Poplar Council of Canada Canadian Poplar Biotechnology Cooperative Industry Survey - Final Report Jim Richardson, Technical Director February 1998 _________________________________________________

Contents

The forest industry in several regions of Canada, covering most of the boreal forest region as well as the west coast, has an increasing interest in intensively managed plantations to provide their timber and fibre supply, as natural forests available for harvest are increasingly distant from conversion plants and are becoming increasingly reserved for conservation and environmental reasons. Many companies which currently utilize natural stands of aspen and poplar are looking to develop superior genot ypes of hybrid poplar and aspen as an alternative source of supply. There is some work underway in Canada in breeding and improvement of poplar¹, but not much use is being made of important advances in poplar biotec hnology. Although scientists in several parts of the country are either working on poplar genetic improvement and biotechnology or have related expertise, there is little or no coordinated effort.

Individual companies and other organizations wishing to pursue genetic improvement of poplar have become involved with cooperatives or consortia designed to maximize cooperation in the required research. Two of the key cooperatives, the Poplar Molecul ar Genetics Cooperative based at the University of Washington, and the Tree Genetic Engineering Research Cooperative based at Oregon State University, are centred in the U.S. In addition, the only purely Canadian group, the Western Boreal Aspen Cooperati ve, has allied itself with the Minnesota Aspen and Larch Cooperative for provision of technical expertise.

The Canadian Forest Service has articulated the need for a specifically Canadian cooperative or consortium which would address particular Canadian research priorities such as the introduction of genes for fungal resistance. Such an organization could also deal with specific scientific, environmental and policy issues relating to the Canadian regulatory process for testing and release of genetically improved and transgenic material. An equally important role could be as a means of promotion and public education relative to poplar biotechnology and genetic improvement. Preliminary contacts with Canadian forest industry, research organizations and the biotechnology industry have shown an apparently significant degree of interest in the possibility of a Canadian cooperative or consortium. The level of interest is sufficient to merit a more systematic approach to the development and establishment of a Canadian poplar biotechnology and advanced genetics cooperative.

As one of the first steps towards establishing a Canadian poplar biotechnology cooperative, the Canadian Forest Service asked the Poplar Council of Canada to undertake a survey of Canadian poplar-using industries to determine more precisely the level o f interest there might be in such a cooperative.

The survey was carried out through personal visits by the Council's technical director to corporate industrial members of the organization, as well as other Canadian poplar-using companies, to explore the idea of a cooperative and to determine the leve l of interest and the research priorities perceived by industry.

Top
 

The purpose of the industry survey was to explore the idea of a Canadian poplar biotechnology cooperative (also referred to as a Canadian poplar biotechnology and advanced genetics association) with the corporate industrial members of the Poplar Counci l of Canada and with other Canadian poplar-using companies in order to determine the level of interest and the research priorities perceived by industry. Personal visits made in the course of the survey were intended to determine:

1. existing company involvement, if any, in poplar intensive management, genetic improvement and biotechnology;
2. level of interest in a Canadian poplar biotechnology cooperative;
3. perceived research priorities for a cooperative - research topics and the objective of research;
4. interest in having a cooperative facilitate the regulatory process for introduction and use of research products;
5. interest in having a cooperative coordinate or facilitate promotion and public education in relation to intensively managed plantations of genetically improved poplar;
6. existing company involvement in cooperatives.

The survey was conducted through personal visits to silviculture, tree improvement and/or planning personnel of woodlands departments of selected Canadian poplar-using companies. Efforts were made to visit all significant companies, most of which are members of the Poplar Council of Canada. Separate visits were made in some cases to geographically separate divisions of the same corporate entity. The level of persons interviewed varied from tree improvement specialist to woodlands manager.

Background material and a list of questions, which had been reviewed by the steering committee for the survey project, were sent prior to the visit [copies attached]. During each visit itself, a presentation was made on the potential of poplar biotech nology and the possible place of a CPBC [copy of slides attached]. The questions were then discussed and notes recorded on the substance of the discussion. Each visit lasted about 90 minutes.

