Developing needs-based inventory methods for non timber forest products

Research priorities and working group discussions
Group 1 - Macro Level

1. Links to or integration with existing surveys

The possibility of linking or integrating NTFP inventory into existing surveys needs further investigation (note importance of both forest and agricultural inventories). In contrast to timber trees note that NTFPs have different temporal as well as spatial variation.

In addition there is a need to examine the links with local issues and local research projects. The major problems of scaling between local/community and national scales need to be clearly identified and the issues of data comparability and the extent to which national needs can or should dictate standard protocols for local inventories need to be investigated.

Size/cost:
Either large scale (multi-disciplinary) and/or a series of case studies (utilising student theses?). Studies should be regional, i.e. they should not be restricted to one single country.

Collaborators:
These should be multidisciplinary and efforts need to be made to identify people from other disciplines. Inclusion of ICRAF or some other agroforestry expertise is quite important. All Group 3 members were interested in being involved in this work.

Funding:
Possible sources include the EU or other multilateral donors. Funding for thesis topics would go via Universities.

2. Product specific inventory

There is a need to optimise methods for product specific inventory (where inventory cannot be solely based on 1 (above)), e.g.

This is narrower scope research with a focus on more technical methods and should involve experts on spatial distribution and field scientists amongst others. Note that a specific product focus may open up funding from commercial/trade interests.

Cost/size:
Projects would be medium sized or generally smaller than for topic 1.

Collaborators:
Collaborators might include INBAR and FAO. Expertise on GIS and remote sensing (for spatial information techniques) and from botanists with field experience and field scientists would be required. All those in Group 3 were interested in being involved in this research.

Funding:
There are a variety of possible sources including: INBAR, private enterprise, bilateral agencies (e.g. Belgium) and the Fund for Common Commodities.

3. NTFP classification

There is a need to understand how to classify NTFPs in terms of inventory needs. This could combine 2 (above) with issues arising from 1. The typology should build on that developed by Wong (2000), i.e. classification by distribution type, life-form etc. It would be important to link this with an existing FAO working group that is already looking at this problem.

Collaborators should include someone who participated in preparing the FAO definitions.

4. Monitoring models

There is a need to develop models or to identify potential indicators of spatial distribution (at the landscape level) and abundance. This should involve adaptive sampling at a macro level/landscape level; stratification; use of multilayer GIS; fuzzy logic etc. Such research should involve statistical/technical experts.

Collaborators:
These could include University PhD work (e.g. Helsinki University) and forest services (e.g. Guyana Forestry Commission and Sudan Forest Service). Further collaborators could be identified via IUFRO.

Funding sources:
These might include SAREC (Sweden) and the EC INCO-DEV

5. Linking market information to the resource

There is a need to consider how market information can be linked to the resource. Such research should draw on the expertise of economic geographers, economists and inventory experts.

6. Information needs

There is a need to determine the NTFP resource information needs for certification, commerce (valuation), reporting on compliance with international agreements. Work on this should link to CIFOR work on criteria and indicators etc.