Synergy in action Coordination of cooperation programmes in higher education and research

Edited by Ad Boeren

C

olophon

Nuffic, Januari 2013 Editor: Ad Boeren Design: Elma Leidekker Print: Prints&Proms ISBN 978-90-5464-056-1 Photos cover: nadiafotografeert.nl, Ad Boeren

The views and opinions expressed in the articles are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of Nuffic or any other organisation or individual.

Synergy in action: coordination of international cooporation programmes in higher education and research

C

ontents

Introduction 3 Ad Boeren Coordination of capacity development programmes from a policy perspective Ad Boeren

10

‘Who knows better what is needed most?’ - Donor coordination in knowledge capacity building for development from the perspective of universities in the global North 28 Han Aarts Finding your way through the ‘funding jungle’: How universities in developing countries and their German partners can profit from a complex funding system Anette Pieper de Avila

40

Experiences of a northern provider in the international development of education: donor coordination, synergy and capacity building 50 Mike Cantrell, Wim Kouwenhoven, Wout Ottevanger Coordination of development cooperation at Makerere University (2000—2010) – Opportunities, challenges and lessons learned 62 Katunguka-Rwakishaya E., Nasinyama G.W., Wabwire J.K.W., Ssembatya V.A., Kabuye M.K. Factors influencing the effectiveness and efficiency of international cooperation projects. Lessons learned from 30 years of international collaboration by Can Tho University, Vietnam 76 Le Quang Minh Building academic and research partnerships for development using various funding schemes 87 Nancy Terryn, Helke Baeyens and Dirk De Craemer Concluding remarks Ad Boeren

104

1

Introduction

2

Synergy in action: coordination of international cooporation programmes in higher education and research

I

ntroduction

Ad Boeren

Coordination for aid effectiveness The coordination of donor programmes and development projects is a choice as well as a challenge. Working together towards a shared goal is easy to agreed upon but it requires a shared vision, complementary interests and arrangements for efficient collaboration. In development cooperation the vision on the importance and mechanisms of coordination is laid down in the Paris Declaration on Aid Effectiveness signed in 2005. At a meeting in Rome organised by OECD in 2003 (High Level Forum on Harmonisation) donor agencies committed to work with developing countries to better coordinate and streamline their activities at country level. Aid was still too uncoordinated, unpredictable and un-transparent. The signing of the Paris Declaration1 constituted a more comprehensive attempt to change the way donor and developing countries do business together into one based on the principles of partnership. The Paris Declaration outlines the following five fundamental principles for making aid more effective: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

Ownership: Developing countries set their own strategies for poverty reduction, improve their institutions and tackle corruption. Alignment: Donor countries align behind these objectives and use local systems. Harmonisation: Donor countries coordinate, simplify procedures and share information to avoid duplication. Results: Developing countries and donors shift focus to development results and results get measured. Mutual accountability: Donors and partners are accountable for development results.

Three years later, in 2008, the Third High Level Forum in Accra, Ghana agreed upon an agenda to strengthen and deepen the implementation of the Paris Declaration. Ownership, inclusive partnerships and result delivery were considered to be areas of

1 OECD: http://www.oecd.org/dac/aideffectiveness/parisdeclarationandaccraagendaforaction.htm.

3

Introduction

improvement. The 4th High Level Forum on Aid Effectiveness in Busan, Republic of Korea (2011)2 reaffirmed the common principles of the previous meetings.

Challenges The implementation of the Paris Declaration and the Accra Agenda for Action proved to be a greater challenge than was anticipated. The synthesis report on the first phase of the evaluation of the implementation of the Paris Declaration (Wood et al., 2008) observed that while national ownership was strong in some countries it also remained heavily weighted in favour of central government players rather than provincial and local authorities. Progress was visible in aligning aid strategies, though less so aid allocations, with national priorities, using and building country systems, reducing parallel Project Implementation Units and coordinating support to strengthen capacity. The real and perceived risks and relative weaknesses of country systems proved to be serious obstacles to further progress in alignment. Ideally, the recipient government should be generating its own ideas which are only supported by donor funds and expertise. However, it is often the case that donors end up taking the lead and letting their own agenda and system dominate the aid relationship, at the expense of the recipient government’s priorities (Edi and Setianingtias, 2007). Donors feel the need to maintain direct visibility and supervision of their individual donors’ contributions, rather than risk losing sight of them in pooled activities. And there is competition between donors in launching recognisable and fashionable projects as well as competition between programmes of the same donor country. On progress regarding harmonisation, the Wood report concluded that while in principle a high level of commitment to harmonisation measures by Development Partners and host governments could be observed, it was accompanied by a very mixed picture of practical commitment and follow-through. A majority of the evaluations among donors stated emphatically that increased demands on time and staff resources, particularly in the field, are significant disincentives to further harmonisation measures. Donor coordination is not necessarily attractive to development cooperation institutions and their staff as coordination means additional expense and extra work. Donor and government officials tend to perceive the cost of coordinated action as higher than the cost of uncoordinated action. It is attractive only to working units which are primarily concerned with coordinated action and for whom it is therefore indispensable. It is less attractive to those for whom coordination means extra work (Guido Ashoff, 2004 and 2008).

2 The 4th High Level Forum website: http://www.aideffectiveness.org/busanhlf4/.

4

Synergy in action: coordination of international cooporation programmes in higher education and research

Most donors divide their aid over multiple channels: through programmes of multilateral agencies, through bilateral programmes and centrally managed programmes. Not infrequently, donors participate in budget support schemes, fund projects and/or sponsor fellowship programmes. And within budget support schemes there is the practice of earmarking funds for specific purposes or target groups. With donors putting their ‘eggs’ in several ‘baskets’, proliferation is still continuing (Edi and Setianingtias, 2007). Two decades ago USAID commissioned a study on donor coordination under the Santé Familiale et Prevention SIDA (SFPS) Project, which operated in four countries in West Africa; the project was interested in exploring means of strengthening its ties with other donor agencies, in an effort to achieve shared objectives in the health sector. The study concisely summarises the conditions which donors should fulfil in order to achieve better coordination. Today the observation has lost little of its value: “Individual donor agencies must be willing to reconcile agency mandate with recipient country priorities, to recognise and act on the comparative advantage of different donors, to share information (and absorb information from others), to accept that ‘success’ cannot be attributed to a single donor, and to establish more equal partnerships with recipient country officials and other donors.” (SFPS, [n.d.]).

Coordination of donor programmes in higher education The contributions in this book deal with the coordination between one specific set of donor programmes: programmes for international cooperation in higher education and research aimed at capacity building in developing countries. Most donors fund one or more of these programmes and they have been doing so for decades. They were initiated when many former colonies gained independence in the period after the second world war. The aim of the programmes was to build the necessary high-level cadre of trained professionals for the new countries either by providing individuals fellowships to study in donor countries or by building up institutions for higher education and research in the developing countries themselves through collaborative projects with institutions in donor countries. Almost all developed countries fund scholarship programmes which provide opportunities to candidates from developing countries to study in donor countries. The BRIC countries3 also have such programmes. Less numerous are programmes which fund collaborations between higher education institutions in donor and

3 Brazil, Russia, India and China. More generally, the acronym refers to developing and middle income countries with a fast economic growth.

5

Introduction

developing countries, although all traditional donor countries in Europe as well as the USA, Canada, Japan and Australia have them in their development cooperation portfolios. Though these programme may differ in terms of countries and organisations deemed eligible and basic programme features, they have three things in common: in general they share the same objectives, they are non-delegated programmes (i.e. they are centrally administered from the donor country), and they belong to the shrinking category of so called ‘tied aid’ programmes. The latter means that the study and training of scholars predominantly takes place in the donor country and collaborative projects involve one or more organisations from the donor country or donor region (e.g. the EU in the case of the EC programmes). These features make them interesting study material in the context of the Paris Agenda on aid effectiveness. One would expect that the singular focus of the programmes in terms of objectives lowers the threshold for their coordination in terms of activities and that complementarity of programmes of the same donor and of different donors should be possible. However, one can also foresee problems in coordination because these programmes are tied to service provision by the donor country and they are centrally administered programmes. One may expect that this is an impediment to linking the programmes to multilateral and bilateral programmes and to coordinating efforts in the partners countries. Coordination of donor support can be achieved at the level of the design of support programmes and at the level of their implementation. In both areas positive developments are noticeable. Some donors try to create synergy between their human resource development programmes and their organisational development programmes. Integrated capacity building is the conceptual umbrella for this approach. In addition, the element of ‘demand drivenness’ and ‘ownership in the South’ has become prominent in many donor programmes. The trend of converging programme objectives is laying the foundation for coordinated support on the basis of locally identified needs. The actual coordination of opportunities is the responsibility of the actors who implement and make use of the programmes, i.e. the programme administrators and the project implementers/ beneficiaries. It is the task of the programme administrator to ensure coordination with programmes of other donors. The project implementers are responsible for the integration of the projects within the broader internal and external context of their organisation. The experiences which donors, programme administrators and implementing organisations have gained in their attempts to coordinate support of higher education and research institutes in developing countries form an important source of lessons learned. Some of these experiences highlight the obstacles involved in trying to put good intentions into practice. Others reveal that there are more opportunities for coordination than anticipated. All these experiences, both good and bad, need to

6

Synergy in action: coordination of international cooporation programmes in higher education and research

be analysed and disseminated to inform the policies and practices of others and, ultimately, may lead to enhanced support of higher education and research in developing countries.

Content of the book The articles discuss and explore the coordination potential and coordination barriers of these programmes from three perspectives: a) the design and implementation of the programmes in the context of broader developmental policies; b) the experiences of organisations in developing countries in making optimal use of the programmes to strengthen their capacities; and c) the experiences of higher education institutes in developed countries in using these programmes to pursue their academic, social and organisational objectives. The articles follow a particular order. The first three focus on the policy frameworks which determine the characteristics of donor programmes and their effect on the possibilities for coordination. The next four articles report on experiences with coordination of donor programmes from the perspectives of southern and northern institutes. The first article is written by Ad Boeren and describes the coordination of donor programmes in higher education and research from a policy perspective. It describes the origin of the programmes and how they are linked to broader policy frameworks and interests at national level. In doing so it discusses the political, economic and educational dimensions of the programmes. The implications of these policies resonate in the possibilities for coordinating these programmes with other development programmes at the international level as well as the level of the partner countries. In his contribution Han Aarts looks at the issue of donor coordination in development cooperation for knowledge capacity building from the perspective of knowledge institutions in the global North. It is argued that there is (probably increasing) tension between the development agendas of donors and the reasons why universities in the global North engage in development cooperation. For universities in the global North engaged in development cooperation, donor coordination tends to be a rather abstract issue, well beyond their horizon and not related to their considerations to engage in development efforts. This gap in perception may frustrate attempts to coordinate different international efforts. The article by Anette Pieper de Avila sheds light on the different components of the German donor programmes in higher education. The German funding landscape for cooperation with developing countries in higher education is a very complex one. Three different ministries finance this type of cooperation, each with its own objectives, but all within the framework of the German government’s strategy for the internationalisation of science and research. A number of funding agencies

7

Introduction

implement the corresponding projects and programmes. This creates problems but also opportunities for German institutes. In the next article Mike Cantrell and colleagues from the VU University Amsterdam share experiences in capacity development in four case studies. Examples are drawn from projects in Ethiopia, Surinam, Ghana and Yemen. The authors argue that the ‘demand-driven’ approach excludes northern organisations from the system-wide coordination of developing synergy between donors, programmes and projects. More can be done to set up steering structures ahead of the implementation of new programmes for the higher education sector. The authors also question a policy of short-term technical assistance in projects where local coordinating capacity is limited. The article by Katunguka-Rwakishaya and colleagues describes the experiences of Makerere University with regard to the coordination of development cooperation over the last ten years. It focuses on coordination of support programmes at faculty and central level. The chapter covers programme overview and design, implementation, coordination, monitoring and evaluation, review, and reporting. Complementarity across programmes, challenges encountered and lessons learned are also presented. The article written by Le Quang Minh explains the successes which Can Tho University (CTU) in Vietnam has achieved in 30 years of international cooperation since its first project in 1980. Being the first university in Vietnam to introduce a strategic plan, CTU could plot roadmaps for achieving its strategic objectives by mobilising numerous resources from a large number of partners and donors. The chapter discusses in detail the factors which have led to this success. Ghent University has a long tradition of university development cooperation (UDC) in various disciplines. The article written by Nancy Terryn and colleagues illustrates a number of activities of Ghent University academics who have been successful in using different sources of funding to achieve both the academic goals of the Flemish academic partner and those of the UDC financer and southern partners. The goals of the latter are more focused on capacity building in education and research, development of the respective country and service to society, while the goals of the former aim primarily at scientific excellence.

Acknowledgements The idea for this book was launched more than two years ago and a number of organisations and potential authors were approached to make a contribution. Due to time constraints and other priorities many interested authors were not able to deliver an article. The ambitions of the book had to be adjusted downward in terms of the number of

8

Synergy in action: coordination of international cooporation programmes in higher education and research

contributions, but fortunately not in terms of coverage of the insights of stakeholders. The authors in this book represent three perspectives (that of donors/agencies, of organisations in the South, and of organisations in the North) and a mix of different but rich experiences and insights. I am very grateful to the authors of the articles in this book for their contributions and support during the process. And also to Nuffic which has supported this initiative from the beginning and has provided the resources to materialise the result.

References • •

•

•

•

•

OECD. (2005/2008). The Paris Declaration on aid effectiveness and the Accra Agenda for Action. Edi, Jepri and Ayu Setianingtas. (2007). Donor proliferation and donor coordination in Indonesia: the case of governance refor. Paper prepared for Centre for the Future State, Institute of Development Studies, University of Sussex. Ashoff, Guido. (2004). Donor coordination: A basic requirement for more efficient and effective development cooperation. German Development Institute (DIE) Briefing Paper 7/2004. Ashoff, Guido. (2008). Implementing the Paris Declaration on Aid Effectiveness: Where does Germany stand? German Development Institute (DIE) Briefing Paper 5/2008. Wood, Bernard et al. (2008). Synthesis report on the first phase of the evaluation of the implementation of the Paris Declaration. Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Denmark. Copenhagen, July 2008. SFPS project (USAID funded). [nd]. Donor coordination study. http://www.tulane. edu/~sfps/donstud.htm.

9

C

oordination of capacity development programmes from a policy perspective Ad Boeren

Abstract Since the signing of the Paris Declaration in 2005, donors and governments of developing countries have made efforts to better coordinate their programmes and activities with the aim to improve aid effectiveness. This article looks at the challenges involved in the coordination of development cooperation programmes in higher education and research. It covers programmes which provide scholarships to individuals and programmes which support the strengthening of research and higher education capacity of organisations in developing countries. It looks at coordination from three perspectives: the donors with their distinct agendas, the Southern partners with their specific capacity problems and needs, and the Northern academic and training organisations with their own ambitions. It is argued that coordination is not only about facing implementation challenges but also about taking advantage of the opportunities that exist.

Good intentions When donors and governments of developing countries signed the Paris Declaration in 2005 they expected that the agreed approach and guidelines would enhance the effectiveness of development aid. The aid donors provided came through various channels, including bilateral aid, multilateral aid and NGOs. It also utilised a multitude of programme instruments: budget support, sector programmes, aid for trade, peacekeeping missions, technical assistance projects, fellowship programmes, partnership programmes and so on. The aid was given with or without restrictions. Some countries were supported by the majority of donors while others hardly received aid at all. Each of the bilateral donors and NGOs had its own priorities in terms of countries, target

10

Synergy in action: coordination of international cooporation programmes in higher education and research

groups and sectors to be supported and policy priorities that needed to be addressed. Governments and organisations at the ‘receiving’ end had great difficulties accommodating the multitude of demands and instructions attached to the aid that was offered, including an avalanche of administrative procedures to follow for each individual modality of support programme. Under these circumstances it was almost impossible to avoid duplications in interventions or to make use of all aid in the most complementary and coordinated way. The Paris Declaration and the Accra Agenda for Action of 2008 were meant to help governments in the South take the management of aid into their own hands, to strengthen their ownership of aid programmes, to align aid with local demands and priorities and to ensure that aid would be provided by the donors in a coordinated and harmonised way. Since 2005, some progress has been made on both counts by governments and agencies that signed the agreements, in terms of better-coordinated sector programmes at country level and better exchange of information on initiatives, programmes and experiences among donors (sector meetings in countries, databases and networks), on the one hand, and, on the other, a convergence in intervention approaches (e.g. sector approach, alignment with national government priorities, ownership in the South, outcome orientation etc.). Particularly as regards basic education, donors have been able to join hands with national governments to set up and implement sector-wide programmes in which various donors provide funds and expertise to support the government in the design and implementation of education strategies (examples are Ethiopia and Zambia). The success of these ventures very much depended on the capacity of national governments to manage these complex processes and the willingness of donors to subordinate their own priorities and preferences to the wishes and plans of both the national government and the collective donor community. Sufficient expertise on both sides in terms of content (education, education financing, capacity building, quality assurance), change processes and effective collaboration are prerequisites for success. Reliable information is another essential element of joint programmes, needed to properly plan, implement and monitor all programme components. In a sector where so much money is invested, the availability of reliable education statistics and financial reports is vital. Ideally, donors put their funds together in one basket which would then be used to co-finance the government’s plans. According to the Paris Declaration this is the ideal scenario because it ensures alignment with national priorities and puts the government in charge of implementing its own programmes. However, this seldom happens, and certainly not in the full sense.

11

Coordination of capacity development programmes from a policy perspective

Though donors may agree on the ultimate development objective of their endeavours – that is, poverty eradication – and agree to achieve specific goals by a certain deadline (the Millennium Development Goals, or MDGs, by 2015), they differ widely when it comes to the best trajectories to reach these goals and the elements they feel are important in development and collaborative processes. To continue with the example of basic education: donors can easily make different choices when it comes to supporting access and/or quality of education, to support government and/or non-government schools, to favour education for girls and/or disadvantaged groups, education in the national language and/or local languages, free education or school fees, nationwide or limited to certain provinces, classroom teaching and/or distance education and so on. The degree to which certain principles (e.g. gender, private sector involvement) are anchored in bilateral aid policies determines whether or not it will be possible to accommodate these preferences in a joint donor support programme. If this turns out to be problematic, or donors are not satisfied with the national government’s performance, donors tend to revert to the old habit of sponsoring projects outside the sector programme, where they can more easily achieve their own priorities. Of course, this corrupts the ideal of the Paris Declaration. This ideal is also put to the test by the actions of ‘new donors’ operating outside the OECD/DAC family of donors who initiated the Paris Declaration. China, India, Brazil, Russia and new EU states in Eastern Europe have entered the development cooperation scene in the last decade and are becoming an increasing presence, with each pursuing their own specific priorities and approaches. China invests in developing countries based on a clear economic objective under the auspices of South-South solidarity and non-interference with internal politics. Brazil and India also treat development cooperation as an investment towards forging better economic and political relationships with countries in the South. These new players are making aid even more fragmented and difficult to coordinate. Developing countries do not always regret this fragmentation and arrival of new partners. These new partners are perceived to be less demanding and paternalistic and offer a convenient alternative for plans the OECD/DAC are reluctant to accommodate (NORRAG 44, 2010). This attests to the fact that coordination under the Paris Declaration depends on the full commitment and adherence of both governments in developing countries and all donor agencies. The Busan Meeting in 2011 marked a successful turning point in this regard as China, India and Brazil agreed to support the Declaration1. However, the parties’ statement recognises their “differential commitments” and notes the “voluntary” nature of their agreement. 1 Busan Partnership For Effective Development Co-operation. Fourth High Level Forum On Aid Effectiveness, Busan, Republic Of Korea, 29 November - 1 December 2011.

12

Synergy in action: coordination of international cooporation programmes in higher education and research

Coordination of interests Development cooperation is about poverty alleviation and the achievement of the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs). However, it is also about accommodating a range of other national interests which touch upon foreign policy (sphere of influence), diplomatic and economic relations, trade considerations, and interests of specific sectors that are valuable to the donor country. In this light, the interests of the higher education sector in the donor country are taken into account when designing support programmes to strengthen higher education in developing countries. Support is preferably rendered in sectors where the donor country thinks it has an advantage over other countries. Fellowships holders make good ambassadors for the host country and help education institutions in the donor country strengthen their international standing and supplement their revenues. The challenge for donors is to accommodate this myriad of interests in a coherent development cooperation framework. While their plans may appear coherent and logical on paper, when it comes to operationalising the problems of coordination and lack of coherence between individual programmes often comes to the fore. Indeed, it would be a miracle if the beliefs and intentions of the donor community formed a simple complementary quilt of aid programmes. They do not, of course. Although some donors try to align their policies, such as the ‘likeminded’ donors in Northern Europe, parliamentary elections and changes in governments’ party-political affiliations will inevitably put their stamp on development cooperation policies and pose additional challenges to coordination and harmonisation. To give an example: In 2000, after the Jomtien Conference, the Netherlands committed to allocating fifteen per cent of its ODA budget to basic education. Thanks to the volume of funding that became available, as well as the appointment of educationsector specialists at Dutch embassies, its leading role in setting up sector support structures in developing countries and in the Fast Track Initiative, the Netherlands has been able to make a considerable contribution in achieving MDG 2 (education). In 2010 the Dutch government decided to reduce its previously substantial support for basic education in the hope that other donors would take over. The arguments for this drastic decision are derived from a report by the Dutch Scientific Council For Government Policy (2010), which argues that investing in economic development is more profitable than investing in social services (including basic education) and that the Netherlands should make a difference in areas where it has demonstrable competitive expertise. According to the report, basic education does not fall into this category. Because of this change in Dutch government priorities, developing countries that receive Dutch aid for basic education and donor partners in those countries need to rearrange and renegotiate the basic education sector aid constellation.

13

Coordination of capacity development programmes from a policy perspective

Capacity development programmes Most donors sponsor programmes aimed at building human capital and expertise in developing countries. They either provide scholarships to people from developing countries to enable them to study or take a course in the donor country or they enable higher education organisations in donor countries to collaborate with partner organisations in developing countries with the aim of strengthening the latter’s teaching and research capacity. These programmes have a long history. The oldest are the scholarship programmes that started in the early 1950s when many developing countries gained their independence from the colonial powers. Their former rulers felt compelled to assist the new states to rapidly build up the capacity needed to govern the country and strengthen the economy, something they had neglected to do before granting independence. Indonesia gained independence from the Netherlands in 1948. In 1940, when the population of the Dutch East Indies was around 70 million, there were only 79 students graduating from technical higher education institutions (Sulistiyono , 2007). When the Democratic Republic of Congo became independent from Belgium in 1960, there were no experienced Congolese administrators or civil servants, and the entire nation of 14 million people had only 16 university graduates and 136 secondary school graduates. There were no native doctors, teachers or army officers (Craig Johnson, 1997). And when Mozambique became independent from Portugal in 1975, the country had just 40 African students enrolled at the Eduardo Mondlane University - the country’s only university (Mouzinho, 2007). Many universities in the North felt a social obligation to assist in building up strong higher education institutions in developing countries. They received ODA funds to start collaborative projects with partners in developing countries and the ministries of education in the North who were the principal funders of public institutions encouraged them to do so. They could use part of their generic education budget to co-fund collaborations with partners in the South. There are many examples of such programmes, some with a long and stable history. Having been launched in the 1970s, these programmes have continued to operate to this day. From the outset, Northern universities felt themselves to be the owners of these international cooperation programmes and were given considerable freedom in choosing their own collaboration partners and topics they deemed relevant. They opted for areas of cooperation that would not only benefit their partners but also promote their own teaching and research interests. Ideally, it was to be a mutually beneficial arrangement. The collaborations usually had a long-term perspective as many of the Southern partners were weak in terms of staff quality and infrastructures, meaning long trajectories were needed to bring them up to internationally acceptable academic levels. Based on discussions about improving the effectiveness of aid and pressure to implement the Paris Declaration, donors took an increasingly critical view of these

14

Synergy in action: coordination of international cooporation programmes in higher education and research

higher education and research development cooperation programmes – both the scholarship and the collaboration programmes. As explained in the Introduction these programmes often enjoy a ‘special status’ in development cooperation policy frameworks as they are typically administered from within the donor country – either by a ministry, intermediary/implementing organisation or association of stakeholders (i.e. universities) – are not aligned to any bilateral aid programme and are conducted in a broader range of countries than those defined as bilateral partner countries; this last applies particularly to scholarship programmes. Due to this status, these programmes escape the rigour of the Paris Declaration agreements. In most cases, they are neither part of a bilateral agreement between a donor and partner government nor required to adhere to the strict principles of donor policies. As such, they challenge joint sector approaches and basket-funding principles, providing scholarships to individuals who can apply freely and initiating collaborative projects that can take place beyond the reach of the local government.

Demand drivenness It comes as no surprise that donors began to curb these capacity building programmes and have tried to better align them with broader development policies and approaches. A drastic step in this direction was taken by the Dutch Minister for Development Cooperation in 2002 when the seven existing development cooperation programmes in higher education which had been very much ‘owned’ by the Dutch higher education sector were phased out and replaced by three new programmes2 that would be driven by demands from the South and administered by an intermediary organisation independent from the Dutch education institutions. In the two scholarship programmes, Dutch institutions could no longer count on a fixed annual quota of scholarships as had been the case in the old programmes, but would now receive them distributed across courses in proportion to demand for those courses. The number of applications for registered courses became the criterion for allocating scholarships. In the collaborative programme called NPT3, the role of the Dutch institutions was reduced to that of ‘supplier of services’. They could no longer suggest partners or themes for cooperation. Under the new programme, projects were to be aligned to the national priorities of selected partner countries and support the objectives of Dutch bilateral aid policy in those countries. It was the task of the administering agency (Nuffic) to identify areas for collaboration and suitable partner organisations, working

2 Two Netherlands Fellowship Programmes (NFP) - the Academic Programme (NFP-AP) and the Training Programme (NFP-TP) - and the Netherlands Programme for the Institutional Strengthening of Postsecondary Education and Training Capacity (NPT). 3 Website: www.nuffic.nl/npt.