A total of 22 visits were made. A list of companies and individuals visited is attached. These visits cover northern, eastern and southern Quebec; northeast, north-central and northwest Ontario; central Saskatchewan; northern Alberta; and northeast a nd coastal British Columbia. Although it would have been impossible to visit all poplar-using industries within the time available, a relatively large and representative sample was obtained.

The scale of operations visited ranged from small companies or divisions with annual sales of less than $25 million and fewer than 200 employees to large corporations with annual sales more than $1 billion and more than 1000 employees. The products ma nufactured by these companies included pulp and paper, oriented strandboard, plywood and lumber. The only type of operation not sampled by the survey was smaller sawmilling operations which, in most cases, do not directly manage forest land and are there fore less likely to be interested in a poplar biotechnology cooperative producing improved planting material.

1. Poplar Issues

For most Canadian poplar-using companies, fibre supply is the most important issue in relation to poplar. However, the specifics of the issue vary greatly. Some companies are in a limited supply situation now. Others presently have sufficient supply , but either see future constraints brought on by competing users of the resource or decreasing availability of the kind of trees they require, or else wish to secure the long-term sustainability of their supply. Restrictions to the way public forest lan ds must be managed, and gradual reductions in annual allowable cuts, are a continuing concern. MacMillan Bloedel in coastal British Columbia is in the unique situation of having no natural poplar available to them and so having to create their own fibre source through poplar farming. For a number of Alberta companies the supply issue is related to the fact that, although they have public forest land available under some kind of long-term agreement, this is only sufficient to satisfy part of their plant capacity. For the rest they must rely on purchased wood or supply from private land. Some companies are pursuing strategies of acquiring private land with a view to planting poplar and thus obtaining security. Such companies tend to be more interested in the potential of improved planting stock. Others have made a commitment to extensive public forest land management and recognize that the level of intensive management required for growing poplars would be impractical or even impossible (due to restri ctions on herbicide use or planting of exotics on public land). In some cases a supply problem would be created by the company's desire to expand its plant capacity.

Related to the basic supply issue are questions of cost. For many companies, the supply is located farther and farther from the mill, necessitating long transport distances. Given freedom of choice, almost all would want to have fast-growing trees at low cost close to the mill.

Consistency of supply, in terms of quantity and quality, is also an issue. Wood quality, particularly fibre quality of unconventional material such as hybrids is generally unknown. Rot in older aspen is a concern, although clearly one that improved p roductivity and concomitant shorter rotations would almost certainly resolve.

Companies which are already involved in growing and planting improved poplar sometimes have other concerns. Which hybrid poplar clones to plant, improving productivity, and how to deal with the diseases affecting hybrid poplars are key issues for thes e companies. More broadly, there is uncertainty about whether hybrid (or otherwise improved) poplar can legitimately be planted on private land. This is a source of concern to Domtar which is committed to a significant program of intensive management of improved poplar in Quebec, where, although poplar planting on private agricultural land has been accepted, it is not clear whether the practice is within the spirit of the law and questions have been raised by the general public.

With only one or two exceptions, all companies had some degree of interest in hybrid poplar, hybrid aspen or genetically improved poplar or aspen. Even companies which said they had no particular interest had some limited involvement in test plantatio ns with improved material or had otherwise explored the possibilities. Where there was no current interest, there was still an awareness that the situation might change in the future and an active interest emerge.

The level of interest varies all the way from virtually none to substantial company programs of establishing and managing plantations of improved poplars. At the upper end of the scale are companies like MacMillan Bloedel Poplar Farms Division and Sco tt Paper in B.C. and Domtar Papers in Quebec. Scott Paper has the longest continuous experience with growing improved poplars of any company in Canada. MacMillan Bloedel's program is probably the most scientifically advanced and intensive at present. D omtar has made a recent significant corporate commitment to working with improved poplar in Quebec, a program that in part represents a renewal of the effort that Domtar in Cornwall, Ontario pursued with the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources in easter n Ontario in the 1980s. For those three companies the focus is hybrid poplar and genetically improved poplar.

