Synergy between the two programmes

In the February 2001 policy framework on the new international education programmes it was intended that there would be more cohesion between the NPT and NFP. However, in this evaluation we did not find much evidence of such cohesion between the NPT and NFP programmes in practice. In the field visit to Vietnam, is was even found that not all institutional users of one of the programmes were aware that the other programme also exists. There is thus a need for clearer and more complete information about the two offerings so that better informed choices between the two can be made. Those who do know the two programmes are aware of their differences, which they weigh when making decisions about which one they want to use.

It was found that the Vietnamese users of the programs are creative and knowledgeable about exploring the differences between the two. This is a good thing. If choices were less deliberate it would be an indication that the differences are irrelevant, in which case the programs could better be merged into one. This is not the case, however, and it is therefore recommended to maintain the separation between the two modalities, perhaps even more consciously adding further diversity to the available options. It must be acknowledged that the new modalities of NFP (TMT and MYA) have characteristics that make them more similar to the NPT. However, regarding the individual NFP modalities, we think that – given the very different set-up of the NFP focusing on individuals rather than organisations – integration with the NPT programme would not work if the present purposes of both programmes are to be maintained.

Because the different options exist, one sees both programmes being used in a single institution for different purposes, depending on the specific needs. Thus, the two programmes can at times complement each other and mutually strengthen each other’s effect. Can Tho University is perhaps the best example of an institution where multiple projects work in synergy to implement the institution’s mission geared towards the educational and socio-economical development of the Mekong Delta. This results in greater impact and improved efficiency.

In Tanzania only two examples of a link between NTP and NFP were found. The RNE staff indicated that they also explain about NFP when they visit NPT organisations. Sometimes this has resulted in NFP applications and when the RNE receives such a request from an organisation that is implementing a NPT project, the RNE supports it. A second example of cohesion is the College of Business Education that initially was not suitable for NPT support because of the quality of the institute.

Alternatively, it had been selected for a MYA under the NFP and now also the start of a NPT project was approved. However, for the organisational analysis as part of the NPT preparation another consultant was hired than the one that had done the same thing for the NFP-MYA, which is not an example of good coordination between the two programmes. The only thing about cohesion found in Uganda was that there are some good practice examples of former NFP fellows now being involved in NPT courses, and the other way around. However, this was not done in a strategic way.

DCO has indicated that they emphasised the need for cohesion in its meetings with Nuffic from the start of the programmes onwards. However, from the interviews in the

Netherlands with other stakeholders we did not got the impression that the relation between NPT and NFP has really been an issue so far, In recent years, it has also been put more on the agenda from the side of Nuffic, in particular because of the increased

importance of the NFP modalities of tailor-made training and multi-year agreement. The present reorganisation within Nuffic illustrates this. Until now, separate sections have existed within Nuffic for NPT and NFP without much coordination between them. In the new organisational structure, that will be effective from 1 January 2007, the MYA and TMT will be merged with the NPT parts of Nuffic to better address the organisational aspects of these NFP modalities. It is also intended that in the future the NFP staff for MYA will travel more frequently to visit the MYA institutions.

At present, NPT is limited to the Dutch bilateral sectors and a limited number of partner countries, while NFP is much broader. In the view of the Dutch education institutes, more cohesion should not mean that NFP would also be limited to the present NPT countries and bilateral sectors of the Netherlands development cooperation. This interpretation of cohesion is clearly not supported by them.

11.2 Perceptions of the RNEs and southern organisations

Only two of the respondent Southern institutes were familiar with NPT. From the answers on the open questions it is apparent that there is little or no synergy observed, one

respondent reports rather confusion.

Of the respondent Southern Institutes twelve were familiar with NFP. Out of these, nine considered the distinction between NPT and NFP clear, two unclear and two had no opinion on this. The same reaction was received on the question as to whether the distinction is efficient. It appeared from the open remarks that the institutes saw as the main difference the fact that ‘NPT is targeted at institutions, NFP is targeted at

individuals’. In other words, the capacity building character of NFP is not recognised by the institutes. One respondent felt strongly that the two programmes should be integrated. Also the embassies were asked whether they saw a synergy with NFP. It was found that about half of the respondents saw some synergy (six out of the 13 embassies), another six embassies saw none or hardly any synergy, while only one respondent saw extensive synergy (see table below).

These results confirm our own findings from the interviews and field visits that overall there is no clear synergy perceived between the two programmes by the various stakeholders.

Table 11.1 Synergy between NFP and NPT

Category Number of respondents %

None at all 2 15%

Hardly any 4 31%

Some 6 46%

Extensive 1 8%

12 Conclusions