFOR Governance Brief, no.
10.
Publications
65
Video/CD-ROM
CIFOR. 2005. Danau Sentarum national park: the
abandoned paradise. Bogor, Indonesia, CIFOR.
VCD
CIFOR.
2005.
Information
resources
on
decentralization and forestry: archive of laws
and regulations, bibliography of relevant
publications, Indonesian forestry statistics
(1999-2004). Compiled by Utomo, N.U., Suhada,
L., Octavian, Y. and CIFOR Decentralization
Research Team. 1 CD-ROM.
Forests and Livelihoods
Articles
Belcher, B. 2005. Forest product markets, forests
and poverty reduction. International Forestry
Review 7(2): 82-89.
Belcher, B., Ruiz Perez, M., Achdiawan, R. 2005.
Global patterns and trends in the use
and management of commercial NTFPs:
implications for livelihoods and conservation.
World Development 33(9):1435–1452.
Belcher, B., Michon, G., Angelsen, A., Ruiz Perez,
M., Asbjornsen, H. 2005. The socioeconomic
conditions determining the development,
persistence, and decline of forest garden
systems. Economic Botany 59(3): 245–253.
Dewi, S., Belcher, B., Puntodewo, A. 2005. Village
economic opportunity, forest dependence, and
rural livelihoods in East Kalimantan, Indonesia.
World Development 33(9): 1419–1434.
Garcia-Fernandez, C., Casado, M.A. 2005. Forest
recovery in managed agroforestry systems:
the case of benzoin and rattan gardens in
Indonesia. Forest Ecology and Management
214(1-3): 158-169.
Grieg-Gran, M., Porras, I., Wunder, S. 2005. How can
market mechanisms for forest environmental
services help the poor? Preliminary lessons
from Latin America. World Development 33(9):
1511–1527.
Jintao Xu, Bull, G.Q., Nilsson, S., White, A., Pottinger,
A.J. (eds.). 2005. Forestry in China - policy,
consumption and production in forestry’s
newest superpower. International Forestry
Review Special issue 6(3-4): 352p.
Kowero, G.S., Mabugu, R. 2005. Macroeconomic
policies and industrial wood processing and
trade in Zimbabwe. Forest Policy and Economics
8(1): 22-34.
Kowero, G.S., Nhantumbo, I., Tchale, H. 2005.
Reconciling household goals in southern
African woodlands using weighted goal
programming. International Forestry Review
7(4): 294-304.
Kumar, C. 2005. Revisiting ‘community’ in
community-based
natural
resource
management. Community Development Journal
40(3): 275-285.
Levang, P., Dounias, E., Sitorus, S. 2005. Out of
the forest, out of poverty? Forests, Trees and
Livelihoods 15(2): 211-235.
66
Publications
Nawir, A.A., Santoso, L. 2005. Mutually beneficial
company-community
partnerships
in
plantation development: emerging lessons
from Indonesia. International Forestry Review
7(3): 177-192.
Pandey, D.N., Chaubey, A.C., Gupta, A.K., Vardhan,
H. 2005. Mine spoil restoration: a strategy
combining
rainwater
harvesting
and
adaptation to random recurrence of droughts
in Rajasthan. International Forestry Review 7(3):
241-249.
Philip, M.S., ed. 2005. Forests, trees and livelihoods.
Forest, Trees and Livelihoods 15(2): 126p. ISSN:
1472-8028.
Pokorny, B., Steinbrenner, M. 2005. Collaborative
monitoring of production and costs of timber
harvest operations in the Brazilian Amazon.
Ecology and Society 10(1): 3. Open access journal
[online] URL: http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/
vol10/iss1/art3/.
Pokorny B., Sabogal, C., Silva, J.N.M., Bernardo, P.,
Souza, J., Sweede, J. 2005. Compliance with
reduced-impact harvesting guidelines by
timber enterprises in terra firme forests of the
Brazilian Amazon. International Forestry Review
7(1): 9-20.
Rudela, T.K., Coomes, O.T., Moran, E., Achard, F.,
Angelsen, A., Jianchu Xu, Lambin, E.F. 2005. Forest
transitions: towards a global understanding of
land use change. Global Environmental Change
15(1): 23-31.