Other Quebec companies, even those using aspen, expressed interest in hybrid poplar and genetically improved poplar. This probably reflects the success of the hybrid poplar program of the Quebec Ministry of Natural Resources under Gilles Vallée. This program has made particular efforts to develop hybrid clones adapted to the shorter growing seasons of boreal forest locations.

Most of the companies visited in Alberta, northeast British Columbia and Saskatchewan are members of the Western Boreal Aspen Cooperative (WBAC). In joining that cooperative they have already shown their interest in improved poplar. The focus for WBA C members is in obtaining hybrid aspen or other genetically improved aspen suitable to their conditions, and less on hybrid poplar. WBAC is involved in conventional tree improvement activities, selecting material and establishing test plantations.

Other companies have developed links with other organizations to provide expertise and test material in relation to improved poplar. Mention has been made of the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources program, now defunct, and the Quebec Ministry of Na tural Resources program which is still active, though Gilles Vallée has recently retired. The University of Toronto, with the expertise of Professor (now Emeritus) Louis Zsuffa and others, provided advice and scientific direction to the Ontario program, whose poplar genetic archival material it is still trying to preserve. Several companies have made use of the University of Toronto expertise. On the prairies, the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Administration (PFRA) has a long history of developing poplar s for that region, in an agricultural context. It has more recently helped provide poplar material to forest industry for test plantations.

In general, few of those interviewed expressed a desire to obtain and plant transgenic poplar at the earliest possible opportunity. This perhaps indicates an understanding of the early stage of development of such material, as well as a basic caution and reluctance to proceed too quickly before testing and regulatory affairs have been completed.

A great variety of different characteristics that might be introduced into improved poplar are of interest. However, there is much commonality amongst the ones that are mentioned most often. Improved productivity, resistance to insects and disease, h erbicide tolerance, wood fibre characteristics and adaptation to different growing conditions cover the range of topics.

Almost everyone is looking for improved productivity, whether this is expressed as faster growth, shorter rotations or avoiding age-related rot problems. There is only one slight reservation to this interest: MacMillan Bloedel Nipigon Plywood Division was concerned that growth not be too fast, lest this interfere with desirable characteristics for peeler logs and plywood. However, this is clearly a very specialized concern.

Resistance to disease was mentioned more often than resistance to insect attack, perhaps because diseases tend to be more of a problem with poplars than insect damage. Different diseases are of concern to different companies - Venturia shoot blight in north-central Alberta, Melampsora rust in coastal British Columbia, Phellinus in north-east British Columbia. The only insect problem specifically mentioned was forest tent caterpillar in north-east British Columbia. Having the Bt gene incorporated was of interest to one company.

To some extent, interest in having material resistant to disease reflects experience or knowledge of hybrid poplar and its diseases. Similarly, only those persons who were familiar with the intense cultivation and control of weed competition necessary for the successful establishment of poplars in plantation tended to express interest in herbicide tolerance. Others did not wish to use herbicides or believed that they would not be allowed to use them.

Adaptation of material to local growing conditions was of particular interest to companies operating in more northerly regions of the country, where the growing season is shorter than in areas where hybrid poplars have been generally developed and test ed. Tolerance to unseasonable frost, particularly spring frost, is a related interest. Browsing damage, caused by rabbits, moose or deer, is a common problem for young poplar plantations and if a repellent property could be incorporated in planting stoc k, this would be of benefit.

Not surprisingly, wood characteristics were commonly mentioned as being important. Some companies would like those characteristics in improved material to be similar to those of the aspen or poplar they are using now. Others would like to see more wh ite wood, longer fibres, less stain, greater density, increased cellulose content, or improved strength (of aspen and black poplar). Controlling the moisture content of black poplar was a specific concern of an Alberta company producing OSB. Another con cern, specific to plywood manufacturers, is having reduced limbiness in trees and so knot-free logs.