15

Coordination of capacity development programmes from a policy perspective

in close consultation with local authorities, stakeholders and the Dutch embassies. Dutch institutions were then invited to show their interest in collaborating with a selected organisation in one of the partner countries through a public tender procedure in which they had to come up with a convincing project proposal and competing bid. This drastic change came as a shock to Dutch higher education institutions. They had lost control over the programmes and complained that their expertise was now degraded to consultancy status. Despite this resentment they have continued to cooperate in the new programmes, though they still have reservations about the effectiveness and efficiency of the new approaches. From the perspective of the Dutch Minister for Development Cooperation, the new system was a logical step, fitting in well with the discussions that would lead to the Paris Declaration. However, there was a price to be paid for this drastic decision. The change in policy undermined Dutch institutions’ interest in remaining involved in development cooperation programmes, and especially in the collaborative projects. The reason why they decided to continue their participation nevertheless was mainly financial. In exchange for their loss of ownership of the programme, Dutch partners were offered full compensation for their input in these projects. This was an offer few institutions could resist. The NPT programme (2002-2012) was implemented in fourteen countries and designed to align its activities with the demands of governments and other stakeholders in the partner countries and to support Dutch bilateral aid initiatives. The road towards this objective had to be designed from scratch and this new, rather revolutionary, approach had to be properly explained – if not sold – to the stakeholders and new partners. The Dutch embassies were to play an important role in the first exploratory steps of the programme, but all of them were keen to be involved. Nevertheless, some claimed they did not have the staff capacity or expertise to play a substantial role in the identification of demands and selection of partners. Others complained that the programme subordinated the sector approach that the Ministry preached and which the embassies had tried to implement in selected sectors of bilateral aid. Fortunately, there were also embassies that saw NPT as a useful instrument complementing their regular programmes. In a number of countries the NPT has successfully designed a coherent programme of projects that jointly support a sector and/or government priority. Examples include the NPT projects in Ethiopia, all of which are geared towards higher education policies and strengthening universities’ institutional capacities, and the projects in Ghana focusing on the institutional strengthening of all polytechnics in the country. Projects in Benin focused on capacity building for the water and agricultural sectors, while in Tanzania a cluster of projects focused on integrating entrepreneurial skills in teaching and training curricula at different education levels. In other NPT programmes it was more difficult to start a coherent cluster of complementary projects, either because

16

Synergy in action: coordination of international cooporation programmes in higher education and research

the Dutch embassy and/or local government could not agree on a comprehensive approach or they were not in favour of it. In 2009 the NPT programme was phased out and replaced by its successor called the Netherlands Initiative for Capacity development in Higher Education (NICHE)4 which places a greater emphasis on coordination and alignment. Agreements are being signed between national governments and Dutch embassies (on behalf of the Dutch government) about programme objectives and outcomes over the medium and longer term and about the partners that will be selected to participate in the programme and contribute to achieving the envisioned programme outcomes. While often a long and complex process, the result is that programme activities are officially known to and recognised by all crucial stakeholders and that programmes that fall outside the scope of bilateral or multilateral agreements are made to function in support of broader collaborative agreements.

Better alignment Since the Netherlands introduced this innovative approach it has attracted both great interest from other donors and great suspicion from administrators of similar programmes – especially programmes still run by Northern universities. In Norway and Belgium, capacity building programmes are gradually moving in the direction of stronger alignment with bilateral aid programmes in partner countries, though faster and more drastically in Norway than in Belgium. In other countries, programmes remain faithful to the traditional partnership formula. At the turn of the millennium, Norway had three major cooperation programmes in higher education: the NUFU programme5, the Norad Fellowship Programme and the Quota Scheme6. The NUFU programme, now being phased out, is a research capacity building programme in which Norwegian institutions collaborated with partners in the South, aimed in particular at qualitative and development-relevant research. The Norad Fellowship Programme gave people from developing countries an opportunity to do an academic study in Norway. Both programmes were financed by the Norwegian government from development cooperation funds. The Quota Scheme is financed by the Ministry of Education and provides scholarships to students from a broad range of countries to study in Norway. Both the Quota Scheme and the Norad Fellowship Programme have served – successfully – as instruments to promote internationalisation in Norwegian higher education.

4 Website: www.nuffic.nl/niche. 5 The Norwegian Programme for Development, Research and Education (NUFU; http://www.siu.no/eng/ Front-Page/Programme-information/Development-cooperation/NUFU). 6 Website: www.siu.no/eng/Front-Page/Programme-information/Development-cooperation/QuotaScheme.

17

Coordination of capacity development programmes from a policy perspective

External evaluations of the NUFU programme in 1999 and the Norad Fellowship Programme in 2005 initiated a process of change in the design of Norwegian capacity building programmes. The NUFU became more oriented towards ownership in the South, while the fellowships programme was – more drastically – replaced by an innovative scholarship scheme called Norad’s Programme for Master Studies (NOMA)7. In the NOMA programme the old formula of providing scholarships to study in Norway was replaced by a programme aimed at setting up joint master’s programmes in developing countries (with the academic support of Norwegian partners) and providing scholarships for these programmes. This formula combined two levels of capacity building: providing scholarships to individuals and setting up sustainable master’s programmes in developing countries. Though the idea for this approach was interesting and plausible on paper, in practice the programme was not popular among Norwegian institutions, which had to invest more effort in the projects than was returned in the form of students and research outputs. A new round of evaluations of the NUFU and NOMA programmes in 2009 led to the decision by Norad to combine NUFU and NOMA into a single new programme called the Norwegian Programme for Capacity Building in Higher Education and Research for Development (NORHED)8. The overall goal of NORHED is to build higher education and research capacities in low and middle income countries (LMICs) as a means to enhance sustainable conditions conductive to societal development and poverty reduction. The programme is based on equal partnerships between institutions in the cooperating countries and in Norway. NORHED is organised in sub-programmes with a specific thematic and/or geographic focus and supports education at bachelor’s, master’s and PhD levels, as well as joint research. This new programme started in 2012. In Belgium, similar but slightly different developments are taking place. University cooperation consists of a number of programmes: interuniversity cooperation (IUC), research cooperation (Own Initiatives, or OIs), scholarship programmes (North Initiatives) and other smaller supportive actions9. Attempts are being made to improve synergy between these programmes and to align them with Belgian bilateral aid programmes. The Belgian universities are not averse to serious consideration of the development relevance of these programmes, but wish to hold onto as much freedom as possible in selecting partners and topics of collaboration. This applies not only to the IUC and OI collaborations but also to disciplines and themes in master’s programmes (which receive VLIR scholarships).

7 Website: www.siu.no/eng/Front-Page/Programme-information/Development-cooperation/NOMA. 8 Website: www.siu.no/eng/Front-Page/Programme-information/Development-cooperation/NORHED. 9 Website: www.vliruos.be/index.php?language=EN&navid=354&direct_to=Programmes.

18

Synergy in action: coordination of international cooporation programmes in higher education and research

In 2011, the Belgian Development Agency (BTC) and Flemish Interuniversity Council (VLIR-UOS) negotiated a new cooperation agreement10 that heralded a number of changes in existing programmes. Some were administrative in nature (duration of programme cycles), others were policy inspired. The new IUC programmes had to be based on identification studies aimed at aligning needs/demands with partner countries, Belgian bilateral aid priorities and the interests and expertise of Belgian universities. This was a departure from the old setup in which Belgian universities nominated eligible partners in the South and VLIR-UOS organised a qualification and selection process. Both the Norwegian and Belgian policy changes mirror a process already set in motion in the Netherlands in the beginning of the millennium; that is, of trying to better align higher education capacity development programmes with national priorities and bilateral aid programmes and to improve coordination and synergy with various other donors’ similar programmes.

Synergy between programmes of the same donor Capacity development has three major dimensions, in that it seeks to develop the capacities of individuals, organisations and institutions. These dimensions are interrelated, but donor programmes usually address them through distinct programmes. Training for individuals is supported through scholarship programmes, the strengthening of organisations through technical assistance or partnership programmes, and the development of well-functioning institutional environments through scholarships, technical assistance and sector support programmes. Since these programmes have different – but interrelated(!) – objectives, they tend to differ in terms administrative authority and procedures, eligibility criteria (countries, organisations, sectors), programme cycles and durations, submission and selection processes, administrative deadlines and so on. As a result, there is little or no synergy between programmes that – ultimately – are designed to contribute to the same overall objective (Boeren, 2012). The Dutch programmes (NFP, NPT and NICHE) are a case in point. The Netherlands Fellowship Programmes (NFP)11 provide fellowships to mid-career professionals to take courses in the Netherlands and then use their newly acquired knowledge and skills to benefit their employing organisation/society at large upon returning to their home country. The secondary aim of these fellowships is ‘organisational strengthening’, since the benefits are not for the individual but for an organisation. These objectives are similar to those of the NPT/NICHE programmes, which implement collaborative projects aimed at strengthening organisations and institutions in the South. However,

10 Website: www.vliruos.be/index.php?navid=620&language=NL&throughadmin=1 11 Website: www.nuffic.nl/nfp.

19

Coordination of capacity development programmes from a policy perspective

the NPT and NICHE programmes aim to strengthen the capacity of organisations in the post-secondary education sector, while the NFP are not (yet)13 restricted to specific sectors, nor to a limited number of eligible countries. NFP, NPT and NICHE can be seen as complementary instruments because of a joint overall objective, but difficult to coordinate because of diverse specific objectives and foci. Scholarship programmes in general tend to have a much broader list of eligible countries than programmes that sponsor collaborative projects. This is due in part to the fact that scholarship programmes have multiple objectives and serve different interests. Scholarships are provided not just to solve capacity gaps in developing countries but are also instruments to create goodwill for the donor country, forge international and economic relations, attract clever brains and – in a number of countries – stimulate national universities to internationalise their curricula. Not only traditional donors but also upcoming donors like China, India and Brazil use scholarships for these purposes. These latter countries are providing an increasing number of scholarships to students from developing countries for diplomatic and economic reasons. Programmes that sponsor cooperation projects tend to follow the list of bilateral partner countries of the donor country, or even a selection of that list. These projects are seen much more as potential or real supporters of bilateral aid programmes which the donor implements in partner countries. Scholarships offered under the NFP cover a wide range of disciplines but are not linked to training needs in NPT or NICHE programme project. Though they may be relevant for these projects, this is not by design. Rather, they constitute the programmes Dutch education and training institutions can supply to international students, and claim to be relevant for candidates from developing countries. However, with the exception of PhD tracks, most of these programmes are offered as part of the regular academic curricula and academic cycle. This means that application, selection and implementation processes are designed to suit the ‘suppliers’ in donor countries, and that the courses on offer and process cycles may not necessarily suit the needs of the NPT and NICHE projects. These issues impede coordination between the NFP and NPT/NICHE programmes. However, better coordination between programmes is possible with ‘scholarships’ that follow cooperation projects or when the provision of scholarships is integrated in a cooperation programme. The Danish government has been using this model for a number of years now. The Danish Fellowship Programme12 provides education and training scholarships to 12 Information can be found at the website of the Danish Fellowship Centre; www.dfcentre.com/. 13 This will change in the new phase of the NFP which will start in 2013.

20

Synergy in action: coordination of international cooporation programmes in higher education and research

people involved in Danish bilateral aid projects. Candidates are nominated by the projects with the aim of contributing directly to the objectives of the nominating project. The Danish Fellowship Centre is tasked with finding suitable education programmes or training courses for the selected candidates, in Denmark or elsewhere. As such, the fellowship programme is tailored to support bilateral aid objectives. As explained above, the Norwegian government has taken a different route with the NOMA programme. The programme sponsored projects aimed at setting up (double) master’s programmes in developing countries and at providing scholarships to students in these programmes. The master’s programmes were to be developed in partnerships between host institutes in the developing countries and Norwegian education institutes. Only time will tell whether NORHED, the successor to the NUFU and NOMA programmes, will be able to achieve comprehensive capacity building interventions. The fact that it combines diverse capacity development approaches in a single programme solves the problem of poor inter-programme coordination. But this does not necessarily mean it can serve all capacity needs in a balanced manner. The Dutch NICHE programme was set up as something of an ‘a la carte’ programme, catering to different kinds of capacity needs, from simple individual training needs to complex institutional problem solving, and from short-term to long-term interventions depending on the size and complexity of the capacity gaps. As it turned out, very few organisations in the South were interested in short-term staff-training projects. The majority opted for long-term capacity building projects aimed at enhancing their structural capacity to improve services (teaching programmes, quality assurance, teaching methodologies). When this trend became evident, the Dutch government decided to reinstate a scholarship programme for tailormade training that had formed part of the NFP in the past but had subsequently been incorporated into the NICHE programme. This programme has been re-established (2012) as a modality under the NFP and gives organisations in the South an opportunity to submit proposals for training a number of employees in a specific skill. The training should last at least two weeks and not exceed one year. The training can be conducted in the Netherlands or in the country/region of the requesting organisation. The example of NICHE and the tailor-made training modality prove that being demanddriven and being responsive to real needs are not necessarily the same thing, nor that the opportunity to use flexible modalities and arrangements automatically leads to optimal use. Coordination and synergy are constructs that live in the minds of donors, but are not necessarily ambitions that play a prominent role in the thinking of organisations or individuals in partner countries. Donors rein in their influence in the interest of enabling ownership in the South. They tend to accept a level of inefficiency in the name of what is considered ‘correct’ in terms of being demand-driven and establishing ownership in the South.

21

Coordination of capacity development programmes from a policy perspective

Coordination between programmes of different donors What options do donors have if they want to maintain these programmes and still wish to contribute to the Paris Declaration? At the least, they can make efforts to inform each other about their programme activities in terms of coverage, topics and cooperating partners. They can also work to coordinate certain typical steps in programme cycles such as the identification of demand for support, monitoring and evaluation of results in areas where a larger number of programmes are active, and the harmonisation of reporting requirements in order to accommodate Southern partners who are collaborating with multiple donor agencies. These are precisely the objectives of a network established in 2010 at the initiative of Nuffic and the Norwegian Centre for International Cooperation in Education (SIU), operating under the name of the ‘Harmonisation network‘. This network brings together agencies that administer and fund capacity building programmes in higher education and research, with a view to sharing information and identifying areas for collaborative action. A the first meeting in September 2010 in Scheveningen, the Netherlands, seventeen agencies attended. A second meeting in Bergen, Norway (2011) was attended by eighteen, and the third, in Madrid (2012), by 20 organisations. Since its foundation, the network has established an interactive website, set up a small database of capacity building programmes, conducted a mapping exercise to find out which programmes are being implemented in two pilot countries, and shared information on common challenges in programme implementation. Another aim has been to put staff from these agencies in contact with each other to facilitate joint planning and coordination of activities, exchange of information and peer review. Though this is a laudable initiative, the members are realistic about their ambitions and capabilities. Creating enduring good will among so many actors, all representing different constituencies and interests, requires a quiet but sustained progression towards a level of coordination that will ultimately lead to greater effectiveness of individual programmes, improved partner satisfaction (in the South and in the North) and increased development impact of interventions. Another option donors have is to minimise the number of the programmes they fund and to merge those that have complementary objectives and the same source of funding. This is what is happening in Norway with the NORHED programme and in the Netherlands where in 2002 seven higher education capacity development programmes were replaced by only three. Where programmes are funded from different sources, serve different interests and are based on co-financing arrangements it is always more difficult to merge programmes. This is the case in many donor countries, with Germany as probably the most

22

Synergy in action: coordination of international cooporation programmes in higher education and research

extreme example. The German Academic Exchange Agency (DAAD)14 administers approximately 200 different programmes, big and small, that promote staff and student mobility between Germany and partners countries and fund all sorts of academic collaborations between German higher education institutions and their partners abroad. Funding comes from both federal ministries and from die Bundesländer.

The responsibilities of universities ‘Let one hundred flowers blossom’ is one strategy for utilising the international support universities in developing countries are offered. In essence, it means to accept everything that is offered, from scholarships to buildings, and assume that it will eventually form a beautiful garden. This strategy is seldom adopted by design but rather from want. This is especially the case at institutions where the needs are great and varied and any form of support is seen as more than welcome. However, it can also be a signal of managerial weakness in an organisation. If there is no clear organisational vision or development strategy and the management is weak, there will be no capacity to assess and coordinate the support that is rendered. This situation can often been found at younger institutions in countries favoured by donors. Examples going back to the 1970s and 1980s include the Universidad Eduardo Mondlane (UEM) in Mozambique and the University of Dar es Salaam (UDSM) in Tanzania. The wellknown publication by David Wield (1995) counted more than 100 donor initiatives at the UEM15. It also showed the flip side of the ‘100 flowers’ coin. Incoming support created an enormous administrative burden as each donor used a different set of administrative rules and regulations. Eventually, the UEM and its donors negotiated a common reporting format to make the reporting load for the UEM manageable. Both the UEM and UDSM have gone through a process of strategic planning and organisational change enabling them to better plan and manage their institutional development, including management of external support. ‘Divide and rule’ is another strategy institutions can use to deal with opportunities for support. In practice, this means not accepting everything everyone offers, but being selective and staying in control. This strategy can only work if the institution in the developing country has a vision and strong leadership itself and large supply of support from outside. In the 1980s these conditions came together in the re-establishment of the University of Asmara, which had to be rebuilt from scratch when Eritrea gained its independence. As its new vice-chancellor Professor Wolde-ab was appointed, a man of international standing with a large international academic network and a clear vision of the university’s future. Many donors came to the aid of the new state, which included 14 Website: www.daad.de/en/. 15 The article in this book written by the Makerere University mentions that at one point in time the University was running 35 project accounts for one single programme!

23

Coordination of capacity development programmes from a policy perspective

aid for the university. From the outset, Wolde-ab made it clear that he was in control of coordinating all offers of assistance. Assistance that did not fit the plans was politely turned down. In order to avoid duplication and counterproductive competition, donors were asked to contribute based on their demonstrated expertise. This resulted in faculties and disciplines being ‘adopted’ by different donors. Once a year, the donors came together to discuss the progress made. The university got off to a flying start, but in later years proved unable to sustain this pace due to political troubles. Le Quang Minh, in his article on the Can Tho University in Vietnam, gives another fine example of the way in which vision and leadership are crucial ingredients in coordinating existing opportunities for external support. Many universities are not in as favourable a position as the institutes mentioned above because they are not popular among donors or among academic circles in the North. They have no need to design a coping mechanism to deal with an oversupply of support. Nevertheless, they still need to make the best use of the support they do receive, however little, or to plan ways of generating more support in order to achieve their development aims. Not surprisingly, a number of cooperation programmes include an element of organisational strengthening along these lines or a focus on management aspects; one example is the German ‘Dialogue on Innovative Higher Education Strategies’ (DIES) programme16. Organisational strengthening is also a specific objective of the Swedish bilateral research cooperation programme, the Belgian university cooperation programmes and the Dutch NICHE programme. Although organisational strengthening is meant to enhance the effectiveness and sustainability of nationally and internationally funded programmes, it also has positive effects on the coordination of activities and programmes.

The opportunities for universities What about the partners in the North? For organisations keen to establish collaborative arrangements with partners in developing countries or that see opportunities for creating new areas of research and teaching, donor programmes provide the means to achieve these aims. Such opportunities exist in programmes that operate based on an ‘open call’ principle; that is, in which partners can submit proposals for funding a collaborative project under a particular programme. Many capacity building programmes – both national as well as international programmes – are organised this way. The programmes usually carry the restriction that only proposals that include a partner from the donor country will be accepted. Programmes operated by the European Commission require that several partners from the EU participate in each project. Of course, every programme has its own distinct eligibility criteria as regards 16 Website: www.daad.de/entwicklung/hochschulmanagement/08014.en.html.

24

Synergy in action: coordination of international cooporation programmes in higher education and research

countries, target groups and sometimes also sectors and disciplines that are eligible, but in general it is possible to combine opportunities under different programmes to achieve broader and longer-term collaborations. Organisations in the North can ‘shop’ nationally as well as internationally for scholarship, research and project funds and use these opportunities as ‘building blocks’ for creating longer term collaborations. How this works is nicely described in the chapters by Pieper de Avila and Terryn. It is quite common for a partnership to start with a scholarship and evolve from there. If the scholarship student is good enough and returns home, it may provide an incentive for exploring possibilities for joint research on topics of mutual interest or for setting up a joint or double degree programme. Funds for these activities are available from inter-institutional cooperation programmes, EU mobility programmes, national research funds and international foundations. Such initiatives may subsequently be expanded to form international academic networks, North-South-South collaborations, cross-border education programmes and so forth. Another inspiring example is Euro Aquae17 (Euro Hydro-Informatics and Water Management), which is a collaboration between five European universities and partners Asia and Latin America (HydroAsia, HydroLatinAmerica and the China Europe Aquae Group). This network, which offers a two-year joint MSc programme, launched in September 2004 with an initial intake of sixteen students and is still running today. Similarly, the International Institute for Geo-Information Science and Earth Observation (ITC) in the Netherlands is building an international education and research network that relies on alumni and project partners18. Since its foundation in 1950, ITC’s education programmes and capacity building activities, supplied in the Netherlands, have served almost 20,000 mid-career professionals from more than 160 countries. In 2004, ITC initiated a new strategy, transferring a share of its education programmes to the home countries of its clientele, where they are now supplied in the form of joint education programmes with qualified partner organisations. Under this arrangement, courses or course components leading to a recognised ITC degree, diploma or certificate can be conducted in the student’s home country. ITC’s aim in these efforts has been to develop a global international network of education organisations that accept and accredit each other’s education. The network currently includes six partner institutions19 and countries (besides ITC), with joint MSc programmes conducted partly in these countries and partly at ITC in the Netherlands. In this network, ITC operates as a node in an international knowledge 17 Website: www.euroaquae.eu/. 18 Sjaak J.J. Beerens, From ‘building capacity’ to ‘building on capacity’ – Towards an international network for capacity building in geo-information science and earth observation, 2004. 19 Indonesia (Gadja Mada University), Iran (K.N.Toosi University of Technology), China (Chang’an University), Vietnam (Hanoi University of Science and Technology), Ghana (Kwame Nkrumah National University of Science and Technology) and India (Indian Institute of Remote Sensing).

25

Coordination of capacity development programmes from a policy perspective

network, mediating between scientific and professional organisations. Academic and professional partnerships allow ITC to offer its services in the fields of research, education and project services worldwide.

Concluding remarks Coordinating donor programmes for greater effectiveness is about creating vision and commitment, about collaborative strategies, about exercising ownership, about access to information and the expertise to use this information. •

•

•

For governments and donors in the North, it implies that they should give precedence to global aid effectiveness over national interests, to policy coherence over serving parochial interests through unrelated programmes. For governments and organisations in developing countries, it assumes the willingness and capacity to manage development processes and to make effective use of donor programmes in pursuit of their own agenda and priorities. For organisations in the North, it is about trying to identify and combine existing opportunities offered by donor programmes and matching these with their own ambitions and objectives for international collaboration and capacity building.

Reliable information is an essential element in all coordination efforts, a need to establish who is doing what and to find areas of complementarity and synergy between initiatives. Slightly more challenging is the aim to define strategies for joint action and to agree on common procedures. This involves a labyrinth of different (administrative) cultures, perceptions and time cycles. The most difficult challenge is that of aligning interests, be it at the organisational or national level. Countries and collaborating partners have constituencies with expectations and people with ambitions and agendas (personal, organisational, national etc.). These interests may be economically or politically motivated and/or shaded by religious or cultural values. It is a political arena of power and influence, which may be stable one moment and very volatile the next. However, better coordination can be achieved with some pragmatic effort. Information-sharing is one of the methods that can be used, and can be achieved at various levels (databases, networks and joint sector support programmes) if parties are prepared to share their programme data. Another is by increasing policy coherence among programmes of one donor/country and reducing the proliferation of separate programmes. A third is by aligning higher education development programmes with bilateral aid policies and priorities. A fourth is by achieving better integration of individual and organisational capacity development programmes. Lastly, harmonisation of strategies and procedures can be achieved through negotiations between governments, donors and organisations. It may be a tedious process, but it can be done.

26

Synergy in action: coordination of international cooporation programmes in higher education and research

The beneficiaries and implementers of these programmes – individuals as well as organisations may feel restrained by the fragmentation and conditions of donor programmes. However, this has not kept them from trying to combine offers from different programmes to create longer and broader forms of cooperation to fit their ambitions. As ‘customers’ of these programmes, they can use their entrepreneurial talents to make this happen. In this respect they have much more freedom than governments or donor agencies.

About the author Ad Boeren is Senior Policy Officer at the Netherlands organisation for international cooperation in higher education (Nuffic). He has been working for almost 30 years in/for development cooperation programmes, mainly in the area of international cooperation in basic and higher education. In the eighties he worked for FAO as communication and training expert in Africa and as lecturer at Leiden University. He joined Nuffic in 1986 and conducted numerous evaluation studies of education and training projects in Africa and Asia. He was team leader of the evaluation of the second NUFU Agreement, a Norwegian research cooperation programme with institutions in the South (2000) , the Sida/SAREC bilateral research programme (2006) and the Joint Review Mission of the Education Sector Development Programme in Ethiopia in 2004 and 2005. As Senior Policy Adviser in Nuffic he is involved in programme administration, project management, policy studies and evaluation assignments.

References • • •

• • • •

Boeren, Ad. (2012). Issues and trends in development cooperation programmes in higher education and research. Nuffic. May 2012. Robert Craig Johnson. (1997). Heart of darkness: the tragedy of the Congo: 19901997. Peter van Lieshout et al. (2010). Less pretension, more ambition. Development policy in times of globalization. Scientific Council For Government Policy (WRR). Amsterdam University Press. Mario, Mouzinho; Fry, Peter; Leve, Lisbeth (2007). Higher Education in Mozambique. NORRAG 44 . (2010). A Brave New World of ‘Emerging’, ‘Non-DAC’ Donors and their Differences from Traditional Donors. NN44, September 2010. Singgih Tri Sulistiyono. (2007). Higher education reform in Indonesia at crossroad, 2007. Wield, David . (1995). Beyond the Fragments: Integrating Donor Reporting Systems to Support African Universities. SAREC.

27

Who knows better what is needed most?