Ruiz Perez, M., Almeida, M., Dewi, S., Costa, E.M.L.,
Pantoja, M.C., Puntodewo, A., Postigo, A.A.,
de Andrade, A.G. 2005. Conservation and
development in Amazonian extractive
reserves: the case of Alto Jurua. Ambio 34(3):
218-223.
Sonwa, D.J., Weise, S.F., Adesina, A.A., Nkongmeneck,
A.B., Tchatat, M., Ndoye, O. 2005. Production
constraints on cocoa agroforetry systems in
West and Central Africa: the need for integrated
pest management and multi-institutional
approaches. Forestry Chronicle 81(3): 345-349.
Stoian, D. 2005. Making the best of two worlds: rural
and peri-urban livelihood options sustained by
nontimber forest products from the Bolivian
Amazon. World Development 33(9):1473–1490.
Sunderlin, W.D., ed. 2005. Livelihoods, forests, and
conservation. World Development 33(9): 13791544.
Sunderlin, W.D. 2005. Livelihoods, forests, and
conservation: introduction. World Development
33(9):1379–1381.
Sunderlin, W.D., Angelsen, A., Belcher, B., Burgess, P.,
Nasi, R., Santoso, L., Wunder, S. 2005. Livelihoods,
forests, and conservation in developing
countries: an overview. World Development
33(9):1383–1402.
Wunder, S. 2005. Macroeconomic change,
competitiveness and timber production: a
five-country comparison. World Development
33(1): 65-86.
Books, Monographs
Colchester, M., Boscolo, M., Contreras-Hermosilla, A.,
Gatto, F.D., Dempsey, J., Lescuyer, G., Obidzinski,
K., Pommier, D., Richards, M., Sembiring, S.S.,
Tacconi, L., Rios, M.T.S., Wells, A. 2005. Justice
in the forest: rural livelihoods and forest law
enforcement. Bogor, Indonesia, CIFOR. 98p.
ISBN: 979-24-4618-4. (Forest Perspectives, no. 3).
Cunningham, A.B., Campbell, B.M., Belcher, B., eds.
2005. Carving out a future: forests, livelihoods
and the international woodcarving trade.
London, UK, Earthscan. 293p. ISBN: 1-84407-045X. (People and Plants Conservation Series).
Hyde, William F., Belcher, B., Jintao Xu,(eds.) 2005.
China’s forests: global lessons from market
reforms (Chinese). Washington, DC, Resources
for the Future and Center for International
Forestry Research (CIFOR). 182p. ISBN: 7-50384148-6.
Lopez, C., Shanley, P., eds. 2005. Kekayaan hutan
Asia: makanan, rempah-rempah, kerajinan
tangan, dan resin. Jakarta, Indonesia, Gramedia
Pustaka Utama for the Center for International
Forestry Research (CIFOR). 120p. ISBN: 979-221191-8.
Lopez, C., Chanfon, S., Segura, G., eds. 2005. La
riqueza de los bosques mexicanos: más allá
de la madera: experiencias de comunidades
rurales. Montana, Mexico, Secretaria de Medio
Ambiente y Recursos Naturales (Semarnat) and
CIFOR. 200p. ISBN: 968-817-714-8.
Michon, G., Aulong, S., Berenger, E., Clement,
I., Goloubinoff, M., Katz, E., Sellato, B. 2005.
Domesticating forests: how farmers manage
forest resources. Bogor, Indonesia, CIFOR. 187p.
ISBN: 979-3361-65-4.
Pacheco, P., Cronkleton, P. 2005. El futuro del
manejo forestal comunitario en el norte
amazonico boliviano. Santa Cruz de la Sierra,
Bolivia, Editorial EL PAIS. 33p.
Robertson, N., Wunder, S. 2005. Fresh tracks in
the forest: assessing incipient payments for
environmental services initiatives in Bolivia.
Bogor, Indonesia, CIFOR. 137p. ISBN: 979-336181-6.
Shanley, P., Medina, G., eds. 2005. Frutiferas e
plantas uteis na vida Amazonica. Belem, Brazil,
CIFOR and IMAZON. 304p. ISBN: 85-88808-02-1.
