The IMFN is a voluntary international network of over 60 large-scale forest landscapes in 30 countries that promotes sustainable forest management through broad partnerships at both the local landscape level and global network level. The IMFN was launched in 1992 to translate sustainable forest policies into practice. Each IMFN site establishes diverse local partnerships and engages partners at various levels, including government agencies, NGOs, research institutions, and over 1,000 field-level partners across the network. The IMFN has found that establishing complex multi-stakeholder partnerships, linking sites to policy networks, and cultivating local leadership are key to the long-term sustainability of large-scale, multi-site landscape initiatives.

1. IMFN experience in long-term, large-scale,
multi-site experimentation / research in
sustainable forest management
Presentation to CIFOR Sentinel Landscapes Workshop
Bogor, Indonesia, 30 September – 1 October 2011

2. What we are?
Launched at Rio (UNCED) Summit in 1992.
Voluntary international learning network comprised of +/- 60
large-scale landscapes in +/- 30 countries.
Globally shared framework for addressing sustainable forest
resource management (SFM).
Idea – at model forest level - is to use broad-based
partnerships to translate policies of SFM into practice, at a
landscape scale, in real time and for real benefits
Idea – at the international network level – is to link the needs
and knowledge of network members in order to accelerate
innovation at all levels.

3. Model Forest Framework Principles

5. IMFN Site Locations by Forest Type

6. Model Forest Partnerships
Local level: typically large partnerships, highly
diverse and non-traditional
1,000+ field-level partners across the network
Country/national-level partners
Numerous institutional partners at site,
regional, and international levels, including:
• CUSO-VSO • FAO (Asia, • RECOFTC
• CIFOR LAC, Africa) • INBAR
• CIDA • UNDP-GEF • GPFLR
• IUCN (LAC & Asia) • CATIE

7. Site Selection
IMFN Secretariat has developed guidelines
(non-prescriptive) for site selection.
Multiple approaches:
• Competitive process (Canada)
• Capacity/infrastructure driven (path of least resistance)
• Issue/policy driven (go to where the problems are)
• Stakeholder (bottom-up) driven
• Policy (top-down) driven

8. Partnerships
As complex as the landscape/land-uses
(academic, research, industry, govt., indigenous,
landless, etc)
Must include policy makers
Competitors and adversaries
They build it, own it, drive it
They understand that they belong to and work within
a larger regional and global IMFN community
Given time to define their modus operandi

9. “Funding Permanence”
No such thing – focus on risk mitigation strategies.
Scaleable: scale of effort ebbs and flows with opportunity and
initiative but with minimum thresholds
Important to engage and strategize with key stakeholders from
the beginning
Build capacity and awareness in non-traditional actors
Keep costs low from outset (proxy or “para-technical”
expertise)
Ensure that the work has buy in/relevance to those charged with
maintaining and supporting it over time
Understand local players as assets and (potential) allies

10. Observations and Lessons Learned
>95% of Model Forests ever established since early 1990s
are still operational (with varying levels of effectiveness) –
why?
Many partners = many more resources to deploy and draw
upon + political clout
Developed country experiences with similar efforts to SL
should be explored (CMFN)
Working at this scale, governance and relevance are key to
continuity/permanence (comprehensive, locally driven,
transparent, accountable, empowered, etc.) which takes time
and resources – not aware of any shortcuts.

11. Lessons Learned
Need to link explicitly to higher policy levels and
external communities of common interest (network[s])
Communicate/brand/promote
Process rather than project
Cultivate leaders (plural)
The social component of sustainability is one of the
most complicated: how do we manage ourselves and
the demands we place on our landscapes?

12. Lessons Learned cont’d.
National forest and other resource-focused agencies are key
enablers but should also be understood as key beneficiaries and
partners just as local communities are.
There is substantial value in peer-to-peer and site-to-site
networking, a process that allows sharing of innovative practices
and that builds confidence and important skills in participants.
Meaningful engagement of local stakeholders is a prerequisite to
sustaining buy-in, momentum, direction and support.

13. Thank you!
WWW.IMFN.NET