Cooperation between the various actors

5.1.1 Relationship between DCO and Nuffic

In the tendering process for the programme management of NPT and NFP only two proposals were submitted. Nuffic was the only organization that submitted a proposal for NPT as well as NFP. Although a fresh view on international cooperation in the field of education would have been desirable, Nuffic, which managed some of the predecessors of NPT and NFP, turned out to be the only bidder for both strands (another bidder submitted for only one strand) and was selected as programme manager.

The initial relationship between DCO and Nuffic, at the start of the programme, can be characterized as somewhat ‘tense’. Especially the close supervision and control by DCO, for instance on inputs and time spending, was experienced by Nuffic as an indication of distrust on the implementation side of the programme. However, the attitude of DCO towards Nuffic was based on the following:

• DCO had doubts on the possibilities of Nuffic to change its management culture to the new – more demand oriented - requirements of NPT;

• The quality of Nuffic’s tender for managing the programme was critically assessed by DCO, which implicated some considerable adjustments in the initial phase of the programme management by Nuffic;

• The basic principle for DCO was that the programme management of NPT had to be ‘lean and mean’, ultimately requiring a substantial reduction of the number of days that Nuffic initially had proposed for the programme management;

• There were complaints from the Dutch education institutes about the bureaucracy of Nuffic.

In the past four years the relationship between DCO and Nuffic has improved and one appreciates each others skills and professionalism in the process. For the future DCO would like to proceed to a more output oriented programme management, although it is not yet clear how this could be installed.

According to Dutch institutes, the relation between DCO and Nuffic might have been more cooperative from the beginning, if Nuffic had presented itself with more authority based on experience and expertise.

DCO has also been involved and still has a role in smoothing the relations between Nuffic and RNEs, which especially in the beginning period was experienced as tense and with a lot of misunderstandings. Also nowadays there are still a few examples of a somewhat tense relation between Nuffic and RNEs (see below).

5.1.2 Relationship between Nuffic and RNEs

The NPT program is clear about the need for NPT projects to support the sectoral development needs identified for Netherlands development cooperation in the country in question. In practice this means that the NPT projects are, or must be geared to the priority sectors of RNE policies. As was described in chapter 2, the RNEs have an important role in the process leading up to identification of the demand. However, when the NPT/NFP programme started, no attention was given to the required capacity that would be needed at the RNEs to implement the NPT/NFP. It was assumed by DCO that the RNEs would cooperate and foreseen that the level of involvement of the RNEs in the programme would differ per country. Depending on own priorities and country specific circumstances, it was up to the RNEs to decide to what extent theywould liked to be involved in the NPT/NFP. As a result the RNEs have responded very differently to this appeal for support and assistance.

Especially as regards NPT there has often been discussion and a lack of clarity on the question what the role of the RNEs exactly should be. This lack of clarity is also felt by the Dutch institutes. From one side it is obvious that RNE has expertise and a network available in the RNE priority sectors which obviously should be used . On the other hand however, the RNEs formally have no role in the NPT programmes whatsoever. This easily leads to misunderstandings and wrong expectations. In some cases Nuffic was seen as a headstrong organisation with too little sensitivity towards existing port folios and RNE networks, whereas in other countries Nuffic was clearly expected to take the lead in organizing the whole process. For instance:

In Tanzania the RNE has been heavily involved in the start up of the NPT programme (the process of demand identification and demand articulation), in the view of Nuffic sometimes even too much. In Uganda, the interaction between Nuffic and RNE has not been smoothly in all respects. Especially during the monitoring mission in 2006 there has been some tension as regards the visits the programme officer of Nuffic would like to have made to government officials, but was ‘not allowed’ to by RNE. The RNE sector expert for education was of the opinion that contacts of Nuffic with the government officials in the education sector might thwart the relation between RNE and the ministry. A similar situation has occurred in Zambia where the RNA was opposed to the organisation of a workshop between the four local NPT-institutes.

The RNEs are clearly less involved now the projects are being implemented. The RNEs are being informed on the progress of projects on an ad hoc basis.

For instance, in Tanzania some of the Dutch institutes visit the RNE for a briefing when they come to work on their project, others do not. One sector specialist indicated that there is a risk that the RNE loose touch with what is happening on the ground.

