the NUFU ProgrammeNorwegian Council of Universities Programme for De - PDF document

1 the NUFU ProgrammeNorwegian Council of U
the NUFU ProgrammeNorwegian Council of UniversitiesÕ Programme for Development Research and EducationA report prepared by Netherlands organization for internationalcooperation in higher education (Nuffic)Ad Boeren (team leader)Arnold van der ZandenKaren BakhuisenGerda VrielinkRoger AvenstrupGerard PeterPaatti SwartAlex Tindimubona Responsibility for the contents and presentation of findings and recommendations rests with the evaluation team. The views and opinions expressed in the report do not necessarily correspond withthe views of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. ContentsList of abbreviations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5Facts and Figures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6Executive summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112The NUFU Agreement in brief. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123Aims of the evaluation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 143.1 Comments on the Terms of Reference . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 144Methodology. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 165Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 186Compliance with Norwegian development aid policies. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 217Synergy with other instruments. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 238Follow-up to the 1994 evaluation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 259Organization and management. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 279.1 Decentralized Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 279.2 Decision-making . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 279.3 A
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 279.3 Administration and internal coordination . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 299.4 Monitoring and evaluation (M&E) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 309.5 The position and role of the SIU . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3110Strengths and weaknesses of the partnership model. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3211South-South and North-South-South relations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3412Relevance. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3613Quality assurance. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3814Institutionalization. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4115Sustainability. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4416Aims, principles and strategy. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46 3 17NUFU compared. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4817.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4817.2 Aims and guiding principles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4817.3 Approaches and strategies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4817.4 Programme management and administration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4917.5 Institutionalization and sustainability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5017.6 Achievements and results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5017.7 Concluding remarks. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

3 . . . . . . 5118Future directions. . . .
. . . . . . 5118Future directions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5218.1 Strategic choices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5419Conclusions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5720Recommendations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60Annex 1Terms of Reference. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63Annex 2Institutions visited . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67List of Tables:Table 1. Number of projects by region, 1Agreement. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18Table 2. Numbers of researchers, staff development, and research output, Agreement. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19Table 3. Participation in education and training by gender (1991Ð1998). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22Table 4. Multidisciplinarity of projects, 1Agreement. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37Table 5. Discrepancies and dilemmas. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47List of Figures:Figure 1.Present situation at UiDs, no coordination and synergy between programmes and projects. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56Figure 2.Future situation? Coordination and synergy between support programmes and projects. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56 4 List of abbreviationsDanidaDanish International Development AssistanceDGISDirectorate General for International Cooperation, the NetherlandsENRECABilateral Programme for Enhancement of Research Capacity in DevelopingfteFull-time employeeM&EMonitoring and EvaluationMERCAMinistry of Education, Research and Church AffairsMFA (UD)Royal Norwegian Ministry of Foreign Affa

4 irsMMRPMulti-annual, Multidisciplinary R
irsMMRPMulti-annual, Multidisciplinary Research Programmes (DGIS funded)NCU (UR)Norwegian Council of UniversitiesNIFUNorwegian Institute for Studies in Research and Higher EducationNOKNorwegian KronerNORADNorwegian Agency for Development CooperationNSSNorth-South-South (relations)NufficNetherlands Organization for International Cooperation in Higher EducationNUFUNorwegian Council of UniversitiesÕ Programme for Development Research andRCN (NFR)Research Council of NorwaySARECDepartment for Research Cooperation (Sida)SidaSwedish International Development Cooperation AgencySIUCentre for International University CooperationS-SSouth-South (relations)UiDsUniversities in Developing CountriesUiNsUniversities in NorwayVCVice-Chancellor 5 Facts and FiguresSIU staff situationFirst AgreementReporting period1991Ð19951996Ð1998Number of countries involved in NUFU projects1622Number of institutions involved in the South (UiDs)2333Number of Institutions involved in Norway (UiNs)911UiD researchers 228526UiN researchers158335PhD training completed5526PhD training ongoing68212MasterÕs training completed140165MasterÕs training ongoing154418Other training completed287Other training ongoing2822Research documents produced705690Major areas of collaboration (% of allocations)31.3%1.4%21.1%21.6%16.3%10.3%8.6%18.4%7.9%14.6%Allocations by region 87.7%70.2%10.8%11%1.6%7.7%Compensation of UiNs (% of allocations)28.8%30.3%Top 5 countries by % of Ethiopia - 25.4%Ethiopia - 13.9%allocations (excl. network funds)Tanzania - 14.4%Zimbabwe - 10.7%Mali - 12.1%South Africa - 10.4%Uganda - 10.1%Uganda - 8.8% Sudan -8.0%Tanzania -8.2% Second Agreement1996: South-South cooperation,1996Ð: 4.25 full-time employeesgeneral office assistanceFirst AgreementProgramme The NUFU programme aims to build upresearch and research competence indeveloping countries, through cooperationbetween university and research institutions inNorway and developing countries. The mainguiding principles in the NUFU approach areequality in the cooperation, the partnershipmodel, mutual benefit and the prevalence ofSouthern needs in identifying areas forcooperation. The programme operates throughindividual projects, and cooperation is usuallyinitiated through a bottom-up process.Under the first Agreement (1991Ð1995), N

5 UFUsponsored 55 projects. In the second
UFUsponsored 55 projects. In the second Agreement(1996Ð2000) this has increased to 99 projects, 23of which are continuations of first Agreementprojects. 77.5% of the total funds made availableto the NUFU programme have been allocated toprojects with African institutions. The majordisciplines in which collaboration occurs are theUnder the first Agreement, 228 researchersfrom UiDs participated in the NUFUprogramme. Under the second Agreement thisnumber has increased to 526. On theNorwegian side, 158 researchers participatedduring the first Agreement and 335 areparticipating during the second.In the South, the NUFU programme has madeimportant contributions to the staffing situationat the partner institutions. This can be seenfrom the number of participants who haveobtained higher degrees or who are in theprocess of obtaining them Ð 386 candidates havecompleted either a MasterÕs or PhD degree andsome 850 are in the process of following theprogrammes. Approximately 30% of thecandidates are female.In the opinions of the partners on both sides,research results are good. In the period1991Ð98, close to 1,400 research documentswere produced, approximately 16% of whichhave been published in international journals. The partnership approach is much appreciatedby the partners, especially those in the South. Itprovides the Southern institutes with structuralaccess to information, the latest technology,professional networks, and publication outletswithin a framework of long-term and mutuallybeneficial relationships built on respect andshared interests. The partnership approachallows for broad participation in collaborationprojects and a mutually beneficial exchange ofstaff and students. In Norway, the NUFU programme has helpedenormously to make universities aware of theimportance of and opportunities forprogramme has played an important role inencouraging the universities to internationalizetheir research and education programmes. Atpolitical support and in portraying to society atwhich shows results both in the South and inNorway. The NUFU programme is nowregarded as an important and strategic tool insupporting tertiary education and research inOverall, NUFU adheres to the principles ofNorwegian development cooperation, ininstitutional strengthening in developingb

6 ilateral support. In addition, the topic
ilateral support. In addition, the topics ofÐ largely fall within the priority theme areas ofNorwegian development aid. The programme isnot particularly strong on gender, in the sensethat the projects do not specifically addressThe above observations have led us to theconclusion that NUFU can be regarded as aExecutive summary successful programme. It has producedimpressive results considering the modestflexible way in which the programme isimplemented. In our view, NUFU is in essence aprogramme for and of individual researchers,despite the claim that it is building relationshipsNUFU programme is highly appreciated by allpartners. It makes the programme flexible, theadministration tailor-made, and projectcircumstances. It also has a number of negativeaspects, however. The many different modalitiesof project implementation and administration,and differences in the application of rules andregulations cause coordination problems andprogramme. The programme has no sanctions or othermeasures to deal with non-performers or under-performers. Everything is a matter of self-regulation. This may have implications for theoptimal use of available funds. We thereforerecommend that NUFU develops, introduces,and enforces a uniform system of guidelines andprocedures for the administration, monitoringand evaluation of the programme and projects. The decision-making process in the NUFUprogramme is not transparent and is largelycontrolled by the Norwegian institutions. TheSouthern partners have no insight or say inproject selection or fund allocations. To improveon the programmeÕs principles of ownership andequality, the Southern partners need to be givena substantive role in the final decision-makingon project selection. This can be achieved byincluding Southern representatives in theNorwegian representatives. In addition, thereshould be regular meetings with the rectors ofthe major partner institutions (Norwegian andSouthern) to discuss programme direction andIn the NUFU programme, quality assurance isinternal and decentralized. Althoughimprovements have been made over the years,this aspect of the programme needs to beaddressed further. Most project proposals areverifiable indicators to measure progress.Progress reports lack reflection on per-formance. The external ev

7 aluations have beeninstructions and more
aluations have beeninstructions and more time. In order to improvethe transparency of project selection, it isadvisable to create a network of referees toscrutinize NUFU applications on the basis ofcriteria such as quality, relevance, sustainability,commitment, feasibility, the qualifications of theresearchers and coordinators, the potential forS-S partnerships, and the inclusion of genderMost institutions in the South lack the structureand capacity to formulate a research agenda andto prioritize their research activities accordingly.Decisions on the relevance of the topics forcollaboration are therefore usually not taken onthe basis of a careful analysis of societal orinstitutional needs. Nevertheless, thecollaboration topics do seem to be relevant inone way or another, and it is gratifying to notethat the Norwegian partners do take the needsof the Southern partners seriously in decidingon projects. The institutionalization of the programme andits projects at the partner institutions is stillprojects have been identified and thedecentralized system of project management,project activities. At institutions with a biggerportfolio we have observed that NUFUcoordinating committees and coordinators playa positive role in institutionalizing theprogramme.The financial sustainability of project activities isproblematic in many of the Southern partner institutions due to tight and decreasingrecurrent budgets. In the NUFU programmeinsufficient attention is devoted to sustainabilityin project applications, implementation ormonitoring. Broader-based and multi-facetedprojects appear to have a better chance ofachieving academic sustainability. A post-UiDs to retain young and promising staff. programme, sustainability depends heavily onthe commitment of the Norwegian institutionsand the idealism of the Norwegian researchers.Although this is one of the programmeÕs majorstrengths, it also makes it vulnerable. If theprogramme is to be sustainable, enough goodNorwegian researchers must continue toparticipate in the projects. This means that theproject overheads should be realistic,professional or financial compensation adequateand the continuity of researchers ensured. We recommend differentiation of the aims of theNUFU programme Ð research collaboration,capacity build

8 ing, pilot projects, networking Ðcompen
ing, pilot projects, networking Ðcompensation levels for Norwegian staff inputs.link with other support programmes (e.g.NORADÕs Framework Agreements). NUFU,RCN, NORAD, the Ministry of Education,Research and Church Affairs and the MFAshould work together in creating opportunitiesfor UiN staff, young researchers and students tostay for longer research periods at UiDs.Norwegian institutions, for their part, shouldanchor involvement in the NUFU programme intheir commitments in terms of adequateadministrative support.Norwegian participation are much appreciatedby the partners in the South. The existingnetworks function with varying degrees ofsuccess. The conceptual directions andoperational requirements for successfulnetworking were not in place when they werefirst set up, but are being developed along theway. NUFU should give more support tonetworks in terms of funding as well as inproviding a set of guidelines on how torelations. Through a process of Òlearning-by-doingÓ theNUFU programme has achieved a lot in termsof improvements in management andgradually improve its mode of operations. It hasintroduced external evaluations and reviews,expanded and professionalized the secretariatÕsstaff, improved its annual reporting and set up adatabase and website. The NUFU Secretariat(SIU) has performed very well with a small buthighly qualified and motivated staff. We think that if the SIU were to have a moreindependent position from the university systemit could play a more objective role in terms ofassessing internal rankings, project applicationsand allocations, and also in terms of the externalmonitoring and evaluation of projectperformance. We are also of the opinion that theSIUÕs tasks should be expanded by increasingits facilitating role in terms of giving workshopsat UiDs in portfolio management (preferablyusing expertise from NUFU UiD partners),providing training in project planning andproject cycle management, and in financialBy way of conclusion, we observe that NUFU isa successful programme in terms of results andsatisfied participants, but the way in which theprogramme operates does not in many waysconform exactly to its objectives and guidingprinciples. We have identified four major1.insufficient coherence between the aims,programme;2.lack of tran

9 sparency in decision-making atprogramme
sparency in decision-making atprogramme level and willingness to involvethe Southern partners in this process; 3.weak institutionalization of the programmeand the projects in the partner institutions;4.poor collaboration with other (Norwegian)support schemes.system, but this is also one of the strengths ofthe programme.Our overall recommendation is that theprogramme should continue, because it plays avaluable role in Norwegian developmentassistance strategy, not only in the South butalso at home. The programme should retain itsstrengths (i.e. the flexibility of implementationcollaboration) and address its shortcomings(e.g. lack of transparency, inadequateprocedures for quality assurance andaccountability). Southern partners should getinvolved in the decision-making processes atprogramme level. A sustainable qualitydetection of shortcomings and instituting thenecessary remedial measures.The objectives of the programme and thebe reviewed in view of present discrepancies inchallenges, threats and opportunities. Thestakeholders (the Norwegian and Southernpartners, the MFA, RCN, NCU, NORAD, andthe Ministry of Education, Research andChurch Affairs) should review the programmeÕspresent and future mission and approach withinthe broader framework of Norwegian policiesand programmes that support thestrengthening of research and higher educationin developing countries. Together they need toagree on the specific role that the NUFUprogramme could and should play within overallpolicy, taking into consideration the specificstrengths which academic partnership cancontribute. Once all parties are clear on the roleand focus of the schemes can be determinedSo far the relationships between NUFU,NORAD and the Research Council of Norwayhave led to few tangible and structuralcollaborations between the programmes theyrepresent. This can be explained by differencesin the perceptions, mandates and cultures of thethe contractual partner of the UniversityCouncil of Norway, and relations betweenNUFU and NORAD have taken a constructiveturn, we believe that there are goodopportunities for linking the NUFU programmewith NORAD programmes to the benefit ofcollaboration arrangements for thoseinstitutions where both run projects orprogrammes. In this scenario, the partner(and supported)

10 to play a pro-active role insetting the
to play a pro-active role insetting the research and external support The NUFU programme is based on anagreement between the Royal NorwegianMinistry of Foreign Affairs (MFA) and theNorwegian Council of Universities (NCU). Theagreement covers long-term collaboration inresearch and higher education betweenuniversities and research institutions in Norwayand partner institutions in developing countries.Funds for the NUFU programme are madeavailable through 5-year agreements betweenthe MFA and NUFU. The present Ð independent Ð evaluation of theNUFU programme is foreseen in the Ministry ofForeign AffairsÕ ÒStrategy for strengtheningresearch and higher education connected toNorwayÕs relations with developing countriesÓ(January 1999), and was carried out at the endof the second Agreement (1996Ð2000). Sincethe programme has been in effective operationfor some time now, the evaluation should bepolicies, approaches, strategies and practicesset up by the various parties both in Norwayand in the partner countries, and on ancompetence-building and increased South-The evaluators wish to express their sincerethanks to all those in Norway and the countriesin which field visits were carried out who,programme and the projects. We wereimpressed by the openness of everyone wetalked to and have interpreted this as a sign ofconfidence in the programme and commitmentto its underlying principles. We would like toNorway and in the South, the NUFUcoordinators and international offices for theirmaking available its excellent conferencefacilities for the feedback seminar. A specialword of thanks is addressed to Gunnvor Bergeand Tor Gjerde, Advisers of the Policy andPlanning Evaluation Staff and on behalf of theMinistry of Foreign Affairs responsible for theevaluation, for the stimulating interest shown inthe progress of the evaluation. Finally, the stafffor providing the evaluation team with all thenecessary documentation and for relentlesslyanswering many requests for additionalinformation and data in a very efficient andcompetent manner. The cooperation of allmade the evaluation exercise a very enjoyable1Introduction Ad Boeren, Nuffic, Team Leader Roger Avenstrup, Consultant, NorwayJairam Reddy, Consultant, South AfricaGerard Peter, NufficPer Olaf Aamodt, NIFU, NorwayPatti

