MINUTES OF THE 4th IMACFORD MEETING IN ISTANBUL
ON APRIL 11 and 12, 2003
The
4th IMACFORD-B2 meeting was organised jointly with Fatih University
(Istanbul, Turkey) and took place at this Turkish university on April 11 and
12, 2003. There were 18 participants at the meeting coming from various
universities and research institutes from 7 different Mediterranean countries.
The participant list is available at http://www.medforex.net/imacford.
The aim of this meeting was to discuss how scientific approaches can take into
account the perceived trade-offs, to co-operate and to improve the usefulness
of the results.
SESSION ON APRIL 11,
2003
MORNING SESSION:
Alexi
Danchev chaired the morning session of the meeting. All presentations were done
in the morning session, whereas in the afternoon group discussions and group
presentations would take place.
First presentation:
The rector of Fatih University, Turgut
Balkas, presented Fatih University and welcomed all participants to the
meeting. This and subsequent
presentations can be found at http://www.medforex.net/imacford.
A few questions on the Turkish research and education system were raised after
this presentation. The detailed comments and questions after this and
subsequent presentation are found in the appendix of this document.
Second presentation: Pere Riera presented
the MEDFOREX and the IMACFORD projects, emphasising the links between them.
MEDFOREX is an EFI Regional Project Centre with a established network that
focuses on Mediterranean Forest Externalities. It was created four years ago
and it is now reapplying for continuation. IMACFORD is a 5FP Accompanying
Measure aimed to discuss how to place forestry in the 6FP. MEDFOREX network is
involved in B2 task of IMACFORD, which deals with Mediterranean Forestry. He
pointed out the main objectives of IMACFORD and he highlighted that this 4th
IMACFORD workshop should deal with the research agenda.
Third presentation: Mustafa Türker
and Said Dagdas explained the
socio-economical and environmental situation of forests in Turkey, highlighting
the Mediterranean forest externalities valuation exercise in Turkey and forest
management. Some questions after this presentation referred to privatisation,
illegal logging and research priorities in Turkey (biodiversity and
sustainability).
Fourth presentation: Georgy
Pouhalev and Katinka Mihova gave
a presentation on “Forestry and Externalities in Bulgaria” discussing the main
issues Bulgaria is facing.
Fitfth presentation: Altan Kucukcinar presented
the International Scientific Cooperation in the Sixth Framework program. He
focused on the strategic objectives, the main routes for international
scientific cooperation (3). He specifically referred to opening of “Focussing
and Integrating community research” to third country organisations. He
mentioned the applicable countries, available funds, kinds of projects,
specific measures to support international cooperation, regional priorities
(for Mediterranean partner countries, developing countries, Western Balkan
countries and Russia and NIS), calls, etc. After this presentation some
questions focused on the change in thematic priorities for the next call in
2004 and participation of non-EU countries in the projects.
AFTERNOON
SESSION
Discussion
Robert Mavsar
and Nike Krajnc organised and
moderated the discussion. Firstly, they gave a short presentation on the
objectives of this 4th IMACFORD- Task B2 meeting, on the questions to be addressed, the
working methods to be used (H-method,
pair ranking and voting with neutral scoring units), as well as on the working
procedures and rules for discussion in groups.
The
three questions to be addressed in the discussion were:
1.
How can the co-operation between researchers
within and between different research disciplines be improved?
2.
How can the usefulness of the research results
for the end-users be improved?
3.
Which are the most relevant research topics
related to Mediterranean forests?
The
expected results of the workshop were:
R.1 A
list with proposals for the improvement of co-operation among researchers (approximately
10 proposals);
R.2 A list
of the 5 most relevant topics related to Mediterranean forests;
R.3 A list
with proposals for the improvement of the usefulness of the research results (approximately 10 proposals);
The
18 participants were divided into three groups, and a group leader and a
reporter were designated in each group. The main role of the group
leader was to co-ordinate work within the group. The reporter had to present the
results of the group to all participants.
