Occasional Paper No. 11

One possible definition of research is that it is a systematic inquiry into some phenomenon. Such an inquiry can take different forms. For example, it can be a review of literature to establish patterns or explanations for something of interest (desk research). It can also be an analysis of observations or the conduct of experiments in the field, or the laboratory, or in both. These variations provide flexibility to individual researchers and institutions in orientating their activities with respect to the issues at stake and their capacity to address them. Logically, individuals and institutions which have very limited resources for research may find desk research more appealing and field work and experimentation less viable. As capacity to undertake research increases the latter activities could assume increasing dominance, with desk research relegated to a more complementary role.

On the other hand, research can broadly be grouped as basic (pure or 'blue sky'), strategic (mission focused) and applied. Basic research is geared to the advancement of scientific knowledge whilst applied research uses existing knowledge to solve problems; and is for simplicity assumed to include adaptive research. Strategic research seeks to understand natural and human processes important to the solution of a specific problem (Collinson and Tollens 1994). Some individuals will have the skills to undertake all categories of research depending on their level of training and experience. The same is true with research institutions. Those institutions with highly trained and experienced researchers will be better placed to address basic and strategic research than institutions whose research staff have less training and exposure to research. The latter will tend to have more applied/adaptive research on their programmes. The composition of institutional research programmes is also greatly influenced by mandate.

With respect to the eastern and southern African region, there exists latent (under-utilised) capacity in some highly trained individuals and in the institutions to which they belong for undertaking applied research of strategic significance, specifically public good-related research of regional or global interest. The main limitations are often the scope of the individual country/institutional research agendas which tend to lock scientists to local issues, in addition to very limited tangible regional collaboration in research. Of course, other research inputs will be limiting too, but if the above two limitations are first addressed, collective efforts would probably ameliorate the other seemingly insurmountable constraints like funding.

The capacity for research institutions to undertake these various forms of research with respect to forestry and related problems was the subject of an investigation carried out in 1995-96 by the Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR) and the Division of Forest Science and Technology (FORESTEK) of the Council for Scientific and Industrial Research of South Africa. The study focused on research capacity in ten of the twelve countries comprising the Southern African Development Community (SADC). These were Namibia, Botswana, South Africa, Swaziland, Mozambique, Zimbabwe, Zambia, Malawi, Lesotho and Tanzania. The study did not attempt to determine priority areas for research since this is the responsibility of national and regional institutions.

In this study forest research capacity was defined as "the extent/degree to which a research institution is capable of effectively directing its resources towards the resolution of forestry and related problems".

The main objective was to assess the research capacity available in eastern and southern Africa to support integrated forest and woodland resource management, with special emphasis on both resource and socio-economic issues. More specific objectives were to:

evaluate adequacy of research capacity to support decisions on resource policy;
examine the extent of linkage between forest research institutions and other relevant institutions;
evaluate, as far as possible, the adequacy of research supporting resources and infrastructure; and
identify main constraints to research and capacity building.

Ideally, the output of a research institution should provide a measure of its capacity. Most commonly output is quantified by the publications produced by the institution. Whilst published output is undoubtedly a valuable measure it does not necessarily reflect current potential or actual impact on the problems to which the research is directed. Some of the capacity associated with the reported results could have re-located to other institutions. Also new or recently acquired resources cannot be linked with such output, much as they are part of the institution's capacity. Additionally, some types of research take relatively long periods of time before any publishable results can be obtained; but this does not mean that researchers are not working nor that the capacity of the institution is low. For example, Walton (1994) notes that it took 15 to 20 years for research networks in Central America, to have any impact in developing improved and sustainable production systems. Therefore, at any time the capacity of an institution (or even a network) is evaluated, there will be some accomplished tasks (output) and ongoing ones, both of which are a reflection of the institution's capacity.

This study goes beyond an examination of an institution's reported results and an account of its human and physical resources, to a more detailed examination of how the institution deploys its resources in its own research environment. The efficiency with which a research institution interacts with its work environment is indicative of its capacity to further its research agenda within the limitations imposed by its own composition and external work environment. The results of the study will therefore complement efforts made on human and physical resources assessments reported in FTP/SADC (1994) and Burley et al. (1989).

The justification for undertaking this study rests on various premises. The first is an observation made by SADC (1992a) in its forestry research plan for the SADC region that

.....the forestry research systems are rather weak in the SADC countries. Even in Malawi, Tanzania, Zambia and Zimbabwe, countries which have fairly well established forestry research establishments, the capacities and capabilities are limited. In other SADC countries, Angola, Botswana, Lesotho, Mozambique, Namibia and Swaziland, there hardly is an operational public forestry research institution........Strengthening of national forestry research systems is the first priority and principal strategic guideline for mobilising forestry research for sustainable resource management in the SADC region.

Secondly, appropriate capacity for research and technological transfer will provide significant leverage in transforming the management and use of natural resources in the SADC region in a direction which is sustainable and environmentally acceptable.

Thirdly, CIFOR's policy requires that a research agenda should not be imposed on any institution, rather activities of mutual interest be undertaken in collaboration with national institutions, whether public or private, and with individual scientists on their own merit. This study therefore assists CIFOR in developing a better understanding of its potential research partners in the eastern and southern African region.

Lastly, the interactions between CIFOR staff and national research staff have helped the related research institutions in the SADC region become more familiar with CIFOR and its modus operandi, another factor in facilitating collaborative research.