Occasional Paper No. 11

A key input to research is the human resource, both scientific and support staff. In this section the focus will be on the essential human resource, that is scientific staff. It is the scientific staff who conceive, direct and seek/attract funding for research. Without them the other resources cannot be effectively mobilised and organised for research.

The data on the distribution of researchers in the region, as presented in Figure 1 (based on Annex 2), have to be interpreted carefully. First the distribution of research staff as a percentage of total researchers in the region may give the impression that South Africa and Tanzania are ahead in terms of forestry and related researchers. Zambia, Botswana, Swaziland and Lesotho (in that order) are at the other end of the spectrum, while Mozambique, Zimbabwe, Malawi and Namibia (in that order) are in between. Such a distribution of research manpower is often used to give an indication of the relative capacity to conduct research. However, for a sample with such diverse institutions as the one constituting this study, it would be risky to, for example, conclude that Namibia has better capacity for research than Zambia; or Mozambique is stronger than Zimbabwe in forestry research.

The research institutions considered in this study are at various levels of evolution; levels which will influence the type of capacity present. For example, forestry training at the University of Stellenbosch has been extant for over sixty years, while Swaziland is working on how to elevate its forestry section at the level of the department, let alone thoughts of a research unit. The implication is that the type and quality of manpower present in these institutions will most probably match the evolutionary history of these institutions.

Figure 2 (also based on Annex 2), shows a different distribution of manpower, specific to researchers trained to the level of M.Sc. and Ph.D. degrees and with at least four years experience in their institutions after obtaining these academic qualifications. The hypothesis is that people with this level of qualification and experience are the ones most qualified to conduct research. They have the capacity to formulate, direct, interpret and synthesise research results. They could occupy leadership positions within their institutions, positions which can influence the direction of research. In short this group would most probably constitute the major human driving force in research.

Again from Figure 2, South Africa and Tanzania appear to have more of this level of research manpower. With the exception of the relative positions of Botswana, Swaziland and Lesotho in Figure 1, the scenario given in Figure 2 is very much different with respect to the other countries in the region. Although in terms of absolute numbers Mozambique appears to have more forestry-related researchers than Zimbabwe, and Namibia more than Zambia (Figure 1), the message from Figure 2 is that Zimbabwe has more trained and experienced forestry-related researchers than Mozambique, and the same is true of Zambia in relation to Namibia. Therefore Figure 2 better represents the present capacity to conduct research in the region.

According to Bengston et al. (1988), forestry research administrators from less developed countries (LDC) in the Asia-Pacific region identified the level of training of researchers as being the most important factor limiting research capacity in their countries. A similar observation was made for LDCs outside the Asia-Pacific region. Further, it was noted that this factor was of less significance in the developed countries of the region.

The study reported by Bengston et al. (1988) was undertaken almost ten years ago; so comparisons of its findings with those reported in this study should be made with caution. In that study about 10% of the total research staff in the LDCs of Asia-Pacific had Ph.D. qualifications and represented the smallest proportion of researchers trained at degree level. In this study about 33% of the national researchers are Ph.D. holders, 35% have masters degrees, and 23% have first degrees. Approximately 8% of the researchers are expatriates. On the whole, about 68% of the researchers have training at a level sufficient for meaningful research, that is to say they have at least a masters degree. Of this sub-sample, about 85% have at least four years experience after obtaining their highest qualifications. This represents about 58% of the total forestry and related research manpower in the region; implying that almost half of the researchers need more training and exposure.

An interesting scenario emerges when one attempts to locate where this capacity is based in individual countries. In Tanzania, Zambia, Zimbabwe and Mozambique most of the qualified researchers are found in university establishments (Figure 3). The opposite is the case with South Africa. Only South Africa, Zimbabwe, Malawi and Tanzania have fully fledged forestry research institutions; Swaziland, Lesotho and Botswana have yet to fully recognise research, even at a level of a section, in their national forestry establishments.

Another interesting phenomenon is that the countries further south (i.e., South Africa, Swaziland and Botswana) have a dominant private sector research component while those in the north rely more on government-funded research establishments; private sector research is almost absent. This is mainly because of the influence of South Africa on the economies of Swaziland and Botswana. All three countries are signatories to a 'customs union'; a grouping whose terms facilitate commercial and other exchanges between countries. Practically all the commercial plantation forest area of Swaziland (about 6% of the country's land area) is owned by South African companies (Kowero 1989). This is concomitant with the wood processing capacity. The research capacity attributed to Swaziland in this study is technically South African capacity based in that country.