Although it is not a specific trait that can be affected directly by genetic manipulation, some companies mentioned a desire to have increased variety and biodiversity in their forest areas. Scott Paper specifically saw a need to have more clones avai lable for planting.

Improved productivity was by far the most frequently mentioned as the highest priority trait to introduce in improved poplar. This was followed by resistance to disease and frost tolerance. One or two companies named knot-free logs, longer fibres or shorter rotations as the highest priority.

Very few of those interviewed said they had not been aware of the potential of biotechnology. Most were aware at least in general terms, although after further discussion, it was sometimes apparent that there might be some confusion between what is in volved in plant biotechnology as opposed to more conventional tree breeding.

Some companies, particularly the larger ones, had already explored the potential of biotechnology themselves. However, their experience, particularly with softwood species, had caused them to have second thoughts. On the other hand, Domtar has had a good experience working with a South American company using eucalypts in this field.

Virtually all the companies surveyed are interested to some degree in participating in a Canadian poplar biotechnology cooperative. Several companies indicated they had no interest at present in active participation, generally because they saw no imme diate need for improved material or felt they would be unable to plant such material. Yet, even those would want to be kept abreast of developments, most often by participating in the cooperative at an information level. All recognized that their situat ion might change in future so that they would want to have improved poplars available. It is perhaps not too strong to say that those interviewed sense that biotechnology will be the key to the future with poplars and do not wish to be left behind, altho ugh they might not express it in those terms.

For some companies, the interest in participating is a general one. The value of participation is recognized in principle, but the company has not yet given much thought to the specifics of how it might benefit or how the information or material might be used. This led some to suggest that their initial involvement would be for information purposes only, but with the intention to proceed later to full membership.

A number of companies, including those with active poplar planting programs, had obviously already given considerable thought to how they might benefit from participating in a Canadian cooperative and, as a result, had quite clear and specific points o f view. The specifics vary with the individual company but some common issues emerge. Company participation would depend on whether the cooperative, in its mandate, direction and structure, seemed likely to be able to meet the needs of the individual co mpany. There is a desire to avoid the problems and frustrations experienced with other cooperative arrangements with which the company might be involved, or have been involved. WBAC members expressed some frustration with the University of Minnesota coo perative. Companies who are members of TGERC or PMGC were interested in finding out whether the proposed Canadian cooperative could avoid perceived difficulties with these existing cooperatives, such as research becoming too expensive, or too oriented to wards basic science, or otherwise failing to meet client needs.

There is a special situation in Quebec where the recently established forestry fund ("fonds forestier") colours the interest of some companies in Quebec in participating in a cooperative. All Quebec forest industry companies are required to pay $1.03/ m3/year to the forestry fund which is administered by the Ministry of Natural Resources. The fund is intended to finance and coordinate forest research in Quebec, as well as to pay for management planning and forest inventory. Discussions and negotiatio ns are still underway on what research will be funded, but there is some concern among surveyed companies that most of the funds will be spent on softwood species. Since individual industry contributions are quite substantial, companies would prefer not to have to pay twice for poplar biotechnology research, if in fact the forestry fund will support such efforts. Some would be unwilling to participate in a Canadian cooperative until this forestry fund issue is resolved. Others believe that some of the fund could be dedicated to the cooperative. However, negotiations on this would be complex and it has been suggested that CFS might take the lead.

There are somewhat similar programs in several other provinces, but none raised as much concern as the Quebec program. In Alberta, the Forest Resource Improvement Program (FRIP) was seen as having quite positive benefits with respect to the proposed c ooperative. Companies pay dues to FRIP based on their use of conifers, but funds from the program can come back to the company for research, including tree genetic improvement with hardwoods.