Group discussions of question 1. How can the co-operation between
researchers within and between different research disciplines be improved?
The H-method
was explained to participants in order to answer the first question in each of
the three groups. This method consists first in estimating individually the importance
of some specific condition (in this case “the co-operation between researchers
within and between different research disciplines”) by giving a score between 0
and 10. Afterwards, each person in the group describes three reasons about the weaknesses
and the strengths of the condition. Finally, each group prepares 3 or 5
recommendation for improving the situation. After the H-method, pair ranking
was used in order to decide which recommendation is the most important; all
recommendations are compared with each other.
After
applying the H-ranking and pair ranking methods to answer this question, the
reporter of each group presented the results to the rest of participants.
Question 3. Which are the most relevant research topics related
to Mediterranean forests?
In
order to answer this question the method of “voting with neutral scoring units”
was used. All participants were provided with the list of relevant research
topics related to Mediterranean forests that resulted from the previous
IMACFORD-B2 workshops (32 topics) and each participant had 5 colour dots
(stickers). Each dot represented a point. Each participant could decide on its
own how to distribute his/her five points among all suggested topics. One topic
could be given more than 1 point from the same person.
Group discussions of question 2. How can the
usefulness of the research results for the end-users be improved?
As
it was done for question 1, the H-method (first) and pair ranking (second) were
used to evaluate the usefulness of research results for end users. Before
starting with H-ranking, there was a discussion about the meaning of this
question. It was clarified that the objective of this question was to estimate
how the results of research could be used by end users even if there was no
extension programs devoted to it.
Finally,
group results were presented to the other participants and the schedule for the
next day was presented.
SESSION ON APRIL
12, 2003
In
this session, Robert Mavsar and Nike Krajnc presented the overall
results of the discussion carried out the previous day, and the results to the
answers to the three questions were discussed among all participants.
Discussion on Q3 (Relevant research topics for
Mediterranean forests)
First,
the results of voting in this and previous meetings were presented. According
to participants in this meeting, the most relevant topics related to
Mediterranean forest research were:
|
Topic |
Votes |
|
Policy design and evaluation (including
research on financing) |
9 |
|
Rural development, rural decline, and land
abandonment |
8 |
|
Integrated management |
7 |
|
Biodiversity conservation |
6 |
|
Participatory appraisal (including
interactions between stake-holders) |
6 |
|
Equity and distributional issues |
5 |
|
Forest fires |
5 |
|
Land use planning and options |
5 |
|
Extended markets for marketable products |
4 |
The
results of the voting were compared with the ones obtained in the previous
IMACFORD B2 meetings are summarised in the following table:
|
Topic |
Society
demands |
Personal
perspective |
Istanbul
group |
|
Policy design and evaluation (including
research on financing) |
19 |
7 |
9 |
|
Rural development, rural decline, and land
abandonment |
12 |
3 |
8 |
|
Integrated management |
7 |
9 |
7 |
|
Biodiversity conservation |
8 |
8 |
6 |
|
Participatory appraisal (including
interactions between stake-holders) |
4 |
5 |
6 |
|
Equity and distributional issues |
0 |
1 |
5 |
|
Forest fires |
3 |
4 |
5 |
|
Land use planning and options |
12 |
15 |
5 |
|
Extended markets for marketable products |
1 |
1 |
4 |
Discussion of Q1 (Co-operation between
researchers within and between research disciplines)
The
results of the group discussion on the co-operation between researchers within
and between different research disciplines on the previous day were presented.
Individual marks ranged from 2.5 to 5, the average score being 3.4. Group marks
were: 4, 2.5 and 4.4.
Regarding
the reasons why participants thought that cooperation was not very good at the
moment, participants mainly referred to issues related to the nature of
research projects and research work, but also pointed out political issues,
communication problems, funding impediments and language barriers.
The majority of the participants
had more reasons to argue why co-operation was not good at the moment than
reasons why it was good (which was expected according to low individual marks).