With the present trend of macro-support, the RNE contacts become more and more limited to the central ministries. Projects such as the NPT still offer an opportunity to visit the field or at least to hear what is going on there. At the same time, the sector specialists can also help the Dutch institutes, for instance to inform them on the national policy developments and to provide the broader picture including what other donors do. A clear example of a possible rile of the RNE would be a ‘quality check’ on the sometimes criticised ‘NPT project outlines’, i.e. do the outlines contain the strategic information necessary for potential bidders to submit an appropriate proposal. Now institutes at times complain that outlines lack information on, for example, relevant initiatives realised by other parties and/or financed by other donors, creating a risk of duplication of donor efforts. Scrutiny of the outlines by the RNE sector expert could reduce this risk. (see also section 5.2.1)

The RNEs indicate to have little contacts with DCO as regards NPT. Some of the interviewed RNE staff members mentioned that it could be useful if DCO organises a NPT workshop like the bi-annual NFP workshop, to share NPT experiences among Embassies. For the RNEs, it is a black box what is happening inside DCO with regard to the NPT from the policy perspective.

Depending on the involvement of the RNE, various workable arrangements have developed between Nuffic and the RNEs, to each discharge their responsibilities. However, further consideration is required on the part of the Netherlands Ministry of Foreign Affairs regarding how to define in general the relationship between the Embassies and privatized implementing agencies of government programs, such as Nuffic. Some rule giving may be required, but more important is to embed the rules in a context of organizational learning that allows partners to adjust to each other’s needs as a function of the local reality. The call is for flexibility as opposed to bureaucracy.

5.1.3 Relationship between Nuffic and northern institutes

The change in the set-up of the new NPT programme had an impact on the relationship between Nuffic and the northern institutes. This is understandable given that the traditional northern education institutions had their vested interests in the former programmes. The introduction of a demand driven approach, ownership in the south, tendering, use of regional expertise, were all elements which to a large degree were new for the northern institutes and to which they had to get used.

Although the northern institutes are in favour of more demand orientation in the programmes, they question the way in which this is put into practice. Whose demand is being formulated?

Various northern institutes hold the opinion that Nuffic at this point should have developed more of an own vision, especially regarding the way in which the use of regional expertise in the South could be developed with the use of Dutch expertise. Although relationships have improved since the start, various interviewees had the opinion that northern institutes still need to get fully used to the ‘client-provider relationship’ that rules the tendering and implementation process of NPT.

Also on other issues the northern institutes are not always satisfied with the way Nuffic operates. For instance, the way how should be dealt with the request of southern partners to incorporate some financial incentives to motivate participants to attend meetings, workshops, courses et cetera. Just saying that this is not allowed, seems somewhat rigid and not constructive for handling the problem.

As regards the division of responsibilities between the northern and southern institutions in NPT there are various options. Although so-called “tripartite” contracts are agreed between Nuffic and the northern and southern institutes, these are in fact (legally) two bipartite agreements with Nuffic, leaving limited possibilities to the northern and southern institutes to mutually enforce the agreement. See also section 3.3.2 on the type of contractual agreements.

Nuffic attaches great value to a good relationship with the Dutch institutes. Besides frequent contacts with the northern institutes as part of the NPT projects, Nuffic also has meetings with the representing organisations of the higher education institutes in the Netherlands (PIE and Profound) on a regular basis. Also DCO considers a good relationship with the Dutch institutes important and has therefore organised various tripartite meetings (DCO, PIE/Profound, Nuffic) in which all parties had the opportunity to express their opinions and explain their intentions. In addition, the Minister for Development Cooperation has had various meetings with PIE and Profound.

5.1.4 Relationship between Nuffic and southern institutes

It has taken a considerable amount of time for a justifiable learning process to take its course, leading to the smoothening of interactions among actors who were all new to the different reality of NPT. Those actors also include the southern institutions. In general, the relationships between Nuffic and the southern institutes are now constructive and cooperative. The help that Nuffic provides in the process of demand identification, articulation and outline development is highly appreciated. For instance, during the preparation of the NPT programme, Nuffic visits the southern institutes to explain the set- up of the NPT and the requirements for the preparation of outlines. Nuffic also gives feedback on draft outlines and offers the assistance of local consultants to help the southern institutes to prepare project outlines.

According to the various parties consulted in this investigation, the beginning of the process was characterized by mild levels of distrust and frustration. However, it is also largely recognized that all major issues of contention were resolved over time. Everyone has learned from the experience.

Time would have been gained had it been realized from the start that organizational learning was a necessary part of the introduction of change in a complex environment.

Considering the ongoing nature of the change aimed at through the comprehensive capacity building effort of NPT and NFP, it is therefore recommended that more attention be given to the need for organizational learning both within and among the various organizational entities referred to above.