11 Swarts, Consultant, NamibiaArnold van d
Swarts, Consultant, NamibiaArnold van der Zanden, NufficKaren Bakhuisen, NufficLe Thac Can, Consultant, VietnamGerda Vrielink, NufficAlex Tindimubona, Consultant, Uganda On 19 March 1991, the Royal NorwegianMinistry of Foreign Affairs (MFA/UD) and theNorwegian Council of Universities (NCU/UR)signed an agreement which had as its main goalto contribute towards competence-building indeveloping countries through cooperationresearch institutions in Norway, andcorresponding institutions in developingSouthern Asia, Central America and the Middle. This Agreement, normally referred to asthe NUFU programme, had a total budget ofAgreement was prolonged for another periodMFA has provided a total of NOK 290 million tothe programme. In March 1999 NUFU hadapproved and allocated funds for 99 cooperationprojects of two or more yearsÕ duration. The Committee for Development and ResearchNCU, is responsible for the NUFU programme.The Centre for International UniversityCooperation (SIU), which falls directly underthe NCU, serves as programme secretariat andcarries out the day-to-day administration of theprogramme. Responsibility for carrying out theprojects lies with the cooperating institutions,and with the Norwegian partner as the overallcoordinator of the project. The cooperation isbased on general agreements of cooperationSeveral types of cooperation are possible underthe Agreement: ¥Research cooperation¥Education and training of researchers¥Support for the development of newMasterÕs and PhD programmes¥Training of personnel (technicians,¥Provision of equipment and improvement ofActivities supported by the NUFU programmethe developing countries. The Agreement isbased on the assumption that the Norwegianuniversities (UiNs) will cover their own salarycosts, so that financial support is provided onlyfor expenses connected to project imple-total of 33 institutions from 22 countries in Asia,Africa and Latin America and 11 Norwegianprogramme.The NUFU programme has the following¥The needs and priorities of the institutionsin developing countries (UiDs) are to formoperative relationships between the parties.¥The development of competence is to take2 The NUFU Agreement in brief 1)Agreement between the Royal Norwegian Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the Norwegian Council

12 of Universities concerningdevelopment o
of Universities concerningdevelopment of competence at universities and research institutions in developing countries.2)Chr. Michelsen Institute, Evaluation of the NUFU Agreement, 1994.3)NOK 230 million in fixed allocations, and NOK 60.2 million in extra allocations. ¥The programme is to be administered inaccordance with ruling Norwegian policiesgoverning aid to developing countries andis to be coordinated with Norwegian¥The Norwegian Council of Universities willcontribute towards a coordinatedNorwegian research and higher educationprogramme addressing developing count-through contact with theResearch Council of Norway.¥When implementing the various pro-grammes and projects, use is to be made ofinternationally recognized competence inthe Norwegian research and universities¥The programme includes long-termcooperation agreements between UiNs and¥Support for infrastructure initiatives inUiDs may be provided in connection withthe long-term cooperation agreements. NUFU programme is committed to a number of¥to concentrate activities geographically sopossible results from and concerning theregions; ¥to include a womenÕs perspective indialogues with cooperating partners in theSouth and compose Terms of Reference forreviews and assessment aimed at gender¥to use South-South cooperation as a meansof building regional competence in¥to achieve close cooperation and optimalcoordination with authorities in Norwayand to cooperate and exchange informationand with relevant international¥to develop, pass on and increase knowledgeprogramme among a broad spectrum oflocal, central, Northern and Southernuniversity research.programme should not be seen as a develop-ment aid programme but as a programme foracademic cooperation which strengthensresearch environments in Southern institutions.instruments for supporting institutions in theSouth is that it is founded on professionalcollaboration and is run by the universitiesthemselves. There is no political interference inthe programme. According to the institutionsand NUFU researchers in Norway theprogramme has a broader scope and reach thanthe NORAD capacity-building programme, andoffers an ideal channel to identify new avenuesand opportunities for institutional supportprogramme should be seen as a catalyst that canpr

13 epare the foundations for other types of
epare the foundations for other types ofsupport and activities. 4)NUFUÕs Strategy 1996Ð2000 (Section: Principles of NUFU Programme). According to the Terms of ReferenceprogrammeÕs performance in relation to itsstated objectives; 2) the major strengths andweaknesses of the programme; and 3) theprogramme. In particular, the evaluation is tofocus on the extent to which the programme hasSouth-South cooperation. Throughout theevaluation, it is important to emphasize theinterest of Southern stakeholders.With regard to an assessment of the strengthsand weaknesses of the programme, theevaluation is to pay particular attention to theprogrammeÕs administration and organizationarrangements), and the programmeÕs results interms of quality, relevance and sustainability. Into which the programme conforms with themain priorities of Norwegian developmentcooperation, and to which the programme hasfollowed up the recommendations of theevaluation of the NUFU agreement in 1994. In line with the MFAÕs intention to continue tosupport the NUFU programme, the evaluationis expected to come up with recommendationsthat address the implications of the conclusions,and to propose adjustments and improvements,at the level of both programme design andof the present phase of NUFU cooperationa new Agreement. 3.1 Comments on the Terms of ReferenceIn assessing the impact of an internationalcooperation programme, the effects of theprogramme must be sought at project level. Theextent to which these effects correspond withprogramme will depend on the effectiveness ofimplementation, together with the opportunitiesprovided by the context in which the projectmechanisms of the programme have a majorinfluence on the way projects are identified andimplemented, and for that reason constitute animportant factor in the analysis of the successand impact of those projects. Experience withprogrammes shows that there is often a gapbetween objectives at overall programme levelprogrammes/projects. This might lead to aprogramme as a whole is hampered by the factthat the implementing institutions are mainlyfocused on achieving project objectives andhave less affinity with the overall programmeobjectives and concerns (such as competence-and sustainability); and (2) the projects do notconstitute a cohere

14 nt programme to enhanceFor this reason,
nt programme to enhanceFor this reason, the evaluation has beendesigned to assess the performance of theprogramme in view of its overall aims and toprogramme constitute positive or negativeconditions for achieving the programmeÕs majorobjectives. Results and activities at project levelnecessary to highlight the influence ofprogrammatic issues on project results. The ToR also ask for a concise comparison ofthe design, mechanisms and results of theNUFU programme with similar researchcapacity-building programmes to enable lessons3 Aims of the evaluation 5)See Annex 1, Terms of Reference, Evaluation of the NUFU programme. to be learnt. Three of these programmes haveDanida funded ENRECA programmeMulti-annual, Multidisciplinary ResearchProgramme (MMRP) supported by theNetherlands Directorate General forInternational Cooperation (DGIS), and theSwedish Bilateral Research CooperationProgramme, funded by the Department forResearch Cooperation (SAREC) of the SwedishInternational Development Cooperation Agency 6)ENRECA: Bilateral Programme for Enhancement of Research Capacity in Developing Countries The evaluation team collected the necessarydata and information from three sources:relevant documents, the NUFU database andthe stakeholders in the programme. Theevaluation started with a study of availabledocuments on the programme and its results,i.e., the text of the NUFU Agreement, the NUFUstrategy paper, minutes of NUFU Committeemeetings, project documents, externalevaluation reports, internal notes and guidelinesfor programme implementation. In addition,MFA and NORAD policy documents ondevelopment aid strategies and researchcapacity-building in particular were consultedThe data on the individual projects that wereincorporated in the NUFU database wereachievements of the NUFU programme duringthe 1st and 2nd Agreement periods. A synthesiswas made of four external evaluations carriedout since 1996, rating the 39 projects covered inthese evaluations according to a number ofperformance indicators.Stakeholders in Norway were interviewedduring two rounds of interviews. In the firstround the emphasis of the interviews was onpolicy issues, and interviews were held withrepresentatives of the MFA, NORAD, theResearch Council of Norway (RCN), the NCU,the Ministry of Education

15 , Research andChurch Affairs, the NUFU C
, Research andChurch Affairs, the NUFU Committee, theNUFU Secretariat (SIU) and with leadingfigures at the Norwegian institutions involved inthe NUFU programme. These included Rectors,Heads of International Offices, Directors ofResearch and Chairpersons of NUFUIn the second round of interviews in Norway,the emphasis was on project implementationand management issues. Interviews were heldwith coordinators and researchers of NUFUprojects and members of project assessmentboards at five major Ð in terms of NUFUparticipation Ð institutions in Norwayboth interview rounds in Norway, about 110persons were interviewedwith MFA, SIU and NORAD, seven institutionsin six countries were selected for a field visitThe main selection criteria were the volume andcomposition of the project portfolios at theUiDs, the duration of participation in the NUFUprogramme, and the presence of NORADsupport and/or other capacity-buildingprogrammes at the UiDs. Networks were addedas a separate category to be assessed during theinterviews were held with leaders andDepartments, coordinators and researchers ofNUFU projects, beneficiaries of staffother donor programmes. Outside theuniversities, meetings were held with theMinistries of (Higher) Education, NorwegianEmbassies (if represented), and representativesof other donor agencies and researchprogrammes. At the end of the field visits,debriefing meetings were held with the leadersof the institutions and the NUFU programmecoordinator. In all, the country evaluation teamsinterviewed about 210 people.After the country visits had been completed, thein Oslo with the aim of presenting a number ofstakeholders from Norway and the South with4Methodology 7)A list of references is attached.8)University of Oslo, University of Bergen, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Agricultural University of Norway,University of Troms¿.9)Annex 2 contains a list of all institutions visited by members of the evaluation team, in Norway and abroad.10)University of Dar es Salaam in Tanzania, University of Zimbabwe, Makerere University in Uganda, Thribhuvan University inNepal, Universidad Nacional Heredia in Costa Rica, University of the North and University of the Western Cape, both in South Af the preliminary findings, conclusions andrecommendations o

16 f the evaluation, and todiscuss with the
f the evaluation, and todiscuss with them major issues and concernsthat the evaluation had brought out. All majorinstitutions in Norway, the MFA, NORAD, RCN,the NUFU Committee and two partnerinstitutions from the South were represented atthe seminar. The meeting provided thereporting process.The evaluation team was able to rely on theexcellent cooperation of the NUFU secretariatin gaining access to relevant programme andproject documents and data. Very helpfulinstruments included the extremely informativeprogramme reports and the external evaluationreports. When using the database, thedata proved to be not up to standard,necessitating some adjustment. The project filesdid not contain the sort of information needed toassess the success of the projects and theprogramme at large. This was due to the factthat, at the start of the programme and theprojects, no criteria were formulated to enabletheir success to be measured, and thatreporting is usually restricted to a description ofactivities and a listing of results rather thandiscussion of progress. For the comparative study of NUFU with threeother research capacity-building programmes,documentation was obtained from therespective donor agencies and interviews wereheld with officers responsible for theseprogrammes. The methodology for the studyagreements, instructions, guidelines, pro-cedures, evaluation and review reports andother relevant documents. Some questions andissues resulting from the desk study wereincluded in the Terms of Reference for the fieldvisits as part of the NUFU evaluation.limited the extent to which the programmescould be analysed and described. Externalevaluation and review reports, both atprogramme and country and/or project level,were scarce and evaluations at programme levelhad not been carried out in recent years. As aconsequence, interesting observations could bemade but no firm conclusions drawn regardingthe comparative advantages of the programmesin terms of programme design andperformance. November 1999. The first interview round inNorway was carried out in November-December of that year, and the second inJanuaryÐFebruary 2000. The field visits,varying in length from eight to 15 days, wereconducted in February and March. Thefeedback seminar took place on 23 March 2000, Unde

17 r the first Agreement, the NUFUprogramme
r the first Agreement, the NUFUprogramme sponsored 55 projects, under thesecond Agreement 99 projects (23 beingcontinuations of first Agreement projects). Ofthe combined total of 154 projects, a majority ofthe NUFU programme have been allocated toprojects with African institutions, whichprogramme. The programme sponsors fiveNorth-South-South (NSS) networks withpartners in Africa. Major disciplines in whichcollaboration occurs are the medical sciences5Results 1st2ndTotalAfrica4167108Asia121426Latin America2810Near East55Networks (Africa)55Total5599154 Table 1. Number of projects by region, 1st and 2nd Agreement programme was very much on researchcollaboration between researchers in Norwayand in the South, it was soon realized that thispartner institutions in the South, especially atprogramme has successfully adapted to thisnew reality and has made importantcontributions to the staffing situation at thepartner institutions. This can be judged fromthe number of participants who have obtainedhigher degrees or who are in the process ofcompleted either a MasterÕs or PhD degree andsome 850 are in the process of obtaining them.Of all MasterÕs degree and PhD candidates inthe NUFU programme, about 30% are female.Few projects address directly or indirectlygender issues, either in research or teaching. In1999, the NUFU programme organized aNUFU projects. The valuable recommendationsthat were made need to be followed upThe programme improved research facilities atthe UiDs through the provision of equipmentpartners on both sides, research results areresearch documents were produced of whichapproximately 16% have been published in 11)All quantitative data on the NUFU projects have been obtained from the NUFU database, complemented with information fromproject files and financial reports.12)NUFU Gender Seminar report. University of Troms¿, June 1999. international journals. Others are underpreparation, and more will emerge from currentresearch. The NUFU Secretariat has created platforms todiscuss the research results of NUFU projectsin Norway. The platforms are attended by theNorwegian institutions, NORAD, the MFA andthe RCN. In 1998 the topic of the researchAgriculture and Fisheries. opportunities for research and staffdevelopment constitute an importantinstrument

18 for the retention of staff in under-res
for the retention of staff in under-resourced institutions. It is an incentive for staffconditions are felt to be unsatisfactory. Under the first Agreement, 228 researchersfrom UiDs participated in the NUFUprogramme. In the second Agreement thisnumber has increased to 526. On theNorwegian side, 158 researchers participatedduring the first Agreement and 335 areparticipating in the second. The files of theprojects that began under the first Agreementsome indication of the continuity and renewal ofresearchers in the programme. In the 23projects that have continued, 80 of the original144 researchers that participated on both sidesresearchers joined, bringing the total number ofresearchers to 235. Hence, in these projectsmore than half of the researchers under the firstAgreement stayed on the programme whiledouble that number of new researchers joinedthe projects. 1st2ndAgreementAgreementUiD researchers 228526UiN researchers158335PhD training completed5526PhD training ongoing68212MasterÕs training completed140165MasterÕs training ongoing154418Other training completed287Other training ongoing2822Research documents produced705690 Table 2. Numbers of researchers, staff development, and research output, 1st and 2nd Agreement In a number of projects, Norwegian studentshave participated in research and teachingactivities. Their contributions are highlyappreciated by the Southern institutions. Theparticipation of Norwegian students broadensthe base of the cooperation, spreads the benefitsof the collaboration more equally between thepartners, and creates interest in internationalcooperation (in research and education) amonga future generation of researchers and policy-In the principal partner institutions in Norwayand in the South, involvement in the programmehas led to the creation of capacity to handleexternally funded cooperation programmes.Structures have been put in place to facilitatethe administration and management of projects. On the basis of this experience and capacity, theexternally funded projects. In Norway, the NUFU programme has helpedenormously in making universities aware of theimportance and opportunities of collaborationan important role stimulating the universities tointernationalize their research and educationprogrammes. All institutions f

19 ind it importantnow to have partner inst
ind it importantnow to have partner institutions in the South.Academics have been introduced to new issuesand perspectives, new areas of specializationhave been integrated in teaching programmes.Staff and students have been exposed tointernational academia, which has led to a moreinternational attitude at the institutions. The bigger institutions in Norway haveestablished international degree programmesand international students come to Norway tostudy with fellowships provided by NORAD and. Some of the institutionshave given international cooperation withpercentage of their budget to that purpose.conduct development research havedramatically increased. As a result of theincreased interest, and the wish to facilitatepartnership between Norwegian researchersand researchers from the South, the RCN hasÒPartners in the SouthÓ. partners in Norway have been successful inacquiring political support for the programme,and in portraying to society at large an ideal ofresults both in the South and in Norway. TheNUFU programme is now regarded as animportant and strategic tool in supportingtertiary education and research in developingcountries. The MFAÕs strategy paper forstrengthening research and higher educationunderlines the importance of institutions ofhigher learning and research in developmentprocesses, and the importance of supportingthese institutions in the South to fulfil this role.NUFU has also managed to gradually improvewillingness to improve its administration,introduced external evaluations and reviews,increased and professionalized the secretariatÕsstaff, improved its annual reporting and set up a 13)The Ministry of Education, Research and Church Affairs makes 1,200 fellowships a year available to the institutions to enablforeign students to participate in Norwegian academic programmes.14)Royal Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Strategy for strengthening research and higher education connected to NorwayÕs relationswith developing countries, January 1999. According to the 1995 Parliamentary reporton Norwegian policy towardsdeveloping countries, the overriding objective isto contribute to the alleviation of poverty bysupporting development efforts in the followingareas:¥economic development, with special em-phasis on agriculture and local productive¥