All good sides of co-operation at the moment are divided into two subgroups:
nature of research projects and research work, and funding issues. Researchers
are more and more aware of the necessity for co-operation. International
projects demand co-operation between different institutions, regions,
countries. EU research programme is forcing development of networks.
The proposed recommendations for
improving cooperation in the future were:
(Those
solutions selected by groups with the pair ranking method are in italic)
v
Incentives for
interdisciplinary co-operative research projects and structures
v
Incentives to partnership in joint construction
of research projects
v
More clearly formulated demands from end-users
v
Public funds for applied
research
v
Promoting networking within
and between countries / regions
v
Improving information on results
v
Recognising the added value from co-operation in the evaluation of
scientists
v
Cross-disciplinary curricula at the university level
v
More influence of researchers in research programme design
Some
comments on the recommendation to improve the future co-operation between
researchers involved in Mediterranean forestry were made (see the appendix for
a discussion on Q1). It was mentioned that end-users are already taking part in
the design of research programmes, but they sometimes do not have very clear
ideas. Also, it was pointed out that the co-operation between scientists should
be an asset for obtaining a good evaluation.
Discussion
of the results for question Q2.
The
average score for the estimation of how research results can be used by
different end-users was 5.3 (individual scores ranged from 2 to 8).
Although
the overall score is over 5, the main deficiencies and benefits of the present
situation referred to the current nature of research work, the attitude of
end-users, the poor relation and links between researchers and end-users and to
economic and political problems. The narrow view of researchers and lack of
extension were two important issues in the discussion about the negative side.
On the other side, the quality and applicability of research results were
mentioned, as well as the increasing importance of participation of end-users
or the improvement of the links between end-users and researchers.
In
the discussion, the need to improve extension and knowledge transfer was
emphasised. The fact that end-users may not have clear ideas about what should
be put in the research agenda was also pointed out, as well as the possible
lack of knowledge of the available research funds. In addition, there was also
a discussion on whether the obtained score was a good enough one. On the other
hand, the control of funds for research, the role of funding organisations in
research and the awareness of end-users about the fact that they actually pay
for research were pointed out. See the appendix on Q2 for a more detailed
discussion.
The
proposed recommendations for the improvement of the usefulness of research
results for end-users are listed bellow:
(Those solutions selected by groups
with the pair ranking method are in italic)
v Creating a platform for
dialogue between end-users and researchers
v Establishing a forum where researchers and various stakeholders can meet
v Involvement of end-users in
the research projects
v More funding from end-users to research projects
v Assembling of knowledge
(professionalism in the knowledge transfer)
v Increasing public awareness (education)
v Stimulating (funding) end-users induced research projects
v Incentives to improve the link between science and society
v Better dissemination strategies
v Development of information systems
v Development of participatory strategies
v Increased social dimension of Mediterranean forest research
In
the discussion, some comments on the recommendations to improve the usefulness
of research results for end-users were put forward by participants. The wide range of different end-users was mentioned,
together with the fact that the structure of end-users and their demands in the
Mediterranean region is different compared to other regions in Europe. The
identification of the various stakeholders before setting up discussion
platforms both for end-users and researchers was pointed out as an important
first step. Moreover, it was said that the EU is now promoting more and more
the participation of end-users in the formulation of research projects, and
that end-users should pay for the research they demand so that it meets their
needs.
On
the other hand, it was stressed that participants should make an effort to find
out the Mediterranean nature of the proposed recommendations and the estimated
strengths/ weaknesses, since the conclusions of IMACFORD- task B1 (which looks
at Atlantic forests) could be similar to the ones obtained by task B2 and
differences should be highlighted. A stronger link between the list of research
topics and the improvement of co-operation and usefulness of research results
should be found out.
Finally,
the objective of IMACFORD-Task 2 was clarified, which is to deliver a research agenda or
research topics related to Mediterranean forestry, but there is no compromise
in producing specific research projects. Reference to the last IMACFORD meeting
at the end of May was also made; it will deal with the dissemination of
results.