W

‘ ho knows better what is needed most?’ - Donor coordination in knowledge capacity building for development from the perspective of universities in the global North Han Aarts

Abstract In this contribution the issue of donor coordination in development cooperation for capacity building in knowledge is looked at from the perspective of knowledge institutions in the global North. Donors tend to see an important role for Northern knowledge institutions, like universities, in knowledge capacity building in the global South. Various knowledge capacity building programs are actually based on NorthSouth university linkages as the principal instrument to achieve this. In addition, many universities in the global North themselves see development cooperation as an important component of their international activities. In this article it is argued that there is (a probably increasing) tension between the development agendas of donors and the reasons why universities in the global North engage in development cooperation. In a highly complex matter as (the need for) donor coordination, this tension surfaces. While coordinating their efforts is a huge challenge for both donors and their recipients, for universities in the global North engaged in development cooperation, donor coordination tends to be a rather abstract issue. The issue is well beyond their horizon and not related to their motives to engage in development efforts. This gap in perception complicates attempts to coordinate different international efforts. It is concluded that it is nevertheless crucial to keep knowledge institutions like universities in the global North involved in development cooperation aiming to build knowledge capacity. It is precisely these institutions that are pushing the

28

Synergy in action: coordination of international cooporation programmes in higher education and research

frontiers of new knowledge development. However, it will be only possible to keep these institutions on board when they are given a certain freedom in defining their contributions. Such freedom may cause friction with the need to coordinate efforts internationally and from that perspective prescribe, to some extent, what contributions are needed by whom.

It is useful to start this contribution with specifying what meaning is intended with some of the terms used. ‘Knowledge capacity building’ refers to building knowledge capacity in its broadest sense. Knowledge capacity in a broad sense entails the capacity to generate new knowledge by conducting – scientific – research, the capacity to disseminate knowledge by education – specifically higher education – and to apply new and existing knowledge through innovations. By including innovation capacity, so-called ‘systems of innovation’, that is the organisations and mechanisms required to make innovation processes possible, also become part of the knowledge capacity (Soete, 2009). More generally, ‘knowledge capacity’ comprises both human resources and the institutions and institutional environment that are required to enable knowledge production, dissemination and application. Concerning ‘education’, the emphasis is on higher education. This includes not only university higher education, but also non-academic post-secondary education, which also may comprise non-formal education and training. Where ‘universities’ are discussed, this may be interpreted more generally as tertiary or higher education institutions, as well as specialised research institutions. When talking about inequalities in the world, many classical terms trying to grasp these inequalities through dichotomies – such as developed and developing countries, rich and poor countries or industrialised and industrialising countries – have lost much of their meaning. Instead, the more contemporary division between a Global North and Global South1 is used, including the notion that parts of the Global South are to be found in what geographically is the Northern hemisphere, and vice versa, that in poor countries in the geographical South more and more pockets are to be found that actually belong to the Global North.

1 The Global North refers to highly developed countries – for instance those countries with a high Human Development Index (HDI) as reported annually by the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP). Most, but not all, of these countries are located in the Northern hemisphere. The Global South refers to the other countries of the world, most of which are located in the Southern hemisphere. These include countries with, on average, medium and low human development. According to some authors, with whom the author of this contribution tend to agree, poor parts of countries in the Global North may be perceived as actually belonging to the Global South, while elites in poorer countries in the Global South may be seen as actually being part of the Global North.

29

Who knows better what is needed most?

Context Many higher education institutions, specifically universities, in the global North have been engaged in development cooperation for a long time. Actually development cooperation is one of the oldest areas of international activity for many institutions and was already a familiar feature of the international higher education landscape as much as 40 years ago (Knight, 2008). For many institutions it still is an important feature of their international activities. However, this is not to say that these activities have not changed over the years. Both the type and scope of activities and the motivations often have changed considerably over the years. Many of the earlier efforts by universities in this area may be classified as rather straightforward ‘aid’. In that sense it used to be a one-way flow from North to South: universities in the so-called developed world were prepared to share and transfer their knowledge, in order to help the development of poor countries, many of which had just gained their independence in the post-war period. The effort included assisting the establishment and development of universities and other educational and research establishment in these countries. It was, in most cases, inter-university cooperation with as the prime motivation, arguably, solidarity with and a widely felt responsibility for ‘helping’ poor countries and poor people in the world. Next to that, there were in most universities in the North research groups or departments with an interest in the developing world, in areas like tropical agriculture, development economics or cultural anthropology. Such groups would generally be perceived as rather ‘exotic’ by the academic community at large. And, of course, there was almost everywhere a group of students to be found with an interest in the wider world and who probably would go, often as ‘free movers’, for a study visit to a country in Africa, Asia or Latin America. This used to be the general picture some decades ago. Presently the picture looks quite different. There are still many, probably even many more, relations between universities in what may be now called the Global North and universities and other institutions in the Global South. But the nature of these relationships has changed substantially. The type of relationship has evolved from ‘aid’ to ‘development cooperation’. Development cooperation is much more of a two-way flow of traffic between the partners, ideally with the partner in the Global South in the driving seat. It is, at least ideally, the needs of the Southern partner that set the agenda. Cooperation also tends to have a more institutionalised, business-like approach. Contracts, memoranda and other formalised arrangements play an important role. Quite a number of other research groups may now be involved. Some of the traditional ‘exotic’ disciplines like development economics are at the point of disappearing, while the topics these disciplines dealt with have become, due to globalisation, part of mainstream scientific research. The group of students, and staff, with an interest in other parts of the globe, has grown significantly. And, of course, what was once the ‘third world’ (if anything like that ever really existed) has changed itself tremendously. Some countries meanwhile have

30

Synergy in action: coordination of international cooporation programmes in higher education and research

become part of the Global North (like several of the Asian tigers) or are aspiring to do so in due course (like the BRIC countries2). Cooperation with these countries has also changed, and in many cases cannot be classified any longer as development aid or development cooperation. But even relations with poorer countries belonging to the Global South have changed dramatically. Probably the most important change of all is that the motivation behind the cooperation is now quite different. Solidarity and responsibility may still be present in some cases, but arguably the main driver for universities in the global North to engage in development cooperation nowadays is (an enlightened?) self interest. Various observers have noted that the ‘paradigm’ in relations between universities has evolved from ‘cooperation’, which was the dominant notion until the end of the 1990s, into ‘competition’, being the leading principle for most universities’ behaviour from the new millennium onwards3. Now although this may be the case generally, it still will be problematic to classify the relations between universities in the global North and the global South as ‘competitive’. Specifically in development-cooperation relations, this would even seem paradoxical. The argument here may be, as again several observers have noted, that indeed the relationships between universities in the Global North and South may predominantly be of a collaborative nature, but international cooperation for many universities has become an instrument to support their competitive strategy. In other words, to become more competitive in a global higher education and research ‘market’, universities need an international network of partners. These partners are primarily chosen for strengthening the competitive profile of the university, not because they need assistance – or for any other motivation. Such considerations are only secondary. The reason I develop this argument in some detail here is, as we will see later on in this contribution, it is an important reason for complicating the possibilities for ‘donor coordination’ in the area of development cooperation in higher education and research. But let us first look at why universities in the global North nevertheless should be involved in such cooperation.

Why universities should be involved If universities in the global North indeed engage in development cooperation in order to strengthen their own international competitive profile in the first place, it may be questioned whether universities should still be involved in such cooperation. This is particularly the case if development cooperation is seen primarily as a process in

2 The acronym ‘BRIC’ is composed of the first letters of Brazil, Russia, India and China. More generally the term has become a shorthand for the rise of emerging markets in the global economy. 3 See for instance publications by influential authors such as Jane Knight, Philip Altbach and Peter Scott. ‘The twenty-first century has the potential to be a period of unprecedented competition in higher education’, writes Altbach in ‘African Higher Education and the World’, in Teferra and Altbach (editors) ‘African Higher Education – an international Reference Handbook’, Indiana University Press, 2003.

31

Who knows better what is needed most?

which the Northern partner mainly provides knowledge and services to the Southern partner (and gets little in return). In the development cooperation arena there are now many private providers of comparable services. Thus, for instance, in the Dutch NICHE programme4 there is an increasing number of private consultants offering and providing services that universities and higher education institutions used to provide. From the instrumental perspective, as generally held by a development cooperation bureaucracy, that the supposed beneficiary institution in the Global South is in need of certain services (e.g. education, training, advice, management) that need to be provided in a most cost-effective way, it will not make much of a difference whether these services are provided by a university or a consulting company. At first glance, private companies, with specialised staff to write good project proposals and with marketing and PR instruments that often are more professionally developed than those of universities, may even seem to be better equipped than universities to provide the services required. Still, there are strong arguments that universities in the global North need to be involved in development cooperation aiming at knowledge capacity building. These arguments are valid for the global South as well as the global North. The arguments are based on a conviction that knowledge capacity building is best to be achieved by developing a capacity to create new knowledge. Thus, knowledge capacity building in the global South means that the global South must build up a structure in which it can generate its own knowledge and a system in which such knowledge can be applied (the ‘systems of innovation’ already referred to). The ‘new knowledge’ may be local adaptations of existing knowledge5, so this does not necessarily imply that the global South needs to engage in fundamental research. But what is essential is that the global South develops its own capacity for generating knowledge that addresses local challenges and problems. The global South will and should take ownership of its own knowledge needs, as the global North will not do this if there is no particular interest or potential gain involved for them. The most important implication of this is that mere ‘knowledge transfer’ from the global North to South, for instance through training programmes, is not sufficient. Only knowledge transfer through education and training will fail to create a structural and sustainable knowledge capacity in the global South. More is needed and it is not only universities in the global North that can deliver that ‘more’. When it comes to developing institutional structures, for instance, an essential part of capacity building, it may well be that players other than universities can provide useful inputs. However, what is argued here is that a real and structural knowledge capacity base cannot be created without the involvement of universities.

4 NICHE: the Netherlands Initiative for Capacity development in Higher Education. 5 ‘Scan globally, reinvent locally’ as Joseph Stiglitz phrased already in 1997 how he saw the essence of knowledge development by and for the developing world.

32

Synergy in action: coordination of international cooporation programmes in higher education and research

Universities in the global North need to be involved in knowledge capacity building in the global South because: •

Universities in the global North are still – globally – the prime sources of new scientific knowledge. Obviously, there are more sources of new knowledge than universities – private companies, industry, and increasingly, the internet – and some of these sources are now even larger than the largest universities. But one important difference between these sources and universities is that universities are the only producers of scientifically sound knowledge that, in principle, is both free and independent, not serving any other interest than the sake of knowledge and need for knowledge itself. This allows universities to – also – produce knowledge that is not serving political, economic or commercial interests – or that even may be challenging such interests.

•

For universities and other knowledge institutions in the global South to build up their own knowledge capacity, it is crucial to get access to state-of-theart knowledge, to the frontlines where new knowledge is produced, and to the research communities, journals and global networks through which this new knowledge is disseminated and critically discussed. To achieve this it is indispensable to link up with universities in the global North. They are the prime hosts of such communities and networks.

•

On the other hand, the huge development challenges and problems facing the global South are not only a concern to the South but also to the global North. In fact the globalising world is increasingly confronted with challenges and problems that manifest themselves around the globe, perhaps with different local manifestations that need local approaches and solutions, but with major communalities underlying them. Obvious examples range from health promotion and the combat of disease to securing political stability and peace, and from food and fresh water security to creating a sustainable living environment for future generations. Universities in the global North obviously are interested in these challenges and problems. Although they may be primarily interested in the manifestations of these problems in and their implications for the global North, they also – and increasingly – see the importance of the manifestations of these problems in the global South. If not for the implications that these problems in the end may also have for the global North.

•

Cooperation with emerging universities in the global South on such global challenges is both in the interest of the global South and the global North. Such cooperation may unite the need for knowledge capacity building in the global South with the production of new relevant knowledge, and its application, both in the global South and the global North. For instance, research on the control of infectious diseases is globally relevant, locally relevant in both the global South and the global North, and generates knowledge that can be applied in the health

33

Who knows better what is needed most?

sector at large in the South and North, ranging from health policies and health care to the medical and pharmaceutical industries. However, although an interest on the part of universities in the global North in global problems and challenges is a good basis for cooperation with universities in the global South, such cooperation likely will tend to focus on research and applications of research results. Perhaps it will focus on education that is also of interest to the partner in the global North. In other words, cooperation will not automatically result in knowledge capacity building in the global South, as this is not the main goal of the cooperation for the universities in the North. Probably it is fair to conclude that knowledge capacity building cannot happen without a basis of shared genuine interest in knowledge between Northern and Southern universities; but that in addition more and additional efforts are required. Also other incentives and partners may be needed to ensure that structural capacity building will actually take place.

Diverging perspectives Turning to the main topic of this contribution, donor coordination, may take on a different perspective when taking into account the context described in the previous sections. To start with, donor coordination, as the term suggests, is coordination between donors, that is, those actors in development cooperation who finance the cooperation and who, by doing so, have a strong say in the aims, strategies and targets of that cooperation. Donors include national governments, multilateral organisations, development banks, (huge) private foundations, large non-governmental organisations. Universities, in the global North, are not donors in the sense that they finance development cooperation activities to any significant extent themselves. Consequently, they generally are not directly part of any donor coordination effort. Probably most universities in the global North even do not see themselves so much as players in development cooperation. Instead, they tend to perceive universities in the global South first of all as partners with whom they can set up cooperation in research, education and/or other activities that contribute both to the ‘globalisation’ of their own activities and that generate results that are interesting for both sides. That this also contributes to development is good of course, but in most cases it will not be the principal aim or only consideration. In contrast, in the perception of donors, universities in the global North tend to be (more or less important) instruments in development cooperation in the area of knowledge and knowledge capacity building. Donors probably also often assume that universities in the global North indeed do have knowledge capacity building in the South as a main aim. In other words, the perception of donors and universities in the North is quite different. This divergence of perception has important implications.

34

Synergy in action: coordination of international cooporation programmes in higher education and research

Translating donor coordination into the level of implementation The Paris Declaration on Aid Effectiveness is clear on what is needed and required in terms of donor coordination to improve aid effectiveness6. Implementing the principles set out in the declaration, however, is something else. Ideally, donor coordination starts on a high political level and before any actual cooperation takes place. The coordination involves the government and other principal stakeholders of the recipient country and the principal donors. From there, it has to be translated all the way down to the level where cooperation actually is implemented. In the case of knowledge capacity building, that often will be the partnerships between universities in the global North and South, funded or co-funded by donors as part of the development cooperation effort. The donor coordination, harmonisation, alignment, etc. at the political level however is already a challenge. The outcome is often far from perfect. The possible causes are many but will not be discussed here, as this is analysed elsewhere in this book7. In the absence of a clear agreement and a coordination framework, donors often tend do more or less the same things. Donors tend to concentrate on issues that are fashionable in development thinking, politically sexy and attractive at home to maintain the support of their taxpayers. The tendency to do the same things will be repeated on the level of North-South university partnerships. However, even in cases where there is a clear agreement on donor coordination, individual donors may fail to translate this into clear directions to the level where development cooperation is implemented. This tends to be especially the case in the area of knowledge capacity building and higher education and research, which are often seen as rather specific areas of development cooperation, with specific programmes, instruments and actors. The cases of Germany, the UK, Norway, Sweden, the Netherlands, Belgium and more countries illustrate this point to various extents8. As a result, development cooperation in knowledge often seems to be somehow outside ‘mainstream’ development cooperation, and lingers around the margins or remains outside agreed donor coordination arrangements. In the absence of a clear framework for donor coordination, or of a clear translation of such a framework to the level of implementation (by way of directives, for instance concerning themes and/or geographical focus), it will be very difficult to achieve any coordination of efforts on

6 The Paris Declaration on Aid Effectiveness, Paris, February 2005. 7 See article by Ad Boeren. 8 See for instance: Han Aarts and Kees Kouwenaar ‘Programmes for development cooperation in higher education: a comparison of selected European countries’ in ‘Internationalization of European higher Education’- an EAIE Handbook, Raabe Berlin (2012).

35

Who knows better what is needed most?

the ground. To take just one example, during much of the 1990s and the first years of the new millennium, the Faculty of Health Sciences of Moi University in Kenya was supported by several universities from the global North, including Maastricht University in the Netherlands, Linköping University in Sweden, Indiana University in the US, McMaster University in Canada, and others. Most universities were supported by their respective governments as part of the development cooperation with Kenya. During all these years, not one of these universities got any indication from their respective governments concerning the need to coordinate their efforts with any other player. In absence of this, the universities themselves tried to coordinate their efforts through a mechanism nicknamed ‘the friends of Moi University Faculty of Health Sciences’. However, agreements achieved on this level, for instance who would train PhDs, develop research activities or develop educational aspects, would often be frustrated by the fact that the backing donor would not allow these activities within their programmes. The game became to compare continuously which donor would support what activity, so that in the end some coordination was achieved in spite of the restrictions and conditions posed by the donors. Meanwhile, at the level of the donors there never was even a communication concerning the coordination of this specific effort (Oman, 2007).

“Who knows better what is needed most?” The example above is from a period preceding the Paris Declaration and a renewed emphasis on rationalising and coordinating development cooperation efforts that has followed. Since then, donor coordination between donors and recipient governments in quite a number of countries has improved. In the case of Kenya, this has resulted, among other things, in a withdrawal by the Netherlands to support the Kenyan health sector, and subsequently a halt of the support to the project at Moi University9. However, even if there are agreements concerning donor coordination, and even if these are translated into clear directives to implementers of that cooperation, those implementers may fail to appreciate the coordination efforts and still walk their own path. Let us take the Dutch NICHE programme as an example. The choice of projects funded by the NICHE programme is strongly influenced by donor coordination and other donor agreements. The programme is implemented in 18 ‘partner countries’ of the Netherlands development cooperation programme: the selection of these countries is, among other considerations, based on coordination between the Netherlands and other major donors. In these partner countries, the NICHE programme is implemented to support only selected sectors of Dutch bilateral aid like ‘water’, ‘rule of law’ or ‘food security’. These sectors are, in part, a result of coordination with other donors. The selection of institutions in the partner countries at which NICHE support in the selected sectors will be targeted is a result of negotiations with the recipient 9 Almost at the same time the Netherlands withdrew its development support to Kenya altogether because of political reasons. In 2008 the development relation with Kenya was restored again.

36

Synergy in action: coordination of international cooporation programmes in higher education and research

government, in which donor coordination also plays a role. Thus, the resulting choice of projects is in several respects influenced by donor coordination efforts. Finally, the targeted beneficiary institution is supposed to formulate a ‘project outline’, along guidelines meant to assure that the project will result in capacity building – that is, capacity building from a donor’s point of view. These ‘pre-formulated’ projects are subsequently offered to Dutch institutions, which, in a tender procedure through proposals, compete to be selected to implement the project together with the targeted beneficiary institution. Dutch universities have problems with this set-up. As explained, universities tend, beyond merely making a contribution to development, to look for academic gains in projects like these. This implies a different view than the donor on how knowledge capacity can be built. The most serious problem they have with the NICHE set-up is to link the NICHE projects with their own education and research. For that reason they complain about not being involved in the identification and formulation of projects. For years already they have tried to have the tender procedure substituted by an ‘open call’ approach, in which they can propose projects with partner institutions in the South, within a given policy framework (this may consist of a choice for certain countries and sectors in these countries)10. This would offer them the possibility to define projects with outcomes that are of interest to their partners in the developing world but also to themselves, in terms of research and/or educational content. The present ‘preformulated’ projects generally lack such outcomes, as they are formulated from the donor perspective of how and where to build knowledge capacity development. In a discussion on the development efforts in Vietnam, a university professor and top researcher in aquaculture who had worked there for many years phrased it in this way: “Who else knows better what is needed most in Vietnam in terms of training, development and application of the latest knowledge in my academic field? Not a government official but I need to discuss this (with the recipient institutions and government) to formulate the best project. That is the road to developing relevant and scientifically sound knowledge, not what some civil servant has read in his last policy brief”11. So much for illustrating that universities in the global North tend to differ from – their – donors on how to build knowledge capacity and how good projects for achieving this should be formulated. It shows the tension between donor policies, the need of donors for coordination and the limitations this implies on the one hand, and the interest highlevel academics have in generating knowledge that has academic significance in its own right and relevance for development as well on the other.

10 See for instance ‘Good Practices, Good Programmes – Conclusions and recommendations of a seminar organised by the Platform for International Education (PIE) at the International Agricultural Centre (IAC) Wageningen, the Netherlands, April 21, 2005’. 11 Opinion expressed by a participant at a seminar organised at the University of Can Tho, Vietnam, 2008.

37

Who knows better what is needed most?

Conclusion: the price of engagement This contribution may conclude with several observations with some general meaning. First, knowledge capacity for development, in the developing world, in the global South, has to be build locally, with local ownership. Second, the best way to build knowledge capacity in a way that can be sustained is to link up with the global academic community, that is, with universities and other knowledge institutions of the Global North (and South). It is probably the only way to develop knowledge, education, research, knowledge applications and knowledge capacity that is scientifically sound and internationally up to standard. Third, to involve the academic community of the global North in knowledge capacity building in the global South, there should be an academic or other gain for them by cooperating. To assure that, a degree of freedom for the institutions to be involved in cooperating to define objectives, activities and outcomes is required. The academic community arguably is also better positioned to identify the major challenges in a certain knowledge area than the development bureaucracy. Fourth, this need to allow institutions a degree of freedom can never be an excuse not to try to coordinate efforts. It is obvious that coordination of development efforts is dearly needed in order to increase effectiveness and reduce overlap if not competition between various donor initiatives. Moreover, most efforts are funded with public (i.e. taxpayer’s) money, and for that reason an efficient and effective spending is an obligation for all stakeholders. Fifth, the agendas of donors and universities in the Global North are not the same. That may create tension, although not necessarily. Universities in the global North will generally be understanding and open towards the need to coordinate efforts and willing to comply with certain limitations posed upon them by donors, as long as a cooperation still will generate academic benefits for them. So the final conclusion may be that to achieve structural and sustainable knowledge capacity building in the Global South, the involvement of universities in the global North is needed. But to keep universities in the global North involved, a certain degree of - academic - freedom is to be allowed to them. To the extent that the need for coordination of donor efforts may lead donors to prescribe what universities in the global North and South ‘have to do’, this may create tension and problems. For donors it is wise to limit themselves to defining general policy frameworks, within which universities in the global South and North can work as partners on knowledge development, with a fair degree of freedom, to find the way that is most beneficial for both sides – and for that reason will generate the best results in the longer term.

About the author Han Aarts is Director of the Maastricht University Centre for International Cooperation in Academic Development (Mundo) in the Netherlands. In his work, he concentrates on cooperation with partner universities, mainly in Africa and Asia, with an emphasis on capacity development in education and research. Educational innovation to improve

38

Synergy in action: coordination of international cooporation programmes in higher education and research

relevance is one of his main interests. He has also been active in various national and international organisations active in international educational cooperation, including the Dutch Platform for International Education (PIE) and the European Association of International Education (EAIE). He initiated the EAIE Professional Section Educational Cooperation with Developing Countries (EDC). For his achievements Han Aarts was granted the EAIE Constance Meldrum Award in 2007.

References • •

•

Soete, Luc, Bart Verspagen en Bas ter Weel. (2009). Systems of Innovation, UNU Merit, Maastricht, 2009. Jane Knight. (2008). ‘Internationalisation: Key concepts and elements’, in: ‘Internationalisation of European Higher Education’ – an EU/ACA Handbook, Raabe Berlin, September 2008. Oman K., Khwa-Otsyula B., Majoor G., Einertz R. and Wasteson A. (2007). Working collaboratively to support medical education in developing countries: the case of the Friends of Moi University Faculty of Health Sciences’, in Education for Health 20, 1-9, 2007.

39

Finding your way through the ‘funding jungle’

F

inding your way through the ‘funding jungle’: How universities in developing countries and their German partners can profit from a complex funding system Anette Pieper de Avila

Abstract The funding landscape for cooperation with developing countries in higher education is a very complex one in Germany. Three different ministries finance this type of cooperation, each one with its own objectives, but all within the framework of the German government ‘s strategy for the internationalisation of science and research. A number of funding agencies implement the corresponding projects and programmes. The article sheds light on the different components of the strategy and points out the advantages and challenges of the German approach.

Funding landscape At a conference recently held in Germany on the topic of supporting higher education for development, some of the representatives from German universities complained about the situation they face when applying for funds to cooperate with developing countries. According to them, setting up a more comprehensive partnership scheme is a quite difficult task because of the complexity of the funding landscape in Germany. On top of that, there is the European Union with its own set of funding schemes and its own rules and regulations. Indeed, the situation is complex and diverse, but does this complexity not carry a few advantages of its own and does it not allow for a great freedom of project design and implementation? And is this perhaps to the advantage

40

Synergy in action: coordination of international cooporation programmes in higher education and research

of partners in the South who might thus benefit from tailor-made programmes and projects that fit their needs and aspirations? In order to answer these questions, it is necessary to take a look at the situation and understand how the funding of university cooperation with developing countries works when Germany is the partner and financial resources are provided by the German government. In general, three federal ministries have funds available for higher education cooperation schemes with developing countries: the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the Ministry of Education and Research and the Ministry of Economic Cooperation and Development. They do not implement and oversee projects and programmes themselves; instead, the ministries work very closely with institutions or implementing agencies who receive a great deal of funding to finance both long-running programmes and projects of limited duration. In the field of higher education, the most important such institutions or agencies are the German Academic Exchange Service (DAAD), the Alexander von Humboldt Foundation (AvH), and the International Bureau of the BMBF (Federal Ministry of Education and Research). The GIZ (Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit), implementing agency for large-scale development projects of BMZ (Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development), is also active to a certain extent in higher education.1 The objectives of each ministry, and therefore the programmes for higher education they finance, vary considerably and reflect the original tasks of the ministries: The Federal Ministry of Foreign Affairs wants to build trust among partners around the globe and create a positive image of Germany as a foundation for good international relations. The ministry considers cultural relations a cornerstone of Germany’s foreign policy. Scientific relations and university cooperation with countries worldwide fall into this category. “Cultural and educational programmes tailored to the needs and interests of people in our partner countries not only create a broad basis for stable international relations but also build trust in our country around the world. As a result (…) our civil society, business and political actors readily find a host of important and reliable partners.”2 Hence, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, while pursuing German interests, does so by serving the interests of Germany’s partner countries at the same time. In higher education, one of the main objectives stated by the ministry is “to strengthen Germany as a higher education location by awarding scholarships,

1 On a smaller scale, some private foundations also have cooperation schemes in higher education with developing countries. The profiles and missions of all of these institutions mentioned above differ greatly among each other. For the purpose of this article, this aspect will, however, not be discussed. Rather, the article will concentrate on the Federal Ministries as funding sources on the one hand and the way the funds are utilized for projects and programmes on the other. 2 Website Auswärtiges Amt, www.auswaertiges-amt.de/EN/Aussenpolitik/KulturDialog/ZieleUndPartner/ ZielePartner_node.html.

