Research program amd management review

Abstract

This summary highlights the main issues arising from the Research Programme and Management Review of the Kenya Forestry Research Institute (KEFRI), which was undertaken from 4 - 29 November 1996. The review was conducted in accordance with Terms of Reference which were prepared by KEFRI, in conjunction with the Promotion of Sustainable Forest Management (PSFM) project. The principal objectives of the review exercise were to: • Assess KEFRl's research programmes with respect to their relevance to national objectives; actual and planned research outputs; the establishment of research priorities; and the appropriateness of implementation strategies • Assess the adequacy of the human and technical/material resources available to KEFRI, and evaluate the strength~s and weaknesses of the organisation • Assess the adequacy of the management and administrative support services in supporting the implementation of research programmes • Conduct a strategic analysis of KEFRl's current structure and organisational arrangements, and make appropriate recommendations for improvement in order to make recommendations for the enhancement of needs oriented research at the eco-zone and national levels, through improved efficiency and effectiveness. The results of the review are summarised below under sub-headings which reflect the individual Terms of Reference. In the absence of a KEFRI-wide research programme, it is impossible to jUdge the programme as a whole. A sample of field activities was visited, in addition to which research publications and reports were reviewed. A small sample of research proposals was evaluated. None of the documents consulted dealt in adequate detail with priorities for either national development or for research. In the main this is because of a concentration on topics, whereas what is required is prioritisation at experiment level. In as far as can be judged, KEFRI is pursuing a relatively balanced research programme, but in many cases experiments are designed which do not fully consider either research needs or existing knowledge. Much greater transparency is required if any review is to be effective. Proposals have been made in the report to widen the involvement of beneficiaries and other stakeholders in programme development and prioritisation. This activity is recommended to be carried out by groups who are effectively sub-committees of the KEFRI Board of Management. It must be observed that the process is constrained by the inadequacies of forest sector planning and prioritisation, and it is important that KEFRI is not expected to undertake forest sector planning before it can prioritise its own contribution. The mechanisms used to implement research in a technical way are basically sound. The problems relate to the organisational structure, which is heavily focused on disciplines, as well as the depleted state of many outstations. In the past, the use of donor funding reinforced the discipline based structure, and KEFRI effectively became a group of projects, rather than a tightly knit institute. However, KEFRI has initiated this review through PSFM in order to obtain recommendations on how to improve on its current activities and performance.