The document summarizes a presentation on communicating forestry research in Cameroon. It discusses two research institutions, CIFOR and CED, and how they influenced policy through direct and indirect communication strategies. CIFOR had influence on domestic timber market regulations by discussing evidence directly with the Ministry and collaborating on publications. CED influenced reconsideration of an agricultural contract by distributing evidence of issues to media and NGOs. Success requires continuous, patient communication that responds to government interests while building external pressure through networking. However, influence is limited by poor governance as decision-makers have hidden agendas and access to forestry information is informal.

2. Communicating forestry research
for evidence-based policy in Cameroon
Sandrine Ebakisse
Ottawa
January 24th, 2014

3. Cameroonian forestry sector
Presentation of the research
Results of the study
Discussion and recommendations
Questions and comments
3

4. Cameroonian forestry sector
4
Cameroonian forest are
part of Congo basin:
world’s second-larget
stropical forest Cameroonian forest
represents the second
income resource for the
state: about 6% of GNP

5. Cameroonian forestry sector
5
Dynamism of policies:
 General policy in 1993
 Forestry law in 1994
 Environnemental law in 1996
 PSFE (sectorial program) in 2003
 Review process since 2010 for
the forestry law
Multiplicity of actors:
 Central and local public agencies
 Local governments
 Civile society organizations
 National and international
private sector
 Donors
International
threaties
Large
economic
projects
CORRUPTION
Intersectorial
policies
Participatory
process of
planning

6. Presentation of the research
― Research uptake
― Research questions
― Interviewees
6

7. vision Mission Goals Strategy Tactics Outputs Outcomes Impacts
7
Depend of our
action
Don’t depend
of us
Research uptake
R4D: research for change, for better living
conditions of poor peoples
Plan Execution of the plan

8. Research uptake
Research communication: influence rather than
impact in people behaviours or Change in policies
and practices (Weiss – 1970) .
8
Philip Davies, Is evidence-Based Government Possible?
Evidence
Experience
and
expertise
Pragmatitsm
and
contingencies
Judgement
Ressources
Values
Habits and
traditions
Lobbyists
and pressure
groups

9. Research uptake
Research influence is not a product but a process
(Carden – 2011).
 does not just try to make that the evidences it
brings is used by policies makers.
 contribute to the decision making process by
promoting evidence based policies and
practices.
9

10. Research questions
How can communication better contribute to
research influence ?
What is the link between research that had policy
influence and communication approaches?
Were these approaches aligned with the general context
and the research institution’s Theory of Change?
What best practices of these institutions can help to
increase communication’s contribution to research
influence?
12

11. Interviwees
 Research institutions:
— Centre for International Forestry Research (CIFOR )
— Centre for Environment and Development (CED)
— International Institute for Sustainable Development
(IISD).
 Public administrations: Cameroonian ministry of
forest and wildlife (MINFOF).
 Donors:
― European Union
― French government research Institutions 13

12. About Research institutions
14
Evidence/
science based
Interest / values
based
Confrontation /
outside track
Cooperation /
inside track
Advising
Lobbying Activism
Advocacy
Source: Daniel Start and Ingie Hovland
“Tools for Policy Impact A Handbook for Researchers”
CIFOR CED

13. Results of the study
 CED & CIFOR influence through direct and
indirect communication strategies.
 Conditions/success factors of influence
throught communication
 Limits due to the poor governance of the
forestry sector
15

14. CIFOR influence throught direct strategy
The domestic market of timber
16
Evidence
(research results)
 Lack of regulations about
exploitation of domestic
timber
 Great capacities
concerning incomes (50%
of total timber
production)
 Large network of
corruption
Communication
(direct strategy)
 Discussions with the
MINFOF based on the first
set of data
 In collaboration with
MINFOF officers:
– Large diffusion of a
broader report
– Print and broadcast
media
– Public debates
Influence
(what happened ?)
 Nomination of
responsibles in MINFOF
 Sollicitation of CIFOR as a
resources for the
understanding and
discussions on this matter
 Broader studdy about the
economic importance of
forests in Cameroon

15. CED influence throught indirect strategy
The Herakles Farm Gate
17
Evidence
(research results)
 Illegal contractual
procedures
 High environnemental
risks
 Violation of
communities’ rights
Communication
(indirect strategy)
 Diffusion throught
media channel (press
conferences, releases…)
 Distribution to other
NGOs
 Broadcasts and public
debates
Influence
(what happened ?)
 Crisis meeting at
MINFOF
 Pressure from various
actors
 Public positionning of
the ministry
 Reconsideration of the
term of the contract

16. Conditions/success factors of influence
 Communicate continuously and with patience
 Respond to the interest of the government /
decision makers
 Be abble to network and create external
pressure
 Use informal relations
18

17. Limits due to the poor governance of the forestry
sector
Indicators of poor governance
 The double discourse of decision makers
To be In / to gain finances from donors / to keep
a hidden agenda / to protect subjective interest.
 The poor structure of forestry research
Increasing lost of interest about forestry
research / difficult access to information. 19

18. Limits due to the poor governance of the forestry
sector
How it affects Research Communication
 Informal nature of relations between actors.
Researcher mainly communicate with decision
makers by informal ways.
 Informal character of access to forestry
information.
To know what is going on in the sector you must
personally know peoples. 20

19. Discussion and Recommendations
 Informal communication or Research
objectivity?
 Influence by all means or contribution to an
evidence based decision making process?
 Work on communication but not only
― Security of formal relations
― Importance of institutionnal capacities
― Results of a good structure of forestry research
21

20. Questions and comments
22

21. Thank you for your attention!