41

Finding your way through the ‘funding jungle’

for example, to outstanding young researchers from all parts of the world.”3 This is indeed a good example for the principle of creating win-win situations through an adequate programme design: On the one hand, through comprehensive scholarship schemes that are implemented by the above-mentioned DAAD and AvH4, German universities attract bright graduate students and researchers from all over the world, many of them from developing countries, thus enhancing their international profile, competitiveness and contacts. On the other hand, the scholars profit from excellent study and research opportunities and take home with them not only their degrees, but also a network of contacts and future opportunities. Through a number of measures and schemes directed at students and researchers from developing countries5, these programmes encourage the return of graduates to their own regions, thus containing brain drain as much as possible. The very traditional approach to awarding individual scholarships to students and researchers is currently complemented by more comprehensive and complex projects such as granting support for cooperative schemes between universities and offshore-projects of German universities, mainly in emerging countries and countries in transition. Since international crisis and conflict prevention and resolution is another objective of German foreign policy, financing for international cooperation in higher education also has a special focus on post-conflict countries and on reconstruction efforts after natural disasters. In terms of cooperation with developing nations, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs puts special emphasis on Africa. Within the framework of its ‘Aktion Afrika’ campaign, the ministry has been financing, through the DAAD, the establishment of five ‘Centres of African Excellence’ in cooperation with German universities.6 The centres’ academic programmes concentrate on subjects of major social and economic relevance and have built a close network of partners for the democratic and economic development of Africa and for cooperation with Germany.

3 Federal Ministry of Foreign Affairs, www.auswaertiges-amt.de/EN/Aussenpolitik/KulturDialog/ ZieleUndPartner/ZielePartner_node.html. 4 These two organizations basically have a different target group when it comes to individual scholarships: DAAD, the much larger institution, has programmes for students up to postdoc level, whereas AvH’s programmes start at this academic level. 5 One important feature is the offer of alumni programmes which allow former scholarship holders to sustain their scientific contacts with their host country and to update their skills on a regular basis. 6 The five Centres are: the South African-German Centre for Development Research and Criminal Justice at the University of the Western Cape (UWC)/ South Africa with Humboldt University in Berlin and Ruhr University Bochum; the Ghanaian-German Centre for Development Studies and Health Research at the University of Ghana in Accra in cooperation with the University of Heidelberg and the University of Bonn; the Congolese-German Centre for Microfinance, at the Université Protestante au Congo (Protestant University of Congo) in cooperation with the Frankfurt School of Finance and Management ; the NamibianGerman Centre for Logistics (NGCL) at the Polytechnic of Namibia in cooperation with the Flensburg University of Applied Sciences, and the Tanzanian-German Centre for Postgraduate Studies in Law at the University of Dar es Salaam in cooperation with University of Bayreuth. For further information: www.daad.de/fachzentren-afrika/en/10156/index.html.

42

Synergy in action: coordination of international cooporation programmes in higher education and research

The Federal Ministry of Education and Research is in charge of securing the efficiency and international competitiveness of the German higher education and research systems, thus complementing the basic responsibility for education of the federal states. In line with the ‘Strategy of the Federal Government for the Internationalisation of Science and Research’, the ministry aims to promote education and research as foundations for the future through different measures, including the strengthening of international cooperation in higher education. The strategy entitled ‘Strengthening Germany’s Role in the Global Knowledge Society’ was adopted by the German parliament and published in 2008 as a common platform aiming to serve “both as a guide and as a basis for the cooperation of stakeholders in the German science and innovation system, and to support the work and mission of German science, research and intermediary organisations in an international environment by improving coordination and increasing exchanges of information, thus promoting their goals and intended impact and exploiting hitherto unused synergy potential.”7 The strategy defines four main goals and describes how they are supposed to be reached. Besides “strengthening research cooperation with global leaders”, “international exploitation of innovation potentials” and “assuming international responsibility and mastering global challenges”, another fourth objective of the strategy is to promote cooperation with developing countries in education and science, “so that modern higher education, research and innovation systems can be set up or strengthened in African, Latin American and Asian developing countries and the conditions for closer science cooperation with newly established scientific and economic centres can be improved. This also constitutes an important contribution towards the economic, social and cultural development of these countries and forms part of international efforts to reduce poverty and solve other global problems.”8 Similarly to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the Ministry of Education and Research strives to create a win-win situation in cooperation with developing countries, but with a different focus. For this ministry, creating the best conditions for scientific cooperation – both in higher education and in research institutions – to strengthen German higher education and research institutions is an important goal. Supporting partners in developing countries to become internationally competitive will help them in their own development efforts, and it will help German universities and scientists find adequate partners in the South for their research cooperation. The Ministry of Education and Research also finances scholarships for students and young scholars - not for foreigners, but for Germans who want to study or do research abroad. While countries such as the United States or Great Britain remain favourite destinations, a great number of German students also spend a semester or two in developing countries, thus not only broadening their own horizons and academic networks, but also contributing to the internationalisation of their host universities in Africa, Latin America or Asia. 7 www.bmbf.de/pubRD/Internationalisierungsstrategie-English.pdf, p.4. 8 www.bmbf.de/pubRD/Internationalisierungsstrategie-English.pdf.

43

Finding your way through the ‘funding jungle’

These traditional types of international activities, which are also carried out by DAAD and AvH, has been complemented in recent years by large-scale projects in emerging and developing countries, for which the Ministry of Education and Research has provided at least seed money. Through DAAD’s ‘study programmes of German universities abroad’, dozens of German universities have been able to set up study programmes at universities in other regions of the world, on a basis of partnership and mutual benefit. Also, entire universities have been established in partnership between one or more renowned German higher education institutions and a local partner – among them the German University in Cairo. Although the primary objective of such projects is, according to the mission of the Ministry of Education and Research, not poverty reduction in developing countries but the enhancement of opportunities for the internationalisation of German universities, successful projects may have an important impact on the higher education system of the host country. They provide quality study programmes in countries where these are sometimes scarce, and they help universities in the South to strengthen their international contacts which are so important in the global knowledge society. Besides the reduction of poverty in line with the Millennium Development Goals, the main objectives of the Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development focus on helping to resolve crises and conflicts in a peaceful manner, ensuring that scarce resources are more equitably shared, and that the environment is preserved for future generations. One of the pillars in the ministry’s efforts to reach these goals is a new education strategy that was developed in a participatory process and was presented in February 2012. This strategy assigns an important role to higher education: “Universities and colleges train the specialists and managers who will initiate development and change processes in their countries. Research delivers the relevant knowhow; innovations from research and development create new job opportunities. That is why the promotion of higher education is one of the priority areas of German development cooperation in the education sector.”9 There is one significant difference in the vision of higher education cooperation with developing countries as stated by the Federal Ministries of Foreign Affairs and of Research and Education on the one side and the Ministry of Economic Cooperation on the other: while the first two always take into account the interests of German higher education and research, the Ministry of Economic Cooperation and Development aims first and foremost to serve the interests of countries and their university systems in the South. Nevertheless, a very interesting feature with a few exceptions is that most of the programmes financed by this ministry do not fundamentally differ from those of the other two ministries. They have, however, some additional components or a narrower profile which allows for an enhanced

9 www.bmz.de/en/what_we_do/issues/Education/index.html.

44

Synergy in action: coordination of international cooporation programmes in higher education and research

focus on developmental issues. For instance, the Ministry of Economic Cooperation also provides funding for individual scholarships – however, the students from the South cannot apply just for any study programme. There is a set of close to 50 Master’s and a few PhD programmes that were selected on the basis of their relevance to development issues. Over 900 students from developing countries receive scholarships to pursue a degree in these programmes which constitute a network and provide additional features such as tutoring and counselling services for the students, weekend seminars, etc. The Ministry of Economic Cooperation also funds large-scale cooperation projects such as ‘exceed – Higher Education Excellence in Development Cooperation’. At present, the programme consists of five competence centres for development cooperation10 that establish research and teaching capacities related to the Millennium Development Goals that can serve as ‘lighthouses’ in teaching and research, are internationally attractive and competitive and strengthen North-South as well as South-South cooperation in higher education and research. Although the centres are located at German universities, their focus is entirely on cooperation for development through large networks of partners in the South and collaboration that centres on certain topics, so that the partners can learn from each other and participate in common research projects. As has been shown, all three federal ministries have a vested interest in the collaboration of German higher education and research institutions with universities and research institutions, their students and professors, in developing countries, although with a different focus. Their strategies and efforts operate within a common framework thanks to the German governments’ strategy for the internationalisation of science and research. But there is more, and it would probably be difficult to achieve certain synergies between the different measures funded by the ministries without the institutions and agencies that develop and implement these measures, especially the aforementioned DAAD and AvH. Altogether, the conceptualisation, planning and implementation of specific measures, projects and programmes are concentrated in the hands of those intermediary agencies which, for their part, do not only receive funding from one ministry but mostly work with all three of them. This allows them to ideally design projects in such a way that all components are covered or to orient higher education institutions towards the programmes best suited to their needs and aspirations.

10 The Centres are: Excellence Center for Development Cooperation - Sustainable Water Management at Tecnical University Carolo-Wilhelmina of Braunschweig, Food Security Center (FSC) at the University of Hohenheim, International Center for Development and Decent Work (ICDD) at the University of Kassel, Center for Natural Resources and Development (CNRD) at the University of Applied Sciences Cologne and the LMU Center for International Health (CIHLMU) at the Ludwig-Maximilians-University München. For further information: www.daad.de/entwicklung/exceed/11572.en.html.

45

Finding your way through the ‘funding jungle’

Relevance and ownership However, while this system works quite well, one might question how it relates to the principles of the Paris Declaration and the Accra Agenda for Action, mainly with respect to the questions of ownership, donor harmonisation and focus on results. Of course, the ministries themselves, and especially the Ministry of Economic Development and Cooperation, are committed to these principles – at least in theory – and observe them in their own policy-making. But there are three more elements in the system that allow for a strong emphasis on ownership and results: the principles of competition, excellence and partnership. While the principles of competition and excellence are geared towards the achievement of results, the requirement of partnership between German higher education institutions and universities in developing countries ensures relevance and ownership. Taking a look at the different stages a project has to go through before it is implemented, one can observe how the focus on results and ownership, ensured by the elements of competition, excellence and partnership, is being observed. First, during the conceptual phase of a project, DAAD works closely with university partners in the South as well as with German experts who also possess knowledge concerning the target region. In the case of larger projects, representatives from the Ministry of Education and Research or higher education commissions as well as other institutions in charge of regulating a country’s higher education system are consulted as well. Also, regional organisations, such as the Association of African Universities, the Inter University Council of East Africa or Latin American or Asian funding agencies, may be involved in the project design. In this way, national, international or regional development plans and strategies are taken into account during the conceptual phase. A crucial element of the German approach is the selection process. It is fundamental to the way in which DAAD and some other agencies operate. Whatever the programme, whatever the project, whatever the financial volume, whatever the purpose – funding is never provided without a competitive selection process that is fundamentally different from a procurement procedure. The DAAD does not hire a contractor to perform a clearly defined service in a developing country, such as conducting a curriculum reform, introducing a new study programme or establishing an entire centre of excellence. Rather, through a call for proposals directed at German universities and institutions in developing countries, the DAAD identifies the best project outlines based upon partnerships between German and foreign institutions of higher education. During the conceptual phase, the most important parameters are defined, as well as the expected results, but the exact features of a project are not yet set. A regional focus may or may not be included, but rarely does a project aim at just one specific country. The selection criteria take into account the needs of partners in the South as defined beforehand in the conceptual phase, as well as academic excellence and some other features depending on the nature of the project. The selection is not made on an administrative basis, but through international panels of experts, most of them university professors from Germany, the target regions

46

Synergy in action: coordination of international cooporation programmes in higher education and research

and other countries, who judge the proposals on the basis of their scientific value, feasibility under the given circumstances in the South and the relevance of their content for development. The third element mentioned above is that of a working partnership between one or more German higher education institutions and the partner or partners in the South. The concept of partnership is particularly important when it comes to the implementation of projects and programmes in higher education cooperation with developing countries, ensuring ownership and sustainability of the projects. For a project to be successful and achieve good results, it is necessary that both sides take a true interest in their cooperation, and this can best be achieved if they have the freedom to choose their partners and define the content and details of their cooperation.

Bottom-up coordination Besides such projects and within the strategic framework set by the German government, the DAAD and some other German funding institutions have a number of programmes permanently available that serve as a tool kit for collaboration between partners in the North and the South, sometimes on a bilateral basis, sometimes with several partners on different continents. The programmes available in this portfolio are not just those financed by the Ministry of Economic Cooperation, but those financed by all ministries. The approach could be defined as a combined bottom-up/top-down scheme: programmes are defined as long-term standing offers to all higher education institutions in developing countries (top-down). But it is up to the individuals or their institutions to decide what they would like to do, what their needs and objectives are, and to submit proposals or applications within this very wide framework. Programmes range all the way from individual scholarships for Masters and PhDs to short-term capacity building schemes in areas such as quality assurance and higher-education management, from lectureships of short or long duration to research projects and student exchange schemes. A typical success story would go like this: there is an interest at the University of T. in Africa to establish a new study programme, for example in water resources management, and one of the professors teaching there has met a German colleague at an international conference – let’s call him Professor Meier. The German professor agreed to go to the University of T. for a couple of weeks to help draft an initial concept of the new study programme. Funds for this mission are available from DAAD through a programme financed by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Everything goes well. Professor Meier travels and, together with his colleagues from the University of T., comes up with a first plan on how to establish such a study programme. A couple of challenges are identified: some support is needed to create a state-ofthe-art curriculum, there is not enough qualified teaching staff in the department to cover all the subjects and some equipment is missing. Furthermore, the University

47

Finding your way through the ‘funding jungle’

of T. would very much like to do some common research with Professor Meier and his colleagues in Germany. Finally, the University of T. is interested in receiving more international students on its campus. Fortunately, the German professor knows his way through the funding jungle and is able to identify a whole set of programmes, mostly available from DAAD but financed by the three different ministries, so that he and his African partners are able to apply for finance for their project to set up a new study programme and ensure its success. Consequently, a few young colleagues apply for scholarships to obtain their PhD at German universities or even somewhere in Africa, in a programme approved by DAAD for scholarships. One or more German professors are invited to teach at the University of T., and even a long-term lecturer is selected by DAAD according to a profile the African university has defined. In order to update the equipment needed at the department, the lecturer joins forces with some professors at his guest institutions who have studied in Germany. Jointly they submit a proposal to get funding for some equipment. In addition, they submit a proposal for a joint research project also involving German students to come to their university. Of course, this is a theoretical scenario and most of the time, not all of these elements will be used. Furthermore, since all of these programmes are based upon the principle of competition, not every proposal and application will be successful. But the example illustrates how foreign and domestic universities can get financing for different elements in pursuit of a common objective. The project as such may only takes shape little by little, as a work in progress, and that can be a great advantage in terms of ensuring ownership and fulfilling real needs of the partners in the South. Financing comes from the three different federal ministries mentioned above, which each contribute their share according to their own mission through different programmes of DAAD: the Ministry of Economic Cooperation and Development will finance the visits for curriculum development and scholarships in Africa as well as equipment donations, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs will provide the scholarships for PhDs in Germany and the grant for the short and long-term lecturer, and if an exchange of students is finally set up as well, as a result of good cooperation, the Ministry of Education and Research will cover the costs of German students and researchers going to Africa.

A jungle of opportunities In conclusion, what at first glance might look like a ‘jungle’ of funding sources, objectives and possibilities, turns out to be quite a rich system full of opportunities for partners both in the South and in Germany. The complexity of the system, of course, requires a certain amount of determination on the side of potential applicants and project partners to find out about all the different options and, in some cases, to combine them in a way that suits their objectives. It is not such an easy task to identify the right funding instrument when one already has a certain purpose or project design in mind. Especially potential project partners and scholarship applicants in the South might find it difficult to get a good grasp of all the possibilities offered to

48

Synergy in action: coordination of international cooporation programmes in higher education and research

them. But on the other hand, this very complexity generates opportunities for almost every imaginable purpose. Thanks to the internet and all the information available on funding sources that is just a click away, even in the remotest regions of the globe, no one has to work miracles in order to identify the adequate funding scheme for his or her objective. With the Millennium Development Goals as guiding principles and the role universities can play towards their achievement, on the one hand, and the strategy of the federal government for the internationalisation of science and research on the other, the German funding system for university cooperation with developing and emerging countries is situated between two poles. Since the objectives set forth by both are not contradictory but rather complementary, this situation gives all stakeholders a great deal of freedom in working towards their expected results: ensuring full participation of higher education institutions in the South in state-of-the art research and knowledge production, the improvement of relevance and quality of study programmes to enhance economic growth and graduates’ employability, capacity building according to each country’s needs for highly qualified human resources and, finally, strengthening the role of universities as promoters of critical thinking and good governance. If these goals are achieved, at least to a certain extent, higher education institutions in both developing countries and in Germany find themselves on the winning end: universities in the South have updated programmes and qualified staff and German universities have partners for cooperation on all academic levels.

About the author Anette Pieper is Director for the Northern Hemisphere at DAAD (German Academic Exchange Service). Her international experience includes five years as director of the DAAD’s regional offices in Costa Rica and Mexico as well as nine years of heading several divisions at the DAAD office in Bonn, Germany. From 2011 to 2012, she worked as a Consultant for Higher Education at the UNESCO in Paris. Before joining the DAAD, she was assistant director of a scholarship programme at Bergen Community College in the United States. She holds a PhD in French literature and is the author of several articles on internationalisation and development cooperation in higher education.

49

experiences of a northern provider in the international development of education

E

xperiences of a northern provider in the international development of education: donor coordination, synergy and capacity building Mike Cantrell, Wim Kouwenhoven, Wout Ottevanger

Abstract Staff from the Centre for International Cooperation at the VU University Amsterdam share experiences in capacity development in four case studies. A distinction has been made between projects carried out at ministries of education and those at higher education institutions themselves. The latter location show greater promise in terms of coordination, capacity building and local ownership. Examples are drawn from projects in Ethiopia, Surinam, Ghana and Yemen. In recent years, the ‘demand-driven’ approach, in which the southern partner designs interventions with the donor, means that northern providers such as CIS-VU are prevented from having any involvement until later in the implementation stage. Providers are thus excluded from the system-wide coordination of developing synergy between donors, programmes and projects. The authors argue that more can be done to set up steering structures ahead of the implementation of new programmes for the higher education sector. Support modes are also discussed, both in terms of local staff training and technical assistance. The authors question a policy of short-term technical assistance in projects where local coordinating capacity is limited.

50

Synergy in action: coordination of international cooporation programmes in higher education and research

Introduction Through its Centre for International Cooperation (CIS), the VU University Amsterdam has actively participated in development cooperation for nearly 40 years. Starting with projects in several countries in Southern Africa, it has subsequently provided assistance to universities, polytechnics and ministries of education throughout the developing world. This chapter explores a northern provider’s many and varied experiences supporting capacity development in higher education projects in the fields of teacher education, curriculum review, and academic staff development. Currently the authors work exclusively as short-term consultants, though in the past they have all worked fulltime in-country for a number of years. A more detailed description of many of the projects can be found in Cantrell, Kool and Kouwenhoven (2010). The shift to a ‘demand-driven’ approach in the NPT1 and NICHE2 programmes effectively excluded northern providers from the project and programme identification phase and therefore from direct involvement in the planning of donor synergy. Previously, for more than two decades of inter-university cooperation, CIS-VU worked closely with southern partners to identify needs and suitable donors, but the recent decade saw the northern provider take a ‘back seat’ until being awarded a project at the implementation stage. This meant that donor synergy was firmly in the hands of the southern partner. The authors can only reflect on the structures in place in ministries of education and universities to coordinate, monitor and link various projects into coherent programmes. It is important to note from the outset that what follows are the impressions formed by project staff. In certain cases it may well be that we were unaware of coordination taking place at a higher level since we were not party to such meetings. The Oxford dictionary definition of synergy is ‘the interaction or cooperation of two or more organisations to produce a combined effect greater than the sum of their separate effects’. Synergy therefore implies more than merely the co-funding of a programme by several donors. In this chapter we look for evidence of ‘synergy in action’ on the assumption that this creates more effective support for the higher education sector: inter-locking programmes are better coordinated in terms of planning and delivery, resulting in enhanced capacity building, ownership and long-term impact. After considering several case studies, we focus on the modes of capacity building and the essential question of ownership, which is strongly influenced by the steering

1 NPT - The Netherlands Programme for the institutional strengthening of post-secondary education and Training capacity aimed at strengthening the capacity of post-secondary education and training organisations in fifteen selected countries from 2002-2012. Funded by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Netherlands and administered by Nuffic. 2 NICHE - The Netherlands Initiative for Capacity development in Higher Education is the current successor to NPT and focuses on 22 countries and sectors supported by the Dutch Bilateral Cooperation Programme. Funded by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Netherlands and administered by Nuffic.

51

experiences of a northern provider in the international development of education

structures in place. Capacity building is the main platform from which activities are designed and implemented in almost all the CIS-VU educational development projects. We will reflect on the process of building capacity, its impact on ownership, and the extent to which the new capacity is employed in subsequent projects.

Case studies Given its dominant position in ‘the driving seat’, the southern partner not only has to attract donor funds in a synergistic and non-competitive manner it also has to monitor and steer each project and its over-arching programme (even if the programme is funded by one or several donors). Northern providers often voice criticism on in-country coordination, even on single donor programmes such as NPT. Such coordination (also encompassing monitoring and evaluation) may be an easier task than coordinating donor synergy, yet is an essential requirement if the latter is also to be achieved. In the case studies that follow we distinguish between two different southern partners: ministries of education and higher education institutions. There are sufficient differences in our experience to warrant separate consideration of these cases.

Developments at ministries of education With decision-making highly centralised in many developing countries, ministries of education often serve as the legal representative of the final beneficiaries, such as universities. This construction is not without its problems since ministries often have different agendas to universities. Fullan (2007) indicates that ministries usually react to urgent problems and try to find quick responses and quick-fix solutions in a short time span. Political agendas are often short-term in comparison to the long process of educational reform and achieving results. The efforts of ministries rarely focus on capacity development as such, but more on accountability and the provision of financial resources. Ashcroft and Rayner (2011) stress that capacity development projects, as well as core and support structures and processes, need near-perfect alignment with each other to maximise impact. While one might expect ministries to set up structures, such as steering committees and donor groups, to coordinate donor input on the basis of each country’s higher education development plans, this is often not evident to northern providers. The first case study concerns Ethiopia (see case 1). There, overall donor – government coordination is managed by the Development Assistance Group (DAG), which is made up of 30 bilateral and multilateral agencies chaired by the World Bank, UNDP and one bilateral donor (Tamrat, 2011). A number of task forces for the various sectors have been set up, but none existed for higher education until the Royal Netherlands Embassy education officer initiated the formation of a Higher Education Task Force.

52

Synergy in action: coordination of international cooporation programmes in higher education and research

Case 1 - NPT in Ethiopia By 2005 the Ministry of Education in the Democratic Republic of Ethiopia already hosted three national NPT projects and a further three were initiated soon after. Synergy The initial three Dutch projects also received World Bank support, though largely for equipment rather than personnel. Having two donors was a complication rather than an advantage since equipment ordered through lengthy Bank procedures took over three years to arrive, by which time the projects had been obliged to supply duplicate computers, printers and the like. In addition, at the instigation of the Royal Netherlands Embassy, a donor group called the Higher Education Task Force (HETF) was set up in 2007 in an attempt to ensure donor synergy for the higher education sector and to strengthen contacts with the Ministry. However, since Ministry participation was always problematic, the committee was disbanded a year later. Steering and coordination Recognising that NPT programme coordination exceeded the capacity of the Ministry, Nuffic supported a small Projects Coordination Unit (PCU) from 2007, which in turn established an NPT steering committee with participation from universities and the Ministry to oversee programme implementation. However, the latter committee proved unworkable: while the PCU director was able to provide valuable support to these and later projects, the steering committee became inactive and had a short lifespan. Ownership The Ministry was the legal representative for several NPT projects, yet the actual partners were the established universities or semi-autonomous bodies, such as the Higher Education Relevance and Quality Agency (HERQA). Initially these partners seemed to have been inadequately informed about the projects as decisions had been taken centrally. Their later involvement in the NPT steering committee was insufficient to keep the committee functioning, thus reflecting ownership problems. Capacity building The focus of most of the NPT projects was capacity building. For example, over 1,000 university staff attended the EQUIP3 project’s workshops and 18 successfully completed overseas Masters. None of the projects contributed directly to project coordination capacity in the Ministry and the externally funded PCU continued to function during NICHE, the successor to NPT.

3 EQUIP – the Educational Quality Improvement Programme was one of several NPT-funded projects aimed at creating staff development centres in nine public universities in Ethiopia to improve the quality of teaching and learning (2005-2011).