More than half (55%) of the companies surveyed were interested in the cooperative as a means to obtain improved poplar planting stock. The material obtained would need to be suitable for individual local situations, which was specifically stated in so me cases but not in others. Nearly half of those looking for improved poplars, were also interested in the possibility that the cooperative could help provide information or raise general awareness about poplar biotechnology, or help deal with the regula tory processes that would have to be negotiated before transgenic trees, for example, could be planted out on a field scale. Those companies tended to be the ones that already knew something about the possibilities and what might be involved.

Two Quebec companies preferred to start their involvement at an information level only, and only later, if developments were favourable, would they want to actually obtain improved planting stock. Several companies had as a top or only priority the pr ovision of information or awareness services. These were the companies that expressed the least interest in participating in a cooperative.

Companies which already had a commitment to an existing cooperative, with whose activities they were reasonably satisfied, ranked highest those components of the Canadian cooperative idea which they felt were not being provided elsewhere. For them, th e provision of information about poplar biotechnology developments and help with the Canadian regulatory processes were most important. A Canadian cooperative would be much better placed and have much more interest in working with Canadian regulatory pro cesses than a U.S.-based cooperative. On the other hand, there was also a desire not to detract from positive benefits being received from existing cooperatives. The possibility of the proposed cooperative developing a partnership with an existing coope rative was also suggested. Several of the larger companies felt that their own corporate communications or public relations staff could provide all that they required in terms of raising public awareness, and were not interested in help from a cooperativ e in this area.

Cost is an almost universal consideration for company participation in a cooperative. Sometimes this was expressed in absolute terms: "We would not participate if the cost was excessive." More often, cost was seen as a relative issue. There would ne ed to be a commensurate payback within the medium term, a positive cost/benefit ratio or return on investment. Related to this is the feeling that there must be tangible benefits, or results that are actually delivered. One company said they would not w ant their competitors to benefit, which is perhaps more a reason for wanting to join than for not wanting to join. One useful idea in regard to the possibility that cooperative membership dues might be too high for some companies but not for others would be to recognize that different companies have different objectives in joining, and to segregate dues, so that a company could contribute directly to research activities or only for information services or regulatory help.

Another group of commonly expressed considerations that would cause many companies to think twice about participating relate to the focus of the cooperative. Companies would not participate if duplication of effort were perceived, if the approach were too much oriented towards pure science, if the effort was dissipated over too many issues, or if client priorities and needs were not addressed, or information provided was not locally applicable. Alberta companies, in particular, would have strong rese rvations about a cooperative that did not have a western presence. More generally, the size and diversity of the country was seen as a challenge for a Canadian cooperative, one requiring a strong effort in communications. The management structure and co ordination mechanisms of the cooperative would need to receive careful attention.

Some other, more specific, negative considerations were also mentioned. A regulatory environment that was too harsh would be reason for some not to participate. Others would not participate unless their presently-adequate or public-land-based fibre s upply situation were to change.

Although cost considerations are clearly an important factor in the decision to participate in a cooperative, finding the actual dollars that would be required for annual membership does not seem to be a big issue. When asked directly what they would consider an acceptable annual cost of membership, most interviewees hesitated to name a figure. However, when a possible figure of $5-10,000 was mentioned, which is in the range of what membership in WBAC and the University of Minnesota Aspen and Larch G enetics Cooperative currently costs, the reaction was almost always that this level of contribution would not be a problem, if other considerations were met. In fact, for many companies such a figure would be insignificant compared to the level of contri butions they are required to make to various provincial programs.

The current cost of participation in TGERC or PMGC is probably closer to $35-45,000, but even this would not be a problem for some of the bigger, more active companies. One suggestion was that the cooperative, to be effective, should aim for an operat ing fund of $1 million/year. A good business plan would be essential.

On the other hand, there are companies for whom an annual figure of anything over $1,000 would not be possible. Those companies which are only interested in obtaining information and awareness from a cooperative felt that $1-2,000/year was a reasonabl e amount to pay for that service. Although forest industry companies make sales in the order of hundreds of millions of dollars a year, the vagaries of fluctuating business cycles and the necessity to live within sometimes very tight annual budgets are r ealities of life. We are presently at a low point in the cycle for most pulp and paper companies. Despite that, however, long-term vision is not lacking among industry decision-makers when it comes to new directions such as presented by the potential of poplar biotechnology.