20 social development, with special emphasi
social development, with special emphasison education and health, promotion ofgovernance, sound management of theglobal environment and biological diversity;¥promotion of equal rights and opportunitiesfor women and men in all areas of society;¥prevention and alleviation of distress arisingfrom conflicts and natural disasters.of development processes and on strengtheningProviding support for institutionalstrengthening and capacity-building is a priorityarea in Norwegian development cooperation. Inthis respect, universities are seen as institutionsthat are crucial to society and to a developmentprocess based on knowledge and learning. Priority regions for bilateral developmentcooperation are Southern and Eastern Africa,regions a number of priority countries havebeen identified for long-term capacity-buildingenter into special agreements with thesecountries. These priority countries are:Eritrea, Ethiopia, Mozambique,Tanzania, Uganda, Zambia and Zimbabwe.The NUFU programme allocations are more orless in accordance with the preferred countriesAgreement, 67.1% of total NUFU funds wereAgreement, this figure has declined to 60,8%,This proportional decline is due to extraallocations made available by the MFA in 1998(particularly Guatemala; NOK 24 million).These funds were provided to NUFU in thecontext of a decision by the Norwegiangovernment to support the peace process inoccurs are the medical sciences, social sciences,projects in these disciplines absorb about 65% ofall allocated funds under the second Agreement.These disciplines contribute to improvements inthe economic and social spheres, whichcomplies with the priority areas of NorwegianTable 3 gives an indication of the femaleparticipation in the staff development andtraining component of the projects.Approximately 30% of all trainees are female. Weare not in a position to rate this figure in aobtain figures on percentages of female staff atthe institutions in the South, or on participationrates of women in various disciplines of study. 6 Compliance with Norwegian development aid policies 15)Royal Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Report No. 19 to the Storting (1995Ð96). A changing world. Main elements of Norwegianpolicy towards developing countries. Overall, NUFU adheres to the principles ofNorwegian devel

21 opment, in contributing tostrengthening
opment, in contributing tostrengthening in developing countries whichhave been given priority for bilateral support. Inlargely fall within the priority theme areas ofNorwegian development aid. PhDMasterÕsAdmin.and FurtherGenderTechnicianstrainingFemale22%34%38%15%Male78%66%62%85% Table 3. Participation in education and training by gender (1991Ð1998) The MFAÕs strategy paper (draft, January 1999)on strengthening research and higherpriorities for the various support provisions andfor development research in Norway. Anbetter coordination between the various supporti.e. the Research Council of Norway, theNorwegian Council of Universities, NORAD andthe Ministry of Foreign Affairs. The Ministryhopes to realize this synergy by providing clearTerms of Reference for the administration of theprogrammes, regular discussions between theexchange of information.Norway has different channels for supportinguniversities and research institutions. Oneimportant channel is through the NUFUprogramme. But more funds are channelleddirectly from NORAD to universities in prioritypartner countries. The main difference betweenNUFU funds are used to finance programmesthat require Norwegian institutionalpartnership. NORAD, on the other hand, mayprovide support to a university even if thatNorwegian partner. Another important difference between thefocuses on research capacity-building whereasNORADÕs main objective is to supportuniversities as a whole, according to thepriorities of the university concerned and of thegovernmentrecipient orientation and the sector-wideapproach. The role of universities in development is alsoimportant in the NORAD FellowshipProgramme. Today the main objective of theprogramme is to support capacity-buildingwithin key institutions in priority partnercountries by providing a fellowship grant toattend a MasterÕs or Diploma course in Norway.The course must be relevant for the capacity-building of the institution where the applicant isFrom the start of the NUFU programme therehave been relations between NUFU, NORADobserver status in NUFU Committee meetings.However, these relations have thus far led to fewtangible and structural collaborations betweenthe programmes. This can be explained bydifferences in perceptions, mandates andcultures of the organizatio

22 ns. The Research Council of Norway is ma
ns. The Research Council of Norway is mandated tofund research in Norway, while NUFU isconcerned with research cooperation withdeveloping countries. The RCN receives specialfunds for development research from the MFA,as well as some additional funding from theMinistry of Education, Research and ChurchAffairs. The NUFU fellowship scheme financingNorwegian PhD students connected to NUFUprojects is worth special mention. However,little research on topics of developmentrelevance is funded through RCN. There is nowa dialogue concerning better integration andcoordination between RCN and NUFU.Until recently, NUFU and NORAD failed toachieve any form of cooperation, even atuniversities in the South where both wererunning programmes. Mistrust between theNorwegian universities and NORAD goes backa long time and needs to be overcome. In therather suspicious of the NUFU approach,because it was considered to pay little heed tothe principle of recipient responsibility. For their7Synergy with other instruments 16)Ingrid Ofstad, Introduction to NORAD policy, presentation at the NUFU conference in Dar es Salaam, 1997.17)NORAD invests in the future. NORADÕs strategy for 2000Ð2005. part, Norwegian universities were of theplan or monitor research and linkageprogrammes, and saw NORAD as an aidorganization which took a sectoral approach toHowever, NORAD is acquiring a betterunderstanding of the role of (academic)research in development. It has a dual view ofuniversity research and higher education asareas in themselves and parts of other sectors.A new Policy Section has been created that willconcern itself with country strategies andresearch. Two staff members with abackground in research have been transferredto the section. To give the section the necessarystrength, it is hoped that the section will beSome of the Norwegian institutions clearly seean advantage in the transfer of responsibility forthe NUFU programme from the MFA toNORAD. In their view, NORAD can have apositive influence on NUFU, and it can ensurethat supported institutions in the South areinformed choice about the collaboration topicsand partners. The transfer also creates betteropportunities for the coordination of efforts.Some interviewees testified from experiencethat synergy is possible (e.g. the program

23 me inthe Palestinian Areas where the Emb
me inthe Palestinian Areas where the Embassy,complementary programmes).The money factor also makes the Norwegianuniversities more interested in collaboratingwith NORAD. Like elsewhere, universitybudgets in Norway have been under pressureover the last decade, not as a result of budgetcuts, but of increases in enrolments (by 70%)and in the costs of inputs, i.e. staff, equipmentetc. The UiNs are eager to look for additionalsources of funding and developmentprogrammes offer direct and indirect sources ofHowever, these interviewees were also of theprogramme should be safeguarded. TheSouthern partners share this view. It isgenerally felt that NUFU should retain itswhat they call ÒNORAD bureaucracyÓ. Southernpartners are also afraid that NUFU will have tofollow political decisions that govern Norwegianuniversity support may be withdrawn incountries which fall out of favour with the MFA.In trying to generate synergy between thevarious research capacity-building schemes, themajor challenge is of course how to retainNUFUÕs character and strength while seekingcomplementarity with other programmes. Thiswhere Framework Agreements have beenrepresentation. In Uganda, discussions are inprogress on linking NUFU activities with theplanned NORAD Framework Agreement withMakerere University. These talks are beingconducted in a very cooperative spirit and willhopefully pave the way for fruitful collaboration In the course of 1993, the NUFU programmewas evaluated by the Chr. Michelsen InstituteThe evaluators made a number of importantobservations:¥in the Òdecentralized modelÓ the NUFUCommittee has few responsibilities withrespect to how the individual memberinstitutions conduct their affairs and hasseemingly no authority to instruct its¥the structure of the agreements bolsters theposition of UiNs with regard to control overdeployment of resources and informationresponsibility for coordination andaccounting further emphasizes the alreadyunequal relationship;¥doubt exists regarding two assumptions: a)Norwegian institutions can take on theadministration of research cooperationprojects at a small additional cost, b) UiNshave spare capacity that can be mobilizedfor long-term and stable UiN-to-UiD¥NUFU finds itself in an ambiguoussituation, reflecting inherent differences

24 inexpectations. On the one hand, the Min
inexpectations. On the one hand, the Ministryof Foreign Affairs is concerned to seeforeign aid funds used effectively for thehand, the UiNs have a responsibilitytowards primary research and training.The evaluators reached the conclusion that theacademic culture in Norway is a majorexplanatory factor for the observed weaknessesof the NUFU administration. Although the MFAexpressly demands a strong and competentadministration, universities are extremelyreluctant to set up structures with executivepower. According to the report, this illustratesthe refusal of the universities to give up any oftheir own freedom of action. recommendations:¥to encourage general agreements whichestablish structures for a long-term, overallcooperation relationship between thepartner institutions, which will accumulatea flexible and evolutionary substantiveprogramme portfolio; ¥to consolidate the on-going relationship andencourage the evolution of a more equalrelationship, which can give greater¥to concentrate on fewer UiDs; the long-termstarted should be continued so as tocapitalize on already invested resources; ¥to make funds available to help UiDsimprove strategic development planningand to coordinate assistance from abroad;¥to conclude NUFU programme contracts inequal rights and obligations towards NUFU;¥to strengthen the interaction between theNUFU Committee/Secretariat and theUiDs, in particular to improve theinformation flow between NUFU and UiDpartners; ¥to adopt the principle of gross costing forNUFU programmes and projects (i.e. makethe contributions from the partner8Follow-up to the 1994 evaluation 18 Chr. Michelsen Institute, Evaluation of the NUFU Agreement, (Faarland, et al.) 1994. conclusions of the 1994 evaluation are to a greatextent still valid today. Some of therecommendations have been followed up. Theadministration fee has been raised, and someUiDs have received extra support to strengthentheir administration capacity. The NUFUCommittee has strengthened the conceptualframework of the programme by formulating astrategy paper with guiding principles. Externalevaluations have been conducted to learn fromexperience and introduce necessaryimprovements in management andgreater responsibilities in decision-makingprocesses, and of focusing NUFU interventionsf

25 or greater institutional impact at UiDs
or greater institutional impact at UiDs haveNUFU partners at NUFU seminars, but plans orrecommendations to this effect have not yet NUFU programme is organized, managed andadministered and is divided into 5 parts: thevirtues and vices of the decentralized model; thedecision-making process; administration andinternal coordination; monitoring andevaluation; and the position and role of the SIUin the NUFU programme management.9.1 Decentralized Modelmanagement of NUFU are characterized by aresponsibility for the identification, design,management and administration of the projectslies with the implementing institutions. Thereare some general NUFU guidelines and criteriawhich projects are supposed to observe but inpractice individual projects have quite a lot ofroom for manoeuvre. The programme does nothave a system to enforce a (uniform) protocolfor project implementation. This decentralized model has certain significantsuccess of the NUFU programme. There is ahigh level of autonomy for the projectcoordinators, project administration can beperformed in a way that is most appropriate foreach individual project, and projects can betailored to prevailing local circumstances. Thedecentralized model therefore encouragesresponsive management, and often leads togood collaborative relationships. Thesecharacteristics have a positive effect on theresults of the projects and the programme as aaspects. It was found that it results in manydifferent modalities of project management,often within the same institute (both in Norwayand in the South) and sometimes deviating fromarrangements. Some projects have broadextensive discussions take place and wheredecisions are made jointly, while others are runthe two models may even be present in the samefaculty. Such differences in administrativestructures obviously cause coordinationproblems at the institutions and may hamperprojects.The lack of protocol and uniformity in projectfrustration among participating staff andstudents if they see rules being interpreted andapplied differently for different NUFU projects.same faculty, there are differences betweenprojects in access to equipment, in allowances,in the promptness with which funds arereleased, etc. Even though NUFU has designedcertain guidelines and financial regulations,in

26 dividual coordinators sometimes deviate
dividual coordinators sometimes deviate fromthese and, due to a lack of information or foropportunistic reasons, exercise more freedomin, for instance, the reallocation of funds. Thereis little control or power to impose sanctionswithin the NUFU system to prevent this fromIn many projects, support for students is animportant part of the funding. The level ofsupport varies considerably, even betweenstudents involved in NUFU projects within thesame units in the South. In some projects, onlydirect costs are covered, while others mayprovide a scholarship of some kind. This is apotential source of tension, which should beavoided. Equally there are no guidelines forstaff visits.9.2 Decision-makingThe decision-making process within the NUFUsystem can be characterized as internal and to9Organization and management decisions about the programme and the projectsare made by the Norwegian stakeholders. TheNUFU programme is initiated, administeredand implemented by the Norwegian universityadministration of the programme, are directlylinked to the Norwegian universities, throughthe Norwegian Council of Universities. applications in order of priority. Some of thebigger universities, both in Norway and theSouth, have set up internal committees toscreen applications and to monitor the progressof the projects. Although they seem to functionquite well, there is some criticism of theseare themselves involved in NUFU projects andsome UiN researchers indicated that this makesthe internal ranking sometimes rather biased.The institutional priority lists are not questionedpriority rankings of projects by the UiNs.The NUFU Committee decides on projectreasons for budget reductions, decided upon bythe NUFU Committee, are often unknown to thepartners. With budget reductions of 50% beingfrustration. representatives, some of whom are alsoinvolved in projects. In the former Committeethere were two representatives from each UiN.We have heard many complaints about thefunctioning of the former Committee. In projectinstitutional interests prevailed over programmeinterests and Òcake sharingÓ over qualitycriteria. In a bid to improve on this situation, theUniversity Council of Norway has installed arepresenting all the institutions. It took office inJanuary 2000. It is hoped that in a sma

27 llerCommittee the institutional interest
llerCommittee the institutional interests will play aless important role in project selection.However, with the present members alsocoming from institutions that participate in theNUFU programme and not all UiNs now beingrepresented, there are fears that this will onlyhas only recently been installed it is too early tomaking is virtually non-existent, a point alreadyraised in the 1994 evaluation report. Despite thefact that most interviewees agree that the Southshould play a more substantive role in thedecision-making process, and despite the factthat the participants in the Cape Town seminarrecommended that UiD priorities should be putbefore the Committee to enable fair decision-making in project selection, to date no measuresstanding intention and recommendation. Another important feature of NUFUÕs decision-making process is that no external advisors areinvolved at any stage of the approval process.This gives the NUFU programme a ratherinward-looking character with possibly negativeconsequences for quality control andaccountability. We will return to this issue in theThe funding system whereby NUFU funds areallocated in application rounds once every 4Ð5introduction of a more thorough approvalprocess, including the advice of externalexperts 19)The NUFU group seminar on NUFU cooperation, Cape Town, November 2Ð6, 1998.20)In the period 1991Ð1998, 202 project proposals were submitted to NUFU. 152 were approved. 13 of these were existingprojects/arrangements that were transferred from the MFA to NUFU at the start of the programme in 1991. 9.3 Administration and internal coordinationSince the signing of the first NUFU Agreementcontinuously worked on improving theadministration of the programme. We are of theopinion that this task has been performed withgreat enthusiasm and considerable success.Many improvements in administration andmanagement have been achieved through aprocess of Òlearning-by-doingÓ. The SIU has proven, with its limited but highlyqualified and motivated staff, that it has thecapacity and will to adjust the NUFU proceduresin response to perceived bottlenecks andshortcomings. This has, however, also causedsome confusion among the partner institutionsbeen properly introduced. The partners haveinterpreted this as Òmoving the goalposts du

28 ringAs observed in the 1994 evaluation,
ringAs observed in the 1994 evaluation, NUFU hasof the university system in Norway and theNUFU projects at a minimal cost. It is clear thatpartners, in UiNs and in UiDs, has beenoverestimated. Because of the decentralizedsystem the workload often lies with the projectcoordinators and researchers who are illequipped to perform such tasks. We do not haveany hard figures on the time spent on theadministration of the NUFU projects but we areconvinced that the present compensationscheme is not in line with the real costsincurred. The scheme should be reviewed and,if necessary, adjusted. We were informed thatthe low compensation fee acts as a deterrent todepartments/researchers to take up NUFUprojectsSome of the principal partner institutions in theMakerere University in Uganda) have tried tostreamline the administration of their NUFUprojects and have received direct support fromNUFU to enable the setting up of coordinatingbodies. Experience with these units so far ispromising but the challenge is to improve thecoordination and administration of the projectswithout creating new structures and proceduresThe funding of NUFU projects is channelledthrough the UiNs. Although there areagreements between NUFU and the UiDs andbetween the UiNs and the UiDs, projectcontracts with financial consequences aresigned between NUFU and the UiNs. There isno direct flow of funding from NUFU to theno insight or control over the budget of theproject, with negative implications for theand management is handled in an informal butuseful way. Meetings and seminars on theseNorway. Since 1991, NUFU has organized seveninternational seminars and conferences for theNUFU partners. In Norway, regular meetings with theinstitutional coordinators have been organizedreporting procedures etc. These meetingsprovide the SIU with important feedback andgive the coordinators an opportunity to learnfrom each otherÕs experiences. Since 1996, theparticular themes for the project coordinators inNorway 21)1992: NUFU Guidelines and Forms; 1995: Revised Guidelines; 1995: NUFU HŒndbok; 1996: NUFU Guidelines Ð AnnualReporting Ð Multi Annual Cooperation, Institutional Assessment; 1997: idem for Southern institutions; 1999/2000: new revisedguidelines under preparation.22)It was suggested to us that the

