Meeting the wood supply needs of
a growing population requires application of forestry practices
that maximize yield and quality of manufactured products while
ensuring the health of ecosystems. The College of Forestry (CoF)
at OSU is committed to helping to meet these goals by conducting
research on intensive forestry practices and the underlying biological
mechanisms influencing forest productivity and health. The intent
of this summit was to discuss the College’s current research relevant
to forestry practices in the region directed at maximizing potential
value of lands managed for wood production, and to provide a forum
for exchanging ideas on how the college can better meet these
research needs both now and in the future.
In total, 80 were in attendance, including 36 representing private
companies, 6 public agencies, 2 small woodland owners, and the
remainder were university faculty and staff.
Specific goals for the day were as follows:
• Foster communication between the College of Forestry (CoF)
and organizations and individuals interested in research on intensive
forestry practices in the region.
• Review the factors that shape the research effort of the College
and the depth and breadth of research related to intensive forestry
issues.
• Identify future information needs for the practice of intensive
forestry in the region.
• Explore mechanisms by which the CoF can best meet these information
needs.
Agenda
Morning
Session
Eight speakers
from the College of Forestry addressed the summit in the morning
to provide an overview of intensive forestry research in the college.
The PowerPoint presentations for each speaker are found by clicking
on the Speaker Presentations button or clicking their name below.
Tom Adams provided a preview of the
day's activities and defined "intensive forestry" for
the audience. Dean Hal Salwasser
then set the stage for the remainder of the day by providing a
context for intensive forestry in the Pacific Northwest in terms
of meeting future global needs for wood. Steve
Hobbs provided a framework for intensive forestry research
by describing the elements of scientific endeavor and the factors
that influence it. Becky Johnson
outlined the organization and funding of the research in the College,
and the role and extent of intensive forestry research, in particular,
with regard to meeting the missions of the College
of Forestry.
The
final four presentations in the morning were designed to give
the College's stakeholders a better idea of the breadth and depth
of research in the College
of Forestry
relevant to intensive forestry. Because many in the audience were
already familiar with the College's more applied research (primarily
through our research cooperatives), the emphases in these presentations
were on providing a clearer understanding of the role of fundamental
research leading to eventual breakthroughs in knowledge necessary
to tackle more applied questions. John
Tappeiner provided examples of success stories from applied
research in the College and its partner institutions. The remaining
three speakers, Mark Harmon, Barbara
Gartner, and John Bliss, then
presented examples of fundamental research that are already being
translated into useful applications in intensive forestry, have
promise for application, or whose application is currently not
clear, but would have great potential for future payoff.
Return to the top
Afternoon
Session
The afternoon
session was designed to first hear from selected stakeholders
their thoughts on priority research needs for intensive forestry
in the region. This was followed by a small group discussion session
that addressed questions relevant to the specific goals of the
summit.
Future
information needs in intensive forestry
Greg Johnson from Willamette Industries
provided a summary of findings from the American Forestry and
Paper Association, Industrial Research Cooperative Forum held
in Wilsonville, Oregon, November 27-28, 2001. Participants, which
included Research Cooperative leaders from the Pacific Northwest,
addressed research needs as part of their forum. Greg's PowerPoint
presentation is found by clicking is name above or clicking the
Future Information Needs button.
To get a broader picture of research needs in intensive forestry,
Greg's talk was followed by a panel discussion. Panelists were
chosen from a broad array of organizations and perspectives.
| Panel
List |
Perspective |
•
Bodie Shaw, Mark O. Hatfield Fellow,
Congressman Earl Blumenauer, Washington D.C.
|
Tribal |
•
Russ McKinley, Timberlands Manager,
Boise Cascade, Medford, OR
|
Industry |
•
Sara Leiman, Monroe, OR
|
Small
Woodland Owner |
| •
Rosemary Mannix, Manager, Technical
Services, ODF, Salem, OR |
State
of Oregon |
| •
Bob Alverts, Research and Monitoring
Coordinator, BLM, Portland, OR |
Federal
Government |
| •
Sybil Ackerman, Conservation Director,
Portland Audubon, OR |
NGO |
| •
Jim Rochelle, Rochelle Environmental
Forestry, Olympia, WA |
Wildlife |
To
see the text of each panelist's presentation, click on their name
above or on the Future Information Needs button. Each panelist was
asked to identify, from their perspective, 1-3 high priority information
needs for the practice of intensive forestry in the Pacific Northwest.
