Quinquennial Review stakeholder views - Forestry interests

 

• Foresters
• Timber users and forestry industry
• Special interest groups
• National Forest and 2 Community Forests
• Miscellaneous organisations

Foresters

Responses were received from bodies representative of individual foresters:

• Institute of Chartered Foresters
• Association of Professional Foresters

and from individual foresters themselves.

General

These respondants universally applauded the quality and value of Forest Research's work.

There was a general feeling that dissemination of research results, to a geographically-spread and often isolated profession, could be improved - for instance by better use of the website, the issue of more Research Information Notes and more frequent regional forest health days.

The changes which had followed agency status had good points and bad points:

• On the one hand, important new areas of research had been adopted and partnership working and dissemination of results improved
• On the other, there was an emphasis on short-term problem-orientated research at the expense of longer-term strategic work and an impression that researchers had reduced freedom to propose initiatives.

Organisation

The continuation of a single GB body was the preferred organisational solution, in the interests of achieving economies of scale and the necessary critical mass for good research. However responsiveness to the devolved agenda in the shape of the country forestry strategies needed to be improved.

A government research body (or at least one supported by government) was still required in view of the weakness of the general industry.

One respondent suggested a non-profit making trust company with an independent board of scientific and technical directors drawn widely from the forestry sector and beyond, core-funded by the Forestry Commission.

Research topics

A variety of new (or augmented) research topics was suggested and there was a call for a greater input to the formulation of the Forestry Commission's research strategy.

Top of page

Timber users and forestry industry

Responses received from:

• UK Forest Products Association - on behalf of the users of timber
• Forest Industries Development Council - representing the entire forestry industry.

General

Again, the quality, and relevance of Forest Research's work was appreciated.

Closer links with other research establishments on collaborative research projects was suggested, as well as closer liaison with users in the industry, who felt more distant from Forest Research than before 1997.

Forest Research had become more responsive to its clients and demonstrated its willingness to work with other organisations as partners.

Organisation

Forest Research should remain a single GB body - part of, or closely linked to, the Forestry Commission - and there was still a clear need for a substantial publicly-funded research programme because of the public benefits provided by the timber-growing sector and the degree of fragmentation of the industry.

Surprisingly little of its work was externally-funded and it would benefit from a more flexible staffing and organisational structure.

Top of page

Special interest groups

Responses received from:

• Woodland Trust
• British and Irish Hardwoods Improvement Programme
• Small Woods Association
• Cumbria Broadleaves.

General

They testified to the excellent standard and quality of Forest Research's work.

Knowledge transfer

However they were more critical of the arrangements for dissemination, calling for:

• Much greater use of the website
• Easier permission to reproduce research results in the newsletters etc. of other bodies
• On-site demonstrations, regional conferences and events including "research update" events (one of which was being organised in the north of England for the first time).

Funding

There were reservations about the "cost recovery" orientation of Forest Research, which could preclude important but non-commercial work and make it difficult for the voluntary sector to influence research. A "bursary in kind", allowing the voluntary sector to commission Forest Research work, was suggested).

Partnerships

Closer partnership was required with small woodland owners with a greater accent on

• Social and environmental research (which was getting more attention but on which the size of the budget still did not reflect the importance of the work)
• Broadleaved research (particularly with an eye to improving timber quality).

Objectives

Forest Research's objectives should be widened to include research on any government policy with an impact on woodland, and developing insights into forests' contribution to sustainable development and quality of life in Britain.

Clear and rigorous review of Forest Research's work was required, to maintain the independence (and perceived independence) of its research conclusions. In the longer term, it was suggested that a wider funding base, with greater independence from government, might encourage more innovative research.

Top of page

National Forest and 2 Community Forests

Responses received from

• National Forest
• 2 Community Forests (Mersey Forest and Red Rose Forest).

General

They regarded Forest Research as responsive, professional and frank in its advice, more business-orientated and attuned to the needs of customers than before. Collaboration was good, but could be better: "partnership" should be emphasised in Forest Research's objectives.

Forest Research had reacted a little slowly to the radical change in forestry over the past 10 years: what was needed was the anticipation of changing demands.

Future research

Specific new research topics were suggested - the most important of which was the central collection of data and experience about the effect of creating a considerable area of new urban woodlands.

Top of page

Miscellaneous organisations

Responses received from:

• Scottish Forest Industries Cluster (a collaboration between Forestry Commission, Scottish Enterprise and the forest industries in Scotland)
• Scottish Forestry Trust
• Commonwealth Forestry Association
• "Forestry for People Advisory Panel" set up by the Forestry Commission to provide advice on best practice in community involvement in Scotland.

General

Their comments were inevitably diverse but had a number of common strands.

Again, they commended the quality of Forest Research's research.

Commissioning research

However they were concerned about the commissioning process:

• Forestry Commission and Forest Research were seen as being too close
• The interposition of Forestry Commission as a commissioning body could distance Forest Research from end users
• Too little social (forestry) research was carried out
• There was doubt about whether Forestry Commission was taking a truly comprehensive view of the "wood chain" when it commissioned research.

In particular, there was a view that more research should be carried out on widening the market for timber (in view of the projected increase in wood production) - perhaps through greater collaboration between the end-user of timber and relevant research establishments including Forest Research.

Funding

There was a view that the UK was missing out on the practice in other parts of the world, where strong research bodies drove innovation in industry. In that respect, there were reservations about the requirement to cover full economic costs and a suggestion that 10% of the budget should be allocated to speculative research.

Knowledge transfer

Suggestions were made about improving dissemination of research results: there was a need for:

• Speed
• Greater use of the website
• More publication in peer-reviewed journals (for the sake of demonstrating quality).

Evaluation of research

The balance of research undertaken by Forest Research needed independent evaluation, perhaps by a "whole-institute" visiting group; and it was suggested that the Chief Executive of Forest Research should have a research qualification.

Organisation

In organisational terms, there was opposition to integrating Forest Research into a larger organisation or trisecting it into three country components. 

Top of page