29 current overhead fee of 8% which the par
current overhead fee of 8% which the partners divide among themselves should be increased to15% in order to attract the best researchers to the NUFU programme.23)Themes: 1996, the African university in the nineties and beyond; 1997, North and South partnership models + the LogFrame At the working group meeting in Cape Town(1998) the partners discussed the accessibilityand institutional memory of the knowledge andexperience gained through NUFUcollaboration, and stressed the need for cost-effective use of modern InformationCommunication Technology. Concern wasexpressed about the lack of possibilities forpublishing good research in developingcountries. Better use of the internet for this9.4 Monitoring and evaluation (M&E)Monitoring and evaluation (M&E) areimportant aspects of the organization andmanagement of any programme or project.primarily to provide programme and projectongoing programme and project with earlyindicators of progress (or a lack of it) in theMonitoring is not limited to the level of projectthose responsible for implementation at everylevel of the management hierarchy as anEvaluation, although a different function, issystematically assesses the relevance,performance and success/effectiveness ofongoing and completed programmes andprojects with the main aim of providing lessonswhich are incorporated into the decision-making process of the programme and itsAs a result of the decentralized model and theprevailing decision-making structure, the M&Eof NUFU projects is mainly an internal affairway. There is no uniform system forinternal/external M&E. We found that,although there are official guidelines, reportingtakes many different forms. The progressreports of the projects vary considerably in size,content and quality. Reporting is often limited toa listing of implemented activities and of reportspublished by students and staff. In general thereports provide little information and hardlylessons learned. Fortunately, there are positivethe institutions have been requested to submiton an annual basis since 1997, do not providesubstantial and useful information for M&Epurposes. Changes in projects are sometimesnot properly documented or justified.Reading through the institutional assessments,we did not get the impression that internalinstrument th

30 at helps them to reflect onprogress and
at helps them to reflect onprogress and analyse difficulties and thereasons for success or failure. Apparently,reporting is seen by some as a compulsoryexercise to satisfy the NUFU Committee.Due to constraints in time and staff, the SIUmainly monitors the financial progress ofprojects, and only to a very limited extent theachievement of objectives. Occasionally, SIUmembers of staff conduct field visits. The SIUdoes not have sufficient tools or possibilities tocross-check the reported data for accuracy andreliability. In general, the SIU provides theprojects with little or no feedback on theirreports, unless there are major problems. Thisdoes not encourage project coordinators to put alot of effort into their reporting. In addition, the programme does not havesanctions or measures to cope with non-performers or under-performers. It is a self-regulating system in which the partners andinstitutions decide on the fate and future ofongoing projects, unless calamities and obviousproblems force the Committee to make a ruling. Since 1996, several external project andportfolio evaluations have been implemented,which is a positive trend. However, the partnersare not positive about the quality of some of theevaluations. We noted that the ToR of the consistent comparison of results, and had veryresulted in superficial analysis and badlyfounded observations. Nevertheless, we are ofthe opinion that this instrument, when properlyadministered, should be regarded as standardprocedure in the management of the NUFUprogramme. 9.5 The position and role of the SIUday-to-day activities of the NUFU programme.The partners in Norway are very appreciative ofthe SIU staff and their performance. The SIUÕsannual reports are well prepared andinformative. Since 1997, the reports show areflections. The SIUÕs role and responsibilitiesare, however, restricted by its limited resources.less on facilitation and programmemanagement. In the present set-up of theprogramme there are limited possibilities forthe SIU to correct problems in reporting andfinancial programme management. The SIUÕstasks and mandate are further limited by thefact that it is actually directly governed by thesame Norwegian institutions that carry out theNUFU projects. We believe that if the SIU were to have a moreinde

31 pendent position from the Norwegianunive
pendent position from the Norwegianuniversity system it could play a more objectiverole in terms of assessing internal rankings,project applications and allocations, and also interms of external monitoring and the evaluationof project performance. role in the training and coaching of NUFUpartners in portfolio management (especially atUiDs, preferably using expertise from NUFUUiD partners), providing training in projectplanning and project cycle management, and inplay a more important and unbiased role in theidentification of new partners or projects and inmobilizing external advisors/assessors at allstages of the project cycle. Of course this wouldrequire an expansion of itÕs present capacity andup a database which houses all importantinformation on the NUFU projects, and indesigning an impressive website which makesrelevant documentation on the NUFUprogramme accessible to stakeholders andinterested outsiders. The external relations ofNUFU are well developed. The evaluation hasshown that the database needs furtherimprovements for it to be accurate, completeand user friendly. The usefulness of the websitefor the NUFU partners can be increased by Interviewees in the South strongly support thepartnership model used in the NUFUprogramme. A partnership model creates thepossibility of establishing long-term andmutually beneficial relationships built onrespect and shared interests. The ÒsandwichmodelÓ, whereby staff/students from the UiDsspend block periods of up to three months at thea partnership approach. Through the sandwichmodel, trainees remain attached to theirinstitution in the South, while the partnershiprelationship provides them with access toresearch opportunities. This combinationproves to be an important instrument for theUiDs to retain their staff. A number of otherdonor programmes like the Fulbright, BritishCouncil, United States Information Service, etc,fund staff/students for study in their respectivecountries. This is not only more costly but oftenthe staff/students do not return to their homecountry. The partnership model also allows for broadparticipation in collaboration projects from bothsides and a complementary mix of activities andsupport mechanisms. In a number of projectswe have seen a well-orchestrated mix of staffand students f

32 rom both sides making use ofvarious fund
rom both sides making use ofvarious funding sources and schemes. Wealready mentioned the beneficial participation ofNorwegian students in the projects. And, veryimportantly, through the partnership, theresearchers and institutions get access toThere are a few weaknesses to the partnershipprogramme. We have noted that, while theNUFU programme has been strong in thebeen somewhat weaker on staff exchange. Ithas been suggested that opportunities shouldbe created for staff from UiDs to spend periodsteaching and researching at UiNs. It is anenriching experience for staff and students onboth sides and promotes equity in therelationship. It was also reported that longer stays were oftenrequested for Norwegian partners in the South,but were limited by the fact that the NUFUagreement does not allow for the funding ofreplacements to take over their responsibilitiesat the home university. It would seem advisablethat would enable UiN researchers to stay atUiDs longer. This would help to attract goodresearchers from UiNs. Sources of funds otherthan NUFU should also be considered for thispurpose. Researchers from UiNs could also beFor a true and lasting partnership, the benefitsshould be mutual, and the relationship shouldthe criticism that the Norwegian institutionsand personnel involved in NUFU programmesare only interested in collaboration if it is to theiracademic advantage. We do not find thissurprising or alarming. Staff at UiNs need tothink of their own career and institutionalinterests as well. Increased pressure on timeand efficiency in the university sector meansparticipation in projects which will produceresults. However, in most NUFU projects the benefitsbeginning of the collaboration. This is logical,when partners of unequal strength start to worktogether. Over time, when the capacities at theUiD are strengthened, the initial mentorrelationship may develop into a fully equitablepeer relationship for mutual development. Thisbenefits before that stage has been reached.The UiN researchers benefit by being exposedto new problems and challenges in research,they publish with colleagues from the UiDs, getto know the challenges from the developing10Strengths and weaknesses of the partnership model has direct benefits for their home institutions,e.g. in the Mathem

33 atics Education Programmeat the Universi
atics Education Programmeat the University of Western Cape (UWC), stafffrom the University of Bergen have benefitedfrom teaching and it has enriched their ownprogrammes in Bergen; staff from UWC in turnAlthough the NUFU programme advocatespartners, almost none of the NUFU projects orinstitutions have reached this stage. This ispartly because of the administrative andprogramme, as discussed in the previousselection process of partners to collaboratewith. Partly because of Norwegian aid policies,and partly because of the motives of the UiNs,the chosen partners in the South representunder-resourced institutions or underdevelopeddisciplines. In project selection the strength ofthe Norwegian institution is the decisive factor,putting the Southern partner automatically inthe position of beneficiary. In fact, theNorwegian partners tend to see the issue ofequality between the partners as a long-termIn this situation, the perception easily prevailsthat the Northern institutions are the seniorpartners, while the Southern institutions are thejunior ones and have to defer certain decisionsto the Northern institutions. In the context ofadvocating the partnership model and equalityin the collaboration, it would also be worthwhileto select projects on topics where the Southernpartners have well-established expertise andwhere Norwegian institutions may start as theÒjuniorÓ partner.to relevant information are other decisivefactors in achieving an equitable partnership.This is particularly relevant in the area offinances and submissions for new proposals oradjustments. The majority of partners in theprocedures, regulations and guidelines of theprogramme, are not kept informed aboutdecisions that have been taken at programmelevel, and are not aware of the performance ofthe programme. As long as Northerninstitutions are closer to the source of fundingand are more familiar with the procedures, rulesand regulations, there will inevitably be someskew. In other words, the present organizationaland management arrangements of theprogramme are not in keeping with the equalpartnership principle. Finally, partnerships between researchers arehard to sustain if they do not have the backingand support of their institutions. This impliesmore than a number of signatures on anagreement

34 . It requires a long-term commitmentpart
. It requires a long-term commitmentpartnership, backed up by provision of thenecessary resources and based on a clear visionthat defines what the partners may expect fromthe partnership and how they will work togethercommitment has not been reached at mostparticipating institutions. Collaborative partnerships have been anintegral component of the NUFU programmesince its inception. The North-Southpartnerships do not seem to have emerged as aconsequence of a planned process, but to havethe interests of collaborating institutionalresearchers. At the start of the second Agreement, thepromoted and additional funds were madeavailable for this purpose. There are no NUFUthe networks. A paper presented at the Dar esSalaam conference gives an insight into theaims of North-South-South relations and theproblems of networking based on experience. According to theauthors, in North-South-South networks muchgreater weight can be placed on recipientresponsibility and participation. With severalUiD partners within a network, these partnerswill have a much greater influence on the choiceof relevant research themes. In addition, thedesign and progress of the programme will beworked out and monitored with a greater UiDinput. This should reduce the chances of UiDsfeeling that the UiNs are too dominant in North-South programmes. We have found that the five NUFU operatingnetworks Ð all in Africa Ð function with varyingdegrees of success. One has broken down,are more a collection of individual researchersin different institutions meeting for occasionalseminars than institutions forming more solidfirm conclusions on the possible causes of thesedifferences. The interest among Southernpartners to form networks with the partners inthe region is, however, considerable. In theirstrengthened because by building a strongresearch base across the Southern continentsdevelopment of UiDs could be turned into anadvantage by partnering well-resourcedparticipation of a Norwegian institution in thenetwork is felt to be important because itprovides access to the latest information andtechnology, international networks andThe broader the disciplinary scope of thenetwork, the greater the chances of success.Networks built on a few individuals that sharean interest in a very specialized field are

35 vulnerable, not least because they lack
vulnerable, not least because they lack a properinstitutional foundation. Broader-basednetwork partners and the establishment ofcentres of excellence. Examples are theat the University of Zimbabwe (UZ) in Harare,which grew out of the joint Allex Languageproject with the University of Oslo. Anothersuccessful S-S project is the MathematicsModelling Programme with its core at the UZand involving students from 10 Africancountries. Lecturers from the universities ofparticipate in the programme. Theestablishment of centres of excellence as a spin-off of these cross-country collaborations hasbeen a very positive development for the region.Centres of excellence also serve a practicalpurpose, enabling participants to share eachothersÕ equipment, lab facilities, etc. Research atthe international level is expensive andinstitution-building a slow process. It isimpossible to fund each partner department11South-South and North-South-South relations 24)Judith A. Narvhus and Roger K. Abrahamsen, North-South-South Cooperation: Philosophy and Feasibility; paper presented atthe African-Norwegian UniversitiesÕ Conference, Dar es Salaam, 27Ð29 October 1997. with every conceivable piece of equipment atNSS programmes can be relatively large andNorth-South programmes. The job ofcoordination is time-consuming and comprisesboth academic, administrative and, to a certainextent, social tasks. NUFU is aware of theseproblems and allows increased funding forprogramme management in NSS programmes.The problems involved in establishing this typeof network include the different levels ofdevelopment of the universities, the failure tofind common areas of interest among thepartner institutions, different stipends fordifferent costs of living in different countries,different cultures, accounting language, etc. Afurther constraint is insufficient funding,as many as five partners in some projects. Oneof the problems that has arisen is theare often allocated to one institution in the Souththrough which they are subsequentlychannelled to the other participatinginstitution is given such a favoured status.One further obstacle to networking andof modern information technology. Effectivecapacity and adequate research infrastructuresat the partner institutions are obviousCommunication is not a pr

36 oblem confined toNSS programmes, it is a
oblem confined toNSS programmes, it is also a real problem inNorth-South programmes. However, theNSS programmes makes the need for fastcommunication even more pressing. The relevance of research projects to theinstitutions and countries concerned is centralto the NUFU programme. There is, however, atension between the desire of researchers topursue theoretical research and the demands ofcommunities, governments, industry andbusiness for research that is relevant and hasimmediate applicability. This tension needs tobe carefully negotiated so that the two demandsare complementary and reinforcing.Because of the decentralized nature of theNUFU programme it is open to questionwhether institutionsÕ research priorities or, forthat matter, the national research agenda areinstitution or country has a well-determinedresearch strategy and direction. The research topics are selected largely on thebasis of the mutual interests of researchers atpartner institutions in Norway and the South.The primary goal of research seems to bedissemination and application of research forthe benefit of society. Research results arerarely disseminated beyond academic circles orintegrated into regular teaching programmes.Little effort seems to be made to bringresearchers and research users together.However, it should be kept in mind that much ofthe research is linked to staff development andmany research documents relate to PhD andDespite this mutual interest in choosing areasfor research, our examination of the variousprojects was strongly indicative of theirrelevance to the institutions and the developingcountries, some being more significant or morepractical than others. The UZ Allex project hasproduced Shona and Ndebele dictionarieswhich are in daily use. The MathematicsEducation Programme at the UWC is making astrong contribution in upgrading teaching inthe University of the North will provide thebasis for a spectrum of studies in the health fieldfrom epidemiological studies to HIV/AIDSprevention. Interdisciplinary research has increasingrelevance in the emerging globalized world.Many solutions to complex problems in themodern world require an interdisciplinaryapproach. From our interviews in the South, wegot the impression that few NUFU projectsinvolved interdisciplinary resear

37 ch. However,the information in the datab
ch. However,the information in the database presents adifferent picture, revealing that a lot of projectsin the second Agreement are multidisciplinary.As can be seen from Table 4, in the firstAgreement 43 out of 55 projects wereunidisciplinary. In the second Agreement the99 projects involving more than one discipline. Itwould be worthwhile to look into this real orvirtual discrepancy between facts andimpressions in more detail.12Relevance Most institutions in the South lack the structureand capacity to formulate a research agenda,prioritize their research activities, and formulateprogramme creates research opportunities butdoes not support the strengthening of researchmanagement at university level. We would liketo reiterate one of the recommendations of theprincipal partner institutions in the South,provides support with the formulation ofinstitutional research strategies andstrengthens research management. If this is feltprogramme, a signal should be sent to the UiDsin this regard. It is important for both UiN andUiD researchers to locate their respectiveresearch interests within such a research plan.It gives the projects a better chance of achievinggratifying to note that some UiDs are in theprocess of establishing a research policy andstrategy. In the absence of strategic plans theinstitutions in the South could assess proposalsinstitutional priorities; c) research priorities; Number of 1st2nd1st and 2nd disciplines in projectcombined143347726182433131641252655562271121211Total number of projects5599154 Table 4. Multidisciplinarity of projects, 1st and 2nd Agreement We examined quality assurance in three areas:programme and project administration, inputsand outputs. Quite a few aspects of programmeand project administration that have a bearingon quality assurance have already beenManagement, such as project identification andselection, monitoring and evaluation, externalassessments. We concluded that qualityassurance and control throughout the wholeproject cycle need to be improved.We may further add that the application ofquality control to NUFU projects is difficultobjectives or verifiable performance indicators.Many projects lack a longer-term vision whenthey start. Some blossom into impressive andsuccessful projects, others continue withoutgreat