More than half (55%) of the companies visited participate to some degree in other tree genetic or biotechnology cooperatives, specifically the Western Boreal Aspen Cooperative (WBAC), the University of Minnesota Aspen and Larch Genetics Cooperative, th e Tree Genetic Engineering Research Cooperative (TGERC) and the Poplar Molecular Genetics Cooperative (PMGC). All the Alberta companies visited are or have been members of WBAC and the University of Minnesota Cooperative. There is some interest also in Saskatchewan in these existing cooperatives. Only a few companies - MacMillan Bloedel Poplar Farms Division, Scott Paper, Weyerhaeuser (through the US parent corporation) and Alberta Pacific - are members of the more costly western US cooperatives, TGERC and PMGC.

Few seemed totally satisfied with their experience with these cooperatives, as a result of escalating costs, focus not completely relevant to company needs, or other reasons. In consequence, some would be happy to redirect their attention to an altern ative, Canadian cooperative. Others, however, are reluctant to compromise the commitment they have already made and would not want to participate in two poplar genetics cooperatives.

Most companies are also involved in one way or another with other types of cooperative arrangements. These range from research and technology transfer groups like the Northern Interior Vegetation Management Association and the Western Boreal Growth an d Yield Cooperative, university-based research groups like the Network of Centres of Excellence in Forest Management at the University of Alberta, industry research organizations like FERIC, Forintek and Paprican, to industry associations like the Alberta Forest Industry Association, the Ontario Forest Industry Association and the Structural Board Association. A number of interviewees made a point of noting the value the company places on such cooperative arrangements. Others made no mention of these le ss directly relevant associations.

All companies expressing any interest in a cooperative were willing and able to provide a variety of types of in-kind support. Generally this would involve the provision of land for test plantations and help with the establishment and maintenance of s uch plantations. Interestingly, several companies who had no private land of their own for test plantings said they would provide help in obtaining such land.

The level of human resources that a company might be able to make available varies considerably. However, even companies with only two or three silviculture-oriented staff said they could make that type of help available. Companies with some staff or contract expertise in tree improvement or facilities such as nurseries or greenhouses would be willing to help with selection and collection of superior materials and the provision of tree improvement facilities for trials.

One of the more intriguing and potentially valuable offers was of help in accessing funds from the Forest Renewal B.C. program. In general, companies are very generous with offers of in-kind support.

The survey revealed differences of opinion on whether the membership structure for a Canadian cooperative should have one level of membership for all or allow for membership at two levels: a full membership level at which access to improved materials w ould be available, and a lower, less expensive level at which information would be available but not improved materials. There was twice as much support for two-level membership as for single-level, but it is important to note that those who supported on e level of membership held this view more strongly than those supporting two levels of membership. One or two companies surveyed had no strongly-held opinion one way or the other about membership structure.

In general, those who sought two levels of membership were interested in participating in a cooperative at the lower, information level, at least initially. The perceived problem with the two-level structure is that a company might participate at a lo wer level for several years, and then decide it would like to move to full membership and have access to improved stock. Companies who had participated at the full level from the beginning would have difficulty with this, unless the company wishing to en hance its membership level were required to pay additional fees - back dues, or some other kind of financial penalty. A cooperative would need to have very clear rules regarding movement between membership levels, and difficult negotiations might be requ ired around this issue.

Several useful suggestions were made in regard to the membership structure. For example, non-industrial groups, not having a direct interest in obtaining improved material to plant, might participate as observers for information purposes only, at a lo wer fee level. There might possibly be a single membership level, but with different levels of contribution depending on what the member wished to receive from the cooperative.

