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

Table 1. Some positive and engative aspects of regional approaches

Positive Negative
 From the NARS perspective
  1. Share information, methodologies, training
  2. Increase political commitment
  3. Attract special funding
  4. Increase national exposure for national systems and scientists
  5. Help develop less well-off NARS
  6. Promote research which otherwise may not be attempted at the national level
  1. Competition in some domains
  2. Free-riding (national systems benefiting without contributing)
  3. High costs of participation for small NARS
  4. Decisions likely to be taken for political rather than technical reasons
  5. Dominance of strongest member(s)
  6. Inadequate follow-up of regional initiatives
  7. Diversion of research effort from NARS research priorities
From the perspective of regional organisations
  1. Better co-ordination among researchers and institutions
  2. Improved donor contacts/negotiations Changed attitudes of some members (e.g., towards training)
  3. Common services - information, evaluation
  4. Establishment of consultative processes
  1. Slowness in bringing about action
  2. Generation of rules and bureaucracy
  3. Risk of territoriality or 'turf' concerns impeding rational decisions
From the donor perspective
  1. Increased awareness of specific issues
  2. Promotion/implementation of new approaches
  3. Increased efficiency in use of resources
  4. Better co-ordination
  5. Possibility of bringing in new partners
  6. Demand-led, problem-focused research possible
  1. Reduction of investment in overall strengthening of NARS
  2. Unclear links to national plans
  3. Proliferation of networks
  4. Limited possibility of making long-term commitments (continuity)
From the IARC perspective
  1. Better priority identification
  2. Greater stability/flexibility than other actors
  3. Possibility of decentralisation
  4. Possibility for incorporation of related research activities and findings
  5. Capacity building through research a possibility
  6. Peer group pressure between NARS centres helps push progress in research
  1. Pressure from donors to administer projects instead of NARS
  2. Possible 'turf' syndrome
  3. Danger of substitution for technical work of NARS