Capacity for Forestry Research in the Southern African Development Community

G.S. Kowero and M.J. Spilsbury

[Back to OccPaper Top Page]

[Chapter 1]
Introduction

[Chapter 2]
Previous Forestry Capacity-related Work in the SADC Region

[Chapter 3]
Methodology

Survey of Methodologies

Study Methodology

Limitations of Study Methodology

[Chapter 4]
Results and Discussion

Research Resources

Research Environment

[Chapter 5]
Conclusions and Recommendations

Conclusions

Recommendations

References

Annex 1. Methodology and Indicators of Research Capacity

Annex 2. Forestry Research Manpower in the SADC Region

Annex 3. Values for Research Indicators by Institutes

Annex 4. Institutes by Research Capacity Indicators

Annex 5. Overview of Physical Resources by Institute

Annex 6. Institutions Visited and those which Mailed Information


List of Figures

Figure 1. Distribution of forestry-related researchers in the SADC region

Figure 2. Distribution, by country, of researchers with M.Sc. or Ph.D. and more than years 4 experience

Figure 3. Researchers, by institution, with M.Sc. or Ph.D. and at least 4 years experience

Figure 4. Number of research staff by institute and budget per researcher


List of Tables

Table 1. Some positive and negative aspects of regional approaches

Table 2. Distribution of research operational expenses in some institutions (%)

Table 3. Research support facilities in sample institutions

Table 4. Research interactions and their perceived value

Table 5. Interactions with educational institutions and users of research results

Table 6. Salary and non-salary incentives

Table 7. Use of formal and informal evaluations

ANNEX 5

OVERVIEW OF PHYSICAL RESOURCES BY INSTITUTION

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