1.
Communicating forestry research
for evidence-based policy in Cameroon
Sandrine Ebakisse
Ottawa
January 24th, 2014

2.
Cameroonian forestry sector
Presentation of the research
Results of the study
Discussion and recommendations
Questions and comments
3

3.
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

4.
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

5.
Presentation of the research
― Research uptake
― Research questions
― Interviewees
6

6.
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

7.
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

8.
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

9.
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

10.
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

11.
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

12.
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

13.
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

14.
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

15.
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

16.
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

17.
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

18.
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

19.
Questions and comments
22

20.
Thank you for your attention!