Quinquennial Review stakeholder views - Non-departmental public bodies

 

Responses received

• Countryside Council for Wales
• Deer Commission for Scotland (DCS)
• English Nature
• English Partnerships
• Environment Agency
• Highlands and Islands Enterprise (HIE)
• Natural Environment Research Council (NERC)
• Scottish Natural Heritage.

Summary

Like the government departments, they were very complimentary about the quality of Forest Research's research, though the DCS noted that economic analysis was lacking. Respondents welcomed the accessibility of its technical and popular reports, but HIE felt that its services needed more energetic promotion.

Collaborations and partnerships

There was a general welcome for the collaborative research that was already carried out with NERC emphasising the usefulness of sharing field sites, equipment and data. However there appeared to be scope for more such collaborative/partnership working, with closer links with other research institutions, especially universities.

Research focus

There was a general feeling that Forest Research had changed for the better, particularly in moving away from its bias towards commercial plantation, towards social forestry and biodiversity, and that it was more closely focussed on user needs and value for money. However the change in research focus had lagged behind the change in forestry policy and Forest Research spending was still too concentrated on tree establishment, tree health and pests and diseases, with too little work still being done on social and environmental topics.

Organisation

The status quo was the preferred organisational arrangement. English Partnerships in particular noted that Forest Research was more accessible because of its links to Forestry Commission (with which English Partnerships had close links).

The brigading in one organisation of multi-disciplinary expertise was seen as vital to successful research into sustainable forest management - but it was felt that Forest Research staff should be more closely integrated into project teams, rather than organised in specialised branches.

Commissioning research

There was a view that it was more difficult than previously to get involved in the process of commissioning Forestry Commission research and a forum for regular debate on the future direction of research was suggested.

English Nature considered that Forest Research's requirement to recoup the full economic costs of its work made it less responsive to requests for visits or contributions to its courses. They were also concerned about how a relatively small research establishment such as Forest Research could best continue to be outward-looking and yet provide staff with satisfactory career prospects.

NERC believed that value for money could be demonstrated better if more Forestry Commission research was openly tendered.