Finally, an examination of the common research agenda for SADC countries (SADC 1992b) and individual country forestry research plans, reveals that both are very ambitious and lack human and other types of resources to carry them through. If all funds required for these undertakings were made available now, none of these countries would be in a position to implement its research plans relying solely on its own human resources. Considerable training and exposure is necessary, in addition to collaboration to make better use of the human resources available in the region. Qualified manpower constraints are some of the reasons for the lag in evolution of forestry research in many of these countries. Other considerations include the level of economic development of individual countries, endowment and role of forest resources, and emphasis on education, science and technology.

No effort was made to categorise researchers according to specialisation, but certainly there would be a skewed development in favour of the bio-physical areas as opposed to the socio-economic and policy areas. The latter are two areas which have yet to be developed in many traditional forestry establishments in this region. This has important implications with respect to the types of forestry research the region is capable of addressing. As the practice of forestry becomes more people-centred the challenges this will create will force the forestry sector to shift from its present emphasis on product quantity, quality, and markets to one which matches these product attributes to improved social welfare and sustainability of forest resources. For this, policy and socio-economic aspects will increasingly become central to forestry capacity development and assessment.

Financial resources

The common denominator to all research activities is funding. Without funds training and staff recruitment as well as execution of research tasks are not possible. The importance of long-term financial commitment to success in capacity building and in research is an issue which has been strongly emphasised (Burley et al. 1989; African Academy of Sciences 1994; Someshwar 1994; Walton 1994).

For the research capacity survey, financial data was classified into two broad categories; local and foreign research funds. The former includes all research funds for an institution originating within its own country, whilst the latter includes contributions to the research budget that originate outside the institute's own country. The figures represent the net budget available after staff salaries and allowances had been deducted.

Unfortunately, few institutions were able to provide comprehensive information with respect to their financial resources. Only 50% provided data on their research operational costs (excluding salaries of employees) as summarised in Table 2 and Figure 4.

The extent of funding for many government-financed institutions is frequently inadequate, often shows considerable annual variation, and in many cases bears no relation to the volume of work on the stated research agenda. Of course the adequacy of any budget is highly dependent on the type of research work undertaken. The data available highlighted the high degree of variability that exists, not only between institutions, but frequently from year to year within an individual research organisation. The extent to which organisations must rely on local funds and the extent to which different organisations are successful in securing funds from external sources also show considerable variability.

Only the two research divisions within the Department of Forestry of Zambia and TAFORI have been wholly locally financed in the four years of this analysis. Throughout this period SUA has had over 95% reliance on foreign funding for its operational research expenses. The other institutions that provided data, have foreign funding which is at least 50% of total research operational expenses for 1993 and 1994.

Financial resources are subject to political and economic externalities which can generate uncertainty in the funding environment and create serious strains on the institutions, inhibiting their capacity to deliver or meet expectations. For example, externalities such as currency exchange fluctuations can greatly alter the 'buying power' of the research budget. If a currency is devalued, then the 'buying power' of the local currency research budget is reduced, especially so in relation to imported inputs, whilst that from external ('hard currency') sources is enhanced in the domestic market. During the period of analysis, many governments have been implementing various economic austerity measures including massive devaluation of their currencies. Under such conditions institutions with a high proportion of foreign funding will be better cushioned from adverse effects of such measures compared with those with heavy reliance on government funding. In real terms, government funding of agricultural research in the region is declining (Gakale et al. 1996). Under such circumstances, a good balance between foreign and local funding is therefore desirable.

It would appear that domestic economic problems have resulted in research being under-financed in government-funded institutions, forcing the institutions to pursue external funding sources which are unreliable and unlikely to be sustainable. Whilst utilisation of international sources of finance for research is commendable, institutions should also develop their own internal means for financing research. These could include such self-financing mechanisms as production of saleable results and products, raising funds from industry and the private sector through contracting of services, and through feedback of a proportion of revenue from taxes on selling standing timber into research (African Academy of Sciences 1994).