Sunderlin, W.D., Huynh Thu Ba. 2005. Giam ngheo
va ru’ng o Viet Nam. Bogor, Indonesia, CIFOR.
79p. ISBN: 979-3361-58-1.
Sunderlin, W.D., Huynh Thu Ba. 2005. Poverty
alleviation and forests in Vietnam. Bogor,
Indonesia, CIFOR. 73p. ISBN: 979-3361-57-3.
Tolido, M., Cruz, M., Pariona, W., Mostacedo, B. 2005.
Plantulas de 60 especies forestales de Bolivia:
guia Ilustrada. Santa Cruz, Bolivia, Instituto
Boliviano de Investigacion Forestal (IBIF), WWF,
CIFOR. 73p. ISBN: 99905-0-732-5.
Wunder, S. 2005. Payments for environmental
services: some nuts and bolts. CIFOR Occasional
Paper, no. 42. 24p.
Wunder, S., Bui Dung The, Ibarra, E. 2005. Payment
is good, control is better: why payments for
forest environmental services in Vietnam have
so far remained incipient. Bogor, Indonesia,
CIFOR. 61p. ISBN: 979-24-4611-7.
Chapters
Belcher, B., Achdiawan, R. 2005. Getting out of the
woods: learning from a comparison of cases.
In: Anthony Cunningham, Bruce Campbell and
Brian Belcher (eds.). Carving out a future: forests,
livelihoods and the international woodcarving
trade. London, UK, Earthscan. 175-197. (People
and Plants Conservation Series).
Belcher, B., Cunningham, A.B., Campbell, B.M. 2005.
Livelihoods, carving and conservation. In:
Anthony Cunningham, Bruce Campbell and
Brian Belcher (eds.). Carving out a future: forests,
livelihoods and the international woodcarving
trade. London, UK, Earthscan. 1-9. (People and
Plants Conservation Series).
Campbell, B.M., Cunningham, A.B., Belcher, B.
2005. Carving out a future: planning for
woodcarving in the 21st century. In: Anthony
Cunningham, Bruce Campbell and Brian Belcher
(eds.). Carving out a future: forests, livelihoods
and the international woodcarving trade.
London, UK, Earthscan. 249-268. (People and
Plants Conservation Series).
Cunningham, A.B., Campbell, B.M., Belcher, B.,
Achdiawan, R. 2005. Ecological footprints:
carving, sustainability and scarcity. In:
Anthony Cunningham, Bruce Campbell and
Brian Belcher (eds.). Carving out a future: forests,
livelihoods and the international woodcarving
trade. London, UK, Earthscan. 199-227. (People
and Plants Conservation Series).
Ferreira, S., Mattos, M.M., Sabogal, C. 2005. O
manejo de capoeiras pode render bons
frutos. In: Shanley, Patricia, Medina, Gabriel.
Frutiferas e plantas uteis na Vida Amazonica.
Belem, Brazil, CIFOR and IMAZON. 263-270. ISBN:
85-88808-02-1.
Kaimowitz, D. 2005. Forest law enforcement and
rural livelihoods. In: Jeffrey A. Sayer (ed.). The
Earthscan reader in forestry & development.
London, UK, Earthscan. 171-192.
Roda, J-M., Mutamba, M., Campbell, B.M., Kowero,
G.S. 2005. Forests-based livelihoods and
poverty reduction: paths from local to global
development. In: G. Mery, R. Alvaro, M. Kanninen,
M. Lobovikov, (eds.). Forests in the global balance
- changing paradigms. Vienna, Austria, IUFRO. 7596. (IUFRO World Series, vol.17).
Sayer, J.A., Ndikumagenge, C., Campbell, B.M.,
Usongo, L. 2005. Wildlife, loggers and
livelihoods in the Congo Basin. In: Jeffrey Sayer,
Stewart Maginis (eds.). Forests in landscapes:
ecosystem approaches to sustainability. London,
UK, Earthscan. 115-127.