The presentations by Greg Johnson and the Panelists set the stage
for the small group discussions that followed.
Return to the top
Small
group discussions
The participants were divided into four groups; each group addressed
one of the following topics during a one-hour discussion period:
1) Communication of research needs and results,
2) Mechanisms of implementing and funding research,
3) Research needs in the immediate future,
4) Information
needs on the horizon.
The discussion facilitators for each group presented the 2-5 highest
priority ideas from their discussion group to all participants at
the end of the day (wrap-up session). These high priority ideas
are given below. More detailed notes from each discussion group
are found by clicking the Small Group Reports button.
High priority ideas identified in small group discussions:
1) Communication of research needs and results
Discussion
Questions:
How
can the CoF improve communication with those interested in the practice
of intensive forestry, either in listening to concerns or reporting
of research results? How can we do a better job communicating? Please
consider the audiences with whom we communicate, the messages that
we send, the methods that we use, and the way we receive feedback
from those outside the College.
Discussion Summary:
The five most important ideas discussed were:
a)
CoF should disperse information in simplified form so that the general
public can understand, especially complex topics.
b) CoF should publish a quarterly newsletter of extended abstracts
of current research.
c) Conduct small field trips between 1-2 faculty and 1-2 agency/company
people.
d) Improve
feedback mechanisms among CoF
and clientele (listening to concerns).
e) Stronger
role of research Cooperatives to synthesize and disperse information
including periodic reviews of past information.
2) Mechanisms of implementing
and funding research
Discussion
Questions:
How
can the CoF improve or broaden mechanisms of implementing or funding
research in intensive forestry? Much of the applied intensive forestry
research we do is through our research cooperatives. Cooperative
membership and funding levels, however, are threatened by industry
consolidations. Will cooperatives continue to be a viable means
of conducting intensive forestry research and are they sufficient
to meet future research needs? What other mechanisms for implementing
and funding intensive forestry research should we consider? How
can we best ensure support for long-term field research?
Discussion Summary:
The following two mechanisms were judged HIGH priority items:
a) Issue-focused research cooperatives that are interdisciplinary
in nature; examples included cooperatives focused on paired watershed
experiments, shifting mosaic concept for maintaining wildlife habitat
while extracting timber, Swiss Needle Cast Cooperative as a precedent;
should/can include provision for a dynamic partner base.
b) Direct allocation from Congress (USDA/USDI/NSF) for intensive
forestry research (FIR and COPE models)
The
following two mechanisms were judged MEDIUM priority items:
c) Traditional research cooperatives
d) Very specific Request for Proposals (RFPs) from clients, including
direct contract between client and university researcher(s)
3)
Research needs in the immediate future
Discussion
Questions:
What
research topics relevant to the application of intensive forestry
need to be addressed by the CoF in the immediate future? What are
the priorities on these topics and which topics are currently not
addressed by research at OSU or elsewhere in the region?
Discussion Summary:
After
some discussion, we decided it was not useful to develop a list
of top priorities. Instead we categorized the comments (see below)
into five groups:
a)
Nutrition
b)
Silviculture (stand scale management)
c)
Combined activities (integrated effects of various management practices)
d)
Communication (research on public perceptions and how to transfer
information)
e)
Miscellaneous
4) Information needs on the
horizon
Discussion
Questions:
What
information needs relevant to the practice of intensive forestry
are on the horizon (20 or more years in the future)? What are the
priorities on these potential opportunities or concerns and which
should we be considering now in CoF research programs?
Discussion Summary:
The most important information needs were grouped as follows:
Visioning
• Need to forecast the most important issues
• Need to tie to global issues
Social
License
• Promote forestry as a desirable and preferred land use
• Promote the value of manmade vs. "natural" forest
Technological
Advancement
• Need horsepower to fund integrated research
• Focus on providing quality wood
• Grow decent quality wood on short rotations
• Expand research into mixed species management
• Determine biotechnological needs
Return to the top
Conclusion
and Actions
Thanks to all
who participated in the summit. We feel the time was well spent
and there was good communication between College faculty and our
various stakeholders interested in intensive forestry. We hope our
stakeholders went away with a fuller understanding and appreciation
of the research in the College specifically addressing and related
to intensive forestry issues (2nd goal). We, in turn, heard your
views on future information needs in intensive forestry and suggestions
on how we might do a better job of carrying out intensive forestry
research (3rd and 4th goals) and effectively communicating research
results (1st goal).
