Report on
Discussion Forum on Information Services in the Asia-Pacific
and
AGRIS/CARIS in the 21st Century
an Asia-Pacific Regional Consultation

Edited by Michael Ibach and Yvonne Byron

DISCUSSION FORUM ON INFORMATION SERVICES

IN THE ASIA-PACIFIC

Becky Skidmore

ASEAN Forest Tree Seed Centre Project, Ottawa, Canada

List of Acronyms

[Chapter 1]
Introduction

[Chapter 2]
Forestry Information Initiatives

[Chapter 3]
Collaboration

[Chapter 4]
The Survey

[Chapter 5]
The Discussion Forum

[Chapter 6]
Final Action Plans

[Chapter 7]
Keynote Papers

[Chapter 8]
Conclusions

[References]

[Appendix 1]
Survey Questionnaire

[Appendix 2]
Forestry Information Services in the Asia-Pacific Region

[Appendix 3]
The Future for Scientific Publishing and Information in the Asia-Pacific Region

[Appendix 4]
Information Services at IUFRO

[Appendix 5]
Sources of Forestry Information

[Appendix 6]
List of Participants

The questionnaire was sent to 24 national forestry research institutes, forest research departments, forestry faculties of universities and forestry projects in the Asia-Pacific. Eighteen recipients from 14 countries responded to the questionnaire, giving a 73% response rate. The small sample size and the broad range of responses often made it difficult to extrapolate meaningful statistics, leading to the overall conclusion that the information service units of the region varied considerably in terms of their facilities, resources and management (see Appendix 2 for a discussion of the survey results). Similarly, survey results sometimes were contradictory, as in the case where the data showed a strong management commitment to improved funding of the ISU, but a consistently low level of budget allocation to information services. Many of the respondents also indicated that the lack of literature search capabilities was a constraint to improved quality and quantity of research, yet 18 of the 19 replies indicated they either had access or could get access to relevant published literature.

Despite these difficulties, the responses made it possible to highlight common organisational and operational details and express shared concerns. A list of perceived needs was generated from the survey results, including:

1. Inadequate funding of information services unit
2. Lack of recognition for information professionals
3. Lack of research information management systems within organisations
4. Lack of awareness of and access to current, world-wide literature
5. Lack of training in literature synthesis and scientific writing
6. Lack of training for support staff in information services
7. Considerable variation between libraries in equipment levels
8. Limited exchange of available forestry information within the region
9. Lack of formalised networks of forestry libraries in the region
10. Limited distribution of published forestry information and databases

The organising parties recognised that the list existed purely as a basis for generating further discussion at the proposed Discussion Forum. The Forum itself would focus on refining the list, prioritising needs, exploring solutions and developing specific action plans.