See
the appendix on Q2 for a more detailed discussion.
APPENDIX-
More detailed discussion and comments
Session
on April 11, 2003
Comments after the first presentation (Turgut
Balkas)
There
were some questions about the percentage of private universities in Turkey.
Turgut Balkas replied that it is about 10%, as 22 out of 80 universities are
private. Participants were also interested in knowing how was the employment
success of graduates at private universities compared to the state ones. The
rector answered that it was good, as there are fewer students and there is more
change to have a close follow up of the students at private universities.
Finally, the rector clarified that about 40% of the students were females.
Comments after the 5th presentation
(Altan Kucukcinar)
Leena
Roihuvuo asked him when the thematic priorities (which can be changed for the
next call in 2004) were expected to be change. The answer was that at the end
of the current year, late 2003. Also, clarification was made that each country
needs to have a representative at the EU in order to decide about this.
Pere
Riera said that MEDFOREX wanted to apply for a forest fire project including
countries with Mediterranean forests from outside the Mediterranean basin.
However, clarification was made that this was possible, but some countries
would have to pay for their costs.
Session on
April 12, 2003
Discussion
on Q1 (co-operation)
Regarding the recommendation on more influence of researchers in research programme design,
Yves
Birot showed his surprise. He believes that researchers are very much involved
in policy design, which is not such a top-down process. It was discussed on who
had had that idea, nobody seemed to had done it.
The
fact of indicating the results of pair rating in the last report was
emphasised.
Regarding
the third recommendation (“more clearly formulated demands formulated from
end-users”), Yves Birot pointed out that the demands of end-users are not
always clear (such as in the case of wild game and forests) and the job of
researchers should be to translate the demand of end-users.
Said
Dagdas asked about how to include the end-user demands in a research project.
Andreas Ottisch, in response to this, added that it may depend on the kind of
ownership, for example, in some cases where ownership is private timber
production is important. Robert Mavsar pointed out again that this issue might
be more relevant for the next question.
Josep
Maria Espelta and Andreas Ottisch proposed the following rephrasing of
recommendation 7: “recognising the added value from co-operation in the
evaluation of scientists” (which better reflects the discussion in their
group).
Comments on
positive and negative items:
Leena
Roihuvuo highlighted that “knowledge transfer” and “extension” are key words.
They should be placed instead of “relations between endusers and researchers”.
Yves Birot agreed with that and pointed out that “ensembling of knowledge” is
also another key word.
Andreas
Ottisch mentioned the need of producing good research and questioned the issue
of taking so much into account the end-users (as they maybe not always clear).
Regarding the lack of resources, Alexi
Danchev highlighted that there is a dramatic share of available funds that are
currently not effectively used.
Said
Dagdas stressed the importance of lack of extension in many cases.
Georgy
Poulev suggested a rephrasing of end-users (5): The problems (instead of the
questions) formulated by endusers are difficult to…
Yves
Birot highlighted that research involves exploratory work, and sometime
researchers do not know what they will find. That is why maybe only 50% of
research will be applicable maybe.
Pere
Riera wondered whether end-users realise that they are paying researchers. He
said that if they were aware of this they would probably pay more attention to
research and would contribute more.
Pere
Riera also mentioned that the average score (5,5) for this question is good
from his point of view. An agenda only set up by endusers would be quite
limited and also the opposite situation. Therefore, being in the middle seemed
not very bad to him. Andreas Ottisch did not agree with this last comment, as a
cooperation between researchers and end-users would reach a score of 10 and
this would be the best situation.
Katinka
Mihova pointed out that sometimes funding organisations pay for the research
they are interested in. If this is different to the other end-users’ wills,
these funding organisations are responsible for that.
Robert
Mavsar said that there is a need to not only include end-users (that is, not to
ignore them), but also to take them 100% as partners in research.