Sizer, N., Bass, S., Mayers, J., Arnold, J.E.M., Auckland,
L., Belcher, B., Bird, N., Campbell, B.M., Carle, J.,
Publications
67
Cleary, D., Counsell, S., Enters, T., Fernando, K.,
Gullison, T., Hudson, J., Kellison, B., Klingberg,
T., Owen, C.N., Sampson, N., Vermeulen, S.,
Wollenberg, E., Shackleton, S., Edmunds, D.
2005. Wood, fuelwood, and non-wood forest
products. In: Chopra, K., Leeman, R., Kumar, P.,
Simon, H. (eds.). Ecosystems and human wellbeingpolicy responses. Washington, D.C., USA,
Island Press. 257-293. (Millennium Ecosystem
Assessment Series, vol. 3).
Standa-Gunda, W., Braedt, O. 2005. Fallbacks and
tourist traps: carving wood in Southern
Zimbabwe. In: Anthony Cunningham, Bruce
Campbell and Brian Belcher (eds.). Carving out a
future: forests, livelihoods and the international
woodcarving trade. London, UK, Earthscan. 67-78.
(People and Plants Conservation Series).
Tomich, T.P., Cattaneo, A., Chater, S., Geist, H.J.,
Gockowski, J., Kaimowitz, D., Lambin, E.F., Lewis,
J., Ndoye, O., Palm, C.A., Stolle, F., Sunderlin,
W.D., Valentim, J.F., van Noordwijk, M., Vosti, S.A.
2005. Balancing agricultural development and
environmental objectives: assessing tradeoffs
in the humid tropics. In: Palm, Cheryl A., Vosti,
Stephen A., Sanchez, Pedro A. and Ericksen, Polly
J. (eds.). Slash-and-burn agriculture: the search for
alternatives. New York, USA, Columbia University
Press. 415-440.
Wunder, S. 2005. Poverty alleviation and tropical
forests: what scope for synergies?. In: Jeffrey A.
Sayer (ed.). The Earthscan reader in forestry and
development. London, UK, Earthscan. 107-129.
Research Papers
Kusters, K., Belcher, B., Ruiz Perez, M., Achdiawan,
R. 2005. A method to assess the outcomes of
forest product trade on livelihoods and the
environment. CIFOR Working Paper, no. 32. 23p.
Policy Brief
CIFOR. 2005. Payments for environmental services:
some nuts and bolts. CIFOR Infobrief, no. 9. 4p.
CIFOR Publications highlighted in this report
CIFOR and FAO. 2005. Forests and floods: drowning in fiction or thriving on facts? Bogor, Indonesia,
CIFOR and FAO Regional Office for Asia and the Pacific. 38p. ISBN: 979-3361-64-6. Forest Perspectives,
no. 2.
CIFOR. 2005. Achievements of the Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR) 1998–2005.
Bogor, Indonesia, CIFOR. 53p.
CIFOR. 2005. Towards a shared vision and action frame for community forestry in Liberia: proceedings
of the First International Workshop on Community Forestry in Liberia, Monrovia, 12-15 December
2005. Bogor, Indonesia, CIFOR. 110p. ISBN: 979-24-4617-6.
Colfer, C.J.P. 2005. The complex forest: communities, uncertainty, and adaptive collaborative
management. Washington, DC., USA, Resources for the Future and Center for International Forestry
Research (CIFOR). 370p. ISBN: 1-933115-12-2.
Cunningham, A.B., Campbell, B.M., Belcher, B., eds. 2005. Carving out a future: forests, livelihoods and
the international woodcarving trade. London, UK, Earthscan. 293p. ISBN: 1-84407-045-X. (People and
Plants Conservation Series)
Lopez, C., Chanfon, S., Segura, G., eds. 2005. La riqueza de los bosques mexicanos: más allá de la madera:
experiencias de comunidades rurales. Montana, Mexico, Secretaria de Medio Ambiente y Recursos
Naturales (Semarnat) and CIFOR. 200p. ISBN: 968-817-714-8.
Murdiyarso, D., Herawati, H., eds. 2005. Carbon forestry: who will benefit? Proceedings of Workshop
on Carbon Sequestration and Sustainable Livelihoods, held in Bogor on 16-17 February 2005. Bogor,
Indonesia, CIFOR. 215p. ISBN: 979-3361-73-5.
