Quinquennial Review stakeholder views - Universities etc.

 

Responses received

• Oxford Forestry Institute
• University of Aberdeen
• University of Central Lancashire (runs the Newton Rigg School of Forestry),
• University of Portsmouth (School of Biological Sciences)
• University of Wales (runs the School of Agricultural and Forest Sciences at Bangor)

Summary

Again, the high quality of Forest Research's research was praised.

Forest Research was felt to be responsive to the needs of industry (foresters, consultants and contractors alike) and public policy.

Partnership and collaboration was good but there was scope for more close collaboration and in particular joint research facilities were suggested at Penrith and Bangor (the latter serving the emerging Welsh research agenda).

Greater focus and a more business-like approach had emerged since the creation of Forest Research - but this was not always a good thing because the requirement to recover costs could hinder responsiveness.

Knowledge transfer

It was suggested that:

• The number of peer-reviewed publications should be increased
• Results could sometimes be published more quickly
• Better use could be made of the website in disseminating results.

Organisation

The organisational status quo was seen to be the best solution because it made it easiest to plan research on a long-term basis, rather than being constrained by short-term contracts and having to chase funding opportunities. Forestry research was unlikely to be provided satisfactorily through private funding.

Future research

Suggestions were made on future research topics - the most important of which were more:

• Strategic research
• Research on the contribution of forests and woodlands to a diversified rural economy
• Research on the silviculture and genetics of broadleaved trees (as distinct from their conservation value).

It was pointed out that only one of Forest Research's four objectives mentions "research"!