The
problem of disseminating research results and the lack of extension were again
mentioned.
Nike
Kranj mentioned that there should be a link between the question on cooperation
and the relevant research topics for Mediterranean forests.
Comments on the
recommendations for the future
Alexi
Danchev proposed to rephrase item 1 (Establishing a forum where researchers and
various stakeholders can meet) as “creating a platform for dialogue between
end-users and researchers”.
Andreas
Ottisch added that before setting up a series of meetings with a strong
representation of end-users, it was necessary firstly to find out who where the
stakeholders.
Yves
Birot suggested rephrasing “Involvement of end-users in the research projects”
as “Involvement of end-users in the formulation
of research projects”. Pere Riera pointed out that the EU is now stimulating
these issues.
Said
Dagdas questioned the appropriateness of the expression “public awareness”.
This expression refers to a wide variety of stakeholders and different types of
groups. Therefore it is seen as appropriate.
Josep Maria Espelta suggested a rephrasing of “More funding from end-users to research projects” into “Improving funding mechanisms for research projects from end-users”. If some enduser pays for a certain research, it is easier that the research results will be used by them in the future. The problem is how to make that end-users pay for research.
According to Pere Riera, the issue of “involvement of end-users in the formulation of research projects”
and “development of participatory strategies”
are repetitive and could come together. It was generally considered that the issue of improving the links
between end-users and researchers was repeated in various recommendations and
it should be necessary to join them up.
Yves
Birot commented that the final recommendations are not very Mediterranean, as
the same ones could have been reached in other regions. Therefore, he asked the
rest of the participants how to make these recommendations “more
Mediterranean”. He added that pulp and paper production is not the main
end-user in Mediterranean forests. Mediterranean end-users are interested in
other issues. The EC is probably expecting for specific recommendations for
Mediterranean forests.
Nike
Kranj pointed out that all participants probably had in mind the end-users from
Mediterranean areas and not other ones when answering the questions.
Also,
Andreas Ottisch said that as Mediterranean endusers have more different
interests than in other areas, that is why finding recommendations may be more
challenging.
Marc
Palahí emphasised that the list of relevant topics refer to Mediterranean
forests only and there should be a link between questions 1 and 2 and this
list. However, Yves Birot pointed out again that there should be a reflection
of the Mediterranean characteristics in the results of questions 1 and 2, too.
Mustafa
Türker pointed out the importance of the increased human dimension of
Mediterranean forests.
Yves Birot said that the development of information systems is an important issue, but it should rather be mentioned in the previous question.
Leena Roihuvuo said that
according to the IMACFORD Technical Annex there should be an effort done to
combine the important topics identified and how to incorporate them in
research. Pere Riera replied to that by saying that the results of the meetings
are produced in the form of the minutes and the deliverable reports for the
commission, in which this links are tackled.
Pere Riera added that in the
last IMACFORD-B2 task meeting at the end of May, the dissemination of the
results to the rest of the researchers and end-users will be examined. Also,
the issue of establishing permanent links and improving them should also be
looked at. He finally asked for suggestions on how to end up the meeting and
welcomed any suggestions for the preparation of the next one.
Yves Birot said that
IMACFORD intended to produce future projects (STREPs or others), as the
production of the research agenda was the target. Therefore, this should come
from the next meeting. On the other hand, he stressed again the need to think
more specifically in the Mediterranean region, concentrating on specific
Mediterranean issues, and not to come with the same proposals in task B1.
Leena Roihuvuo said that
IMACFORD-B2 task needs to contribute to task A, providing details and
cooperation. She also announced to all participants the celebration of the task
A meeting in Brussels at the beginning of October, where EU people and stakeholders
will be invited. Finally, she asked Pere Riera whether it had been helpful for
him to think about new projects through the various IMACFORD meetings. Pere
Riera replied that he had acquired a broader picture of Mediterranean forestry
as well as an interesting list of relevant topics.