Robertson, N., Wunder, S. 2005. Fresh tracks in the forest: assessing incipient payments for environmental
services initiatives in Bolivia. Bogor, Indonesia, CIFOR. 137p. ISBN: 979-3361-81-6.
Robledo, C., Kanninen, M., Pedroni, L., eds. 2005. Tropical forests and adaptation to climate change: in
search of synergies. Bogor, Indonesia, CIFOR. 186p. ISBN: 979-24-4604-4.
Setiono, B., Husein, Y. 2005. Fighting forest crime and promoting prudent banking for sustainable forest
management: the anti money laundering approach. Bogor, Indonesia, CIFOR. 25p. CIFOR Occasional
Paper, no. 44.
Wunder, S. 2005. Payments for environmental services: some nuts and bolts. CIFOR Occasional Paper,
no. 42. 24p.
68
Publications
Center for International Forestry Research
(CIFOR)
Jl. CIFOR, Situ Gede, Sindang Barang
Bogor Barat 16680, Indonesia
P.O. Box. 6596 JKPWB
Jakarta 10065, Indonesia
Tel: +62 (251) 622 622
Fax: +62 (251) 622 100
E-mail: cifor@cgiar.org
Regional Offices
Latin America
Convênio Embrapa - CIFOR
Embrapa Amazônia
Oriental Trav. Dr. Enéas Pinheiro
s/n 66.095-100 Belém, Pará Brazil
Tel/Fax: +55-91-40092650
E-mail: cifor@cpatu.embrapa.br
Central Africa
C/o IITA Humid Forest
Ecoregional Center
B.P. 2008, Yaounde
Cameroon Tel: +237-2-227449/227450
Fax: +237-2-227451
E-mail: cifor.cameroon@cgiar.org
Eastern and Southern Africa
73 Harare Drive, Mount Pleasant
Harare, Zimbabwe
Tel: +263-4-369655/369656/
301028/369595
Fax: +263-4-369 657
E-mail: cifor-zw@cgiar.org
West Africa
CIFOR
06 BP 9478 Ouagadougou 06
Burkina Faso
Tel: +226-5030-4742
Fax: +226-5030-2930
E-mail: d.tiveau@cgiar.org
ISBN 979-24-4651-6
©2006 Center for Internatonal Forestry Research
Printing by Indonesia Printer
CIFOR Annual Report 2005: Research that Matters
was produced by the Communications Unit,
Information Services Group, CIFOR
Written by Charlie Pye-Smith
Edited by Anthony Lambert
Coordination and supervision by Michael Hailu
Design and layout by Yani Saloh and Gideon Suharyanto
Other contributors:
Widya Prajanthi, photos support
Catur Wahyu, design support
Alison Ford, editorial assistance
Mohammad Agus Salim, GIS support (map)
Yuni Soeripto and Yuan Oktafian, record of publications
Lely Taulu, Fitriani Mulyana, list of CIFOR staff and consultants
Budhy Kristanty, Hudayanti, David Raitzer, Lucya Yamin,
Rahayu Koesnadi, Florence Munoh, Rosita Go, Johnson Ndi Nkem,
Peter Cronkleton, Crispen Marunda, Mathurin Zida, Heru Santoso,
Hety Herawati, Ambar Liano, list of collaborators
Henny Saragih, list of BOT
Susan Kabiling and Anastasia Elisa, donor and financial statements
Photographic credits:
Main cover: Daniel Tiveau, Brian Belcher, Yayan Indriatmoko and
Kristen Evans
Inside back cover: Infiniti
The Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR)
CIFOR is a leading international forestry research organisation established in 1993 in response to global concerns about the social,
environmental, and economic consequences of forest loss and degradation. CIFOR is dedicated to developing policies and technologies for
sustainable use and management of forests, and for enhancing the well-being of people in developing countries who rely on tropical forests
for their livelihoods. CIFOR is one of the 15 Future Harvest centres of the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR).
With headquarters in Bogor, Indonesia, CIFOR has regional offices in Brazil, Burkina Faso, Cameroon and Zimbabwe, and it works in over 30
other countries around the world.
www.cifor.cgiar.org