1)
Communication of research needs and results
Greg
Filip and Scott Ketchum - facilitators
Diane Haase - recorder
We met as one group of about 15 participants and spent about
½ hour brainstorming ideas on "how can the COF improve
communication with those interested in the practice of intensive forestry,
either listening to concerns or reporting of research results?"
We recorded 23 ideas that fell into two categories: communication
with the general public and communication with professionals. We then
prioritized the 23 ideas by voting on each idea. Each participant
had 4 votes and could only place no more than 2 votes on any one idea.
The following is a list of the ideas and votes in order of how they
were recorded:
1)
COF offer forestry classes on the web - 0
2) COF disperse rigorous and non-rigorous (cowboy science) research
findings - 1
3) Conduct small field trips between 1-2 faculty and 1-2 agency/company
people - 6
4) COF publish definitions of intensive forestry terms - 0
5) COF conduct periodic workshops such as this summit - 2
6) COF publish summary papers for non-specialists - 0
7) COF publish entire FRL publication list more often - 1
8) Improve feedback mechanisms among COF and clientele (listening
to concerns) - 5
9) COF having a convening role among groups with diverse perspectives
- 1
10) COF as a moderator (provider of science base) for political issues
- 1
11) COF publish a quarterly newsletter of extended abstracts of current
research - 7
12) Cooperators share how they use research gained from the co-ops
- 4
13) Agency/company reps in co-ops disseminate info to their field
personnel - 1
14) Stronger role of co-ops to synthesize and disperse info including
periodic reviews of past info - 4
15) COF disperse info in simplified form so that the general public
can understand, especially complex topics - 8
16) COF better educate the public and legislators on intensive forestry
using more creative media than publications - 4
17) In addition to sharing research, the COF should show field people
how to apply the information - 0
18) Co-op members should meet regularly to discuss current issues
and needs - 0
19) COF deliver results to practitioners in a user-friendly format
- 2
20) COF use the web to disperse info on a topic by topic basis and
notify users by "subscription" of a particular topic - 3
21) COF create an "information co-op" that brings ideas
together and synthesizes for target audiences - 1
22) COF faculty go on "speaker circuits" (i.e. speaking
to community groups, organizations, etc.) - 0
23) COF create a webpage to answer questions posed by the public (ask
the expert) - 3
The following top five ideas (in order of importance) were presented
to the group-at-large:
1) COF disperse info in simplified form so that the general public
can understand, especially complex topics
2) COF publish a quarterly newsletter of extended abstracts of current
research
3) Conduct small field trips between 1-2 faculty and 1-2 agency/company
people
4) Improve feedback mechanisms among COF and clientele (listening
to concerns)
5) Stronger role of co-ops to synthesize and disperse info including
periodic reviews of past info
Prepared by Greg Filip
2)
Mechanisms of implementing and funding research
Questions were reviewed with the group and consensus
was reached on the issue to be addressed. Primary focus was on the
question: How can the CoF improve or broaden mechanisms of implementing
or funding research in intensive forestry?
Brainstorming list
(list was developed during discussion of funding and implementation
mechanisms):
1) Traditional
coops
2) Very specific Request for Proposals (RFPs) from clients, including
direct contract between client and university researcher(s)
3) Issue-focused coops that are interdisciplinary in nature; examples
included coops focused on paired watershed experiments, shifting mosaic
concept for maintaining wildlife habitat while extracting timber,
Swiss needle cast coop as a precedent; should/can include provision
for a dynamic partner base
4) Outsourced research
5) Cooperative research center with corporate by-laws and specific
timelines; cited example of Australian research center in Melbourne
6) Cooperative with a dynamics partner base; funding on a project-by-project
basis
7) Contract with Oregon State University for specific projects
8) Endowments/gifts
9) Direct allocation from Congress (USDA/USDI/NSF) for intensive forestry
research (FIR and COPE models)
10) More efficient use of current funding (coops, Forest Research
Lab allocations, Timber Harvest Tax revenues)
11) Endowed programs
Other issues/concerns
applicable to all mechanisms:
1) Need (and past
failure) to identify customers and their needs, and to stay focused
on original objective/intent
2) Need to include an effective process for formulating appropriate
and fundable research questions
Synthesis
and priorities (original 11 mechanisms and 2 issues were condensed
into 10 items for voting):
1) Traditional
coops
2) Very specific Request for Proposals (RFPs) from clients, including
direct contract between client and university researcher(s)
3) Issue-focused coops that are interdisciplinary in nature; examples
included coops focused on paired watershed experiments, shifting
mosaic concept for maintaining wildlife habitat while extracting
timber, Swiss needle cast coop as a precedent; should/can include
provision for a dynamic partner base
4) Outsourced research
5) Cooperative research center with corporate by-laws and specific
timelines; cited example of Australian research center in Melbourne
6) Endowments/gifts
7) Direct allocation from Congress (USDA/USDI/NSF) for intensive
forestry research (FIR and COPE models)
8) More efficient use of current funding (coops, Forest Research
Lab allocations, Timber Harvest Tax revenues)
9) Endowed programs
10) Process for formulating appropriate and fundable research questions
Prioritization (each participant was allowed three votes, with multiple
votes from one person on a given item permissible):
|
Mechanism
|
Stakeholder
votes
|
OSU
votes
|
Total
votes
|
|
1)
|
4
|
2
|
6
|
|
2)
|
2
|
3
|
5
|
|
3)
|
5
|
4
|
9
|
|
4)
|
0
|
1
|
1
|
|
5)
|
6
|
1
|
7
|
|
6)
|
0
|
2
|
2
|
|
7)
|
0
|
1
|
1
|
|
8)
|
4
|
0
|
4
|
|
9)
|
0
|
1
|
1
|
|
10)
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
The following
two mechanisms were judged HIGH priority items:
3) Issue-focused
coops that are interdisciplinary in nature; examples included coops
focused on paired watershed experiments, shifting mosaic concept
for maintaining wildlife habitat while extracting timber, Swiss
needle cast coop as a precedent; should/can include provision for
a dynamic partner base
7) Direct allocation from Congress (USDA/USDI/NSF) for intensive
forestry research (FIR and COPE models)
The following
two mechanisms were judged MEDIUM priority items:
1) Traditional
coops
2) Very specific Request for Proposals (RFPs) from clients, including
direct contract between client and university researcher(s)
The two HIGH and two MEDIUM priority items were presented to the
entire assembly with some discussion of specifics but no modifications
to the proposed mechanisms.