A related, but perhaps more workable suggestion was to look on the work of the cooperative and member participation as being more project-oriented. The cooperative might work on one project for two or three years and then move on to another project. A company might only wish to participate in the cooperative for that particular project. Thus the membership would be more dynamic and less competitive. There could of course be several different projects running at the same time. Another feature of th e project-oriented cooperative would be the possibility of fees being partitioned, with a proportion going to basic membership services, and other varying amounts to specific projects in which the member was interested.

Almost all companies surveyed felt that the Poplar Council of Canada could have a role in the coordination of a Canadian poplar biotechnology cooperative. Only two companies were unsure as to whether the Poplar Council could play such a role.

Generally the role of the Poplar Council was seen as relating to the administration of the cooperative. The Council's contacts would be useful in establishing the cooperative. Its newsletter could provide an information vehicle. The financial accoun ting system of the Council was seen as being more flexible than those of government agencies or universities. With its truly national scope and membership, the Council was seen as being able to mitigate somewhat the concerns of western companies about a cooperative that might otherwise tend to be focussed in the east.

One interviewee suggested that the Council could play the useful role of a broker or independent overseer or auditor for the cooperative. It would be able to ensure that the objectives of the cooperative are met and that it is cost-effective. It coul d also mediate or lead the discussion on critical issues.

A few interviewees also recognized that the Poplar Council itself could benefit from involvement with the cooperative, both in relation to its mandate for developing and sharing information on all aspects of poplar growing, management and use, and also on a more practical level in relation to encouraging and maintaining membership and providing a source of income.

1.  The most significant outcome of the survey is the finding that most companies visited expressed positive interest in the possibility of a Canadian poplar biotechnology cooperative. No company said they would not be interested in s uch a cooperative under any circumstance. Almost all said they would seriously consider participating in a cooperative at one level or another, although for some it was more a question of wanting to monitor developments in this field rather than wanting access to improved material at the earliest opportunity.

However, the expression of interest was, in most cases, hedged with one or more reservations, which were indicated as having more or less significance. These included the following:

a.  The cooperative must be very clearly focussed on issues of relevance to industry. It should not be driven by "science for science' sake", but have clear, achievable goals. It should be noted on the other hand that not all compani es were concerned about goals being narrowly focussed on their immediate short-term interests.

b.  The cooperative must address issues of regional importance. The size and geographic diversity of growing conditions and concerns in Canada is an important factor. It is unlikely that a single-issue cooperative would appeal to ind ustry in all parts of the country. Western companies in particular expressed concern about whether a Quebec-based cooperative would be best able to address western issues.

c.  The cooperative must offer more than existing cooperative arrangements can provide or are providing. It is apparent that, for a variety of reasons, there is a growing sense of dissatisfaction with the existing primarily US-based c ooperatives in which some Canadian companies are involved. This includes a recognition that Canadian problems are often different from US problems and US-based cooperatives are not likely to place high priority on Canadian issues. There is also some con cern with the increasing cost of participation in other cooperatives. Thus an opportunity exists for a distinctly Canadian cooperative.

2.  The traits of interest for improvement in poplar vary considerably, but improved growth is almost universally considered important. Opinion differs on whether fibre characteristics are important.

3.  Cost of participation in a Canadian poplar biotechnology cooperative is not generally a major factor. Annual direct costs in the range of $5-10,000 CAN would almost always be considered negligible. All companies would be glad to provide in-kind contributions to the operation of a cooperative.

4.  The question of whether a cooperative should have a single level of membership or allow for both full membership and an information-only level is a divisive one. Some interviewees believe there must be a single level of membership only. Others made it clear they would only consider participating, at least initially, at an information or 'observation' level. Yet others had no strong opinion one way or the other.

5.  Generally, interviewees at a higher level in the corporate structure (woodlands managers) showed a longer-term vision than personnel more concerned with details of field operations. Those with this longer-term vision were more sup portive of the longer-term effort that might be required on more basic biotechnology issues.