53

experiences of a northern provider in the international development of education

Both the PCU and HETF initiatives were donor and northern provider-driven and highlight problems in cases where Ministries are the legal representatives of university partners, but lack the capacity to provide effective coordination. Ministries are often short-staffed and are hard pressed to cope with expanding higher education systems. In the absence of any synergy structure, certain projects in Ethiopian higher education created informal links and collaborated on various issues. This was made possible since long-term consultants were involved (see more on this topic later on in this document). For example, the resident coordinator of the EQUIP project was also involved in several Engineering Capacity Building Programme4 (ecbp) workshops, served on an ecbp-bridging programme committee and regularly briefed new teaching volunteers in the extensive VSO5 scheme. Moving to another case in Surinam (case 2), the Ministry of Education and Cultural Development (MoECD) is reforming the basic education system through its Basic Education Improvement Programme (BEIP)6. The programme focuses on infrastructure (building schools), developing teacher education, developing the Ministry of Education, and reviewing the curricula for grades 1-11. Dutch assistance to the reform programme focuses on the curriculum development component.

Case 2 - Reform of basic education in Surinam (2009-2012) The curriculum development component in BEIP has proved problematic. Five years after the start of the programme in 2004 very little had been achieved. Dutch assistance from 2009 has turned things around and provided the necessary momentum to reform the basic education curriculum. Synergy Different international donors and providers support the MoECD in Surinam. Dutch and Belgian providers are most prominent because the official language in Surinam is Dutch. SLO7 and VVOB8 are the main providers and work together wherever possible. However, until recently, the Ministry has seen the different providers as competitors and resisted these links. Thus synergy exists in spite of these reservations.

4 ecbp is the engineering capacity building programme, a bilateral cooperation between the German and Ethiopian governments to promote the private sector in Ethiopia. Measures focus mainly on training a skilled labour force at various levels of the engineering sector. 5 VSO - Voluntary Service Overseas, a leading independent international development organisation that works with volunteers to fight poverty in developing countries, including involvement in secondary and tertiary education. 6 Funded by the Inter-American Development Bank in Washington, DC. 7 SLO is the National Expertise Centre on Curriculum Development at the University of Twente in the Netherlands. 8 VVOB is the Flemish Association for Development Cooperation and Technical Assistance, Belgium.

54

Synergy in action: coordination of international cooporation programmes in higher education and research

Ownership With the limited focus on capacity building and with a major emphasis on products to be completed by international consultants, ownership of what is being developed is also rather limited, certainly in the MoECD’s curriculum department. Fortunately there is commitment and sense of ownership among other actors, NGOs, and notably schools and teachers. Ownership by the latter is important as this will greatly contribute to the successful implementation of the new curriculum. Capacity building During contract negotiations it appeared that the MoECD’s priority was to create new curricula rather than building capacity for curriculum development. It was only as a result of negotiations that the Ministry agreed to a dual track scheme in which developing products and capacity for curriculum improvement were both components. After the difficult start, the project development trajectory has remained problematic. Products were developed with the involvement of NGO staff, experienced teachers and some MoECD staff. Local staff are undergoing curriculum development training, but this process is still marred by the perception held by departmental management and staff about whether training is really necessary.

Developments at higher education institutions With a long history of inter-university cooperation, it is not surprising that CIS-VU has more positive experiences when dealing directly with HEIs. However, while examples of capacity building and local ownership abound, examples of donor synergy are rare. A promising example of southern partner ownership can be seen in the MASTERY project in Yemen (case 3). From the onset, strong commitment was shown by establishing a sound management structure, while each university appointed curriculum reform leaders who took their responsibilities seriously.

Case 3 - Development of teacher education programmes at selected universities in Yemen (2005-2012) Through the MASTERY9 project, CIS-VU assisted three universities in Yemen (Sana’a, Al-Hodeidah and Thamar) in reforming their science and mathematics teacher education programmes in their Faculties of Education (CIS-VU, 2005). The project focused on the design of new curricula for teacher education, implementation in all four years of the programmes and evaluation. Several other activities supported the implementation of the new programme by offering new pedagogical and didactical approaches, assessment techniques, assisting with practical work, assisting with the purchase and installation of new equipment, and providing audiovisual materials and textbooks required to implement the new programmes. 9 MASTERY is the Mathematics and Science Teacher Education Reform in Yemen project (2005-2012).

55

experiences of a northern provider in the international development of education

Synergy Running in parallel with the project activities, World Bank and other international donors (Dutch, German and UK) were busy developing new projects aimed at improving secondary education and increasing the access of girls to education (World Bank, 2006). A CIS-VU consultant assisted the WB in shaping the project called SEDGAP10 (World Bank, 2006); the same consultant conducted a thorough analysis of the demand and supply of teachers in Yemen (De Feiter & Ana’am, 2007). Some minimal form of donor coordination seemed in place, but the consultant was not involved. Ownership From the onset, local staff of the three universities was actively involved in the design, management and execution of all project activities. The management structure of the project was geared towards local supervision of all activities. In addition to project management, each university assigned one or more Curriculum Reform Leaders (CRLs) who managed the content areas of the project. Capacity building As a result of intensive involvement in the development activities during the project years, large groups of staff have developed relevant skills as designers and evaluators of curricula and have improved their pedagogical skills (Ottevanger et al., 2010). On several occasions the administrations of the three universities indicated their appreciation to the northern providers, proudly proclaiming “a Yemeni curriculum, for Yemeni by Yemeni”. The capacity-building focus of the project has also increased the opportunities available to local staff for carrying out consultancies outside their universities. However, this capacity seems to have been ignored by donors and ministry in favour of international experts. It is interesting to note that a long-term in-country expatriate coordinator was involved in MASTERY for the first three years of the project. He was one of only two CIS-VU staff left in the field by 2005 (the other was involved in the EQUIP project in Ethiopia referred to earlier), following Nuffic’s policy of short-term technical assistance (see later section). The last case study is taken from Ghana (case 4) where a number of NPT projects focused on competence-based education (CBE). At the same time, Japanese and Canadian projects had similar objectives.

Case 4 - NPT in Ghana CIS-VU assisted the ten polytechnics in Ghana from 2006 to 2010 in building managerial and leadership capacity through an NPT project. CIS’s local partner was 10 SEDGAP is the Secondary Education Development and Girls Access Project (2008-2015).

56

Synergy in action: coordination of international cooporation programmes in higher education and research

the Institute for Educational Planning & Administration (IEPA) at the University of Cape Coast. Concurrently, the project built competence-based curriculum design capacity at IEPA and funded two PhD scholarships. The research for the theses focused on the capacity-building interventions in the polytechnics project (see Bakah, 2011). At the same time as this project, five other (non CIS-VU) NPT projects on competencebased education (CBE) were implemented at various polytechnics while another aimed to build capacity at tertiary education supervisory bodies in Ghana. Synergy As far as we are aware, no concerted efforts were undertaken by the Royal Netherlands Embassy, the Ministry of Education or at university/polytechnic level to create synergy between the various Dutch partners involved in the different projects, despite their common CBE agendas. On top of this, the Japanese International Cooperation Agency (JICA) recommended that Ghana should introduce a competency-based approach and assisted the Ministry of Education, Youth and Sports in improving TVET (of which the polytechnics were part), while the Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA) was also involved Considering the number of players in the CBE field during the same period, this would seem to be a missed opportunity for creating fruitful synergy. Given the capacity problems at the Ministry of Education, the Royal Netherlands Embassy might have taken a lead in networking and coordination. Steering and Coordination The project activities at the ten polytechnics were nominally supervised by a national steering committee. This committee consisted of rectors from the polytechnics, Ministry of Education, Science and Sports and business and industry representatives in Ghana. However, the committee seemed ineffective in coordinating NPT projects at the polytechnics as well as capacity-building efforts initiated by other donors. Ownership The Dutch project partners aimed for a high degree of ownership from the polytechnics. While some developed a sense of ownership, others failed to do so. A high power distance was often observed within the polytechnics and in the relationship between polytechnics and higher authorities, such as the quality control bodies and the Ministry (see Gervedink-Nijhuis, 2012). Capacity building The various NPT projects have helped to improve capacity in curriculum development and implementation as well as leadership and management. Sometimes there was synergy between improved leadership, lecturers and the polytechnic student learning environment. In other polytechnics, educational innovations by lecturers were rarely supported by their superiors.

57

experiences of a northern provider in the international development of education

Project-level capacity issues Having considered the evidence of synergy and coordination largely at system level in case studies, we will now focus on capacity development at project level. We demonstrate the link between two modes of support: training and technical assistance. Each mode has different forms: training might relate to scholarships for ‘formal’ Master’s and PhD degrees or simply on-the-job training. Technical assistance may be provided exclusively through short missions or the placement of ‘long-termers’ in-country. The related issue of ownership is also addressed. Most of CIS-VU’s HEI-based projects include capacity development based on formal scholarships where participants are sent regionally or further afield for post-graduate training. One dilemma is the conflict between departmental versus staff development: i.e. the balance between retaining staff for project work and sending staff abroad to earn further degrees, particularly in the case of a four-year PhD, which effectively prevents any contribution to a project. Formal training for Master’s and PhD level is only a partial solution for capacity development and should complement on-the-job training with experienced practitioners on a day-by-day basis. Nuffic’s current policy focuses on ‘light’ shortterm technical assistance, contrary to the continued use of long-termers by national bodies, such as DFID (UK) and DAAD (Germany). This light approach excludes the possibility of day-by-day ‘apprenticeships’ for northern staff. Its value was highlighted in a recent external evaluation of the NPT ASSIST11 project in Ethiopia’s Higher Education and Relevance Quality Agency, which concluded that the most significant capacity development was provided by long-term VSO volunteers, and not, by implication, short-term project staff (van Baren & Zeleke, 2011). While the rationale for providing short-term consultants is clear for southern partners at a more advanced developmental stage, one wonders whether a ‘one-size-fits-all’ light TA approach suits less mature partners; our impression is that the effectiveness, impact and sustainability are compromised. Another consequence of the ‘light’ approach is that it prevents synergy between different northern providers as they are rarely in-country at the same time, and meetings discussing such issues rarely take place back in the north. Synergy is more likely to be created if there are in-country coordinators who are better placed to discuss and plan joint activities. In general, the northern providers endeavour to pursue a number of strategies to transfer ownership of the project to the southern partner at an early stage. However,

11 ASSIST project - Advice, Strengthening and Support through the Investment and Supply of Training (2006-2011).

58

Synergy in action: coordination of international cooporation programmes in higher education and research

unless the south is allowed to control the budget, ownership is an illusion as it does not include financial control. The reality is that the southern institution may not have the capacity to ensure sound financial management. In addition, ownership by local participating staff is not assured: they usually have a high teaching load, are involved in several projects and lack any incentive to take on additional project responsibilities. Where projects have been based in Ministries of Education, there is little evidence of project management and other skills being developed, and the ministries and the donor community seem to be somewhat reluctant to use new local capacity when developing new projects. This would seem to be a missed opportunity in using those empowered in one project as local consultants for the next.

Conclusions Synergy Synergy between projects (the sum of the whole being greater than the parts) was not evident in the higher education systems we experienced. While there are examples of successful projects in some HEIs, we attribute this to ownership and effective capacity building within a project, rather than the synchronised involvement of several donors. Some individuals in ministries of education may see different providers as competitors rather than an opportunity to create synergy between these parties. Providers nevertheless do work together despite this perception, but it is often informal and unstructured. In the Ghana case study, the Royal Dutch Embassy was well positioned to oversee the various NPT activities and create synergy, but this did not happen, though it was attempted in Ethiopia. Donors and their programmes miss early opportunities for creating synergy, hoping that they will materialise later of its own accord. Capacity building Capacity building seems to be a relatively alien concept in some ministries, standing in the way of swiftly resolving urgent day-to-day issues. Several projects in Ethiopia were specifically geared towards capacity building: while many HEI staff benefited, the Ministry of Education gained little from the capacity-building efforts. Similarly, in Surinam, the Ministry opted to seek quick solutions to urgent problems, rather than investing in sustainable capacity-building solutions. On the other hand, the HEIs in the Yemen, Ethiopia and Ghana cases were willing contributors and receivers of capacity-building activities, both in the form of formal Master’s and PhD trajectories and on-the-job training activities. The newly created capacity in one project might well make ideal local consultants in another, but our impression is that ministries and donors would rather contract international consultants for project activities.

59

experiences of a northern provider in the international development of education

The authors functioned both as long-term and short-term technical assistants and question whether a ‘one-size-fits-all’ light TA approach suits all partners: our impression is that effectiveness, impact and sustainability are compromised. An analysis of the many final NPT project reports to determine whether this is the case would make a fascinating study. Ownership and Coordination The authors stress that ownership issues are crucial for project coordination and the achievement of sustainable goals. The early establishment of a steering structure is essential and allows southern stakeholders to match their development plans with offers of donor support. While we acknowledge that people are just as important as structures (a bottom-up approach), we suggest that Nuffic and the Royal Netherlands Embassies be more proactive in establishing such structures ahead of new programmes. Sound direction from a steering committee promotes local ownership and alleviated the need for donor programme administrators becoming actively involved at a project level as this can be counter-productive in developing local ownership.

Acknowledgements We are grateful for the comments and suggestions provided by Henk van den Heuvel on an earlier draft.

About the authors The authors were all senior education advisers in the Education and Development Unit at the Centre for International Cooperation at the VU University Amsterdam. Mike Cantrell spent most of his career as in-country coordinator for staff development projects in Ethiopia and Namibia and university foundation programmes in Botswana and South Africa. He was recently based in Amsterdam and coordinated capacity development projects in Ethiopia and Indonesia. Wim Kouwenhoven is a specialist in competence-based education and has coordinated and implemented curriculum projects in Rwanda, Ghana, Ethiopia and Uganda. He previously worked in teacher training and academic staff development at the University of Amsterdam. Wout Ottevanger coordinated a teacher education project in Yemen until recently and was previously involved in the development of teacher training in several African countries, including Namibia, Botswana, Swaziland, Tanzania and Ghana. He now works at SLO, the Netherlands Institute for Curriculum Development.

60

Synergy in action: coordination of international cooporation programmes in higher education and research

References • •

•

• • • • •

•

• •

Ashcroft, K., and P. Rayner. (2011). Higher Education in Development: lessons from Sub- Saharan Africa. Chicago: Information Age Publishing, 275 pp. Bakah, M.A.B. (2011). Teacher professional development through collaborative curriculum design in Ghana’s polytechnics. Doctoral Dissertation. Enschede: University of Twente. Cantrell, M., Kool, R., & W. Kouwenhoven (Eds.). (2010). Access & Expansion: Challenges for higher education improvement in developing countries. Amsterdam: VU University, 221 pp. CIS-VU. (2005). MASTERY project proposal. Amsterdam: VU University. De Feiter, L. & Ana’am, M. (2007). Alignment of demand and supply of teachers in Yemen. Amsterdam: VU University. Fullan, M. (2007). The New Meaning of Educational Change. New York, NY: Teachers College. Gervedink-Nijhuis, C.J. (2012). Culturally sensitive curriculum development in international cooperation. Doctoral thesis. Enschede: University of Twente. Ottevanger, W., van der Grint, L. & M. Ana’am. (2010). The effectiveness of staff development in the MASTERY project. In M. Cantrell, R. Kool & W. Kouwenhoven (Eds.). Access & Expansion: Challenges for higher education improvement in developing countries. (pp. 91-107). Amsterdam: VU University. Tamrat, W. (2011). Higher education in Ethiopia: market research undertaken for the British Council to enhance UK’s engagement with Higher Education in Africa. Unpublished report. Van Baren, B and H. Zeleke. (2011). External evaluation of the ASSIST-HERQA project (November 2006 - June 2011). Unpublished report. World Bank. (2006). Secondary Education Development and Girls Access Project (Yemen). Project Appraisal Document. Washington: World Bank.

61

Coordination of development cooperation at makerere university (2000-2010)

C

oordination of development cooperation at Makerere University (2000—2010) – opportunities, challenges and lessons learned Katunguka-Rwakishaya E., Nasinyama G.W., Wabwire J.K.W., Ssembatya V.A., Kabuye M.K.

Abstract This chapter describes the of experiences of Makerere University with regard to the coordination of development cooperation over the last ten years. The key partners under review include the Carnegie Corporation of New York, Norad, SIU, Nuffic, Sida, the Rockefeller Foundation and the World Bank. The list excludes programmes and projects that were coordinated at unit level. The chapter covers programme overview and design, implementation, coordination, monitoring and evaluation, review, and reporting. Complementarity across programmes, challenges encountered and lessons learned are also presented.

Introduction Established in 1922 as a technical college and later affiliated with the University of London, Makerere became one of the three constituent colleges of the University of East Africa in 1963. It became an independent University in 1970 by an Act of Parliament. Currently the University has a population of 36,660 students of whom 44% are female (Makerere University Fact Book, 2010/11). The University is run in a collegiate system comprising of nine colleges and one independent school. Being one the five public universities in Uganda, Makerere University derives its major funding from the government of Uganda. Other sources of funding are tuition fees paid by paying students, development partnerships and investments. In the last ten years,

62

Synergy in action: coordination of international cooporation programmes in higher education and research

the University has engaged in major development partnerships with the Carnegie Corporation of New York, the Norwegian Programme for Development, Research and Education (NUFU)1, Nuffic2, the Rockefeller Foundation, the Norwegian Agency for Development Cooperation (Norad), the Norwegian Government, the Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency (Sida), the World Bank, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, the International Development Research Cooperation (IDRC), the Ford Foundation, the McArthur Foundation, the African Capacity Building Foundation, the Africa Development Bank (ADB), and the European Development Fund (EDF). Many other partnerships were focused on programmes carried out within various units of the University and collaborated directly with these units. In this article, we share experiences in coordinating major institution-wide development cooperation support focusing on the issues of design and implementation of such programmes, opportunities, challenges and lessons learned. Six such programmes have been chosen: the Carnegie Corporation of New York, the Norwegian Government (Norad and Nufu), Nuffic, the Swedish International Development Agency, the Rockefeller Foundation and the World Bank.

The strategic direction of Makerere University During the last decade, Makerere University has had two planning cycles – one running from 2000/01—2006/07 and the second from 2008/09—2018/19. The latter plan sought to reposition the University to address emerging development challenges arising from globalisation, evolving national socio-economic developments, information and communication technology, the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs), and overarching national government policies and frameworks such as the National Development Plan (NDP), the Strategic Plan for Higher Education 2004-2015, decentralization and affirmative action. The University has redefined its overarching enterprise strategy to be the leading institution for academic excellence and innovation in Africa. This will be achieved through providing innovative teaching, learning, research and services that respond to national and global needs. Makerere University is guided by values that place a premium on allegiance to the institution, integrity, customer responsiveness, professionalism and openness to diversity. Strategically, the University is to be steered in the direction of a learner-centred, problem-based approach. It is to be a researchdriven university where research and teaching/learning are mutually re-enforcing, and knowledge transfer partnerships and networking between the University, on the one

1 Administered by the Norwegian Centre for International Cooperation in Education (SIU). 2 The Netherlands organisation for international cooperation in higher Education (Nuffic) administers three capacity development programmes on behalf of the Netherlands Government: the Netherlands Fellowship Programmes (NFP); the Netherlands Programme for Institutional Strengthening of Post-secondary Education and Training Capacity (NPT); the Netherlands Initiative for Capacity development in Higher Education (NICHE).

63

Coordination of development cooperation at makerere university (2000-2010)

hand, and the public and private sectors, on the other. In the area of research and innovation, the University is pursuing three objectives: to provide a robust supportive environment for a research-led university, to increase the capacity for knowledge transformation and innovation and to improve research dissemination. In order to focus its research efforts, the University has identified priority thematic areas for investment over the next ten years following recommendations arising from various consultations3 and based on the University Strategic Plan, the Research and Innovations Policy, National Science, Innovations and Technology Policy, the findings of the Background Study on Science and Technology, and the National Plan of Action. The research themes are premised on the need to enhance the capacity of Uganda’s Higher Education Institutions’ (HEI) to contribute to national development, to facilitate Uganda’s compliance with regional and international commitments, including the MDGs, to enhance local, regional and international collaboration and networking, and to improve the capacity of young researchers through a mentoring process. These priority areas are broadly categorised into two sub-areas: supporting the institutional environment in conducting research and dissemination of the findings, and supporting research in the broader themes. In implementing its strategy, the University has sourced and attracted support from various development partners.

Preparation and design of development cooperation The partnerships have taken various forms namely multilateral, bilateral and direct support. Multilateral support was provided by the Wold Bank, bilateral support by Sida, Norad and Nuffic, while the Carnegie Corporation of New York provided direct support. Often, Makerere University was invited to submit a proposal, sometimes preceded by a concept note in case of Sida and the Carnegie Corporation of New York. A task force was normally commissioned to spearhead development of the concepts/proposals. Areas for support were identified by Makerere University in line with the University Strategic Plan, the National Development Framework and Policies, and in line with the development cooperation goals. The process of identifying areas of support was consultative and fully owned by the University. This is in line with Paris Declaration on Aid Effectiveness (2005).

3 Stakeholders conference held in Kampala, 17-19th September 2008; Self Assessment Exercise by Makerere, 27-31st July 2008; the Background Study conducted by the UNCST; Makerere Strategic Plan (2008-2018); Research Guide (Supporting the Eradication of Poverty in Uganda, 2004) and the Makerere Research and Innovations Policy, 2008.

64

Synergy in action: coordination of international cooporation programmes in higher education and research

Support areas were varied but fell into two broad categories: i) Developing human resources, improving the environment for conducting research, and disseminating the findings: • • •

•

Human resource development (training at the Master’s, PhD, post-doctoral level) – common to Sida, Norad, Carnegie, and Nuffic. Facilities - ICT, library, laboratories, field sites. Research management and coordination through national, regional and international research networks (joint courses, e.g. ethics in research; research policy development in partnering institutions; administrative reforms). Strategies for disseminating research findings and utilizing them (through private/ public partnerships, dissemination conferences, journals, development of a research communication policy).

Exceptions were noted under the following: •

• •

Organisation development initiatives such as a collegiate university, process reform and the establishment of a quality assurance directorate, the gender mainstreaming programme and policy, and capacity for resource mobilisation were supported by Sida, the Rockefeller Foundation, the Carnegie Corporation of New York and the Norwegian Government. Academic programme development was supported by Sida, NUFU, Nuffic, and the Carnegie Corporation of New York. Infrastructure support for buildings by Norad and Norwegian Government.

ii) Support for research into the following themes: • • • • •

Research into health, indigenous knowledge and health systems. Environment and natural resource management. Agricultural production and productivity (crop and livestock), nutrition, food security and value addition. Technology and basic sciences. Governance, human rights and economic management.

All the above areas took into consideration the cross-cutting issues of gender, quality assurance, ICT and biotechnology. Whereas the focus of Sida support was on research capacity building, the Carnegie Corporation of New York and Norad support was geared towards institutional development. The form of support also varied. For example, Sida and NUFU supported joint activities such as the supervision of PhD students, research and network promotion. Table 1 presents the level of support by the different development partners.

65

Coordination of development cooperation at makerere university (2000-2010)

Programme coordination and implementation There were different coordination centres for various institutional programmes at Makerere. To facilitate the efficient and effective institutional coordination of development cooperation support, each programme had a coordinating unit in the University. Below are some examples: •

The Department of Planning and Development coordinated programmes related to infrastructure and institutional development, e.g. programmes supported by Norad & the government of Norway, and the Carnegie Corporation of New York;

•

The School of Graduate Studies (now the Directorate of Research and Graduate Training) coordinated programmes that had a strong research focus, such as that supported by Sida;

•

The coordination of non-institution-based programmes was performed by the respective unit, such as those supported by NUFU in the then-Faculty of Science (now the College of Natural Sciences, CONAS), Nuffic in Computing and Information Technology (now the College of Computing and Information Science (COCIS).

Coordination mechanisms A steering committee, an implementation committee and a secretariat were common to all programmes although the composition varied somewhat. The role of the steering committee was to provide oversight in programme implementation in all cases. The composition of the steering committee membership varied. Membership in some programmes comprised of coordinators (e.g. programmes supported by the Carnegie Corporation of New York and Norad) while others had membership from both within and outside the University (such as Sida and I@mak). The programme implementation committee monitored implementation of programme activities by the beneficiary units while the secretariat provided overall programme coordination and administration (Fig 1). There were variations in coordination at the unit level. In some cases, the coordinator was the head of the unit while in others this was the responsibility of the principal investigator in the case of research projects. The coordinators were responsible for the presentation of regular progress reports to the Programme Implementation/Steering Committee. In the case of Sida-supported programme, there were also programme coordinators in the collaborating Swedish institutions. Another unique feature of the Sida-supported programme was the involvement of the Swedish Institute (SI) in administering funds for graduate students from Makerere University while in Sweden. Financial management modality All programmes were required to apply the established university financial and audit systems. Initially separate programme, sub-programme, project and sub-

66

Synergy in action: coordination of international cooporation programmes in higher education and research

project accounts were opened into which funds were remitted. The result was a proliferation of projects and accounts leading to high transaction costs. The university management addressed the challenge by reducing the number of accounts to two for each programme - one for local currency and the second was a dollar account. This happened in the subsequent phases of support. In the case of bilateral support programmes between the government of Uganda and the development partner (e.g. Sida and the government of Norway), the remission of funds was different. Sida funds were remitted directly while Norad and government of Norway funds were remitted via the Aid Liaison Department of the Ministry of Finance Planning and Economic Development. In both cases, the programme funds would be remitted to a central university programme account with one of the local commercial banks. Disbursement of funds by the development partner depended on the level of absorption and commitment against the balances and annual work plans at the time of remission. For example, some programmes like Sida required evidence of an absorption rate of at least 70% to release the next tranche of programme funds. Furthermore, the government of Uganda defrayed the taxes accruing in accordance with the framework agreement. In some programmes like Norad, the University bore the costs relating to programme administration, while other parties, such as Sida, the Rockefeller Foundation, the Carnegie Corporation of New York, provided programme overheads. The levels of the administrative costs were not uniform, however. Programme monitoring and evaluation Programme monitoring and evaluation took a two-pronged approach - internal and external. Internally, the Programme Steering Committee was charged with the responsibility of monitoring programme progress through quarterly meetings at which project coordinators would present progress reports. Annual planning meetings to review activity plans and annual progress review meetings were held. The Sidasupported programme had a programme cycle mapping out activities throughout the year (Fig 2). The activity cycle was agreed upon by the University and the donor. As provided for in the framework agreement, external monitoring and evaluation took the form of consolidated annual progress reports being presented, in the case of Norad and government of Norway, at the tripartite ordinary annual review meetings hosted and chaired by the Aid Liaison Department of the Ministry of Finance Planning and Economic Development and attended by Makerere University and officials from the Norwegian embassy. Similarly for the Sida-supported programme, the annual planning and review meetings were attended by a programme officer from the Swedish embassy in Uganda and the senior Sida research programme officer from Sweden. However, with respect to the Carnegie Corporation of New York-supported programme, visitation missions to Makerere were conducted at least once a year.