It was never
our intention that the summit's goals would be fully met in the
summit, only that we would make a good start in addressing them.
The small group discussions, in particular, surfaced a number of
issues that we now need to pursue in more detail. Some ideas for
doing this are presented below.
- Communication
of research needs and results
The College can do more to communicate with our clientele on issues
relevant to intensive forestry. Three actions already planned
in response to this need are:
a) To develop
a continuing education forestry curriculum, including series
addressing intensive forestry issues. Each series will be made
up of a number of linked 1-2 day workshop modules, designed
with the help and advice of clientele representatives in order
to ensure that they are as relevant and useful to attendees
as possible. We are already working on the first continuing
education series, which will address practical questions on
the management of young forest stands and the utilization of
timber products from them. It is expected that this series will
consist of seven workshop modules. Participants will be able
to enroll in the whole series or one or more specific modules,
depending on their needs.
b) To
co-sponsor with Boise Cascade Corporation a two-day symposium
in spring of 2003 to address the subject: "Evaluating
the potential and role of high yield forestry in maximizing
forestland value in the Pacific Northwest." This symposium
will involve invited speakers from around the world and will
include such topics as: the biological potential of forests
for timber production in the PNW; the influence of high yield
forestry on this potential; who should be practicing high
yield forestry; economics of high yield forestry practices;
influence of domestic and foreign competition on this economic
picture; degree to which environmental concerns here and elsewhere
in the world are likely to influence the practice of forestry
in the PNW; and, information needed to make sound decisions
about the application of high yield forestry practices in
the future.
c) To
establish an Intensive Forestry Committee consisting of representatives
of stakeholders (i.e., industry, government, small woodland
owners) and College Faculty to advise the Dean on means of
fostering communication of information needs in intensive
forestry. This committee would also help identify research
priorities in intensive forestry and methods of implementing
and funding this research.
- Mechanisms
of implementing and funding research
There seem
to be two main issues raised by this discussion group: how to
promote "issue-focused research that is interdisciplinary
in nature;" and, the need to explore alternative models of
funding intensive forestry research. Although the Swiss Needlecast
Cooperative is an example of a successful approach to issue-focused,
interdisciplinary research, what other models should be explored?
Should this research be done by collaborations among existing
coops both at OSU and elsewhere, by establishing additional coops
(with narrow goals and set lifetimes), and/or by other mechanisms
(e.g., competitive grants funded by a stakeholder pool)? These
are topics that will require more in-depth discussion and are
best addressed by the Intensive Forestry Committee mentioned above.
One cannot argue with the success of the College's research cooperatives
to date. They continue to be strong despite on-going shifts and
consolidations in industrial ownerships. This success, however,
does not preclude looking for ways to improve the effectiveness
of coops or to develop additional mechanisms for meeting the growing
intensive forestry research mission in the region.
- Research
needs in intensive forestry
The
discussions of both immediate and longer-term research needs in
intensive forestry did little more than identify broad categories
of intensive forestry issues. Cleary, identification of research
priorities in this subject area is not easy and will require more
time and effort than was possible during the summit. This will
be another role of the Intensive Forestry Committee.
The
summit discussion group addressing information needs on the horizon
(topic 4) stressed the need for developing a vision of the most
important issues likely to impact the practice and effectiveness
of intensive forestry in the future. The symposium being planned
for next spring will be an ideal opportunity for this visioning
process. Discussion Group 4 also stressed the need for research
that evaluates the sustainability of a landscape that includes
intensive forestry as one type of management. Only if intensive
forestry can be shown to be compatible with long-term economic
and biological sustainability will it have a continued role as
a management tool. Finally, Group 4 identified a number of potential
technological advancements needing research attention. Quality
of wood products produced from short rotation trees seems to be
an issue of particular concern and involves not only the inherent
"quality" of wood in these trees, but the ability to
turn this wood into high value products in the manufacturing process.
We welcome
comments on our planned actions and any additional suggestions
you would like to make. These can be sent to the following email
address: outreach@for.orst.edu.
Return to the top
_____________________________________________________
Quick
Links:
Oregon State University
(OSU) I OSU
College of Forestry l OSU
Extension Services
OSU
Disclaimer [Updated: April 4, 2002]
Contact us IComments
about the Home Page
|
Intensive Forestry Research Summit Follow-Up