6.  In terms of the objective of a cooperative, greatest industry interest was expressed in the possibility of obtaining concrete products - specifically, improved planting material. There was a general recognition of the need for hel p that a cooperative might provide with the intricacies of the Canadian regulatory processes, but this need generally had to be identified first by the interviewer. Raising forest sector and general public awareness of the benefits of poplar biotechnolog y was similarly recognized as a need that a Canadian cooperative could help fill, but some of the larger companies felt that their own corporate public relations groups could handle this.

7.  For many field-level interviewees, poplar biotechnology is clearly not a high priority in relation to their immediate concerns. There was in fact some confusion as to the kind of help that a cooperative might provide. It is evide nt that an organization which could, in the short term, provide practical assistance with current tree improvement programs, including clonal selection and establishment of more conventional test plantations, would win many friends in industry. This mig ht seem contrary to the scientific research aims of a biotechnology cooperative, but must be considered in the further development of the cooperative idea.

8.  The primary conclusion to be drawn from the visits to date is that there is clearly sufficient potential industrial support to justify further pursuit of the establishment of a Canadian poplar biotechnology cooperative. However, m ore in-depth discussion and debate on the objectives, structure and operation of the organization will be required with all parties (industry, science organizations, and biotechnology companies) before a cooperative can be successfully launched.

1.  Given the positive industrial support for a Canadian poplar biotechnology cooperative revealed by the survey, efforts to establish such a cooperative should continue to be pursued. The Canadian Forest Service Tree Biotechnology an d Advanced Genetics Network might continue to take the lead in these efforts, with the help of the present, or a modified, steering committee. The Poplar Council of Canada is prepared to offer its continued technical and administrative help.

2.  The next step must be to review the scientific capabilities within the country that could be drawn upon to carry out the work of the cooperative. Although there is some general awareness of the capabilities that exist within gover nment and university laboratories, it would be helpful to have a detailed systematic inventory of people and facilities. This could be acquired through a survey similar to the present industrial review. Such a survey could also assess the attitude of th e science community towards a poplar biotechnology cooperative.

3.  In continuing to pursue the objective of establishing a Canadian poplar biotechnology cooperative, there will be much discussion and negotiation in regard to the goals, structure and organization of the cooperative. If the coopera tive is to be successful in achieving strong industry participation, which would seem to be essential for the ultimate use of its products, the discussion and negotiation process must take into account the concerns of industry, found by this survey. Thes e are principally:

a.  there should be a clear focus on issues of relevance to industry, and not just on "science for science sake";

b.  must address issues of regional importance in different parts of the country;

c.  avoid duplication of existing efforts.

4.  The cooperative, if it wishes to receive the full support of a broad range of poplar-using industries, and particularly those that have already made significant commitments to poplar planting programs, should include in its objecti ves the development of improved poplar planting materials through biotechnology, the provision of information services on the benefits of poplar biotechnology, and help with the Canadian regulatory processes. However, it should also be careful not to bec ome overextended by trying to tackle too many issues at once. Achieving the right balance on this will not be easy.

The Poplar Council of Canada wishes to express its appreciation to all those who contributed to the successful completion of this survey. Members of the steering committee under the leadership of Ariane Plourde of the Canadian Forest Service provided valuable contacts within the Canadian poplar-using industries as well as helpful reviews of the process and plans for the survey. Pierre Charest and his colleagues within Science Branch of the Canadian Forest Service greatly facilitated the administrativ e arrangements for the support of the survey. However, most thanks must go to the many persons within the poplar-using industries who were contacted for the survey and agreed to participate, making their valuable time available to review the documentatio n prior to the visits, participate in the interviews, and provide company literature and information. The level of cooperation and accommodation in making arrangements for the visits, and in frankness in responding to the questions, was greatly appreciat ed and added considerably to the usefulness of the survey.

Footnotes

1.  The term 'poplar' is used throughout this report to refer to all species within the genus Populus.

Home | Members | About PCC | Contact PCC | Publications | Links