67

Coordination of development cooperation at makerere university (2000-2010)

Implementation committees at unit level submitted progress reports to the secretariat for consolidation and subsequent submission to the development partner. The reports would then be discussed at annual meetings. Unlike in the initial phases where programme reporting was output based, reporting in the subsequent phases of support was results based. This was driven by the University’s human capacity development in monitoring and evaluation as supported by the Carnegie Corporation of New York. Programmes had in-built external midterm and ex-post evaluations at the end of each phase, which would form a basis for renewal of support. Financial audits were conducted by the Auditor General of the Republic of Uganda for all programmes each year. In addition, financial management consultants were commissioned by some programmes such as Sida and the Carnegie Corporation of New York to assess the financial management system.

Challenges Makerere University faced a number of challenges during the coordination of partnersupported development programmes over the years. These included the following: •

Lack of a development partner coordinator based in Uganda/Makerere University

Initially in some programmes, the absence of development partner programme officers in the country impacted adversely on the timeliness of decision-making and consequently affected programme implementation. Sida and NORAD had programme officers based at their respective embassies while the Carnegie Corporation of New York had none. However, with the advancement in communications technology at Makerere University, there was a tremendous improvement in information-sharing and decision-making with the development partners. •

Varying levels of support to programme administration

Some programmes provided funding for programme administration, such as Sida, the Rockefeller Foundation, the Carnegie Corporation of New York, while others did not, e.g. Norad and the government of Norway. Where such funds were not provided, coordinators had low morale, which can probably explain the low absorption rate of programme funds. •

Multiplicity of reporting formats and reporting cycles

Each development partner had their own reporting format and an attempt to harmonise the various formats did not find favour with some development partners. The cycles of funding are not harmonised, meaning that reports are submitted at different times in

68

Synergy in action: coordination of international cooporation programmes in higher education and research

the year and in different formats. The reporting cycle for some development partners is quite rigid and does not take into account the balancing of roles of the coordinators and researchers in the South. This strained coordinators in their attempts to keep pace with the programme activity cycles. •

Balancing staff time between programme activities and normal university work schedules – this is a staff issue related to coordination

Researchers and administrators juggle between programme activities and routine activities. Furthermore, researchers who are members of the academic staff were overloaded with teaching obligations that adversely affected timely implementation of their research activities, technical and financial reports, and accountabilities. •

Adjustment to changes in the government procurement system

Changes in the government procurement system created a new learning curve as project implementers had to adjust to the new procurement regulations. This eventually led to delays in programme implementation. •

Changes in programme coordinators – this staff issue is a coordination issue

Turnover of project and programme administrators/coordinators significantly slowed down implementation. The newcomers took time to internalise programme requirements. •

Proliferation of programme/project accounts

At one time, the University was running over 35 project bank accounts in both foreign and local currency for a single programme, e.g. NORAD. The multiplicity of accounts resulted in high bank charges and also caused delays in the submission of financial reports. •

Membership of the programme steering committees

Initially, the steering committees were comprised of programme/project implementers. This led to a conflict of interest in situations requiring sanctions and the reallocation of funds where absorption was deemed lower than expected. •

Delayed financial reports by external auditors

The disbursement of funds in some programmes like Sida was premised on the timely submission of audited financial reports. Although Makerere University would prepare the financial accounts in time for audit, there were significant delays by the Auditor General’s office in providing audited accounts. Subsequently, the office of the Auditor

69

Coordination of development cooperation at makerere university (2000-2010)

General was requested to contract external audit firms to carry out financial audits of the programme. This action improved the turn-around of the financial audits and hence timely reports to Sida.

Opportunities Reforms of university processes Makerere University has witnessed tremendous growth in student numbers, programmes, research and knowledge transfer partnerships in the last two decades. The drivers for the increased enrolment included reforms in the education sector by the government, and the development of new undergraduate and graduate academic programmes at the University. These developments necessitated structural and functional reforms of the University to make its processes more effective and efficient. The need for structural and functional reforms at Makerere University was floated in the University Strategic Plan of 2000/01—2006 /07 and re-emphasised in the successor strategic plan 2008/09—2018/19 as a result of the dramatic increase in student numbers over the preceding decade. There were other voices requesting these reforms, including the government of Uganda, and development partners such as the Rockefeller Foundation, Sida (Sweden), and the European and Developing Countries Clinical Trials Partnership (EDTCP), among others. Subsequently, a holistic and participatory business process to re-engineer the research, administrative, financial, teaching and learning processes was accomplished with the aim of making them leaner and more efficient. The recommended reforms were forwarded to the university administration for implementation. These included transformation into a collegiate university, among others. In order to strengthen the research and innovation function at Makerere University, the Directorate of Research and Graduate Training has been established with one division coordinating research, innovation and knowledge transfer partnerships. The division will have a research grants unit that will be linked to the research units in the colleges for effective coordination of development cooperation in research. Role of development cooperation The University has leveraged support from development partners to facilitate capacity building and gender equity. Leveraged funds from various donors have contributed significantly to the building of a critical mass of PhDs. A total of 198 staff have been trained at PhD level, a number to which Sida has contributed 158, while Norad/the Norwegian government and the Carnegie Corporation of New York contributed 20 each as of 2009. •

70

Infrastructure development: this comprised an increase in lecture, laboratory and library spaces.

Synergy in action: coordination of international cooporation programmes in higher education and research

• •

•

•

•

•

Procurement of state-of-the-art science equipment in supported units. Development of new and demand-driven academic programmes, such as Bachelor’s degree programmes in Quantity Surveying, Land Economics, and Construction Management at the Faculty of Technology, since renamed the College of Engineering, Design, Art and Technology (CEDAT). Major strides and a pace-setter in gender equity that has culminated into the establishment of the Directorate of Gender Mainstreaming and gender parity at graduation in 2010. Development and implementation of key policies such as quality assurance, antisexual harassment, research and innovations, intellectual property management, among others. Over the last decade, support to PhD training, post-doctoral and staff research has resulted in a boost in research output that has contributed to an improved university webometrics ranking. The University witnessed an increase in collaborative partnerships, thereby enhancing its profile internationally and widening its financial resource base. For example, the collaboration has resulted in development of new programmes.

Lessons learned In the course of coordinating development partner support, Makerere University has learned the following lessons: • • • •

Provision of administration funds/overheads leads to better coordination of activities and hence good performance of the programme. Proliferation of programme/project accounts results in high transaction costs due to high bank charges. Steering committees with a significant composition of members from outside the University provide better oversight and minimise areas of conflict of interest. Financial audits by external firms appointed by the Auditor General ensures timely submission of audit reports, hence avoiding delays in the disbursement of funds from development partners.

Conclusion Makerere University has over the last decade gained significant experience and, therefore, built capacity in the coordination of development cooperation. The areas of support have to a large extent been in line with the strategic focus of the University. In the course of coordinating the programmes, Makerere University learned lessons and took remedial action to address the shortcomings identified, such as proliferation of programme accounts, the composition of programme oversight committees and financial audits. Synergy and complementarity across programmes has resulted in

71

Coordination of development cooperation at makerere university (2000-2010)

enhanced outcomes and the avoidance of duplication of effort. However, attempts by the University to forge a harmonised reporting framework for all development partners were not successful. The balancing of staff time still remains a challenge to programme administration. Despite some shortcomings, the University continues to attract institutional and research support from various development partners.

About the autors Katunguka-Rwakishaya E., Director, Directorate of Research and Graduate Training Nasinyama G.W., Deputy Director, Directorate of Research and Graduate Training Wabwire J.K.W., Director, Department of Planning and Development Ssembatya V.A., Director, Quality Assurance Directorate Kabuye M.K., Senior Economist, Department of Planning and Development

List of acronyms ADB – African Development Bank EDCTP – European and Developing Countries Clinical Trials Partnership HEI – Higher Education Institutions ICT – Information and Communication Technology IGF – Internally Generated Funds Norad – Norwegian Agency for International Development NUFU - The Norwegian Programme for Development, Research and Education. Nuffic - The Netherlands Organisation for International Cooperation in Higher Education Sida - Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency SIU - Norwegian Centre for International Cooperation in Education

References • • •

72

Makerere University Fact Book 2010/2011 Programme Reports Strengthening ICT Training and Research Capacity in the Four Public Universities in Uganda: Final Project Report.

Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency (Sida)

Institutional capacity building in terms of : Infrastructure – incl. buildings for Department of Women studies and Gender, Computer science, Forestry • Human Resource Development • ICT Development • Collaboration & Networking

Government of Norway/ Norad

•

•

•

•

•

• • • • •

•

Strengthening the University staff’s research capacity, training and supervision up to Ph.D. level and post-doctoral Curricula development for cross-cutting and multi-disciplinary research courses Develop capacity of utilization of ICT infrastructure and library electronic materials in research Strengthened research infrastructure (e.g. established Biomedical Laboratory, Geographical Information System Lab. And the Demographic Surveillance Site at Mayuge). Strengthened collaborative research linkages between Makerere University staff and senior researchers in Swedish Universities

Infrastructure – incl. building extension for Faculty of Technology & furnishing of Main University Library ICT Infrastructure Human Resource Development at Masters and Ph.D. Research in Good governance and human rights Research in Food, Nutrition and Value addition Strengthened University Management

Strengthening ICT Training and Research Capacity in the Four Public Universities in Uganda

Nuffic (NPT)

•

Areas of Support

Development Partner

Phase I (20022004/05) Phase II (2005- 2009 Phase III(20102014)

SEK 96.61 million ( US$ 12.88million) SEK 181 Million ( US$24million) SEK 181m ( US$ 4million)

Ongoing

Completed

Completed

Preparatory Completed Phase (2000 2001)

Ongoing

Completed

Completed

Status

SEK 15 million ( US$ 1.5million)

Phase II (2005/06 – 2010/11)

Phase I (2000/01 – 2004/05)

NOK 110Million/ ( US$ 14.082 million) NOK 60 million ( US$ 9.0 million)

2007 - 2011

Phase/ Timeframe

Euros 5.7 million (USD $ 4.75 million)

Amount – Respective Currency and Equivalent (US$)*

Table 1: Summary of development partners support to Makerere University: 2000/01 – 2010/11

Synergy in action: coordination of international cooporation programmes in higher education and research

73

74 US$ 17.6million

Enhancement of Makerere University and Partnering Institutions’ role in Government Policy of Decentralised Service Delivery.

Rockefeller Foundation/ IDA/WB

*Exchange rates exposure differed over the different phases of support on various programs

Source: Planning & Development Department, Makerere University

US$ 176,638

Devolution to Colleges – Planning Grant for formation of College of Agriculture and Environmental Sciences

Rockefeller Foundation

US$ 100,000

Devolution to Colleges – Planning Grant for formation of College of Humanities – The Penta Plan

US$ 245,000

NOK17, 233, 840 (USD $ 2,461,977) NOK25, 325, 040 (USD $3,617,863) NOK53, 792, 960 (USD $ 7,684,709) NOK20, 739, 850 (USD $ 2,962,836)

Ford Foundation

Human Resource Development – training at M.Sc., Ph.D. and technical staff training Joint Research and publication by Staff Attendance of Conferences and Seminars for dissemination of Research findings Staff and student exchange, joint supervision and degrees

Phase III20072011)

US$ 5.57m

20012009/10

2003

2002

2002

Phase I (1991-2005) Phase II (1996-2001) Phase III (2002-2006) Phase IV (2007-2011)

Phase I (2010-2012)

Phase II (2004-2007)

US$ 4.99m

US$ 1.9m

Phase I (2001-2004)

US$ 4.081m

Devolution to Colleges – Planning Grant for formation of College of Health Sciences

•

• •

•

Building, nurturing and retaining the next generation of academics

Institutional capacity building in terms of : Improved equity and access through the gender mainstreaming programme and Female Scholarship Initiative (FSI) • Promotion of Science distance education programme of the University • Promotion of Science and Technology in line with Government of Uganda’s policy emphasis of Science through development of new academic programmes in Quantity Surveying valuation and more practical veterinary training • ICT Infrastructural capacity and utilization in service delivery through use of administrative/management information systems. • Development of a model University Library

•

Rockefeller Foundation

Norwegian Programme for Development, Research & Education (NUFU)

Carnegie Corporation of New York

Completed

Completed

Completed

Completed

Ongoing

Completed

Completed

Completed

Ongoing

Ongoing

Completed

Completed Coordination of development cooperation at makerere university (2000-2010)

Synergy in action: coordination of international cooporation programmes in higher education and research

Fig 1. Example of Coordination Structure

Fig 2. Example of Program Activity cycle (Sida program at Makerere University 2010-2014 ) Start program activity periodJan 1, 2010 End of agreement periodDec 31, 2014 Annual Review Meeting to discuss Annual Progress and Financial reports. No later than 30 Nov

Submission of Annual Progress Report and External Audited Annual Financial Report (incl. management response & follow-up plan) No later than 30 Sep

December

Financial statement and request for disbursement sent to Sida Disbursement from Sida (if audited financial report is approved)

January

November

February

October

September

Financial statement and request Start of external Audit

Preparation of Annual Activity Plan Plans

March Uganda 1 Jan 2010 to 30 June 2014

Submission of Annual Activity Plan No later than 31 March

April

Disbursement from Sida Preparation of Annual Progress Report

supported

August

May July

June

End program activity period30 June 2014

Annual Planning meeting to discuss Annual Activity Plan No later than 31 May Submission of final Annual Activity Plans to Sida no later than 30 June.

75

F

actors influencing the effectiveness and efficiency of international cooperation projects

Lessons learned from 30 years of international collaboration by Can Tho University, Vietnam Le Quang Minh

Abstract The aim of this article is to explain the successes Can Tho University (CTU) has achieved in 30 years of international cooperation since its first project in 1980. A precondition has been pro-active strategic leadership which was shared and passed on to successive generations of leaders without disruption. The strategic outlook of CTU leaders have always contained three vital components: (1) human resource development for the university, focused on capacity building in teaching, research and university management; (2) community service and (3) high quality or international standards. Being the first university in Vietnam to introduce a strategic plan, CTU could draw roadmaps for achieving its strategic objectives by mobilising numerous resources from a large number of partners and donors. Other success factors included well-trained project management units and teams, controlled by a central coordinating body operating from the rector’s office. Members of the coordinating body were also members of strategic planning teams and benefitted from being able to use similar tools applied in strategic planning processes and in project identification and formulation. Furthermore, all projects were monitored in accordance with the strategic objectives of the same team. The coordinating body also helped to prevent any overlapping between different projects and to avoid conflicts of interests between donors, partners and CTU strategies. Strong links with local farmers, communities and the Mekong Delta furnished project teams with new ideas ready to be developed into new project proposals, which could then be used as strong evidence of success with clear beneficiaries and a clear impact on society at large. Active network building and effective presentation of the university to the outside world are two reasons why the university has succeeded in attracting foreign partners and donors.

76

Synergy in action: coordination of international cooporation programmes in higher education and research

Introduction Since the Doi Moi policy of economic renovation was introduced in 1986, Vietnam has achieved remarkable successes in economic development. With an annual economic growth of 7—9% over the last two decades, the country is among the fastest growing economies in the world. Immediately following economic renovation, reform of the country’s higher education system was started in the early 90s (Hayden and Thiep, 2010). On the reformist agenda, international collaboration was identified as a key solution for improving the quality of the higher education system, especially the quality and quantity of human resources in Vietnam (Tran Quoc Toan, 2005, Le Quang Minh, 2009). For the universities, which were capable of attracting and effectively managing international cooperation projects, international collaboration helped improve the quality of their curricula, programmes and teaching methods through the introduction of international norms/standards and, much more important, raising their teaching and research capacity (Le Quang Minh, 2009). These are among the most severe problems in higher education in Vietnam (Site Visit Team of the National Academies in the United States, 2006). University management has been identified as a key issue on the reform agenda and still plays a central role in the new Higher Education Reform Agenda. International collaboration has contributed greatly to improving university managers’ skills and the university management system as a whole by: •

• •

providing training to the managers through the introduction of different alternatives, options, lessons learned, best practices (for the managers to adapt to the Vietnamese environment); ‘open eye’ study tours, which were very critical of the long tradition of ‘top down’ management; establishing IT systems to improve university management and decision-support systems (Can Tho University, 2004).

In the case of Can Tho University, technical assistance from international collaboration projects also contributed to the building of physical facilities, like classrooms and laboratories, as well as providing equipment for laboratoriess, libraries, classrooms, etc. For example, the Faculty of Agriculture received an aid grant from JICA (Japan) under ‘The Project for the Improvement of the Facilities and Equipment of the Faculty of Agriculture, Can Tho University’ (IDCJ, 2003). Under the MHO programme, an aid grant from Nuffic (the Netherlands) provided funds for constructing and upgrading labs, libraries and classrooms for the Faculty of Sciences, the Faculty of Technology and many others. International collaboration is one of the keys to explaining the success of several universities in Vietnam, including CTU (MOET, 2001). In 2007, CTU was collaborating with more than 80 universities and research institutions and more than 23 international

77

factors influencing the effectiveness and efficiency of international cooperation projects

governmental organisations and NGOs (Site Visit Team of the National Academies in the United States, 2007), with a total of more than 150 projects of different scales, of which some were in the Vietnamese category of large and very large. Those included projects based on collaboration with JICA (Japan), Nuffic (the Netherlands), VLIR (Belgium), DANIDA (Denmark), AP (USA) and many others (Le Quang Minh, 2006; Nguyen Anh Tuan, 2011). International collaboration helped CTU develop from a university with a campus of mostly Nipa palm leaf classrooms in 1986 to one of Vietnam’s key universities in 2000 (Le Quang Minh, 2006). Effective and efficient international collaboration has contributed significantly to the development of CTU and the development of the Mekong Delta (Bui Van Ga, 2011). In the period of 1997— 2000, 34% of CTU’s total annual budget was made up from international aid and donations (Raes and Thang, 2008). With good coordination to prevent overlapping and/or conflicts between the large number of projects sponsored by different partners and donors with various interests, projects at CTU complement each other rather nicely (Raes and Thang, 2008). This article will attempt to find out why CTU has been successful in attracting and implementing so many cooperation projects, of which many come under the category of large or very large and were brought to the university at almost the same time.

University strategy and objectives To secure success in international cooperation, strong commitment from university leaders is a necessary condition, but not the only one. Several other necessary conditions will be discussed in this article. Strategy and objectives may just remain wonderful dreams without strategic plans in place as starting points. In international cooperation, strategic plans help: • • •

formulate the projects and activities; coordinate donors; promote ownership.

Strategic Planning in CTU The development of a strategic plan, right after the new open-door policy was introduced by the government while most of other institutions were still ‘waiting for instructions and orders from above’, may be an essential part of explaining the success of CTU in international cooperation. Several members of the team who had studied at Wageningen University, the Netherlands, and worked with Dutch experts for more than ten years helped develop outward-looking strategies for CTU. Terms like ‘opportunities and threats’, ‘solution directions’, ‘intended strategies’, ‘integrated plan’ and ‘coordination’ were commonly exchanged during planning team discussions. ‘Planners’ at most other universities, however, often talked about

78

Synergy in action: coordination of international cooporation programmes in higher education and research

instructions, regulations, guidelines, quotas when developing their plans. The right people formulating strategic plans at the right time are key here. The very first form of strategic plan at CTU, known as the ‘Master Plan’, was formulated and released in 1991 and updated in 1995 (Can Tho University, 1995). The process of formulating the Master Plan was very much like that for a strategic plan. The team responsible for formulating the plan was composed of leaders from different offices and faculties. The director of Physical Facility Management Department was the secretary, who actually wrote the plan. It was very much a bottom-up approach that incorporated a certain degree of scanning the horizon to find opportunities, and was not just focused on problems. Discussions of new opportunities presented by the Doi Moi policy commonly took place at the meetings of the key planners. At that time it was called the Master Plan for good reason. The term strategic plan was not commonly used as it was not fully understood and could be interpreted as something else, mostly as long-term national plan. Under a higher education system characterised by a strong top-down approach with a rigid line of command structure, who actually needed a strategic plan? (Le Quang Minh, 2001). In 1996, the university sent three key members to study ‘Strategic Planning for Universities’ in the Netherlands for 3 months, in a series of training courses organised by Wageningen University. The Vietnamese team, assisted by Dutch experts, organised training courses for 65 key CTU leaders. The result of these efforts was the first version of the CTU Strategic Plan, released in 1997. Four years later, in 2001, the first strategic planning training workshop was organised by the Ministry of Education and Training (MOET) to prepare for the WB project. Strategic planning was one of the project selection criteria (Mai Van Tinh and Nguyen Ba Khoa, 2005). CTU, being the first university in Vietnam to develop a strategic plan, was invited as one of the keynote speakers to share its experiences with other Vietnamese universities (Le Quang Minh, 2001). Strong ownership Ownership is vital for the success of international cooperation. The question is who is actually the ‘owner’ of the cooperation project? And how do the teachers, scientists, staff of the university experience their ownership? Without a strategic plan or strategic objectives, it was difficult for the university staff members at all levels to feel that they were the ‘owners’ of the projects. All stakeholders had to be convinced that a particular project would eventually ‘serve’ them, one way or another, either directly or indirectly. Or that it would at least serve the strategic objectives of the university, of which they were a part. Only when the project objectives were clearly aligned with the strategic objectives of the university, would the faculty and staff feel project ownership. Otherwise, only the departments directly involved in the project, that benefit directly from it and exercise direct control over it would experience being the actual owners of the project. Establishing this feeling of ownership across all levels involved a drawn-out ‘selling’ process with a major efforts

79

factors influencing the effectiveness and efficiency of international cooperation projects

on the part of the leaders. Ownership was created in a bottom-up process of project formulation. In CTU there was a policy observed by all rectors of encouraging departments to submit concept papers or at least project identification notes to the university. The university project development team combined ideas to form an ‘umbrella’ proposal. The combined LogFrame technique was very useful for this purpose. As CTU is a multi-disciplinary university, something that was not very common in Vietnam in the 80s and the 90s and still is not today, most faculties could have their ‘share’ in a given project. For example, the Faculty of Agriculture, which has a welldeveloped research culture, could be ‘assigned’ the research promotion component, while the Faculty of Education would be responsible for upgrading teaching methodology, etc. This ‘task sharing’ allows a focus to be directed on different aspects or components of a particular project, after which everyone can benefit from the shared output. Thanks to a well-balanced focus and share, more staff started to ‘own’ projects. Ownership was also a result of project design. When designing a large project, at least one component was aimed to benefit the whole campus. In CTU, this component often was either one of the following activities or a combination: • • • • •

improving university management, so that nearly all staff and faculty can see and ‘experience’ the effects in terms of less and simpler paper work; computerising management process, information management; improving teaching methodologies; improving research methods and promote publication; introducing policy to promote research.

These components also helped avert the so-called ‘building castles out of slums’, when one or two departments have nearly everything and the others are left with nothing. Build strong links with the community One of the most remarkable ‘trade marks’ of Can Tho University is its strong links with community development in all the provinces of the Mekong Delta. Development of the delta by providing high-quality and effective human resources has always been a top priority of the university since its establishment (Le Quang Minh, 2006). This long tradition of community service and links provided CTU with one of its strengths in international cooperation: demand-driven objectives. Knowing the Mekong Delta well, the university could identify where the key issues or problems of the Mekong Delta lay. These represented real demands or needs.

80

Synergy in action: coordination of international cooporation programmes in higher education and research

In one way or another, almost all international cooperation activities at CTU have helped address issues facing the Mekong Delta. Poverty alleviation or reduction of the local population was the ultimate goal of most projects. Project VH10 focused on ‘improvement of acid sulphate soils in the Mekong Delta’; MHO8 on ‘integrated management of the coastal zone of the Mekong Delta’; four sub-projects in the VLIR programme focused on agriculture, aquaculture, cropping systems, agricultural economics, etc. These are clear examples of the formula: South University-Local Community-North Partners working hand-in-hand. This formula does not only apply to cooperation focused on agriculture and related subjects: even an education project to build up the links between local schools and community, a collaboration between CTU and Michigan State University that was sponsored by the Shell Foundation also had the ultimate goal of reducing rural poverty and was very much in line with this formula (MSU International News Magazines, 2008). Strong links with the provinces in the Mekong Delta also helped the university to get support in implementing projects. The strong support and commitment of many provinces in the Mekong Delta to VH10, MHO, VLIR, CAULES, etc. in terms of land, facilities, staff time and co-funding contributed greatly to the success of these projects. Sustainability of international cooperation depended significantly on these links. They helped maintain activities and generate extra incomes after projects were completed. The provinces in the Mekong Delta were the main ‘contractors’ of all consultancy services, contract research, training workshops, etc. These activities provided opportunities for the teachers and scientists working on projects to apply the new knowledge and skills and vitalise project activities after funding stopped. Raes and Thang (2008) shows a tremendous increase in contributions to the total annual budget of the university from the community, from 4% of the total annual university budget in 1997 to 23% in 2000. That can be explained by the strong community links combined with the enhanced capacity of the scientists and teachers as a result of international cooperation.

Good coordination The effectiveness and efficiency of international cooperation depends on several factors, of which donor coordination is highly essential. The role of strategic planning in the coordination of different projects with diverse interests The first ‘strategic plan’ of CTU set some out strategic directions and defined a large number of ‘solutions’, which were more or less equivalent to action plans. The project development team always used the long list of solutions/actions and plans/ activities from this strategic plan and all updated versions later introduced them as the ingredients for formulating a new project. The ‘strategic plan’ was also used to monitor and evaluate project outcomes.

