Key changes in NFP policies in 2002 and

The current evaluation will address effectiveness and efficiency issues in the context of the changes that formed and changed the NFP in the period 2002-2010. Two evaluation questions directly refer to the concerns about programme effectiveness and programme efficiency that have influenced the design of NFP in 2002 and in 2008. These questions are answered in the following sections.

Which concerns about programme effectiveness have influenced the design of NFP in 2002, and in 2008? Have they been addressed effectively?

What were problems of efficiency that featured at the basis of the design of NFP in 2002, and in 2008?

2.4.1 Introduction of the new NFP in 2002

Based on the interministerial policy review of 1998, the Dutch government decided to make radical changes to the existing international education programmes11. The government decided to phase out the seven existing programmes and instead, introduce the Netherlands Fellowship Programme.

In 2002, the new NFP was phased in and became fully operational in 2004.12

11 _{Ministerie van Buitenlandse Zaken, Directie Culturele Samenwerking, Onderzoek en Onderwijs, Afdeling onderwijs en}

ontwikkelingslanden (31-5-1999). Kabinetstandpunt ten aanzien van de uitkomst van het Interdepartementaal Beleidsonderzoek naar Internationaal onderwijs.

12 _{Minister voor Ontwikkelingssamenwerking. (2008). Kamerbrief inzake beleidsreactie evaluatie internationaal} onderwijsprogramma's NPT en NFP. Kamerbrief.

36 Evaluation of the Netherlands Fellowship Programme (NFP) 2002 - 2010

In relation to programme effectiveness the interministerial Review Committee expressed particularly concerns about the limited adaption of the programme (education and training possibilities) to priority changes in development cooperation and the dynamic demand in developing countries and the insufficient operationalization of the programme objectives.

Regarding efficiency the Review Committee expressed serious concerns related to a lack of flexibility in policy and funding, due to fixed contracts with the HE field. 13 Moreover, the Review Committee observed that the efficiency of the international education programmes proved to be difficult to assess due to lack of proper bench mark information. It was also noted that the government was lacking a clear understanding of the relations between the inputs for the programmes (subsidies) and the outputs (results). Finally, also attention was drawn at insufficient synergy with other policy instruments

To enhance the effectiveness of the NFP in 2002 the following changes were implemented:  The list of approved courses was to be reviewed every year to enable a flexible and competent

response to new developments; As was expressed before the demand orientation of the courses was/is left to the Dutch education institutes formulating the relevance of their course supply for developing countries.

 To enhance study in the region, courses provided jointly by organisations in the Netherlands and developing countries could also be included in the list of eligible courses.

 The RNEs were given the possibility to give recommendations for participants which were found to be relevant from the development perspective.

To enhance the efficiency of the NFP in 2002 the following decisions were taken: 14

 In line with the concentration policy of the Dutch government the new NFP in 2002 focused on 57 countries (instead of 89),15 aiming at less fragmentation of resources;

 To increase competition and cost-awareness potential supply of NFP education and training was broadened to all Master and PhD education possibilities in the Netherlands, not limiting the supply only to the international education institutes as traditionally had been the case. In addition also research institutions, training colleges and so on, could offer short courses and could be called upon to provide tailor-made training courses;

 The former also implied that the fixed distribution of resources over Dutch international education institutes was changed to a more flexible application of resources reflecting (changing) priorities in policies.

2.4.2 Introduction of the renewed NFP in 2008

The NFP as it was introduced in 2002 was evaluated by Ecorys in 2006.16 In the evaluation more attention was given to efficiency issues than to effectiveness issues.

In relation to effectiveness the evaluation commented on the lack of clear selection criteria for prioritisation of applicants and the cohesion between NPT and NFP, in particular for modalities MYA and TM which also have an organisational focus.

13 _{Brief van de ministers van Buitenlandse Zaken en Ontwikkelingssamenwerking (1999), Interdepartementaal}

beleidsonderzoek: internationaal onderwijs, Tweede Kamer, vergaderjaar 1998-1999, 25 576, nr. 1. See also: International education: the Netherlands’ policy. Background paper for the Nuffic expert meeting ‘ A changing landscape – making support for higher education and research in developing countries more effective’, The Hague, 24-25 May 2005. 14 _{Ministerie van Buitenlandse Zaken (31-5-1999). Kabinetsstandpunt ten aanzien van de uitkomsten van het}

Interdepartementaal Beleidsonderzoek naar Internationaal onderwijs.

