| European
Tropical Forest Research Network |
Research priorities and working group discussions
Group 3 - Species / Product Level
This Group focused on inventory at the species/product level. The Group was chaired by Carol Grossman and the rapporteur was Nell Baker.
Discussion
It was agreed that because it might not be possible to discuss all topics within the time period given, it would be wise to do an initial rough prioritisation and then discuss topics in order of priority. Topics were prioritised in the following order:
The first three topics were discussed within the time given. It was agreed that the fifth topic spans through the other four. The Group first redefined the key questions proposed by the review (Annex 3) and then made suggestions for research activities. In general the Group broadened the questions, only discarding one question completely. Proposed activities were also broadened and some terms were redefined.
A central issue that was raised was the need to apply existing scientific knowledge to needs on the ground, and that this requires applied research.
Assessment
The Group was interested in altering the problem definition but decided that this was not the task at hand. The Group also agreed that it was not possible in the present forum to prioritise products and species that needed to be worked on. It was agreed that any research commissioned would have to be undertaken for specific products and species identified via the research proposal.
There was some discussion about where yield assessment fits within the 5 topics. It was concluded that ‘assessment’ should include measurement of the actual resource (species and or product) and measurements that need to be made for the assessment of growth and yield.
The first three key questions presented by Dr Wong were adopted but the fourth was considered inappropriate. The questions adopted were:
1. Do measurement techniques for NTFPs exist in other disciplines e.g. agriculture, horticulture, animal science etc.? If so how much modification would they need for adoption for NTFPs?
2. Are there significant resources for which there are no suitable measurement techniques? How might suitable protocols be developed for these resources?
3. Are existing methods for harvester/hunter self-assessment adequate and widely known? If not, what research, by whom, would be appropriate to develop processes for developing participatory assessment protocols?
Suggested activities adopted by the Group were:
1. Screening of a wide range of disciplines for resource (species and or product) measurement (including measurements for growth and yield) for potential use with NTFPs.
2. Development, testing and adaptation of field protocols (includes tools and technologies) derived from the most promising methods. Development of protocols for any common and important product types for which there are no existing methods. E.g. variants for use with linear features and products (e.g. lianas) and for measuring areas.
3. Collation and evaluation of user-based resource assessment studies. Development and testing of suitable methods to include local knowledge in the selection of growth and yield parameters and the choice of quality factors to measure.
Monitoring
The group decided that ‘assumed indicator’ was a more useful term than ‘proxy indicator’. In recognition of the fact that the indirectness of an indicator is not the problem, but rather the fact that those using the indicator assume (often without adequate verification) that it relates to the resource they are interested in monitoring.
Questions adopted by the Group were:
1. There are different types of monitoring methods for assessing growth and yield and exploitation. What are these and what are the difficulties with them? Can we develop generic methods or protocols for groups of products or resource stocks?
2. Is it practical to develop systems for investigating and monitoring the links between assumed indicators and resource condition?
3. It would be useful to have monitoring systems that cover a range of objectives at the same time but how feasible is it to design and implement such systems and will they work?
4. How can we assist users to develop their own monitoring systems that are scientifically and methodologically sound?
Activities adopted by the Group were:
1. Collation and evaluation of forest monitoring systems for potential application to NTFP species. This would most likely be a desk study followed by pilot studies. The pilot studies should test efficiency of different methods.
2. Examination of the linkages between biometric methods that monitor growth and yield and those that monitor extraction.
3. Investigation of the linkages between assumed indicators (e.g. market data or photographs) and resource condition for a range of products and contexts.
4. Preparation of guidance on the selection of monitoring protocols for NTFPs in the form of a decision-support system.
Sampling
The Group felt that activity 4 in J Wong’s original list fitted better under Assessment than under Sampling.
Key questions adopted by the Group were:
1. There are new sampling designs with potential use for NTFPs. How relevant are they and how can they be adapted for NTFP sampling?
2. What are the pragmatic steps we can take to improve sampling techniques in the field for NTFPs?
Research activities agreed by the Group were:
1. Evaluation of the relative efficiency (costs, time, relative precision etc.) of new sampling designs (adaptive protocols) in the field for a range of resources and product types.
2. Evaluation of the potential utility of rank set sampling for utilising indigenous or prior knowledge in the selection of sampling locations.
3. Investigate the use of local knowledge for generating sampling designs in a way that is biometrically acceptable.
The following additional points were agreed regarding all activities identified. Those undertaking the research would have to come from multi-disciplinary backgrounds. Methods should be tested in a range of sites where there are different products and species. The methods need to be tested where they will be applied. It is important to be certain that there are people available who can do the research when choosing where to undertake research. Research should be undertaken in places where there is a specific expressed need. The methods developed must be tested in such a way that they can be transferred to other areas.
For dissemination it is important first to identify who needs the methods most. Secondly we urgently need a central place where information on NTFP inventory methods is located. This could be an institution, a publication or a web page. The mode of dissemination will depend upon the identified end user.