81

factors influencing the effectiveness and efficiency of international cooperation projects

Multi-disciplinary project development and management team A project development and management team was established in CTU in 1990. The team leader was the Dean of the Faculty of Technology and the team was ‘headquartered’ at the faculty, where a ‘large’ computer network was set up. This facilitated good conditions and coordination for project formulation. This ‘large’ computer network consisted of 10 PCs connected to an intranet, on which 10 project members could work at the same time. This headquarters was CTU’s ‘trump card’ in international cooperation at the time. Since then, using a similar formula, CTU has established several project development teams with the following characteristics •

•

4-5 core members, with the Vice Rector in charge of international relations as the team leader. 1-2 members as active members of the strategic planning team, or the Vice Rector as both the project team leader and the strategic planning team leader. 1-2 secretaries or project coordinators were among the core group. In some terms, the Rector led the 2 teams: strategic and project. Depending on the subjects and the partner-to-be, 1 to 2 subject members were added to the team. The subject member was selected on the strength of their expertise in the subject of the cooperation and their knowledge of the partners. Alumni from the partner university were mostly selected.

The team was responsible for: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

facilitating workshops on project identification and project concepts; drafting the proposal; contacting potential partner(s); contacting the donors; assisting the approval process, sometime it was a very lengthy and timeconsuming process which required many skills and tactics.

Following approval of the project, the responsibility for project implementation was shifted to the project management team. If it was a large or very large project, the rector led the project and the subject member of the project development team was coordinator or secretary. This structure helped the university to effectively coordinate and harmonise different projects, different partners and different donors with very diverse interests. The structure helped guarantee complementary outcomes from different projects. Professional and well-trained cooperation project staff MOET (2009) indicated the crucial need for each and every university in Vietnam to

82

Synergy in action: coordination of international cooporation programmes in higher education and research

establish a well-trained and professional International Relations department. In 1980, CTU received its very first international cooperation project, titled VH10, which was funded by Nuffic. Wageningen Agriculture University (now Wageningen UR) was the main partner (Van Meensvoort, (2009). The project, which started 6 years before the renovation policy was introduced, assisted CTU and the whole Mekong Delta to increase rice production. More important, the project helped build capacity for a team of young scientists recently returned from a Western country – the Netherlands – full of new ideas, concepts and methods, of which the most important concept would be multidisciplinary teamwork. After the first team of 5-6 members, trained in the Netherlands, more members returned from Japan, Belgium, France and Australia. Each one introduced to the team new ideas, new concepts and new tools for seeking opportunities, for project identification and formulation. Training workshops on project management, given by trainers from the Netherlands and Belgium, were among the first in a series of training courses to improve project management skills for staff and faculty. In the late 90s, the CTU project development team was invited to provide training to other universities in Vietnam, such as Hue and Thai Nguyen. The International Rice Research Institute (IRRI) was among the very first organised training bodies for key international cooperation team members. In 1987, IRRI introduced to CTU scientists the LogFrame method, one of the most powerful tools in project formulation. Step by step, all of this training assisted CTU to build its excellent international cooperation teams. The teams were able to combine three ‘lists of demands’: (1) demands from the Mekong Delta; (2) strategic objectives, strategies, and targets from the university strategic plans; and (3) interests of the partners and donors for a ‘3D picture’ of the three demands from society, university and donor. Demands from society were often considered the ultimate goals of the cooperation. Donors’ interests were in intermediate objectives. University strategies were in specific objectives. Then a combination of different action plans from various strategies were restructured and entered in the LogFrame as activities or outputs. Finishing the LogFrame meant 90% of the project formulation was completed. A good LogFrame often meant a good project.

Effectively presenting the university to the international community Effectively presenting the university to the outside world was another strategy of CTU. The more the international community knew about the Mekong Delta and the university, which seemed to be a true ‘solution-provider’ dedicated to addressing the issues of the region, the more likely the university was in attracting international cooperation. Presenting papers, publishing research, organising international conferences and workshops were encouraged by CTU leaders. Training in presenting papers and

83

factors influencing the effectiveness and efficiency of international cooperation projects

courses in communication skills for university teachers and scientists were regular organised by university experts and experienced speakers. The university leaders made a large number of visits to universities, research institutions, funding agencies, etc. to present the university’s strategies and the issues of the Mekong Delta. Regular visits to consulates general in Ho Chi Minh City and embassies in Hanoi were often arranged, and to be present at important events such as National Day and Education Day. Academic visits from foreign universities were also arranged. Well-prepared presentations with strategic views, addressing global or regional or at least national issues were the main topics of discussions. Actively participating in professional, scientific and university networks, as well as sharing ideas and experiences, was another way to raise the world awareness of the institution. Nowadays, frequently improving the website would achieve the same purpose.

Conclusions 1.

2.

3.

4.

Open and renovation policy, together with the interests of the academic community and donors to address issues of the Mekong Delta - the rice basket of Vietnam - brought many opportunities to CTU to attract numerous international cooperation donations and grants. To take advantage of the new opportunities and translate them into a set of plans, actions, and projects, and to realise the development objectives of the university, several conditions were eminent: (1) visionary and pro-active leadership; (2) uninterrupted commitment from the leaders to strategic objectives; (3) architects of the strategic plans and project development plans working in the same teams that provided a common ground for information and idea exchange resulting in well-harmonised coordination; (4) a simple and clear structure in the line of command through regular coordination meetings between different projects where the information flows smoothly up and down as well as laterally between project teams; (5) multidisciplinary project development/management teams to help identify complimentary activities and value-added outcomes of the projects. From complementary outcomes and values added to the project, international cooperation eventually brought benefits, directly and indirectly, to the whole campus. Using strategic plans as guideline for project formulation and evaluation helped building ‘blue prints’ and roadmaps to approach strategic objectives. That was one of the most important factors shaping the ownership of the staff at different levels. The impacts of international cooperation looked more convincing to the staff when they saw the advancements on the road map, and the final destinations.

We are familiar with the concept ‘it is better to give a man a fishing pole rather than a fish’. The same holds true in international cooperation as the experience of CTU shows that “it is better to give capacity than a project”.

84

Synergy in action: coordination of international cooporation programmes in higher education and research

About the author Prof. Dr. Le Quang Minh got his first university degree, B.Sc. in Agronomy, from CanTho University, his M.Sc. in Water Resources Management in 1985 and PhD in 1996 from Wageningen University, The Netherlands. His university career was closely associated with the remarkable development of CanTho University where he has occupied various administrative positions, first as Dean of the College of Technology, then as Vice Rector in charge of international relations, and finally as Rector until his term ended in December 2006. He then joined the Vietnam National University – Ho Chi Minh City where he served as Senior Advisor to the President. Since January 2008, he has been appointed Vice-President, International Relations of Vietnam National University – Ho Chi Minh City. Prof. Dr Le Quang Minh was the Member of Vietnam National Assembly (Congress) for two terms from 1997 to 2007, and member of the National Council of Education from 2000 to 2007.

References • • • •

• • •

• •

•

Bui Van Ga. (2011). Speech on the 45th anniversary of Can Tho University. www. baomoi.com/Ky-niem-45-nam-Dai-hoc-Can-Tho/59/5977154.epi [in Vietnamese] Can Tho University. (1995). Master Plan Development of Can Thö University to Year 2010. Can Tho May 1995. [in Vietnamese] Can Tho University. (2004). MHO program Can Tho University. Project Assessment. MHO Final Evaluation Workshop. Can Tho June 2004. Hayden M. and Lam Quang Thiep. (2010). Vietnam’s Higher Education System. In: Reforming Higher Education in Vietnam. Editors: G. Harman, M. Hayden and Pham Thanh Nghi. Higher Education Dynamics. V. 29. Springer. IDCJ. (2003). Presentation of Evaluation Results and Recommendations. www.mofa.go.jp/mofaj/gaiko/oda/kaikaku/hyoka/khs_viet/khs_viet_s3.html JICA USA Newsletter. (2008) www.jica.go.jp/usa/english/office/others/newsletter/ newsletter11.html Le Quang Minh. (2001). Key note speech on University Strategic Planning. Lessons Learned from Can Tho University. MOET Workshop on University Strategic Planning. Ha Noi 2001. Le Quang Minh. (2006). Opening Speech of 2006-2007 Scholar Year. www.ctu. edu.vn/dhct40nam/40Anniversary_CTU.pdf Le Quang Minh. (2009). International Collaborations in University Education. Perspectives from Universities in Developing Countries. Proceeding. International Conference on International Cooperation for Higher Education in Vietnam. The Opportunities and Challenges. Ho Chi Minh city 16 Oct 2009. HCMC Pedagogy University Press. Mai Van Tinh and N. B. Khoa. (2005). Long Range Planning in Higher Education in Vietnam. In The Summary Report of Workshop on Long Range Planning for

85

factors influencing the effectiveness and efficiency of international cooperation projects

•

• •

• • •

•

•

•

•

• •

86

Higher Education (ed. Padoongchart Suwanawonggse). SEAMEO Regional Center for Higher Education and Development. Thailand. Ministry of Education and Training. (2001). Opening Speech of the Deputy Minister in Workshop on International Collaboration in University Teaching and Research. Ha Noi 8 June 2001. [in Vietnamese]. Ministry of Education and Training. (2004). Higher Education in Vietnam. Doan Duy Luc (ed.). MOET Press. Ha Noi. Ministry of Education and Training. (2009). Directives on the focal activities of the scholar year 2008-2009. Ministry of Education and Training. Directive No 56/2008/CT-BGDĐT. Ha Noi, 3 October 2008. [in Vietnamese]. MSU International News Magazine. (2008). Sustainable Community Development Is Focus of Education Project in Vietnam. Volume 9 – Spring 2008. Nguyen Anh Tuan. (2011). On the 45th anniversary of Can Tho University. Can Tho University. [in Vietnamese]. Nielsen T. (2011). Can Tho University – University of Aarhus Link in Environmental Sciences (CAULES).http://biology.au.dk/international_activiites/ projectsrecentandongoing/internationalprojectsongoingpc-asia2htm/ Nuffic. ( 2003). MHO Best Practices in Sustainability. An Overview. Ouindinda Nikièma (ed.). Cooperation Programmes Section Department for Human Resource and Institutional Development. Nuffic April 2003. Site Visit Team of the National Academies in the United States. (2006). Observations on Undergraduate Education in Computer Science, Electrical Engineering, and Physics at Selected Universities in Vietnam. August 2006. Site Visit Team of the National Academies in the United States. (2007). Observations on Current Status of Education of Agricultural Sciences in Vietnam. January 2007. Tran Quoc Toan. (2005). Higher Education Reform in Vietnam. Paper presented in International Forum on Vietnam Education “Higher Education Reform and International Integration”. Ministry of Education Publishing House. Ha Noi. 2005. [in Vietnamese]. Vaes, R. and Nguyen Van Thang. (2008). Final Evaluation of the CTU-IUC Partner Programme Can Tho University Vietnam. December 2008. Van Mensvoort, T. (2009). In Memory of Leen Pons, My Teacher and Soil Science Father. In: Leen Pons Father of International Acid Sulphate Soils (Ed.: D. S. Fanning). http://www.lad.wur.nl/NR/rdonlyres/F6BE1E0C-5904-4927.../ Ponsbook42.pdf.

Synergy in action: coordination of international cooporation programmes in higher education and research

B

uilding academic and research partnerships for development using various funding schemes Nancy Terryn, Helke Baeyens and Dirk De Craemer

Abstract Ghent University has a long tradition of university development cooperation (UDC) in various disciplines. The majority of these activities are funded by the Belgian Development Cooperation (DGD) through VLIR-UOS1, the actor responsible on behalf of the Flemish universities for UDC. Other major funding agencies include the Flemish government and the European Commission through its so-called Framework Programmes. This article illustrates a number of activities of academics from Ghent University who have been successful in using different sources of funding to achieve both the academic goals of the Flemish academic partner and those of the UDC financer and southern partners. The goals of the latter are more focused on capacity building in education and research, development of the respective country and service to society, while the goals of the former aim primarily at scientific excellence.

Introduction The changing face of UDC The term University Development Cooperation (UDC) is used in this article to refer to partnership-based academic cooperation between researchers from institutions in southern developing countries and their partners in the North2. Although the 1 VLIR-UOS stands for the Flemish Interuniversity Council - University Development Cooperation section www.vliruos.be. 2 In this article the terms North and South are often used when referring to the partner from the industrialised country and the partner from the developing country. Within the scope of this article, we define developing countries as those countries in Africa, Asia and Latin America that are on the OECD/DAC country list www.oecd.org/dataoecd/32/40/43540882.pdf.

87

Building academic and research partnerships for development using various funding schemes

partners from the North are generally universities, those from the South encompass universities as well as research institutes, governmental departments and nongovernmental organisations active in development work. The cooperation focuses on research, education, capacity building and institutional development with the general aim of assisting in the development of the respective countries. Often joint research activities and educational exchanges are at the core and play an important role in building research capacity and fostering a research culture in the southern institute. Projects are less often funded by scientific funding agencies, but mainly by donors that depend on government ministries responsible for development cooperation that set aside a part of their budgets for UDC. In line with this, perceptions are generally that it is mainly the southern partner that should be the main beneficiary of the partnership. The donors mandate financing mostly with the clear objective of contributing toward poverty alleviation and to the economic, scientific and social development of the country. Yet, such partnerships must have something to offer the northern partners, as otherwise there would be no incentive for them to take part. Benefits for the northern partners could include, for example, access to local knowledge, human resources (e.g. students) and the possibility to do field studies in domain-relevant natural habitats. The face of UDC has changed substantially over the last decade. First of all, in line with the rethinking of ‘aid’ management of which the Paris Declaration (Paris Declaration, OECD, 2005) is the best-known outcome, the concept of ‘donor and recipient’ has been replaced by ‘partnerships’, suggesting a more equitable relationship based on a common defined agenda. This new terminology includes words such as ‘ownership’, ‘mutual accountability’ and ‘alignment’. In the previous century, northern academics could quite autonomously put forward their own research plans and ideas with respect to UDC. The demands and viewpoints of the southern partner were not always taken into account. Academics from the North tended to take on the role of the ‘senior partner’ who defined the priorities, a role division that created a distorted partnership. In addition, the funding agency often put the northern partner in control of the majority of the budget. In some cases the research was not really aimed at a problem but focused, for example, on inventorying or mapping certain natural resources (although when subsequently followed up, this type of research has the potential to spawn projects with a major developmental impact). The downside of this approach has often been a lack of commitment and responsibility on the part of the southern partners and the non-sustainability of projects concerned. Within certain UDC projects, a team member from the northern group would be physically based in the South and work together with the local partners. Although this is nowadays seen as rather paternalistic and not in line with the new policies, it did have the advantage of fostering close communication and facilitating follow-up. So in general it can be said that the policy shift in aid management involves the southern partner in UDC cooperation more, being given a bigger role, a louder voice and increased autonomy, all of which is definitely a good development.

88

Synergy in action: coordination of international cooporation programmes in higher education and research

On the other hand, however, the landscape of higher education and university research in which UDC is set is changing globally. Higher education is becoming more business-like, and universities are becoming more competitive and part of the so-called Knowledge Economy. Where northern academics in the past could more or less work altruistically and cooperate with great flexibility with their colleagues in the South concerning teaching and research, the ‘publish or perish’ sword hanging above the heads of – mainly northern – academics nowadays undoubtedly affects UDC. First there is the difficult choice to be made by – mainly young – academics whether or not to engage in UDC, knowing that these are intense and time-consuming projects and that it is not always easy to achieve the high publication standards required nowadays. Due to these concerns of the northern academics, the main criterion for a successful UDC project will therefore be the prospect of academic valorisation. Northern academics will ask themselves whether the benefits outweigh the costs, and whether there is academic efficiency, not only in terms of budget but also in terms of the time and effort invested compared to the academic reward. Will the engagement not hinder the criteria proposed for their future academic careers? So in addition to the delivery of the development goals set out by the funding agency, the partners involved also need realistic academic goals, such as publishing high-quality papers and PhD graduates. This latter issue is recently becoming more important for southern university partners as they start to join the global higher educational scene. The question remains whether this tendency toward academic evaluation based mainly on publishing high-value peer-reviewed papers will continue. Although academics are also evaluated on their services to and impact on society, research outcome prevails and UDC efforts and results are undervalued in academic promotions. As a result, northern academics active in UDC find themselves caught between two areas of tension: on the one hand the goals associated with their academic careers (mainly publishing high-impact papers and producing other types of academic output) and, on the other, the research and education needed for a development-focused partnership, which may not be compatible with their career goals. In this article we will discuss how obtaining funding from various sources with different goals can help achieve the goals of both Northern and Southern partners within a single partnership. The successful partnership and the role of matching funds What is needed for building a successful development partnership? Clearly, there has to be a shared goal, a common project. One must be aware that time and trust are needed to build the partnership, which often takes years to mature. Good personal relations and the right mindset are crucial. During this process, it is important that everybody in the partnership realises that even within a common project the partners may have different goals and expectations. Problems in the South are often very broad and complex and the expertise brought by a specific academic team from the North may only be sufficient to assist in solving one part of a larger problem. Input

89

Building academic and research partnerships for development using various funding schemes

from each partner and the relevant output from these partners will be different. This is not problematic, as long as it is transparent, not counterproductive and understood by all partners. Overlap (in terms of topics, time and goals) of various projects will be needed to successfully set up a true partnership. Between different projects or in times of reduced financial means, a ‘glue’ will be needed to keep the partnership together. Student mobility in both directions is one of the possibilities in this respect and will be discussed below. Matching funds are instrumental not only in increasing the budget as such, but even more importantly in boosting a project’s flexibility. As such, every donor will have specific criteria regarding eligible expenses, and sometimes bureaucratic requirements and rules take precedence over flexibility, result-driven thinking and innovation. For example, in research projects funded by development cooperation actors, funding for the northern partner is usually limited or non-existent and the budget will not directly target the goals of the northern academics. Seeking matching funds, for example through the financing of master’s or PhD students linked to the research project, will increase opportunities for win-win situations and enhance sustainability. Also, as development cooperation projects often take place in vulnerable and unstable regions, more project diversification will create greater flexibility which can be useful in unforeseen situations. One aspect to take into account here is that subsequent reporting to the financing bodies can become complicated if one is combining funds from different agencies that all have their own guidelines and cost guidelines. The role of educational and policy-oriented programmes in research cooperation The experience of Ghent University is that personal contact and affinity between partners-to-be is crucial. One of the more successful stepping-stones for UDC has been the UGent international courses: English-spoken master’s programmes or short training courses focusing on topics relevant to development attract dozens of students from developing countries each year. These have proven to be very valuable as a networking tool: good and motivated students can be identified who can then apply for a PhD scholarship. Often upon their return to their home countries, these PhD graduates secure good positions in their home institutions and are in a position to set up research projects with their former teachers. Then, in a second phase, PhD graduates from this first group trained in Flanders become PhD supervisors together with their Flemish colleagues for a new generation of PhD students. In several cases, this has proven to be the start of a true and sustainable partnership. If the participation of students in a UGent programme or short training course is not possible, it is essential that potential PhD supervisors get to know the partner university and the various candidates in order to establish a good PhD supervisorstudent ‘match’. In most of the VLIR-UOS programmes3 this has worked quite well,

3 For more information: http://iuc.vliruos.be/.

90

Synergy in action: coordination of international cooporation programmes in higher education and research

as supervisors could meet the candidate PhD students during a visit to the partner institution. PhD scholarships within the VLIR-UOS programmes are of the so-called sandwich type: PhD students work on average 3 to 5 months per year in Belgium and continue their research in their home institutes for the remainder of the year. This model ensures higher involvement and commitment of the local partner, as well as the applicability of the research or acquired skills and techniques for the home institute. Once a successful research cooperative programme is up and running, it might be a good idea to build an educational pillar into the partnership. This can include, for example, exchanges at the master’s level (credit based) or joint master’s or PhD study programmes. These educational pillars will then serve as a glue between the partners in times when research funding is scarce. Indeed, the ‘Access to Success’ white paper (European University Association, 2010) also pointed out that joint degrees can generate a multitude of benefits including curricula innovation, staff and student mobility, capacity building and research. Such programmes, if strategically set up, can contribute to the sustainability of the partnership. Of late, both donor and recipient countries have become aware of the fact that academia can and should play a role in policy development. Based on their experience gained from working in and with international networks, working with different types of partners and stakeholders, and working on different research projects as well as on policy and on political and environmental problems, researchers can help in developing policy frameworks and formulating guidelines and recommendations for changing existing approaches. This latter is not necessarily limited to the social or political sciences, as it can also be provided by researchers active in other natural sciences. A number of such programmes that aim at financing research to prepare or assist policy-makers have been financed in Flanders through VLIR-UOS. In a number of cases, these have resulted in practical applications. One such example is the programme led by Prof. Patrick Van Damme (UGent) for ‘linking small-scale farmers to commercial sector activities’. It concentrated on the Sub-Saharan Africa situation and resulted in practical guidelines that were taken up by governments, local NGOs and farmer organisations. On a higher level, the International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD, Rome) has also adopted the guidelines and focuses on niche commodity development and the role farmer organisations can play in this respect. Currently, the Belgian VLIR-UOS is financing a number of interdisciplinary networks that should provide guidance to its policy and produce concrete activities in fields such as food security and climate change (see KLIMOS4). In the past, this kind of policy development and advice was more ad hoc, as in the case of the idea of ‘mainstreaming AIDS in development aid’ where academics were invited to provide guidance to the central administration on how it should bring the AIDS focus into its development project. UGent was involved in developing the ‘HIV/AIDS and 4 Klimos: Research Platform Climate Change and Development Cooperation: www.biw.kuleuven.be/ lbh/lbnl/forecoman/klimos/klimosfrontpageeng.html.

91

Building academic and research partnerships for development using various funding schemes

agriculture’ guidelines that were taken up by DGD and also a number of Belgian NGOs (e.g. Vredeseilanden). Recipient countries can also call upon northern academia to assist them in actual policy development. Sometimes alumni of northern universities mediate this. The Guyana government, for example, called in the UGent’s Laboratory of Tropical and Subtropical Agriculture and Ethnobotany to assist in re-orienting its agricultural research and investment policy. As it is, Guyana suffers from the fact that the so-called Sugar Protocol will end soon, and with that its unique commercial partnership with the European Union and ‘protected’ entry to European markets. UGent’s expertise in diversification and research, in legislation, in practical certification aspects such as GLOBALGAP5, and in good production and marketing practices resulted in the drawing up a number of practical guidelines that should indeed help the country redefine its investment policy. At another level, Ecuador also called upon the combined expertise of the same laboratory in fields such as biodiversity (research and development), policy and socio-economic development. As it is, Ecuador recently changed its constitution to include the rights of biodiversity. The Ecuadorian parliament, however, did not enact any legislation on the matter. Subsequently, UGent was called in to help and develop concrete proposals for protecting but also sustainably using the country’s biodiversity. This is another example, although at a higher level, of where UGent has assisted not only countries, but also multilateral aid organisations (such as IFAD) in developing and implementing concrete development projects through advising the preparation, execution and monitoring of initiatives.

Synergy of different funding schemes - a few cases - hurdles and lessons It is already standard practice within research to look for synergy in funding. Synergy allows for overlapping projects running at the same time, allows flexibility and can broaden the research base. Specifically for UDC, seeking matching funding will be important considering the differences between, on the one hand, the goals of the academics from the North in the current competitive research climate and, on the other, the goals of the partner in the South. An important project objective for assuring future funding is to publish the project results so that other scientists and funding agencies know of the existence and scientific value of the research. Indeed, with each successful project new publications and/or results can feed into new proposals, thus giving these new proposals a more solid basis for defending their central theses and objectives. Such publications and results also result in greater exposure that may directly or indirectly but in any case

5 www.globalgap.org: Non-governmental organization that sets voluntary standards for the certification of agricultural products around the globe.

92

Synergy in action: coordination of international cooporation programmes in higher education and research

positively influence evaluators in accepting the proposal. In addition, research groups in Europe or the US are sometimes looking for opportunities to work with partners in the South and the main search criteria to identify such a team are published papers. For the same reasons one has to be sure to take all opportunities to expand the project by building up an extensive network, e.g. attending conferences and workshops. One often-used synergy is funding deals with PhD students. Flemish academics often focus on PhD research and several financial opportunities are available to support PhDs. For example, in Flanders good students can get a PhD grant through different types of funding agencies. Although most of these donors sponsor outstanding innovative scientific PhD projects, they often allow work that is complementary to a UDC project. There are cases of such PhD grants for research from HIV/AIDS, malaria, global warming, geology to the study of diseases in tropical rice farming. In addition, students from the South can apply for grants through various donors, including national grants. These PhDs from both partners can then do research into synergy within a UDC project. In both these cases, the work in synergy will allow for more output from the project. Other common cases for matching funds include those with funding from different donors on slightly overlapping topics with the same partner. Within the VLIR-UOSfunded project with Jimma University in Ethiopia, for example, the partners also obtained funding as part of a Dutch Nuffic NICHE6 project. In this project, Flemish professors act as thesis supervisors in research topics in agri-business (a theme not part of the VLIR-UOS project as such). Nuffic can make use of infrastructure and capacity the VLIR-UOS project has already been building in Jimma University, whereas the Nuffic NICHE project supplies more scholarships, contributing in that way to the overall capacity building of Jimma University, a goal of the VLIR-UOS project. Below is a presentation of a few more in-depth cases of such UGent partnerships.