38 ambitions and results. In the absence o
ambitions and results. In the absence ofclearly defined criteria to measure the successof the programme and integral cost calculationsof all project inputs, a good measure of theprogrammeÕs efficiency cannot be established.We have learned that the Norwegianin writing elaborate proposals if it is not certainthat the project will be approved and funded.This one of the reasons why the average projectproposal submitted to NUFU is modest in sizeand content. The vicious circle of reasoningbehind this practice could be broken byinstituting a two-step selection process: aconditional approval of an initial projectproposal, followed by a definite approval if thepartners can submit a fully fledged and detailedproposal. Although the Norwegian partners claim that theNUFU programme is good and cost-effective,the institutions cannot provide hard evidence tosupport this claim. This issue was raised in theworldÓ it would serve the institutions well if theythe NUFU programme. Internally, it couldproduce problems if participation in the NUFUprogramme is not founded on a clearinstitutional policy and commitment towardsinternational cooperation with institutions in theSouth. In our view, strong institutionalcommitment towards international cooperationand willingness to adopt gross budgeting forproject activities go hand in hand.of projects. Partly because of this, thecomments of the SIU on the applications arelimited, usually of a technical nature and oftenrestricted to the budget. Few comments dealwith relevance, effectiveness or othersubstantive matters. Nevertheless, manypartners in Norway expressed the opinion thatproposals properly and therefore rely on thebrief assessments prepared by the SIU. Practically all respondents interviewed are infavour of improving quality assurance in theprogramme, but opinions on how this should bedone differ and many fear that increased qualitycontrol will mean additional work for thecoordinators. In Norway, opinions onintroducing forms of external assessment ofproject proposal are mixed. The proponentsmake the decision-making process moretransparent and might have positive effects onthe quality of the project proposals. Theopponents argue that proposals should not becriteria such as relevance, feasibility, and provencapacity of those

39 who submit a proposal. Toinstitutions, t
who submit a proposal. Toinstitutions, the topics and the local context. Weare of the opinion that, for the sake oftransparency and quality control, a system ofexternal assessment is recommendable. In13Quality assurance include external assessors in their internalranking process. The respondents indicatedsome problems with their internal rankingmechanisms: because people are too close andvery sensitive issue. The same holds for priorityranking at UiDs. Some (very few) would be infavour of abolishing the internal rankingSince 1997, the institutions in Norway and theSouth have been asked to prepare an annualinstitutional assessment report in which theinstitutions report and discuss the progress oftheir portfolio of projects. A serious dilemmathe different project participants are ÒhonestÓlose financial resources as a consequence ofÒpoorÓ project quality. Institutional assessmentsof portfolios may also mean that the researchadministration needs to be strengthened in aQuality assurance is also important in the firstand selection of new partners in the South. Theassessment visits to prospective partnerThis instrument is combined with closermonitoring of the performance of thecollaboration in the first few years. However,time-constraints prevent the conduct of a properinstitutional assessment process. This was thecase with, for example, the NUFU programmein Guatemala which originated haphazardlywhen the MFA decided to give NUFU NOK 24million for university collaboration to supportthe peace process in that country.In terms of inputs, the Southern partnersNorwegian partners, despite the claim fromNorwegian interviewees that the bestNorwegian researchers do not participate in theNUFU projects. To our best judgement there isno great problem in the supervision of MasterÕsand PhD Programmes, at least none that werebrought to our attention. The joint supervisionby researchers from UiNs and UiDs enrichesloads. In some cases, the period is very long ifwe may draw conclusions from information inthe database. According to 1999 figures, quite a154 MasterÕs degree candidates) whoAgreement had still not completed them. Onewonders how their studies are being funded ifthey are not participating in a project that is acontinuation of previous Agreement. In anyprobably a

40 budget should be provided forThe quality
budget should be provided forThe quality of the research outputs is subject topeer review at institutional level andinternational referees, in the case ofinternational publications. Only a limitedreputable peer reviewed journals. Our generalimpression is that these are of an acceptable ifnot high quality. We are less certain of theappeared in institutional journals, the lay pressetc. In NUFUÕs Cape Town seminar it wasobserved that in some cases, although findingsfrom collaborative research projects havesufficient scientific information, they are notjournals because they are considered toocountry specific, and the NUFU is called uponrecommended that UiDs and UiNs should beintellectual property rights and patentownership resulting from NUFU researchStudent exchange must be regarded as one ofthe strongest aspects of the NUFU programme.The merits of the sandwich model have alreadybeen pointed out. There is little doubt thatjudging by the number of staff and students that have obtained postgraduate degrees or are inthe process of obtaining them, the NUFUprogramme has been a great success. Theparticipation of experienced Norwegianstaff and students from UiDs to UiNs have beenenriching in addition to providing the necessarysupervision and resources to complete theirstudies for MasterÕs or PhD degrees. institutions Ð both in Norway and the South. Amore ambitious definition is that thein a broad sense. During the field visits,terms of the first definition, but the second wassustainability of the project activities. Anotherimportant distinction to be made is betweenThe two are strongly interrelated, and problemsalso affect academic institutionalization.The importance of improved institutionalizationwas one of the major concerns raised by theevaluation of the NUFU programme in 1994. Itshould be noticed that the problems werethen, the NUFU administration and partnershave made efforts to implement therecommendations of the evaluation, and someprogress has been made. Administrativecoordination and support within the Norwegianinstitutions has improved, NUFU guidelinesinstitutionalization has gained a strongerposition in the signing of the contracts. Effortspossibility of influencing this from within NUFUis of course much more limited. It should beadded that many NU

41 FU projects originallystarted in the fir
FU projects originallystarted in the first phase of the programme (orwere even based on collaboration establishedlong before the first NUFU period), before theconcern for institutionalization was raised. It is,projects.Nevertheless, all field study reports observeNUFU programme. The fact that it was also atopic of discussion at the Cape Town seminarindicates that the partners are aware of itthemselves. The participants expressed seriousconcerns about the present status ofwhich they characterized as weak with regardsto core functions and administrative supportstructures, institutional responsibility forprogrammes, and the integration of NUFUprogrammes in the overall plans and coreactivities of the relevant institutional units. Theworking group dealing with sustainabilityrecommended that these concerns beaddressed so that NUFU collaborationprogrammes have built-in guarantees ofincreasing institutional proficiency andThis observed weakness in achieving theinstitutionalization of the programme and itsprojects is, of course, closely related to NUFUÕsof universities as a whole. In research on higherorganizational theory, universities tend to bebureaucracies, where authority is mainly basedon academic merit rather than formalstructures. Academic staff have a greater loyaltyto their respective disciplines than to theirinstitution. These characteristics are seen asnecessary for a university to fulfil its researchand teaching functions, and are linked to theideals of academic autonomy. For this reason,characteristics and the need for coordinationpolicies aiming to introduce major changes14Institutionalization 25)The working group seminar on NUFU cooperation, Cape Town, November 1998. perspective rather than operating only throughthe central level of the university.The NUFU programme is based on these sameprinciples, and this coherence with the mainone of the reasons for its popularity and theuniversities rather than starting withagreements at the top level. Furthermore, theresearchers engaged in the programme areand they feel comfortable with it. There appearsthe programme should remain intact. The aimof increasing institutionalization should not leadthe programme towards more central andbureaucratic steering. Institutionalizationshould be realistic and feasible

42 , and in tune withthe specific character
, and in tune withthe specific character of both the programmepresent status of institutionalization within theNUFU programme is optimal, or that the aim ofimproved institutionalization should beabandoned. On the contrary, the impact ofNUFU projects could generally be enhanced bya stronger degree of institutionalization, andattention and support for the programme atcentral level could be improved. In this respect, it is important to make adistinction between NUFU support for researchand teaching activities. At universities, there islittle interference in the research conducted bythe staff, while the education component ismuch more centrally steered. Partnerinstitutionalizing teaching programmes, butinstitutionalization of research activities or theadministration of externally funded projects. Itis our impression that the programme does notgive sufficient attention to this distinction.The institutionalization of project activities inlinked to the extent to which the project relatesto the priorities and needs of the recipientinstitutions. Although NUFU projects have beencreated on the basis of individual interests, andin most cases at the initiative of the Norwegianpartner, our main impression is that theNorwegian partners have shownresponsiveness to the needs of the recipientinstitution (and country). The same applies todecision-making process. institutionalization, the picture is far moreproblematic. In some UiDs, NUFUcoordinators, local NUFU Committees and evenNUFU units are established, to a greater orbe better for these arrangements to operatewithin the framework of the university, servingall NUFU projects at the institution. A proposalfrom one of the field study reports whichdeserves consideration was that a committeewould have a stronger position than a singlecoordinator. The problem is that a number ofadministrative arrangements within the NUFUprogramme do not fulfil the criteria mentionedabove. There are examples of arrangementstotally outside the UiN, and also serving only afew projects. From the partnersÕ perspective,there can be many good reasons for not runningprojects within the confines of the university. Inmany UiDs, slow decision-making processes,conflicting interests between researchers, andefficient project management. This situationma

43 kes it sometimes necessary and acceptabl
kes it sometimes necessary and acceptableto find interim solutions outside the formalstructures. But if these become permanent,they will present an obstacle to theinstitutionalization of the project and reduce theMost field study reports reported that the flowof information between the projects and theeven non-existent. There are cases where theinternational relations do not know about the NUFU agreement or what NUFU projects areunder way. This may negatively affect attitudestowards the NUFU programme at central level,and may reduce the chances of support fromthis level. Even more problematic is the fact thatthe low level of information sharing andcoordination seriously affects the possibilitiesfor generating synergies between the differentNUFU projects and with other donor activities.We have seen examples of such synergies, butthey were mainly the result of partners with anentrepreneurial attitude. From our observations and discussions, we getthe impression that the best projectarrangements, with the greatest potential forare probably the broader based, multi-facetedteaching and research projects. We have seenexamples of such projects at some UiDs, wellstructures of the institution. They are of aconsiderable size in terms of participatingresearchers, involve more departments, andinclude different components such as research,training of students and staff development. institutionalization. Improvements ininstitutionalization will also increasesustainability. The term has many differentmeanings; a project may, for example, beconsidered sustainable if it is given continuedrelated to the project and the specificpartnership itself, but rather inked to the resultsof the collaboration. In this respect, bysustainability, we mean that the project activitiesshould be able to continue after the project itselfhas been terminated. This is of course not to saythat it is not important that the partnershipcontinues, but that, from the perspective ofNUFU, the partnership is a tool rather than anshould be considered: at the level of theinstitution or of the recipient country. If a projecthas helped to educate graduates who arebeneficial to the society concerned, it issustainable in a certain sense even if there areno signs of it left within the university. Bothaspects s

44 hould be considered, but since theitself
hould be considered, but since theitself, but to support universities in the South,we have regarded effects at the institutionalThe overall impression of the evaluation team isthat there are many good examples ofsustainable outputs of the NUFU programme,but at the same time there is considerablevariation between projects. The most visibleresult is staff development, leading to a core ofwell-trained staff capable of both continuingresearch and teaching. Other positive examplesare support given to laboratories or otherresearch facilities and the establishment ordevelopment of curricula. The best prospectsfor sustainability are observed in the broaderbased projects, rather than in smaller projectsinvolving only a few researchers.planned for. In the NUFU programme,sustainability is not an important criteria when itcomes to project applications, implementation ofmonitoring. Researchers do not see it as theirresponsibility. Mechanisms for sustainability arenot built into the projects at the design stage.Our observations have shown that, althoughthere is potential for generating income duringand even after completion of some projects, inmany cases the partners do not see thecommercial opportunities and the institutionslack a proper policy framework for incomegeneration. There is a definite need to assistSouthern partners in their efforts to look forcourse a major threat to the sustainability of theprojects. This is a problem that lies outsideNUFUÕs sphere of influence. These financialconstraints have a direct effect on the capacityof institutions to retain staff, due to low salariesand poor working conditions. Programmes likeNUFU are important to institutions in the Southbecause they create and support anenvironment of research and trainingopportunities that will retain capable staff eventhough salaries may not be up to standard. Thissituation makes the NUFU programme co-responsible for the sustainability of the activitiesterm support if investments are not put to waste. We have already mentioned that problems ofsustainability are limited only to institutions inprojects have a strong training and capacity-always seen as necessarily rewarding ineconomic and academic terms for theNorwegian institutions. NUFU gives limitedfinancial support to the Norwegian partn

45 ers,which can create a heavy burden espe
ers,which can create a heavy burden especially onunits involved in many NUFU projects. In15Sustainability addition, a general trend towards less room formanoeuvre in the budgets of the institutionsreduces their economic freedom, and may leadto less institutional support for NUFUcollaboration. In addition, the research benefitsfor the Norwegian partners are often quiteNUFUÕs major strengths but which, at the samealso reduce the possibilities for recruiting thebest Norwegian researchers to the programme,American or European institutions may beconsidered more rewarding. It is important tobe aware of this but, so far, it does not seem tohave affected interest in establishing newNUFU projects. The number of projectapplications has been increasing, and NUFUreports that many more applications qualify forsupport than can be approved. This is anindicator of the increased attention for North-South collaboration within Norwegianuniversities, a factor very much a result of theNUFU agreement. So, at programme level atunder threat at this moment. In 1991, the idea was to create a researchcollaboration programme, in which theSouthern institutions would define the prioritiescooperation. The intention of the programmewas to create research competence throughprofessional equality between the partners.However, the programme did not start with aclean slate and this compromised its idealisticideas from the start. Projects already beingundertaken by the Norwegian universities andother projects that received funding from theMFA (13 projects) had to be taken on board.Many of these projects focused on educationrather than on research. Under the secondAgreement, too, the programme has notdifferent projects. The MFA provided extraas part of Norwegian support for the peaceprocess in those countries. This meant thatpartners and projects had to be identified in away that went beyond the normal procedures.These factors, combined with the not veryspecific aims of the programme, have led todifferences of opinion in the NUFUobjectives of the programme. Some think theprogramme is meant to solve problems inIn the previous chapters various aspects of theNUFU programme have been examined,referring to the extent to which the programmewhich its strategy and procedures have helpedto achieve t

46 he programmeÕs aims andobjectives. The
he programmeÕs aims andobjectives. The following discrepancies,frictions and dilemmas have been observed:¥The focus of project activities is on researchand staff development for research(collaboration). A broader-focused andintegrated approach aimed at strengtheningnot actively pursued by the programme. Inits present form, NUFU only contributes tosome aspects of the broad range of activitiesthat are needed to strengthen an instituteÕsresearch capacity.¥In most projects education and staffdevelopment take priority over researchstarting position of most Southern partnersand by the conviction of most partners thatexcellent research can only prosper inHence, they see a combination of researchand research training (education) as theNUFU projects, 18% are pure researchprojects without education and trainingactivities. 22% of the projects involve PhDstudies, 24% MasterÕs Degree studies, and¥The partnership model is well appreciatedby the partners. It builds the necessaryunderstanding, respect and trust forsuccessful collaboration. However, it needstime to develop and grow. Initially therelationships between the partners are veryunequal. The Southern partners benefitmost from the projects, especially in thethe UiNs are more indirect and come after ajust a reflection of existing disparities butalso a consequence of the selection process. ¥The ownership of the programme lies withthe Norwegian partners. At project level,the situation is more balanced.¥The usual pattern of origin of projects, i.e.leads to ÒislandsÓ of research activitieswithout proper anchoring in the institutionÕsacademic and administrative structures.16Aims,principles and strategy ¥The decentralized system of programmemanagement and administration createownership at the level of the projectparticipants, but has major drawbacksregarding the control and accountability ofthe programme.¥NUFU contributes to overall Norwegianthematic or regional priorities.The table below lists the major discrepancies aswe have observed them. It is interesting to notethat, although NUFU is a successful programmewith good results and satisfied participants, itobservation immediately leads to a number ofdiscrepancies be addressed, and if so, in whatway? We will discuss this further in the chapteron future di

47 rections. AimPracticeResearch collaborat
rections. AimPracticeResearch collaboration (original)Staff development and education prevailStrengthen institutionsTopical projectsPrinciplesPracticeMutual benefitsUnequal strengths and gainsEquity Seen as long-term objectiveSouthern needs should prevailNorwegian institutions decidePartnership modelUiN dominance in decision-makingRelevance of researchIndividuals interests prevailFinancial commitment of UiNUiN budgets under pressurePersonal commitmentÒPublish or perishÓ pressure for academicsurvivalStrategyPracticeLong-term perspectiveShort-term funding (4 years)Institutional responsibilityCollaboration between individualsShortfallsDecentralized systemQuality assurance (process, inputs andproducts)Harmonization of proceduresCoordination of activitiesInterfacing with other support programmesTable 5. Discrepancies and dilemmas 17.1 IntroductionThe following paragraphs present the mainfindings of a concise comparative study.comparing the principles, approach and resultsof the NUFU programme with those of threeother programmes, namely:¥the Bilateral Programme for Enhancementof Research Capacity in developingInternational Development Assistance¥the Bilateral Research CooperationProgramme, funded by the Department forResearch Cooperation, Swedish Inter-(hereafter referred to as Sida/SAREC);¥the Multi-annual, MultidisciplinaryResearch Programmes (MMRPs), fundedby the Dutch Directorate General forInternational Cooperation (DGIS). Although a comparison between programmeswith similar aims but varying modalities is adaunting effort, it nevertheless providesinteresting perspectives on a number of keyissues which may be prove useful in discussionson the further development and improvement ofthe NUFU programme.17.2 Aims and guiding principlesprogrammes aim at strengthening researchcapacity in developing countries in a broadprogrammes are a long-term commitment todevelopment support, equality in theshould be the central focus in the process ofsomewhat different objective: to supportdemand-oriented research into local long-termprocesses of change, designed to improve thepolicy actions of government, NGOs andgrassroots movements in the countriesconcerned. The programmes aim to offeralternatives to mainstream (asymmetrical)research.programmes operate through long-te