The magnitude of the research budget per research worker is a useful indicator which can serve to flag those institutions that may have adequate manpower but insufficient resources to realise their potential (Figure 3). Conversely, some organisations may have disproportionately large research budgets per researcher. Very small organisations like FAB and VELD are unlikely to benefit much from economies of scale. Also some organisations, e.g., FAB and VELD, allocate a significant proportion of their 'research' budget to extension activities. Others such as FORESTEK supplement their centrally funded budget with client-commissioned research.

In some countries there is insufficient demand for forestry research to be driven by market forces. Primary forest production is still very much under government control, with the private sector dominant in wood processing. Many wood processing units are small, requiring little or no professional manpower and therefore represent a poor market for the services of many research institutions.

Inadequate research funding is not a problem confined to the forestry research institutions of SADC. Gakale et al. (1996) note that in the majority of SADC member states, with the exception of Namibia and Botswana and possibly South Africa, the resources allocated to the NARS from their national treasuries are, in real terms, declining and that the region is trying to address this issue through the following actions:

Collecting evidence of the impact of past research to make a case for an increased funding allocation to ANR sectors.
Sensitising treasury and ministry of finance staff on the need for increased allocation of resources for research � a policy dialogue with policy makers.
Regional collaboration in research in order to avoid duplication of efforts and to share research findings.
Establishment of clear national and regional priorities for research.
Better linkages and collaboration with IARCs to ensure the efforts are complementary and that IARCs' priorities reflect the national and regional priorities.
Rationalisation of on-going activities.
Looking for alternative funding mechanisms.

Research support facilities

A quick overview was made of research facilities available in these institutions. These included laboratories, libraries, and computers. The condition of field stations/centres/zones in some of the institutions was appraised. The level of sharing between some of these facilities was also examined. Table 3 summarises the results which are detailed in Annex 5.

Of the sixteen institutions which provided information on their laboratory and library facilities, almost half of them (56%) have their laboratories fairly well equipped and both equipment and buildings are in a satisfactory physical condition. About 6% do not have laboratory facilities and 13 % do not have library facilities. The remaining institutions have inadequate laboratory facilities which are poorly equipped, and small libraries which are poorly resourced. In short the development of library and laboratory facilities in about more than half (54%) of the institutions is poor.

Almost half of the institutions with inadequate laboratory facilities and poorly equipped libraries reported very limited sharing of laboratory, library and computer facilities with other institutions. This could indicate a low level of research activity and also raises the issue of research quality. Literature is the key to research and so are good laboratory and data processing facilities. It is also in this group that one finds about 16% of the institutions not able to reciprocate benefits received from other institutions; that is to say they only benefit from others. Although the study indicates that 68% of the institutions enjoy a two-way (mutual) sharing of resources, the majority of them are the ones with good library, laboratory and computer facilities. The implication is that the institutions with better facilities are better placed to interact with other institutions than the poorly equipped ones, an observation reinforced when the interaction between an institution and its environment is examined.

Of the seventeen institutions which provided information on computer facilities, 65% have adequate facilities, in that the majority of the scientists have access to a computer. Of this sub-sample about 64% have electronic mail services. A few have LANs within their institutions. The extent to which computers are used purely for word-processing, administrative, private and routine work compared to scientific purposes, like data analysis and writing, was not evaluated. Even for the institutions with relatively poor computer facilities, it is unlikely that they can efficiently use more equipment given their small number of scientists. Many may need replacement of obsolete hardware and provision of more relevant software.

Another aspect examined was the possession of field stations/centres/zones. These can provide considerable flexibility for research institutions to experiment in the field. Of the thirteen institutions which responded on this issue, about 62% have such facilities, with about half supported by good infrastructure (roads, laboratories, offices and residential quarters for workers). Several institutions have other facilities including nurseries and field trial plots. A number reported a backlog of unprocessed data (some stretching over a period of 20 years) from field experiments and other recordings. When this is viewed against the fairly abundant computer capacity in the region, one may hypothesise that the constraint lies more with availability of skilled manpower and willingness to share resources, than on inadequate computing/analytical facilities.

Many of the institutions have laboratory, library and computer facilities which are adequate and in good condition. For those without these facilities or those in which they are inadequate, the potential for sharing with other institutions exists. Sharing of these resources is reportedly already high and should be further encouraged so that it is expanded beyond institutions which are relatively well resourced. The unsatisfactory condition of about half of the field stations/centres managed by a majority of these institutions and other field trials will continue to constrain research results in subjects that rely on these resources.