| Summary: | As society's demands for goods and services from forests increase, there is a corresponding increase in demand for high quality science which can help shape forestry policies for the sustainable management of natural resources. Forestry research is now undertaken in a very diverse Range of institutions. The increased outputs from researchers in domains other than traditional forestry schools have not been matched by systematic methods of utilising new or existing information for policy or to identify future research needs that reflect the priorities of people in forestry's extended networks. An analysis of academic papers and informal articles indicated that the term 'evidence- based' is widely used in environmental literature, matching the rates of popularity of the term 'evidence-based medicine', but without the rigorous methodological processes that medicine has adopted to justify the phrase. Two strands of participatory research were undertaken to examine the potential for adopting rigorous evidence-based frameworks for forestry. The first focussed on a process for identifying important questions for policy-focussed forestry research. Using a combination of internet-based surveys and a workshop, some 480 people representing broad interests in the UKforestry sector set out a priority list of research questions. In the second, a group of international researchers and policy makers explored the possibility of using systematic reviews for validating the evidence base for carbon stock assessment under the REDD (Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and forest Degradation) process. The results indicate that there is capacity to collaborate to frame questions and critically appraise evidence for important policy issues. The longer-term benefits of adopting gold-standard systematic reviews are clear, however, there are also short-term advantages to be gained from moving incrementally towards this goal. In the aftermath of society's concerns about possible manipulation of science by experts (in the climate science arena), it would be folly for the forestry sector to ignore the benefits that would accrue from adopting genuinely evidence-based procedures for matters of global significance.
|
|---|