The case of setting up a network for family medicine in Africa In the last 30 years, primary health care has developed all over the world and awareness has grown that there is a need for a specific medical discipline: the general practitioner/family physician (in Africa the term family physician is preferred as a general practitioner is usually a medical ‘officer’ working in a practice without further training after the undergraduate curriculum). Family medicine is, in terms of academic recognition, a rather recent discipline in medicine. It uses a specific approach

6 NICHE: Netherlands Initiative for Capacity development In Higher Education.

93

Building academic and research partnerships for development using various funding schemes

towards patients, utilising patient-doctor communication as an important tool within a multidisciplinary primary health care team. More than 15 years ago, the department of family medicine and primary health care of Ghent University, headed by Prof. Jan De Maeseneer, started to work together with South-African partners to develop primary health care education. The Minister of Education of Flanders awarded initial funding. This funding, in line with the focus of its sponsor, developed a Family Medicine Educational Consortium aiming at, for example, adapting the basic curriculum and the vocational training for family physicians. A major challenge was building a ‘core-curriculum’. From 2003 onwards, VLIR-UOS supported the project. Two groups of South-African teachers in family medicine visited the Flemish departments of family medicine in order to exchange experience on the training of family physicians. Furthermore, annual workshops were held on the topic of primary health care in Africa, involving a wide range of stakeholders. Slowly, contacts were established with family medicine departments outside SouthAfrica, so that from 2006 onwards a new project could start with a focus on establishing a South-South network. Through this cooperation, the impact of the developmental process improved considerably as models that had been developed in one place in Africa could be implemented in other places more rapidly. Through funding from yet another donor (EuropeAid/Edulink program), the now called Primafamed network was able to expand geographically. A major achievement was the launch of the African Journal for Primary Health Care and Family Medicine (www.phcfm.org). This journal has stimulated a lot of African authors to publish their first papers. Recently another form of South-South cooperation has been established, a so-called twinning project, whereby each of the departments of family medicine twins with a region in Africa to train family physicians through a newly established local training centre, even if there is no medical faculty in that region. This project also wants to develop a strategy to stop the internal brain-drain on the African continent, as often students studying abroad do not return to their home countries. An EU-FP7 project (AMASA7) is focusing with partners in Makerere and Mbarara on ‘Access to Medicines in Africa’. In March 2011, a new EU-FP7 project, coordinated by Ghent University, HURAPRIM8, started looking at the Human Resources for African Primary Health Care, involving universities in Mali, North Sudan, Uganda, Botswana and South Africa. In principle although the network building in family medicine has been successful, it is still difficult to find funding for it, as most of the donors are focusing their efforts on vertical, specific disease-oriented programmes and not on the strengthening 7 Accessing Medicines in Africa and South Asia is a 3-year research project funded under the European Union's Framework Programme 7. www.amasa-project.eu/. 8 HURAPRIM is an international collaborative research project that aims at developing and assessing policies and key interventions to address the personnel crisis in the health sector, especially in Africa. www.huraprim.ugent.be/.

94

Synergy in action: coordination of international cooporation programmes in higher education and research

of a comprehensive, community-based primary healthcare system. Working with different funding agencies was an absolute necessity to reach the various goals the Primafamed-network had set itself. The Primafamed network is an example of a ‘Developmental Network of Academic Institutions’. Nowadays, within the framework of UDC, it is not so easy to find funding for these kinds of thematic networks. One of the reasons could be that this kind of investment in networks does not lead to ‘quick wins’, neither does it bring visibility to the sponsoring donor. Nowadays, it is still difficult to find sustainable, structural financing for the Primafamed network. Another point to be taken into account is that the pace of development at the various partners may vary from period to period. For example, within the framework of the ‘Twinning Project’, the network was confronted with the fact that the minister of health of Mozambique stopped the training of family physicians in 2008. As a result, the Mozambique institutions were lagging behind. But when in 2011 a new minister restarted the training, the fact that they were twinning with the University of KwaZulu Natal’s Department of Family Medicine helped them a lot in restarting the training programme and, thanks to the VLIR-UOS financing, the training centres could be reestablished. The strength of South-South networks lies in the fact that the different partners may be able to help each other to overcome difficult periods. However, the whole process takes time and the role of the North is to facilitate the functioning of the network, to build trust and to provide the logistical context for interaction (e.g. Newsletter, Primafamed workshops, research projects, journal, etc.). Interestingly, although the departments of family medicine and primary health care in African institutions are rather small, there is a clear institutional impact. The University of Cape Town’s Department of Family Medicine, twinning with Namibia, contributed to the start of a new medical faculty in February 2010 in Windhoek (Namibia). The Department of Family Medicine of Pretoria, twinning with Swaziland, contributed to the preparatory process for a medical faculty in that country. Moreover, the network acts as a stimulus for the partners to look for additional resources for funding. For example, strategies were exchanged and advocacy was discussed during the Primafamed workshop in Cape Town in July 2011.

The case of Artemia and aquaculture in Vietnam Aquaculture is the culture of breeding aquatic organisms, including fish and seafood, for human consumption and other uses. The contribution made by traditional commercial fishing is on the decline due to overfishing and declining fish stocks. Therefore, the growing demand for aquatic products is increasingly covered by aquaculture and today, more than half our consumption is produced by aquaculture, with production mainly based in Asia. A small shrimp, the brine shrimp or Artemia, has become the most universal live food for a wide range of fish, shrimp, crab and lobster aquaculture farms.

95

Building academic and research partnerships for development using various funding schemes

In 1982 following a survey commissioned by the UN, it was concluded that Vietnam was hampered in its aquaculture development as it relied on the import of expensive Artemia eggs – called cysts – that are essential for the first feeding of many commercially cultured fish and shrimp. A cooperation was set up between the Artemia Reference Centre of Ghent University with Can Tho University to develop the integrated production Artemia in local salt farms on the Mekong Delta. This initial project was funded by a Dutch NGO active in Vietnam and later by the FAO and EU research funding. Within a couple of years, the project for Artemia production was successful and, through additional financers such as VLIR-UOS, the project led to other projects for the production of sea bass, shrimp and mud crab. The successful cooperation with Can Tho also motivated other Belgian research teams to initiate activities in Vietnam, thereby evolving into a diversified and multidisciplinary partnership, including, for example, educational capacity building, ICT development, soil science, farming and socio-economic studies. Progressively, the cooperation shifted from traditional development cooperation to research cooperation between equal partners. At this moment the goal is to ensure sustainability. This includes new research projects, including so-called North-SouthSouth partnerships funded by VLIR-UOS but also research funded by the Belgian government on, for example, antibiotic residues in shrimp, an issue important in trade and quality control. In line with this, it is important to mention that the private sector also got involved in the collaboration. A former project member developed a branch of the Belgian feed producer INVE, which has been a driving force in disseminating the project results in Vietnam. Another company, Marine Harvest Pieters, one of the most important Pangasius importers in Europe, interacts with big farm groups in Vietnam to understand farming principles and to introduce best-management practices in order to safeguard European consumer demands. Another nice example of our bottom-up approach is the facilitation by former aquaculture students from Ghent and Wageningen (the Netherlands) for the establishment of VIFINET, the Vietnamese Fisheries and Aquaculture Institutes Network. The entire research endeavour was flanked by educational activities. Traditionally, both MSc and PhD students used to stay in Belgium for the whole duration of the programme (2 or 4 years respectively). Recently, as already stated, development cooperation policy has shifted in a way that funding is more and more geared toward supporting research and education in the partner countries themselves. Consequently, strategy followed policy and initiatives have been developed to export our education experience to the partner countries. Credit exchange was set-up, whereby students from the UGent course are actively and regularly sent abroad for course modules, internships and MSc theses. Clear agreements, also with regard to financial issues, English-language course modules and good communication have proven to be necessary. This initial credit exchange system fits in with a longer-term strategy

96

Synergy in action: coordination of international cooporation programmes in higher education and research

towards the development of true joint MSc-PhD degrees. When part of a strategy and vision, these educational partnerships have shown to have positive repercussion on research cooperation: the universities have better insight into each other and, through increased personal contacts, there is a good basis for true cooperation. A positive spin-off from the above programme has also been that provincial and city authorities on the Mekong Delta have launched the Mekong 1000 project, with the specific target of training at least 1,000 young key staff members abroad at the master’s and doctoral level during the period 2006—2011. A further objective was also to promote internationalisation and give an impulse to the regional developments in coping with economic globalisation.

The case of soil science in China During a UNESCO meeting devoted to the application of science and technology in the interest of developing countries held in Geneva in 1963, it was proposed that Ghent University would start an international training course in soil sciences. In the same year an ‘International Training Centre for Post-Graduate Soil Scientists’, recognised and supported by UNESCO, was set up within the Faculty of Sciences of Ghent University. Since 1985 the course has been partly funded by the Department for Co-operation and Development of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Belgium and continued later on under VLIR-UOS support as an MSc programme in Physical Land Resources. It trains soil scientists in basic soil science, surveying and the agricultural applications of soil science. More than 1,000 alumni have graduated from the programme and they occupy important positions in international organisations, research institutes, universities and the private sector. One successful story started with a motivated Chinese student (Huajun Tang) who arrived at UGent in 1985 to start MSc studies in soil science in the above mentioned programme. After graduation, he started his PhD research under Prof. Van Ranst at Ghent University, and obtained his PhD in 1993 with the highest distinctions. During his stay at Ghent University he took advantage of every opportunity to attend international conferences. Upon his return to China he started working again at the Institute of Natural Resources and Regional Planning (INRRP) of the Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences (CAAS) and was quickly promoted. He is now vice-president of CAAS. In 1994, an intense collaboration was started between INRRP-CAAS and Ghent University through several projects financed by the Department of Education of the Flemish Community and a five-year project was set up with VLIR-UOS funding. At that time the Department of Education of the Flemish Community had special bilateral research programmes set up with a few countries in the world, of which China was one. In these programmes the Chinese Government was also a co-funder and was involved in the selection process, which guaranteed relevance in the Chinese context. Gradually the collaboration was strengthened and new projects were set up, funded

97

Building academic and research partnerships for development using various funding schemes

by Belgian and Chinese funders alike. In this way the partnership was extended to the Soil and Fertilizer Institute of CAAS, the School of Economics and Management of Tsinghua University in Beijing, the Shaanxi Agricultural School, the Sichuan Nanchong Agricultural School, the University of Antwerp and University College of Ghent. Within the framework of all these projects, several Chinese and Belgian researchers were trained up to MSc and PhD level. Besides many scientific papers in international journals, a few books on sustainable agriculture in China were also published in China. A book entitled ‘Agricultural Use of Land Resources in Rural China’ (incl. a CDRom, Tang and Van Ranst, 2004) has been published in both Chinese and English to support education in soil science at universities and, especially, Chinese agricultural schools. In the meantime the partnership is still expanding to other partners. For example, VLIR-ICP alumni in Physical Land Resources from Thailand are linking up with Chinese colleagues to start a research capacity building project under the climate change policy, and a centre of technical knowledge will be created for crop production modelling in Thailand. This last example shows that an international course programme which brings together students from various countries and with different backgrounds can constitute a solid base for genuine collaboration between institutions, not only between the North and the South but also among institutions in the South. In general, the interest from and the funding by a range of agencies from both the North and South enhanced the successful execution of the cooperation described in the interest of all partners concerned.

The case of vulnerable children in Uganda In 2003, the organisation Sponsoring Children Uganda erected the Rachele Rehabilitation Centre in Northern Uganda with support of the ‘Peace Building’ Service of the Federal Public Service for Foreign Affairs, Foreign Trade and Development Cooperation of Belgium. Guided by Ms Els De Temmerman, this rehabilitation centre facilitated the support and reception of former child soldiers abducted by the Lord’s Resistance Army (LRA) in northern Uganda. During this period, the centre documented a wealth highly valuable and rich information regarding – former – child child soldiers in northern Uganda, as well as set up rehabilitation and reintegration processes for this group. In order to prevent the loss of this valuable information, an interuniversity research centre, the Centre for Children in Vulnerable Situations9 (CCVS), was created in September 2008, again with the support of the Belgian government. This centre is a unique cooperation between three Belgian universities: the Vrije Universiteit Brussel (Department of Clinical and Life Span Psychology), Ghent University (Department of Orthopedagogics) and the Katholieke Universiteit Leuven (Centre for Family and Orthopedagogics). 9 For more information: www.centreforchildren.be.

98

Synergy in action: coordination of international cooporation programmes in higher education and research

The overall aim of CCVS’ activities is the promotion of the wellbeing of children living in vulnerable situations in countries in the South. This overall aim is striven for via various specific goals: First, the development and execution of scientific research, driven by questions and findings from real practice. Each study needs to be linked up with the practitioners’ field, as research needs to support practitioners and thus indirectly support the children and adolescents they are working with. In practice, this means that CCVS pays special attention to the translation of its research findings into actual recommendations for practice and policies, and to the accessibility of the research results. This is, for example, done via extensive discussion with practitioners about the research questions, methodology and outcome of planned and ongoing studies. Moreover, regular workshops and conferences in the countries where the studies take place (Uganda, Congo, Colombia, Bolivia, etc.) are organised to discuss the studies and listen to new needs and questions. At this moment, ongoing research projects are in place regarding the psychosocial wellbeing of war-affected children and formerly abducted children in northern Uganda, the wellbeing of female victims of sexual violence in eastern Congo, experiences of adolescents disassociated from armed groups in Colombia, and the views and experiences of children living in the streets in Bolivia. The research projects are now funded by the Service Peace Building, VLIR-UOS and BTC. Finally, the centre also pays special attention in its research activities to supporting the development of local research expertise and capacities in southern countries, through, inter alia, the support of local MSc and PhD students. There are, for example, several PhD students in northern Uganda and Bolivia who are doing their PhD with financial support from the Belgian Technical Cooperation (BTC) and VLIR-UOS. Secondly, the Centre for Children in Vulnerable Situations intends to become an expertise, documentation and training centre for the psychosocial wellbeing of children in vulnerable situations in the South. This entails the above-mentioned aim, in essence building knowledge and competences through scientific research. In addition, this objective is addressed through the elaboration of projects in countries in the South. CCVS now has two counselling centres, one in northern Uganda and one in eastern Congo, both aiming to support further capacity building, establish a counselling service for children and adolescents living in vulnerable situations and organise awareness-raising activities and training initiatives for supporters (from the formal and informal networks) of these children and adolescents. Both counselling centres work solely with local staff, but are supported by Belgian CCVS members. Different donors have been important as they enable CCVS to realise its aims through different supporting channels. All of them have their own specific goals, objectives and priorities. Moreover, it prevents – although only to a small extent – the dependence on only one source of funding, which could create not only a financial, but also an intellectual dependence.

99

Building academic and research partnerships for development using various funding schemes

The way ahead At the beginning of the new millennium many problems have a global relevance and need to be tackled by a new phase of partnerships for development, involving innovative and creative research partners in both the North and South. Nations are not only linked by the internet and economy, our environmental and social problems are also global. Research into such global problems can be of value to both northern and southern partners. Yet the donor landscape has so far not adapted to this. Certain organisations, like the Dutch RAWOO10, have for some time worked with a demand-led Southern agenda that was matched with Dutch expertise. One of their goals was to also have Dutch scientific funding institutions engage in these North-South partnerships. At that time, however, these funding agencies were bound by national policies and were not flexible to invest in North-South partnerships. The net result was that the researchers who worked with RAWOO were eventually primarily regarded as so-called ‘development researchers’, academics who are professionally interested in the South, have the contacts and the networks, focus greatly on development cooperation funding, and have a history of working with colleagues in the South. For the ‘mainstream researchers’ who followed the national agenda, research for development was/is not seen as a national issue (Engel and Keijzer, 2006). Although education is still very discipline specific, research is often multidisciplinary, in particular when related to developmental/global issues. However, the strict adherence of some donors to national research priorities and the focus on disciplinespecific research rather than multidisciplinarity may hinder the participation of many mainstream researchers in development projects and might be a major hurdle in setting up partnerships in the South with different funding schemes. National funding agencies not limited to UDC may sometimes fund research with a UDC link. For example, the Flemish research fund (FWO) sponsors research into HIV and malaria. Another such example is an FWO-funded project on the study of termite hills in the Democratic Republic of Congo, as part of a fundamental research project examining how termites impact the organic composition and texture of tropical soils. This project is flanked by a more development-oriented research project with both a Flemish and a Congolese PhD student working together on the improvement of soil fertility in the Katanga region by using material from the termite hills. A plea could be made for more ‘standard’ – national – research donors to call for partnerships that include partners in the South, as is now the case in the EU

10 Website: www.rawoo.nl. The Netherlands Development Assistance Research Council (RAWOO) was | aimed at building bridges in research for development but was disbanded in 2007.

100

Synergy in action: coordination of international cooporation programmes in higher education and research

Framework programmes. Matching funds could in that way also be obtained from national programmes both in the North and South, the latter guaranteeing also the relevance of the research for development of the country. The realization that synergy and the coordination of funds will be the key to successful partnerships with institutes in the South is becoming increasingly widespread, not only with the funding agencies, but also within the universities in the North. The northern institutions active in UDC will mostly benefit from collaborations with their partners if they integrate their UDC activities into the overall internationalisation, research and educational strategy of the institution. In this regard it will be necessary for universities in the North to make a choice from their wide number of partners and they may have to, with respect to their own university funding schemes, focus on a set of preferential partners. At Ghent University, for example, for master’s and PhD grants, the relationship between UGent and the partner institution is taken on board as a selection criterion aiming at synergy. An advantage of a selected number of partners is that mutual trust can be built up for a period longer than the active career span of one academic, making the partnership more sustainable for the university as a whole. Frequent visits or short stays of students and academics in both directions can help communication and can also solve issues such as the selection of candidate students for MSc and/or PhD scholarships. For example, visiting professors can carry out interviews, even if it is in a domain slightly different to their own, to assess the candidate. This could be important for young professors at the beginning of their academic careers, as they might hesitate to accept students from abroad when they are not confident about what to expect in terms of background, language or motivation. If this new student is from a partner institute with whom there is longstanding cooperation with good results – even if it is in a different domain – this might result in greater confidence. Universities should also invest in those departments with knowledge and research experience in global/developmental problems. Young academics should be given the chance to grow in these domains without seeing their chances for promotion deteriorate. In conclusion, it can be said that it is possible to build long-term and broad-based research projects with partners in the South through the use of various funding schemes if certain conditions are met. These include, in addition to the sine qua non condition of a common research theme with developmental relevance, the driving force of the respective individuals involved, a transparent and clear vision and strategy, a view for a long-term commitment and the understanding of each partner’s interests and goals.

101

Building academic and research partnerships for development using various funding schemes

Acknowledgements The authors wish to thank Professor De Maeseneer, Professor Sorgeloos, Professor Vercruysse, Professor Duchateau, Professor Van Ranst, Professor Van Damme and Dr Ilse Derluyn for their substantial contributions to the article and Dr Karen Vandevelde for editing the article.

About the authors Dr Nancy Terryn, born 20 July 1966 in Belgium, studied a master in Chemistry at Ghent University, Belgium after which she obtained a PhD in Biotechnology in 1994, also at UGent. She has been a scientific collaborator at the UGent Laboratory for Genetics and the VIB Department Plant Genetics. In 2000 she joined the Institute for Plant Biotechnology for Developing Countries at UGent as senior researcher/project manager and has been implicated in numerous capacity building projects with universities and institutes in Africa, Latin-America and Asia. Since spring 2008 she is working at the Department of Research Affairs of the Central Administration of Ghent University, where she is coordinator for University Development Cooperation Projects. Helke Baeyens is born on 13 August 1980 in Belgium, where she obtained a master in East-European Languages and Cultures at Ghent University in 2002. After a study stay abroad, she started working at Ghent University in January 2003 as a policy developer for the international cooperation with Central and Eastern Europe. Since 2005 she is appointed as an Institutional Coordinator Development Cooperation at Ghent University, mainly working as an administrative project manager on University development Cooperation projects in Africa. Dirk De Craemer studied Biology at Ghent University and obtained a Master of Science in Zoology in 1984. He started a research career at Ghent University and worked successively at the laboratory of Zoology of the faculty of Applied Biological Sciences and at the laboratory of Histology of the faculty of Medicine. In 1988 he moved to the laboratory of Anatomy and Embryology of the Vrije Universiteit Brussel. In Brussels, he studied the histological, enzymological and electron microscopical characteristics of peroxisomes in various cell types of human and animal origin and obtained a PhD degree in 1994 on this topic. As postdoctoral researcher his interests switched towards the study of antioxidant enzyme activities in chronic renal injury. In 1999 he left the research field and started a new career at the central administration of Ghent University where he became involved with the contractual negotiations in the framework of research collaborations with industry. In 2002 he became head of the

102

Synergy in action: coordination of international cooporation programmes in higher education and research

Research Co-ordination Office at Ghent University, a function he still holds today. He, together with the more than 45 staff members of the Research Co-ordination Office, encourages and assists professors, junior and senior researchers in their efforts to obtain financial means for their research and other plans by providing relevant and full information on opportunities (calls for proposals, selection procedures, contract and financial management).

References • •

• • •

•

European University Association. (2010). Access to Success compendium. Brussels, Belgium. http://www.accesstosuccess-africa.eu. Masseli, Daniel, Lys Jon-Andri and Schmid Jacqueline. (2004) .Improving impacts of research partnerships. Swiss commission for research partnership with developing countries, KFPE. GeographicaBernensia, Berne, 86pp. Engel, Paul and Keijzer, Niels. (2006). Research partnerships, who decides? Review of a design process. The Hague, the Netherlands. http://www.ecdpm.org/web_ecdpm/web/content/content.nsf/vwPrint/EE40AD6 E8EA3C0C7C12572C00034FBD?Opendocument. Tang, H. & Van Ranst, E. (2004). Agricultural use of land resources in rural China (incl. CD Rom). China Meteorological Press, Beijing, China (ISBN:7-5029-3663-7/ S0.421), 380 pp. The Paris Declaration on Aid Effectiveness (2005) and the Accra Agenda for Action (2008) OECD, Paris, France http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/30/63/43911948.pdf.

103

Concluding remarks

C

oncluding remarks

In the introduction to this book, coordination in order to achieve greater effectiveness is called a choice as well as a challenge. The articles in the book corroborate the observation. They also underline the importance of aligning initiatives with the objectives and priorities of those who are supposed to work together, since this is a precondition for developing ownership and ensuring that sustainable results are achieved from the collaboration. The articles discuss two types of coordination: top-down and bottom-up. In topdown coordination policies and structures are set up that are designed to promote the coordination of programmes and activities. This is moulded in an agreement and a set of cooperation principles in the Paris Declaration. At country level donor agencies sit together with the ministries of a particular sector (e.g. development assistance group on health or basic education) to plan and coordinate national and donor programmes. Organisations, such as universities, design strategic plans which serve to organise their activities and the provision of external support in an effective and complementary manner. Top-down coordination is about goal-oriented planning and orchestrating efficiency. The contributions in this book make clear that both types of ownership are needed to ensure the effective coordination of support programmes. The development of CTU in Vietnam and Makerere University in Uganda would not have succeeded if it had only been based on a strategic plan or good leadership. An important element of the process is to get all staff on board by giving them the feeling that they are the co-owners of projects. The case studies by VU-CIS make the point that while coordinating structures are important, commitment and ownership are the main driving forces behind successful coordination. Sound direction from a steering committee promotes local ownership and alleviates the need for donor programme administrators becoming actively involved at a project level. The experiences of UGent demonstrate the power of coordination when institutional policies go hand in hand with commitment on the part of individual staff members. UGent’s management encourages international cooperation with partners in developing countries, and the staff seek opportunities to match. It is possible to build

104

Synergy in action: coordination of international cooporation programmes in higher education and research

long-term and broad-based research projects with partners in the South through the use of various funding schemes if certain conditions are met. These include, in addition to the sine qua non condition of a common research theme with developmental relevance, the driving force of the respective individuals involved, a transparent and clear vision and strategy, a view for a long-term commitment and the understanding of each partner’s interests and goals. These examples also make clear that a good balance must be found between topdown and bottom-up coordination. Top-down coordination is required to guarantee macro-level synergy, and bottom-up coordination is required to promote innovation and sustainability. ‘Agents’ can play a useful role in creating that bridge. The examples mentioned in the papers refer to thematic experts of donor agencies that are based in-country, and long-term project experts. An element which makes the coordination of capacity building in higher education and research more challenging is the academic interests of the institutions in partner and donor countries. Capacity building in higher education and research institutions in developing countries requires the involvement of more developed counterparts. According to Aarts, it probably is the only way to develop knowledge, education, research, knowledge applications and knowledge capacity that is scientifically sound and meets international standards. Education and research institutions in the North participate in these programmes with more in mind than simply helping out sister organisations in the South. Their core business is providing good quality education which attracts students, and highquality research. When participating in development programmes they are looking for academic of other gains, which in the medium to longer term will be beneficial to their own teaching and research tasks. The articles written by Aarts, Pieper de Avila and Terryn make this clear. Education and research institutions in developing countries have similar longer term ambitions. They want to become part of a global academic network to enable them to improve their international standing and the quality of their services and research. The best way to achieve this is by establishing partnerships with institutions elsewhere in the world. These academic interests serve a wider purpose than those of the individual institutes. The rapidly changing world and the fact that problems gain global relevance require new partnerships to enable development, involving innovative and creative research, offering solutions which are relevant to both the North and South. Combining capacity development in developing countries with global research needs and academic interest calls for coordination of a higher order, in other words coordination of the policies which govern development cooperation, international

105

education and knowledge generation. It assumes that the policies are coherent, or at least complementary. In Germany the policies of the three ministries which fund university collaborations with developing countries seem to be rather complementary (see the article written by Pieper de Avila) and gives all stakeholders a great deal of freedom in working towards their expected results. If these goals are achieved, universities in the South will have updated programmes and qualified staff, and German universities will have cooperation partners at all academic levels. The contributions illustrate that effective coordination requires concerted efforts at various levels of responsibility, those of donors, local authorities and implementing organisations. Donor agencies should strive for policy coherence and create opportunities, while the implementers should seize the available opportunities. The authorities and implementing partners in developing countries should take the initiative to coordinate and harmonise the support modalities that are offered or accessible to them to avoid duplicating interventions and competition between donors, and to align support with the organisation’s strategic objectives. This can be organised in different ways: some organisations integrate it as a component of a strategic development plan while others adopt it as a management principle. The institutes in the North collaborating with partners in the South can play a role in promoting this process by endeavouring to seek matching opportunities among the various support programmes that are on offer. The realization that synergy and the coordination of funds will be the key to successful partnerships with institutes in the South deserves full attention, not only with the funding agencies, but also within the universities in the North.

106

Nuffic The Netherlands organisation for international cooperation in higher education PO Box 29777 2502 LT The Hague The Netherlands

www.nuffic.nl