48 rmcooperative projects in the form of pa
rmcooperative projects in the form of partnerships(Òtwinning arrangementsÓ) between institutionsconcerned. In the MMRPs, no partnershipswith the North are involved. The programme isuse of research capacity is often hampered bythe asymmetric relations between the Northresearch does not find its way into local,regional and national policy. NUFU, ENRECAand Sida/SAREC projects include the exchangeof staff, postgraduate training, the provision ofresearch equipment, acquisition of literatureand academic journals, improvement ofresearch infrastructure and means ofpublication of research findings. In all threeprogrammes the sandwich model is a powerfulmeans of building local research capacity.MMRP projects support research-relatedtraining and supervision (in general not as partof formal degree programmes), the acquisitionof literature and journals, and dissemination andproduction of newsletters, and the organization17.3 Approaches and strategiesThe four programmes differ in their approachand strategy of support for research capacity-research capacity-building in institutionsthrough individual projects, implemented in arelatively large number of countries, comparedto the financial resources available. The NUFU17NUFU compared programme collaborates with institutions in 22countries. Both programmes follow adecentralized approach to programmeimplementation, in which the institutions areprimarily responsible for the academic contentof the programme, as well as for the reporting,supervision, implementation and initiationprocesses. It explains the diversity in topics andcountries of cooperation and the difficulties inaddressing wider, institutional capacity-buildingissues. In the ENRECA programme, the actualcurrently the subject of external evaluation. The Sida/SAREC programme and the MMRPsfollow a more institutional (and, to a certainextent, national) approach in building researchcapacity, and have concentrated their support inprogrammes are involved in nine countries.Sida/SAREC provides comprehensive supportin some cases also to national research councilsand ministries. An increasing share of the totalallocations is being used to strengthen theconditions for research at the universities,including support for reforms, researchsuccessful component of the support is

49 thecontribution to faculty funds for res
thecontribution to faculty funds for research,intended to encourage systems for peer reviewand decision-making. The institutional approachhas already shown promising results in terms ofinstitutional impact at departmental and facultylevels, but requires a long-term perspective, andseems to generate the best effects in institutionsand countries which have already reached acertain level of competence in managing theresearch process. The MMRPs display a radically differentstrategy. The nine research programmesthemselves are fully responsible for designing,research, with the donor acting mainly as afacilitator. Results are also promising: (internal)joint reviews showed that each of the MMRPshas succeeded in creating its own identitywithin a relatively short time (2Ð4 years), and insetting up relevant, and user-oriented researchprogrammes based on local needs and17.4 Programme management and administrationIn the NUFU and ENRECA programmes,system, the whole process of identification,making at all levels is still largely Northerndominated. Both programmes therefore seemlimited regarding the extent to which overallFurthermore, in the NUFU programme there isno uniformity in project management andhampers the proper monitoring of theprogrammeÕs performance and thecontrol, feedback and information sharingencounters, due to limited staff capacity,difficulties in monitoring and feedback ofprojects and research results.Both the Sida/SAREC programme and theMMRPs have transferred responsibilities forAgreements for cooperation are signed directlywith the Southern partners. The Sida/SARECprogramme pays considerable attention tosystematically involves the partners in theidentification and selection of research themesand priorities. This model requires considerablecoordinating and planning capacities at centrallevels in the South, flexible programmemanagement and a strong facilitating role forSouthern partners have control over and areresponsible for their policy, programmes andestablished its own procedures and manuals forevaluation of research projects. A SteeringCommittee, composed of representatives ofresponsible for the overall management and quality of the programme. Internal joint reviewsindicate that these organizations varysignificantly in their level of effectiv

50 eness andthat improvements could be made
eness andthat improvements could be made with respectto operational mechanisms. At programmelevel, DGIS is responsible for monitoring andevaluation of the programme as a whole, butintervention has been kept to a minimum. Bothmodels for programme management are highlyappreciated in the South, and have created17.5 Institutionalization and sustainabilityDue to lack of information, it is not clear whatkind of overall approach is followed by theENRECA and Sida/SAREC programmes tosustainability of projects. External evaluationsstress the importance of assuring institutionalmodels address this issue by transferringresponsibility for the management andadministration of the programme to the countrylevel. The most important threat to thesustainability of research projects seems to bethe weakness of research environments in manyresources and are unable to provide a suitableÒhomeÓ for graduating projects. In the case ofthe MMRPs, there are some concerns about theresearch because MMRPs are not institutionrelevance of the research and the localownership are strong conditions for success inthese areas. Each MMRP has developed andcredibility of the network and its results, so farwith mixed results. 17.6 Achievements and resultsAs reported in previous chapters, NUFU hasyielded good results. Evaluation and reviews ofthe ENRECA and Sida/SAREC programmesshow positive contributions to researchcoordination between the different kind ofinputs, such as research training, physicalfacilities, provision of consumables andliterature, travel etc. contributed positively tothe effectiveness of the projects. In the NUFU,ENRECA and Sida/SAREC programmes, thesandwich model is an effective instrument inresearch training at PhD and MasterÕs level.own research agenda and getting itimplemented. Each MMRP has carved out itsniche in the larger research arena of thecountry concerned, and all are now attractingthe attention of national research and policy-NUFU in its present form can only contribute tosome aspects of the broad range of activitiesthat are needed to strengthen an instituteÕsresearch capacity. The Sida/SAREC programmeand the MMRPs have developed a more broadlyfocused and more integrated approach tostrengthening the academic, as well as theresearch institutions and networks. Ac

51 cording to the reports, the quality of t
cording to the reports, the quality of thegood in all three partnership programmes. Inthe NUFU programme the quality of outputs isprimarily looked at from an academic andscientific perspective: societal relevance is notassessed or measured. ENRECA andrelevance in the assessment (making use ofexternal referees), monitoring andevaluation/review procedures. The MMRPsacknowledge the importance of striking abalance between the social relevance and theacademic quality of research. The individualMMRPs have reached different stages indeveloping a systematic approach to managingthe quality of the research process. Given thenature of the programmes, however, they arefacing criticism both from the academic worldand from within development circles. 17.7 Concluding remarksfirm conclusions can be drawn regarding thecomparative advantages of the programmes interms of programme design and performance. shares a lot of its characteristics with theENRECA programme. We mentioned theprogramme implementation and the stronginfluence of the Northern partners in thedecision-making process and the managementof the projects. However, the Northern partnersare very committed and the results of theSida/SAREC programme and the MMRPs theneeds and priorities of the Southern institutionsare the point of departure. Much more so thanis the case with NUFU and ENRECA, theseprogrammes are built on commitment in theIn terms of achieving local ownership,strengthening of overall conditions for research,the NUFU programme is less well equippedthan the Sida/SAREC programme and theMMRPs. These programmes place much moreemphasis on Southern ownership, institutionalcapacity-building and the relevance of researchimplementation strategies and proceduresaccordingly. This does not mean that these twoprogrammes will produce more or betterthey will score better when it comes to thestrengthening of institutional capacities inresearch management. Whereas in NUFU andtake preference over aims and principles, in theSida/SAREC programme and the MMRPs, thestrategy follows on quite logically from the aims NUFU is a niche programme, it does not aim toaddress the general problems of universitiesthat stem from low and unreliable levels of corefunding and rapidly increased studentenrolments. The programme has only o

52 nemission, which is to contribute to res
nemission, which is to contribute to research andresearch competence in the institutions. Wehave concluded that the programme hasachieved much in terms of education andtraining, in producing research documents, inmaintaining good relations with the MFA andWe are of the opinion that despite its success,the NUFU programme needs to make a fewstrategic choices in order to maintain andfurther improve its good performance and tosuccessfully cope with present and futurechallenges. The transfer of the programmeÕsresponsibility from the MFA to NORAD, theneed for greater synergy between Norwegiansupport schemes, changes in universityprogrammes may force the programme toreview and adjust its aims, principles andstrategy.As pointed out in the preceding chapters, evenwithout these challenges, there is a need for theNUFU programme to address a number of¥to achieve coherence in the objectives,programme;¥to balance flexibility and control in¥to improve quality assurance withoutbecoming bureaucratic;¥to make the decision-making processtransparent;¥to strive for the institutionalization andsustainability of project activities;¥to strengthen collaboration with otherprogrammes without compromising¥to strengthen the North-South-SouthThe call for coherence is based on ourobservation of a number of tensions betweenthe aims and principles of the programme onpractice on the other. In addition, the drawbacksof the programmeÕs decentralized strategyaffect some of its aspirations as expressed in itsprogramme seems to take precedence, makingit difficult for it to achieve its aims and adhere tomade to remedy this incoherence if theprogramme wishes to proceed with a crediblemission and realistic horizons. Linked to this isa need to demarcate the ambitions of theprogramme in terms of institutional impact,disciplines involved. If funds for the programmeremain at the present level and the programmewould like to have more impact at the UiDs, itwill have to concentrate resources in fewerinstitutions and perhaps also reduce the numberof disciplines it can support.There is a top-down/bottom-up tension betweenNUFUÕs aim of strengthening UiDs according toprojects are all initiated and implemented byindividual interests and through person-to-person contacts. It is very difficult to s

53 erve Òtop-projects. If the ambition of
erve Òtop-projects. If the ambition of the programme shiftstowards institutional strengthening, projects18Future directions development plans, and UiN partners shouldpossibly, but not necessarily, also be selected byWe have observed that the involvement ofSouthern partners in the decision-makingprocess is a contentious issue. Although there isthe Norwegian institutions are very reluctant totake action to this effect, hiding behind theargument that there are too many practicalproblems involved. We believe this attitudenegatively affects the credibility of the NUFUprogramme, and that the partners should nolonger postpone or avoid taking steps to addressAnother major challenge will be to improve theaccountability of the programme withoutbureaucratizing the system. On the positiveside, interviewees across the board see a needfor improvements in the administration andmanagement of the programme and welcomethe harmonization of rules and procedures forall matters pertaining to project implementationinstitutions and coordinators themselves shouldbe encouraged to submit reports which containnot only facts and figures necessary formonitoring the progress of activities, but alsoanalytical sections which compare progressproblems. This will place a heavier burden onthe institutional coordinating bodies and theSIU because they have to spend more time notalso on providing the project coordinators withfeedback that will help them to addressobserved gaps and problems. Feedback is animportant instrument in motivating people toproduce good reports and give them theimpression that reporting serves a purpose.With regard to improvements in establishingNorth-South-South relations, this has to beaddressed both at the conceptual anddeveloped as to what is expected from suchcollaboration, which countries are mostappropriate for the partnerships, what roleshould the UiNs play, how are projects to befinanced (especially how funds are to beapportioned between the respective partners),and what are the priority areas of research forsuch partnerships. Guidelines needs to beprogrammes because they are morecomplicated and may have different andbroader objectives than the regular N-Sprojects. Apart from the common ÒoutputsÓ,such as trainees and research documents,success in establishi

54 ng fruitful collaborationsand the establ
ng fruitful collaborationsand the establishment of centres of excellenceconstructive dialogues will be needed to createsynergetic relations between NUFU projects,NORAD-funded programmes and RCNschemes. We believe that, if properly preparedand arranged, the model of linking NUFU to aNORAD Framework Agreement offers goodopportunities to make the programmeshave to work out collaboration arrangements forinstitutions where both run projects orprogrammes. This could be in the form ofNORAD-institution) agreements. It is importantthat the institution, NORAD and NUFU agreefrom the start on the Òrules of the gameÓregarding the identification of complementarysupport and on mechanisms to make sure thatthe support will be provided in a coordinatedmanner. The partner institutions should beencouraged to play a pro-active role in settingthe research and external support agenda. InUiDs with a large NUFU portfolio but as yet noNORAD Framework Agreement, it would makesense to have NORAD support to improveinstitutional conditions, from which the NUFUprojects would also benefit.burden on the shoulders of the projectcoordinators, the coordinating units and theSIU. The coordinators and units will need to be to be strengthened in terms of staff, resourcesand mandate to be able to perform a propernot increased, the implementation of thesesuggestions will mean a reduction in fundsdirectly available for project implementation.There may be a risk that if too much money isgoing in to what may be considered non-productive and cumbersome activities,scientists may just as well follow mainstreamnational priorities, forfeit NUFU and seekfunding elsewhere.Improvements in the research bureaucracy forimproved quality control, better management,decentralized system is gravitating more to theÒcentreÓ. This will curtail the freedom ofindividual researchers Ð one of the attractions ofjoining the NUFU programme Ð which may beanother reason why they lose interest. Whetherit is worth the risk of losing the enthusiasticsupport of researchers in an attempt to increasethe quality assurance of the programme is adifficult question for us to answer. Much willflexibility and control, and on the process thatstakeholders. In recent years, changes inintroduced in the programme, not by decree butpartn

55 ers. Once convinced of the purpose andus
ers. Once convinced of the purpose andusefulness of these practices, partners havethe programme management. Dialogue,effective way to achieve sustainable results in adecentralized system. The secret is to achievechange without losing support.18.1 Strategic choicesprogramme: goal-related results, principles orprogramme, which is the case now, itsadjustment. If, however, the aims and/orprinciples of the programme are given priority,programme.In reviewing these issues the NUFUstakeholders should consider the programmeÕspresent and future mission and approach withinthe broader framework of Norwegian policiesand programmes that support thestrengthening of research and higher educationNorwegian and Southern partners, the MFA,RCN, NCU, NORAD, and the Ministry ofEducation, Research and Church Affairs) needto agree on the specific role that the NUFUprogramme could and should play within overallpolicy, taking into consideration the specificstrengths which academic partnership cancontribute. Once all parties are clear on the roleand focus of the schemes can be determinedand finely tuned. We would like to stress theimportance of making use of field experiencesbe observed at project and institution level, andtwo aims of the programme, researchserved by one implementation strategy andadministration model. This becomes morecritical with the prospect of NUFU collaboratingwith other programmes. In the chapter on Aims,Principles and Strategy, it was observed that thecapacity-building activities of NUFU (degreeregarded as development aid although theNorwegian partners do not like to refer to it assuch. Research collaboration and capacity-building require different inputs from, and offerdifferent rewards to, the partners involved. In research the mutual benefits of collaborationare much clearer and it makes sense not tocompensate the time put in by the Norwegianstaff. In capacity-building projects, most of thebenefits go to the Southern partner. The UiNsare helping their partners to reach a certainlevel of education and research. The benefits forthe UiNs are limited during the building upbe unreasonable for them to receivecompensation for their efforts. Highercompensation fees would probably represent amove towards a development aid mode ofIf this differentiation in imple

56 mentationmodalities on the basis of vary
mentationmodalities on the basis of varying aims andbe to set up sub-programmes within NUFU, or asmall number of specialized programmes underNUFU. We have been told that NUFU iswith one window for focused interventions inthe principal partner institutions, one window tosupport networks, and one for new initiatives.We support this idea of having separateÒwindowsÓ or sub-programmes for newinitiatives and network projects. With regard topartners to carry out pilot projects lasting onestrategy for their collaboration, draft a propercooperation, and explore possibilities for linkingup with other support schemes. In this pilotphase, the partners may decide to opt for eithera research trajectory or a capacity-buildingtrajectory. The administrative requirements forthe pilot phase projects could be less strict thanfor established research and capacity buildingprojects.progressive strengths in research capacity atthe UiDs. NUFU projects are very different andat various stages of development. This reflectsdifferent needs. NUFU funding could perhapsbe divided into (for example) three types ofprojects with increasing thresholds andfinancial contributions from the Norwegianpartners:1)Initial: capacity-building projects.2)Consolidating: competence/capacity build-ing projects.3)Sustainable: research, competence/capacity (if necessary) building projects.It goes without saying that a differentiatedmodalities would be more difficult to manageand more demanding on all parties involved.Nevertheless it is an option worth considering.We believe that this differentiated system ofsub-programmes would make it easier to linkdistinct activities with other supportprogrammes and funding sources. Another bigadvantage, if modalities are linked to differentcollaborations because the benefits in terms ofreturns in research outputs or financial rewardswill be quite clear.In Figures 1 and 2 we try to visualize thedifferences for a UiD comparing the presentfuture one based on a differentiated NUFUprogramme and synergy between supportexpected to take place overnight. It requires acareful and well thought out process to agree onthe best role, appropriate mandate and feasibleprogramme within the overall strategy forstrengthening research capacity in the South.We suggest that in the short te