15 _{In line with the concentration policy of Dutch bilateral development cooperation the list of eligible countries was reduced to} 57 whereas under the old fellowship programmes all 126 DAC countries were eligible. It was however, decided not to limit the NFP to the bilateral sectors of the Netherlands, unlike for instance the NPT.

Regarding the efficiency the evaluation of the NFP identified drawbacks in the application and selection procedures for NFP participants which created a high workload for almost all parties involved (embassies, Nuffic, the candidate fellows, education institutes in the Netherlands). Furthermore, it was concluded that the preparation of Tailor Made Training (TMT) was a very complex and time-consuming process with significant delays in the approval procedure and start-up phase. 17 Finally, it was concluded that the possibilities for cooperation with regional institutes remained underdeveloped.

To enhance the effectiveness of the NFP the following changes were made to the NFP in 2008:  A clearer distinction between NFP and NPT/Niche, with the NFP focusing more on individual

fellowships, and the NPT/NICHE focusing more on strengthening post-secondary education and less isolated projects;18

 The modalities ‘Tailor-Made Training’ and ‘Multi-Year Agreement’ were not any longer included in the NFP;

 In order to allow for a more balanced growth within a developing country candidates from minority groups and subordinated regions were given a preferential treatment and given a higher chance of being awarded a fellowship. Embassies were assigned the task to formulate priority groups for the country.

To further enhance the efficiency of the programme the following was decided:

 To introduce simplified and digitalised application and selection procedures (implemented in 2010 with the introduction of SOL);

 Reconfirm that the NFP should be more open for all Masters and PhDs education possibilities in the Netherlands and not only be limited to the international education institutes.

Related to the issue of efficiency is the fact that the number of NFP eligible countries increased from 57 to 60. China was excluded in 2008 while Burundi, DR Congo, Kosovo and Sudan as fragile states were added to the NFP country list.

2.4.3 Operationalisation of general policies in NFP

How have general policies been operationalized in inter alia the selection of NFP countries, selection criteria for applicants, NFP modalities and the selection of NFP courses?

General policies appear to have had a limited influence on the NFP modalities and selection of courses offered. In the past decade, during the introduction and the implementation of the NFP in 2002 and the new NFP in 2008 the policies for development cooperation of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs changed in various ways. During this period two policy documents for development

cooperation were presented by consequent governments respectively ‘Aan elkaar verplicht’ in 2003 and ‘Een zaak voor iedereen’ in 2007. The general policies have particularly been operationalized in the selection of NFP countries and the selection criteria for applicants (women and deprived groups).

17 _{It should be noted that at that time Nuffic already decided to simplify the procedure, first for proposals below € 50.000 and}

later for all proposals.

18 _{Ministerie van Buitenlandse Zaken Kamerbrief inzake beleidsreactie evaluatie internationaal onderwijsprogramma's NPT} en NFP, 25-02-2008.

38 Evaluation of the Netherlands Fellowship Programme (NFP) 2002 - 2010

Inline with the concentration policy of the Dutch government the new NFP in 2002 focused on 57 countries (instead of 89). The new policy focus on fragile states accounted for the expansion with four additional countries. The selection of NFP countries however still included non-partner countries low-income and middle-income countries among others for reasons of public relations.

With its target of 50% female participants the NFP is congruent with the general policy of Dutch development cooperation to actively promote a better position of women in society.19 Moreover the central position of Africa in the Foreign policy, including development cooperation and intention to allocate at least 50% of the ODA funds for this purpose was also operationalized in a 50% target for participants from Sub-Saharan countries. To include the thematic priorities in development

cooperation from 2002 the RNEs could give recommendations for participants which were found to be relevant from the development perspective. The renewed selection procedure implemented from 2011 is expected to improve operationalisation of the thematic policy priorities in the selection of applicants.