| Institution | Laboratories | Libraries | Field Stations | Computers | Sharing of resources | Other Observations | 
      
        | 1. SUA | Four. All in good condition & fairly well equipped | One central for university. More literature within faculty. Well
        equipped | Five. Two without supporting infrastructure. | Seventeen faculty computers. Have e-mail facilities. | Library, labs, & computers are shared across faculties and with
        other institutions | Buildings & other facilities are good physical condition. | 
      
        | 2. TAFORI | Limited lab. facilities. Poorly equipped | Limited library facilities. Poorly equipped. | Seven centres. All with poor supporting facilities. Only three centres
        have equipment | Three with nine more expected. No e-mail facilities | Slight sharing with other institutions | Physical state of buildings & equipment at centres is very bad. No
        radio call facilities with centres. Backlog of unanalysed data for over 20 years | 
      
        | 3. NTSP | Four. All in good condition and equipped | One small library at headquarters | Three zones, each with a lab. for seed testing | Twelve. Each zone has one. No e-mail facilities | Occasionally share resources with other institutions | Buildings and other facilities in good physical condition | 
      
        | 4. IRA | One remote sensing lab., a printing section and other facilities. All
        well equipped | One central for university. One within the Institute. Well equipped | None | About 15 within the Institute. Has e-mail facilities | Library, labs and computers are shared across faculties and with other
        Institutions | Physical state of all facilities is good | 
      
        | 5. UZIM | Several, adequate and in good state | One of the best in the region | None | About 80% of scientists have computers. There are computer labs for
        students. Has e-mail facilities | Sharing among university faculties only | Good physical state of facilities | 
      
        | 6. ZIMFC | One well equipped and another poorly equipped at headquarters | Well equipped library | Three, eac with a lab. & supporting infrastructure | Has an interactive network with field stations | Shares resources with other institutions, especially labs. | Good physical condition of facilities | 
      
        | 7. ZAMBIA | Three poorly equipped labs. | Two ill equipped libraries. Not receiving journals since 1988 | Three, and are poory equipped | Five. No e-mail facilities | Benefits from other institutions | Good physical condition of buildings but not equipment | 
      
        | 8. UZAM | Good lab. facilities | Fairly well equipped library | None | None | Shares facilities with other faculties in the university | Buildings and equipment in good physical condition | 
      
        | 9. FRIM | Four and fairly well equipped & in good physical condition | A good library | Seven | Ten. No e-mail facilities | Loans and shares resources with ICRAF and university | Good physical condition of buildings and equipment | 
      
        | 10. CEF | Three labs, two in poor condition | None | One, currently being refurbished | Two. Has e-mail through university | No sharing reported | The Centre will move to another location with new buildings for staff
        and labs | 
      
        | 11. UEM | Three labs, two of which are poorly equipped | Shares library with rest faculty. Well equipped | One, with adequate supporting facilities | Nine. Has e-mail | Shares resources with rest of faculty and the Forestry Research Centre | Buildings and equipment in a satisfactory condition | 
      
        | 12. USUTU | Inadequate, mostly externally sourced | Moderate facilities, has good external links, for example with ICFR | None | Good computer facility | Benefits from others in terms of library and lab. facilities | Buildings and equipment are in good condition | 
      
        | 13. FAB |  |  |  |  | No sharing of resources reported | Housed in rented buildings | 
      
        | 14. VELD | Poorly developed | None | None, but has a good nursery | Few. No e-mail | Benefits from sharing of facilities like labs with other institutions | Housed in rented buildings. | 
      
        | 15. FORESTEK | Good and equipped | Good. Have access to CD-ROM | Has several field bases with supporting infrastructure | Every scientist has a computer and on LAN. Has e-mail facilities | Shares on contractual basis its resources | Good physical condition of buildings and equipment | 
      
        | 16. ICFR | Several well equipped labs. | Has a very well resourced library | Has nurseries. Has two regional offices | Has a very powerful LAN with 54 terminals | Industry uses ICFR's resources and ICFR uses industry's labs. | Good physical condition of buildings and equipment | 
      
        | 17. U. STELL | Well equipped labs. though some with fairly old equipment | Very good library facilities | None | Very well equipped and a LAN exists. Has e-mail facilities | Shares resources with other institutions | Buildings and equipment are in good condition | 
      
        | 18. NAMIBIA | None | Poor | Has field trials in fairly good condition | Good. Has e-mail facilities | No sharing reported |  | 
      
        | 19. LESOTHO | Poor | Fairly good | In fairly good condition | Poor | Limited sharing of resources | Buildings in good condition |