57 rm the NUFUadministration and partners i
rm the NUFUadministration and partners improve on theweaknesses in the programme pointed outabove, since these improvements are necessaryregardless of possible changes in direction. It is 26)Suggested by Andreas Steigen, personal correspondence, 20 March 2000. recommended that the suggestedimprovements are developed and introducedbefore the projects start with a new agreementMore time is needed for the preparation andimplementation of strategic choices. We suggestthat the stakeholders use the period of the thirdAgreement to discuss and agree on theseimportant issues, so that the decisions can comeinto full effect at the start of the fourthAgreement. changes of this nature take time because theyrequire the backing of the stakeholders (if oneconvince people) and it would be verydisturbing for the partners if the ÒgoalpostsÓwere to be moved halfway through the thirdAgreement. Figure 1.Present situation at UiDs, no coordination and synergy between programmes and projectsFigure 2.Future situation? Coordination and synergy between support programmes and projects 1.We regard NUFU as a successfulprogramme on the basis of its impressiveresults in combination with the modest levels ofexternal funding. Its achievements can beflexible way in which the programme iscoincide with the culture traditionally found atmembers of staff considerable academicfreedom and autonomy.2.NUFU has played an important role instimulating the Norwegian universities tointernationalize their research and educationprogrammes. It has developed close relationswith the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, hassecured political support, and has portrayed todeveloping countries which shows results bothin the South and in Norway. NUFU is nowregarded as an important and strategic tool insupporting tertiary education and research in3.The partnership approach is muchappreciated by the partners, especially those inthe South. It creates the possibility ofestablishing long-term and mutually beneficialrelationships built on respect and sharedinterests. The partnership approach builds upinternational relations, and allows for broadparticipation in collaboration projects and amutually beneficial exchange of staff and4.The exchange of staff and students is at thecore of the partnership approach. Theparticipation

58 of Norwegian students is animportant el
of Norwegian students is animportant element as it broadens the base of thecooperation, spreads the benefits of thecollaboration more equally between thepartners, and creates interest in internationalcooperation (in research and education) amonga future generation of researchers and policy-5.Overall, NUFU adheres to the principles ofNorwegian development cooperation, ininstitutional strengthening in developingbilateral support. In addition, the topics ofpriority theme areas of Norwegian developmentaid. The programme is not particularly strongon gender, in the sense that the projects do notspecifically address gender issues. 6.In our opinion, the NUFU programme has¥insufficient coherence between the aims,programme;¥lack of transparency in decision-making atprogramme level and willingness to involvethe Southern partners in this process;¥weak institutionalization of the programmeand the projects in the partner institutions;¥poor collaboration with other (Norwegian)support schemes.system, but this is also one of the strengths ofthe programme. Most of the conclusions thatfollow are linked to these weaknesses.7.At programme level, there have beenrelations between NUFU, NORAD and theResearch Council of Norway from the start ofthe NUFU programme. However, theserelations thus far have led to few tangible andstructural collaborations between theprogrammes which they represent. This can beexplained by differences in the perceptions,mandates and cultures of the organizations.19Conclusions 8.The decentralized model of the NUFUprogramme is an important factor in the successof NUFU and is highly appreciated by allstakeholders. It makes the programme flexible,the administration tailor-made, and projectcircumstances. It furthermore encouragesrelationships. It also has a number of negativeaspects, however. The many modalities ofproject implementation and administration, anddifferences in the application of rules andregulations cause coordination problems andsustainability of project activities. 9.Although the NUFU programme advocatespartners, almost none of the NUFU projects orinstitutions have reached this stage. In theselection process of partners and projects, thestrength of the Norwegian institution is thedecisive factor, putting the Southern partnerautomaticall

59 y in the position of beneficiary andjuni
y in the position of beneficiary andjunior partner. The Norwegian institutions seeequality between the partners as a long-termobjective rather than in terms of practice at the10.Decisions about project selection and fundallocations are largely taken by the Norwegianstakeholders. The decision-making process inrespect of project selection and fund allocationhas not been transparent. Institutional interestshave influenced the process to some extent. Norepresentatives from the South are involved inthis process, which is rather contradictory tothe NUFU principles of ownership and equality. 11.Quality assurance has improved over theyears, but is still rather weak. It is internal anddecentralized. The selection of projects is nottransparent and does not involve externalassessment. Most project proposals are weak onindicators to measure progress. Progressreports lack reflection on performance. Theexternal evaluations have been useful, butshould have been given better instructions andmore time. There is a general feeling among thepartners that periodic internal as well asexternal quality assurance processes should beintroduced.12.The relevance of research projects to theinstitutions and countries concerned is centralto the NUFU programme. There is, however, atension between the academic interests ofresearchers and the demands of communities,governments, industry and business forresearch that is relevant and has immediateapplicability. Most institutions in the South lackthe structure and capacity to formulate aresearch agenda and to prioritize their researchactivities accordingly. However, the Norwegianpartners are sensitive to the needs of theSouthern institutions and give them serious13.Networks between institutions in the Southwith Norwegian participation are muchappreciated by the partners in the South. Theexisting networks function with varying degreesof success. Many difficulties Ð funding and itsadministration, different levels of development,the lack of appropriate information technology,different languages and cultures Ð have to beovercome or negotiated in establishing cross-country collaborations. The conceptualdirections and operational requirements forsuccessful networking were not in place whenthey were first set up, but are being developedalong th

60 e way.14.The institutionalization of the
e way.14.The institutionalization of the programmeand its projects at the partner institutions is stillprojects have been identified and thedecentralized system of project management,project activities. The coordinating committeesand NUFU coordinators which some of theinstitutions have introduced play a positive rolein institutionalizing the programme.15.In the NUFU programme sustainability isnot an important criteria when it comes toproject applications, implementation andmonitoring. Researchers do not see it as theirresponsibility and the programme does not encourage the partners to seriously look at thesustainability of project activities. Because of thefunding principles of the programme,commitment of the Norwegian institutions andthe idealism of the Norwegian researchers.Although this is one of the major strengths ofthe programme, it also makes the programme16.Since the beginning of the first Agreement,the NUFU Committee and the Secretariat (SIU)have continuously worked on improving theadministration of the programme. This task hasbeen performed with great enthusiasm and witheffort into reviewing procedures and guidelines,not equipped to play a substantive role in policy17.Many of the conclusions of the 1994evaluation are still valid today. Although therecommendations relating to administrationhave been followed up, some of the morecontentious issues regarding equality,accountability remain unresolved. 18.By way of conclusion, we observe thatNUFU is a successful programme in terms ofresults and satisfied participants, but the way inwhich the programme operates does not inmany ways conform to its objectives andstrategic choices in order to maintain andfurther improve its good performance and tosuccessfully cope with present and futurechallenges, i.e. the transfer of the programmeÕsresponsibility to NORAD, the need for greatersynergy between Norwegian support schemes,development cooperation programmes. Evenwithout these challenges, there is a need forNUFU to address a number of weaknesses in its 1.Our main recommendation is that theprogramme should continue, because it plays avaluable role in Norwegian developmentassistance strategy, not only in the South butalso at home. The programme should retain itsstrengths (i.e. the flexibility of implementati

61 oncollaboration) and address its shortco
oncollaboration) and address its shortcomings(e.g. inadequate procedures for qualitythe programme and the implications of itsunderlying principles should be reviewed inview of present discrepancies in the system andof new and immanent challenges, threats andopportunities. Southern partners should getinvolved in the decision-making processes atprogramme level. A sustainable qualitydetection of shortcomings and instituting thenecessary remedial measures.2.In view of the above we see the followingtasks for the NCU, MFA, NORAD, RCN and theMinistry of Education, Research and ChurchAffairs : ask for NCU-MF A-NORAD-RCN-MERCA (shortÐmedium term):¥To agree on the specific role andcontribution of academic partnerships tostrengthening within the framework ofNorwegian development cooperation¥To agree on a trajectory to arrive ateffective coordination between varioussupport programmes at policy and ask for the NUFU administration and par tners (short term):¥To agree on clear operational definitions ofconcepts (capacity-building, equity,¥To define areas of comparative advantagefor academic partnerships over other formsof support in capacity-building at Southern¥To develop a coherent framework of¥To decide on the scope of the programme interms of regional and thematic focus foroptimal effectiveness.¥To define verifiable criteria to measure theprogrammeÕs success.¥To implement and manage the programmeaccording to the agreed framework. ¥To design a practical monitoring and¥To install mechanisms to steer and correctthe programme and its projects asnecessary.¥To analyse experiences and internalizelessons learned.3.The stakeholders need to discuss optionsprogramme: goal-related results, principles orstrategy? If the strategy is the dominating factor,the programme need adjustment. If, however,the aims and principles of the programme aregiven priority, this will have implications for the20Recommendations of the programme. More specifically, we would like to make thefollowing recommendations:4.The NUFU programme needs to develop,introduce and enforce a uniform system ofguidelines and procedures for theprogramme and projects. In a system that valuesexternal monitoring and quality control, it isfurther recommended that a system beintroduced in which the level of fu

62 nding for aproject is directly related t
nding for aproject is directly related to the performance ofthe project in the preceding year and the qualityof the statement of expenses of the current year.5.The SIU and the partners need to designand introduce an appropriate quality assurancesystem for the projects, ensuring at the sametime that the procedures are not overlybureaucratic, laborious and time-consuming.Each project proposal should define clearits activities. Similarly, measurable successcriteria should be defined for the programme asa whole. Criteria and instruments need to bedeveloped to measure the ÒrelevanceÓ andÒwider applicationÓ of project activities and the6.In order to improve the transparency ofproject selection, a network of referees shouldbe created to scrutinize NUFU applications onthe basis of criteria such as quality, relevance,sustainability, commitment, feasibility, thequalifications of the researchers andcoordinators, the potential for S-S partnerships7.The UiDs need to be given a substantiverole in the project selection process. We canthink of three options to increase the influenceof the South in the decision-making process: a)the inclusion of experts from the South in thepresent NUFU Committee; b) the setting up of aup of a committee in the South with two or threeNorwegian representatives. In addition, it wouldbe worthwhile to have annual (regional)meetings with the rectors of the UiDs to discussprogramme matters. All options come withcertain practical problems and a price tag. Thefeasibility and effectiveness of these and otherpartners. 8.To further increase the ownership of theUiDs and equality between the partners werecommend that NUFU considers theintroduction of framework agreements for UiDswith a large project portfolio, with a roughportfolio. This should preferably be combinedwith the introduction of tripartite projectthe UiD and based on one jointly formulatedproject document. The budget, however, isinvolves more administrative work for the UiDat the UiD will need to be improved. 9.The external evaluations should becontinued, possibly in various forms: a) broadlyset-up evaluations with standard ToRs allowingthe results of different evaluation visits to becompared and synthesized and b) Òinspectioncase, observations, queries and problemsidentified through

63 the monitoring systemshould define the
the monitoring systemshould define the specific ToR of the evaluationvisits. The external evaluations should alsoincreasingly focus on output and theachievement of objectives and not be restrictedto an assessment of project activities. Thepartners should be encouraged and given thetime to do a thorough self-assessment prior to10.The relevance of projects should be locatedin the institutionsÕ research plan which in turnshould be coherent with the countryÕs researchagenda. It gives the projects a better chance ofEspecially in the principal partner institutions in the South, the NUFU partners could facilitateand maybe assist in the formulation ofinstitutional research strategies and research11.It is important that NUFU gives moreattention to the institutionalization of projectactivities accompanied by long-term strategiesfor achieving sustainability. Mechanisms forsustainability need to be built into the project atthe design stage. Partners should be madeaware of the importance of these issues,procedures and incentives developed to pursueinstitutionalization and sustainability, relevanttraining and coaching provided, and monitoringon progress carried out. The programme shouldencourage broader-based and multi-facetedprojects since they have a better chance ofachieving academic sustainability. Athe UiDs to retain young and promising staff. 12.The NUFU secretariat should play a moreactive role in assisting the project coordinatorsadministrative arrangements, especially ininstitutions having a substantial projectportfolio. 13.The sustainability of the programmerequires that enough good Norwegianresearchers continue to participate in theprojects. This means that the project overheadsshould be realistic, professional or financialresearchers ensured. We recommenddifferentiation of the aims of the NUFUprogramme Ð research collaboration, capacitybuilding, pilot projects, networking Ð withcompensation levels for Norwegian staff inputs.link with other support programmes (e.g.NORADÕs Framework Agreements).Norwegian institutions, for their part, shouldanchor involvement in the NUFU programme intheir commitments in terms of adequateadministrative support.14.NUFU, RCN, NORAD, the Ministry ofEducation, Research and Church Affairs and theMFA should work together in c

64 reatingopportunities for UiN staff, youn
reatingopportunities for UiN staff, young researchersand students to stay for longer research periodsat UiDs. In this way good researchers from theUiNs can be attracted to participate in theprogramme. Researchers from UiNs could also15.The NUFU programme should give moresupport to networks in terms of funding as wellas in providing a set of guidelines on how torelations. Special criteria for the assessment ofnetworks need to be developed and introduced.Special efforts should be made to encourage thesetting up of sustainable centres of excellencecooperation and enable institutions to supportone another from a position of strength.16.The position and role of the SIU should bethoroughly discussed. The NUFUadministrative system and its external qualitymight be improved if the SIU were moreindependent of the Norwegian universitysystem and if it were to play a more facilitatingrole. 17.Most of the above suggestions will havefinancial implications, i.e. funds will be requiredto implement them. To ensure that this will notaffect the volume of activities in the South, ourfinal recommendation is a request toMFA/NORAD to provide more funds for theNUFU programme. It would be money well BackgroundIn 1991, the Royal Norwegian Ministry ofForeign Affairs (MFA) and the Norwegiancooperation agreement which is generallyreferred to as the NUFU agreement. The mainobjective of the agreement is to contribute tothrough cooperation between universities andresearch institutions in Norway andcorresponding institutions in developingcountries. The agreementÕs second majorobjective is to contribute towards increasedAfter an evaluation in 1994 the programmedeveloped to implement the agreement wasprolonged for another period (1996Ð2000). ANUFU strategy, adopted by the NCU and theMFA, was drawn up for the programme in 1997.The NUFU is a committee under the NorwegianCouncil of Universities. The Centre forInternational University Cooperation (SIU)serves as the NUFU secretariat and isresponsible for ensuring that the funds madeavailable to NUFU are allocated in line withagreements and used for preparing annualreports and accounts of NUFUÕs activities.For the period 1996Ð2000 the MFA has provideda total of NOK 269 million to the programme. InMarch 1999 NUFU had approved and allocatedfu

65 nds for 99 cooperation projects of two o
nds for 99 cooperation projects of two or moreThe main activity supported through the NUFUprogramme is research collaboration with anemphasis on research projects and the trainingof researchers. Of the 99 projects, 28 were in thefield of medicine, 23 in agriculture, 21 in thetotal of 34 institutions from 20 countries in Asia,Africa and Latin America and 9 Norwegianinstitutions are engaged in these activities.However, most of these funds are concentratedwithin projects involving cooperation between asmall number of Southern and NorwegianPrior to the present evaluation a politicaldecision was made to prolong the NUFUprogramme. The MFA had decided to transferadministrative responsibility for the agreementto NORAD. According to the MinistryÕsresearch in NorwayÕs relations with developingcountriesÓ, a broad and independent evaluationof the activities of the NUFU programme will becarried out at the end of the agreementÕs secondphase. The evaluation will be useful in preparinga new agreement designed to promote capacity-building through collaboration.Major objectives of the evaluationprogramme in relation to the objectives set outin the agreement and later specified in the¥capacity-building that is given institutional¥contribution towards increased South-SouthThe interest of Southern stakeholders shouldbe emphasized throughout. In order to evaluatethe programmeÕs impact, its administration,institutional and financial arrangements, results,quality, relevance and sustainability should allAnnex 1Terms of Reference Evaluation of the NUFU programme Concerning the Development of Competence at Universities and ResearchInstitutions in Developing Countries recommendations of the 1995 evaluation, andconforms with the main priorities of NorwegianIssues to be coveredemphasize the attributes that are intended togive effect to the stated objectives and thedegree to which these attributes areimplemented, perform and have an impact as1) Decision-making processes and transparencyDecision-making processes, including anassessment of the influence of differentstakeholders in Norway (NUFU, NCU, MFAexclusively of the Norwegian universities that atcriteria (e.g. background, gender, ethnic,affiliation, partnership, institution, topics,disciplines, countries, regions) for asses