Prepared
by Doug Maguire
3) Research
needs in the immediate future
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?
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:
1) Nutrition
2) Silviculture (stand scale management)
3) Combined activities (integrated effects of various management
practices)
4) Communication (research on public perceptions and how to transfer
information)
5) Miscellaneous
Following
is a list of all comments (Topic group in parenthesis):
Adequate or optimal nutrition for seedlings (in containers) and
the long-term effects of nutritional supplements on tree growth
and development. (1)
Improved
decision analysis tools, e.g., how to deal with uncertainty (5)
Development
of mixed species stands, specifically spatial layout in stands and
landscapes (2)
Quantification
of the integrated effect of management practices (3)
Evaluation
of small log harvesting systems (e.g., economics, impacts on soil)
(5)
OSU involvement
with the Headwater coop investigating the impact of cutting practices
on watersheds (5)
Improved
accuracy of growth and yield models, i.e., local adaptations, predictions
of large areas (3)
Investigation
into public perceptions of forestry practices (4)
Quantification
of the range of outputs and tradeoffs from various management practices
(3)
Baseline
data on resource (e.g., soil, water) impact of intensive management
(3)
Reviewing
external work: Are we taking advantage of work done in other parts
of the world? (4)
How can
we put stands on a trajectory, that they develop into older forest
structure (2)
Improved mechanisms for information exchange (e.g., discussion groups,
forums) (4)
Complex
of understory vegetation, specifically the impact of understory
vegetation on nutrition and soils (1,2)
Actual
ability to capture increased growth (3)
Political
and economical incentives for intensive forest management in Southwest
Oregon (5)
Competitive
dynamics, i.e., develop indexes of relative competitiveness of weeds
in relationship to various tree species (2)
Alternatives
to chemicals for plantation establishment (2)
Potential
future products (as technology changes) (3)
Definition
of "local" in terms of genetic adaptations (how far can
seeds be moved?) (2)
Alternative
weed control and fertilizing practices, e.g., legumes as cover crop
(1,2)
Role and
importance of residual trees to young stand development (2)
Public
opinion and value research (4)
4) Information needs
on the horizon
What information needs relevant to the practice
of intensive forestry are on the horizon (20 or more years in the
future)?
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
BRAINSTORMING
IDEAS
VISIONING
• What is going to be important 20 years out - be flexible
• Intensive management for future energy and water demands
• Analyzing potential future products
• A better understanding of the global driving forces to be
competitive and compatible
• Mid-rotation silviculture
• Research into methods and incentives for new mills and milling
techniques in anticipation of the wood resource being produced
SOCIAL
LICENSE
• Social
license to intensively manage trees on at least a portion of the
Northwest landscape
• Obtain social license for plantation (production) forestry
• Make forestry the preferred and desired land use
• Managing forests in the urban interface - right to practice
- market benefits
TECHNOLOGICAL ADVANCEMENT
• Produce wood of decent quality on short rotations
• Designer wood - wood for specific uses
• Focus on "souping-up" forestry to produce quality
wood
• Enhanced early growth (Douglas-fir to 2 meters in 2 years)
• Define maximum productivity (not just for Douglas-fir) and
means to get there
• What happens at different rotation ages with respect to product
yield and quality
• Stronger early starts in the nursery
• High production forests without herbicides or with just a
few selected products
• Form biotechnological consortium to determine Douglas-fir
genetic productivity
• Impact of intensive management on other resources
• Closed system recycling into forest systems - waste issues
•Increase efforts on intensive forestry research (to about
25% of all research not current 11%)
• Silviculture of starting and growing multi-species stands.
• Faster and stronger trees
• Grow square trees
• Define maximum productivity regardless of species
• Develop forest operations without environmental footprints
• Genetic engineering
MISCELLANEOUS
•Forestry land use planning - forests are on poorer lands -
need strategies to keep better lands in trees
• Keeping short-term studies going to obtain long-term results
• Go worldwide for best species and systems
• Find different ways of funding forest research - a collaboration
between producers and government
• Test dogmas regardless of political input
• Create other consortia to fund research other than co-ops
• Synthesize first (nationally and internationally) to avoid
duplication
• Provide more published results
____________________________________________________________________________________________
Disclaimer
I
Contact us I Web
Page Comments
[Updated: March 13, 2002]
|
_______________________Intensive
Forestry Research Summit Follow-Up