66 singapplications. The extent to which cu
singapplications. The extent to which currentemphases made in selection are mutuallyreinforcing or competing.The organization of the programme, and thedistribution of responsibilities between thedifferent stakeholdersresearch-researchers partnershipThe NUFU programme seeks to build capacitythrough collaboration between researchersemployed at research institutions. Strengthsand weaknesses of emphasizing the partnershipapproach to achieving capacity-building. Theresearch partnerships4) South-South and South-North collaborationcollaboration financed through NUFU.5) Quality assuranceThe routine established during implementationresults and good administrative practices, bothin relation to process and products, and toresearch collaboration and training. The qualityachieved should be assessed through aselection of research projects/results.6) Relevance and learningProcedures established to ensure relevance atthe institutional and national level (in Norwaybut particularly in the South) concerning thechoice of research topics. The ways and meansused to communicate results.7) Sustainabilityresearcher participation both in Norway and inSouthern institutions, and the benefits and costsconcerning both research and higher education.The priorities of the NUFU programmecompared with Norwegian developmentConclusions and recommendationsthe NUFU programme, the major strengths andthe programme, and highlight its comparativeadvantage. The recommendations shouldimprovements in design and implementation ofthe programme. The recommendations shouldaddress research/higher education andadministrative procedures separately at both theagreement and implementation levels. Theyshould be feasible and realistic, and shouldidentify responsibilities for follow-up. field studies. There is already a considerableamount of documentation (project reports,reviews, seminar papers, evaluations). Thefield visits and case studies in Norway and atcollaborating partners in developing countries.Institutions in Norway and five collaboratingbrief report (10 pages) should be prepared. Astakeholders before leaving the country and inNorway.A selection of research projects/themes shouldTo gain a better understanding of the NUFUprogrammeÕs comparative advantage,dynamism, capacity for coordination and impac

67 tat the institutional level, it should b
tat the institutional level, it should be comparedwith alternative models for competence-buildingin research. Efforts should be made to highlightENRECA programme is currently beingevaluated, and the Dutch Ministry of ForeignAffairs is financing a comparative study of theimpacts of donor-initiated programmes onresearch capacity in the South. If feasible, thewith these studies (for example by coordinatingfield visits) should be explored.Evaluation teamThe team should include three seniorresearchers, at least one of whom should beable to read Norwegian. The team shouldrepresent expertise in the following areas:¥capacity-building¥research and research collaboration¥evaluation of research and higher education¥university organization and administration¥genderOutcome of the evaluationThe team should produce a synthesis report.The synthesis report should be based on limitedreports on specified subjects. The tender shouldinclude information on how the consultantproposes to present the results of theevaluation, including the synthesis report. Thewritten reports shall be drawn up in English.The report shall contain a summary ofconclusions and recommendations notexceeding four pages. A two-page summary forTimetableThe draft final report should be submitted to theMFA no later than 28 February. The final reportreceiving comments, and no later than 15 AprilFramework for evaluationThe evaluation will be conducted in accordancewith the MFAÕs Instruction for the PolicyPlanning and Evaluation StaffÕs Work onbetween the MFA and the institution awardedPeer groupA reference group including MFA and NORADstaff will assist the team. Annex 2Institutions visitedNorway:Royal Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MFA/UD)Norwegian Agency for Development Cooperation (NORAD)Norwegian Council of Universities (NCU/UR)Research Council of Norway (RCN)Ministry of Education, Research and Church Affairs (MERCA)Centre for International University Cooperation (SIU)Agricultural University of NorwayChr. Michelsens InstituteNorwegian School of Veterinary ScienceNorwegian University of Science and TechnologyUniversity of Troms¿Sweden:Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency (Sida)Denmark:Danish International Development Assistance (Danida)Directorate General for International Cooperatio

68 n (DGIS)Costa Rica:Universidad Nacional
n (DGIS)Costa Rica:Universidad Nacional HerediaTribhuvan UniversityMinistry of EducationRoyal Norwegian EmbassySouth Africa:University of Western CapeUniversity of the NorthRoyal Norwegian EmbassyTanzania:Ministry of Finance, TreasuryMinistry of Science, Technology and Higher EducationMakerere UniversityMinistry of EducationRoyal Norwegian EmbassyInstitute for Teacher EducationZimbabwe:Ministry of Higher Education and TechnologyRoyal Norwegian Embassy 66 ReferencesAbegaz, Berhanu M.1995Universities in Africa: Challenges and Opportunities ofInternational Cooperation. Association of African Universities.Background Paper for the Joint Colloquium on the University inAudenhove, Leo van1996 (?)Strategisch Onderzoek UniversitaireHoger Onderwijs. Rapport in het kader van hetbeleidsvoorbereidend onderzoek Vlaamse InteruniversitaireRalph Skelton1993Overseas Development Administration Evaluation Report.University Link Projects in Pakistan and Sri Lanka.Berit Olsson1995Mozambique. Development of Scientific Research and SARECÕsSupport 1978Ð1993. SAREC Documentation.Bhagavan, M.R.1992The SAREC model: Institutional cooperation and thestrengthening of national research capacity in developingChitoran, D.1996Internal Evaluation of the UNITWIN/UNESCO ChairsProgramme. Report. UNESCO.Chr. Michelsen Institute1994Evaluation of the NUFU AgreementChr. Michelsen Institute1999Norwegian research support to developing countries. Prospectsin Ethiopia. A report submitted to NORAD.COWI1998Institutional Cooperation between Sokoine and NorwegianAgricultural Universities. Development through Institutions?Sub-study 2. COWI Denmark. Ministry of Foreign Affairs, UDEvaluation Report 2.98.DiS with NCG1998Institutional Development in Norwegian Bilateral Assistance.Development through Institutions? Synthesis Report. Centrefor Partnership in Development (DiS) with Nordic ConsultingGroup (NCG). Ministry of Foreign Affairs, UD EvaluationReport 5.98FICHE1997Fund for International Cooperation in Higher Education(FICHE). Project Memorandum.GTZ1993Sector Concept. Cooperation in Higher Education. FederalMinistry for Economic Cooperation and Development. DivisionHough, James1996Cost-effectiveness Study of Higher Education Links. Report andRecommendations to ODA. Volumes 1 and 2.IDRC1993Empowerment Th

69 rough Knowledge. The strategy of theInte
rough Knowledge. The strategy of theInternational Development Research Centre. 67 Kazi Saleh Ahmed et al.1999Evaluations/Reviews of the NUFU-supported cooperationprogrammes in South-East Asia (Nepal, Bangladesh and SriLanka). A Norwegian Institute for Studies in Research andHigher Education Report commissioned by Centre forInternational University Cooperation, the Norwegian Council ofKwami, Frank O. et al.1996Report. Evaluation/Review of NUFU Programmes at Universityof RectorsÕ Conferences1992University Cooperation with Developing Countries. A reportand policy recommendations to the European Community. Lode, K. & F.O.Kwami1995Report. Evaluation/Programme Review of Ngaoundere-Anthropos Programme.Mj¿s, O. et al.1997Peace Agreement and University Cooperation. Report from aNUFU mission to the San Carlos University of Guatemala fromthe University of Troms¿, draft May 1997. Mohamedbhai, G. et al.1998Evaluation of NUFU programmes at University of Botswana andEvaluation Report commissioned by the Norwegian Council ofUniversitiesÕ Committee for Development Research andNdoli, O. et al.1999Report Ð Review of NUFU programmes at the University ofGhana and the National Centre for Scientific and TechnologicalResearch in Mali. An Association of Africa Universities ReviewReport Commissioned by the Norwegian UniversitiesCommittee for Development Research and Education, JuneNORAD1990Strategies for Development Cooperation. NORAD in theNORAD1992Strategies for bilateral development cooperation Ð part II. Basicprinciples. September 1992, reprint 1996.NORAD1998Annual Report 1998.NORAD1999NORAD invests in the future. NORADÕs strategy for 2000Ð2005.NUFU1995Seminar Report on Research Planning and Administration inNUFU Partner Universities. Held at Imperial Hotel, AddisNUFU1996Annual Report 1996NUFU1996Five years of cooperation with developing countries. NorwegianNUFU1996Eduardo Mondlane University. Report from NUFUÕs visit andNUFU1996Ð99ÒBlack FileÓ: compilation of NUFU format and guidelines.NUFU1997Annual Report 1997 68 NUFU1997Evaluation and Review. General Plan 1998Ð2000.NUFU1997Evaluation/Review of Cooperation with University of Dar esNUFU1998Report on the proceedings of the African-NorwegianUniversitiesÕ conference that took place in Dar es Salaam,Tanzania, fro

70 m 27 to 29 October, 1997.NUFU1998Program
m 27 to 29 October, 1997.NUFU1998Programme Catalogue 1998NUFU1998NUFU Annual Report 1997NUFU1998NUFU Annual Report 1998NUFU1998NUFU Annual Report 1998. Appendix.NUFU1999Proceedings of the Working Group Seminar on NUFUCooperation. Cape Town, South Africa, November 2Ð6, 1998.Compiled and finalized by F.O.Kwami.NUFU1999A NUFU Manual (English version), Draft.NUFU1999NUFU Gender Seminar report. University of Troms¿, JuneNUFU partners1998Institutional Assessment Reports 1997.NUFU partners1999Institutional Assessment Reports 1998.Oliver, Paul1998The management of quality in collaborative higher educationprogrammes. In: Philip Mitchell (ed.), Olsen, H.1998Evaluation of individual cooperation projects and institutionalpartnerships between the University of Oslo and the Universityof Botswana and the University of Zimbabwe. A NorwegianInstitute for Studies in Research and Higher Education Reportcommissioned by the Norwegian Council of UniversitiesÕCommittee for Development Research and Education, AugustResearch Council of Norway1998Building research capability in Africa. A review of NORADÕsAssistance to regional research organizations. The ResearchCouncil of Norway, Environment and Development Division.Royal Ministry of Foreign Affairs1995Norwegian South Policy for a Changing World. OfficialNorwegian Report 1995:5 Ð Summary of conclusions andrecommendations. Report from the Commission on North-Royal Ministry of Foreign Affairs1995Report No.19 to the Storing (1995Ð96). A Changing World.Main elements of Norwegian policy towards developing 69 Royal Ministry of Foreign Affairs1999Strategy for Strengthening Research and Higher Educationconnected to NorwayÕs Relations with Developing Countries.RMFA, January 1999.Jan S.Nilson1996Sri Lankan-Swedish Research Cooperation. Sida Evaluation96/39. Department for Research Cooperation, SAREC.Simonsen, J.G. et al. (eds.)1999North-South Cooperation in Higher Education and Research.Proceedings from the NUAS-NUS Conference. Bergen, 1999.Singh, Jasbir Sarjit Singh1996Partnership for sustainable educational development. TheCommonwealth Experience. Paper prepared for ERA and AAREConference Educational Research: Building New Partnerships,2529 November 1996. Singapore.Stenberg, Knut et al.1996Report from NUFUÕs Visit and Mission 2

71 6 OctoberÐ2 November1996 to Eduardo Mon
6 OctoberÐ2 November1996 to Eduardo Mondlane University.Veldhuis, Marijke (ed.)1993Development and strengthening of research capacity indeveloping countries. Conference on Donor Support. TheHague, the Netherlands, 2Ð3 September 1993. RAWOO 70 The Royal Norwegian Ministry of Foreign Affairs7. juniplassen 1/Victoria TerrasseP.O. Box 8114 Dep., 0032 OsloNORWAYEvaluation reports may be ordered from: Evaluation Report 5/2000the NUFU ProgrammeNorwegian Council of UniversitiesÕ Programme for Development Research and Education Royal Norwegian Ministry of Foreign Affairs Information from theRoyal Norwegian Ministry of Foreign AffairsThe MinistryÕs Information Section providesinformation with regard to current foreign policy, trade policy, and development cooperation policy.Material can be ordered fromForeign Ministry switchboardTel. + 47 22 24 36 00Information is available on the Internet atInformation to the media:The MinistryÕs Press Spokesperson andthe Senior Information Officer on Development Cooperationcan be contacted through the Foreign Ministry switchboardForeign journalists:The Norway International Press Centre, NIPS,is the Foreign MinistryÕ service centrefor foreign journalists in Norway,In countries outside of Norway,information on the Ministry of Foreign Affairsmay be obtained fromNorwegian embassies or consulatesPublished by The Royal Norwegian Ministry of Foreign AffairsPrinted by Hatlehols Trykkeri AS, BrattvaagCirculation: 1200 1.87The Water Supply Programme in Western Province, Zambia2.87Sosio-kulturelle forhold i bistanden3.87Summary Findings of 23 Evaluation Reports4.87NORADÕs Provisions for Investment Support5.87Multiateral bistand gjennom FN-systemet6.87Promoting Imports from Developing Countries1.88UNIFEM - United Nations Development Fund for Women2.88The Norwegian Multi-Bilateral Programme under UNFPA3.88Rural Roads Maintenance, Mbeya and Tanga Regions,Tanzania4.88Import Support, Tanzania5.88Nordic Technical Assistance Personnel to Eastern Africa6.88Good Aid for Women?7.88Soil Science Fellowship Course in Norway1.89Parallel Financing and Mixed Credits2.89The WomenÕs Grant. Desk Study Review3.89The Norwegian Volunteer Service4.89Fisheries Research Vessel - ÒDr. Fridtjof NansenÓ5.89Institute of Development Management, Tanzania6.89D

72 UHs Forskningsprogrammer7.89Rural Water
UHs Forskningsprogrammer7.89Rural Water Supply, Zimbabwe8.89Commodity Import Programme, Zimbabwe9.89Dairy Sector Support, Zimbabwe1.90Mini-Hydropower Plants, Lesotho2.90Operation and Maintenance in Development Assistance3.90Telecommunications in SADCC Countries4.90Energy Support in SADCC Countries5.90Intentional Research and Training Institute for AdvancementofWomen (INSTRAW)6.90Socio-Cultural Conditions in Development Assistance7.90Non-Project Financial Assistance to Mozambique1.91Hjelp til Selvhjelp og Levedyktig Utvikling2.91Diploma Courses at the Norwegian Institute of Technology3.91The WomenÕs Grant in Bilateral Assistance4.91Hambantota Integrated Rural Development Programme,SriLanka5.91The Special Grant for Environment and Development1.92NGOs as Partners in Health Care, Zambia2.92The Sahel-Sudan-Ethiopia Programme3.92De Private Organisasjonene som Kanal for Norsk Bistand,Fasel1.93Internal Learning from Evaluations and Reviews2.93Macroeconomic Impacts of Import Support to Tanzania3.93Garantiordning for Investeringer i og Eksport til Utviklingsland4.93Capacity-Building in Development Cooperation Towards1.94Evaluation of World Food Programme2.94Evaluation of the Norwegian Junior Expert Programme with1.95Technical Cooperation in Transition2.95Evaluering av FN-sambandet i Norge3.95NGOs as a Channel in Development aid3A.95Rapport fra Presentasjonsm¿te av ÇEvalueringen av de4.95Rural Development and Local Govemment in Tanzania5.95Integration of Environmental Concerns into NorwegianPolicies and Performance1.96NORADÕs Support of the Remote Area DevelopmentProgramme (RADP) in Botswana2.96Norwegian Development Aid Experiences. A Review of3.96The Norwegian PeopleÕs Aid Mine Clearance Project in4.96Democratic Global Civil Governance Report of the 1995Benchmark Survey of NGOs5.96Evaluation of the Yearbook ÒHuman Rights in Developing1.97Evaluation of Norwegian Assistance to Prevent and Control2.97ÇKultursjokk og KorrektivÈ Ð Evaluering av UD/NORADsStudiereiser for L¾rere3.97Evaluation of Decentralisation and Development4.97Evaluation of Norwegian Assistance to Peace, Reconciliation5.97Aid to Basic Education in Africa Ð Opportunities and6.97Norwegian Church AidÕs Humanitarian and Peace-MakingWork in Mali7.97Aid as a Tool for Promotion of Human Rights

73 and Democracy:What can Norway do?8.97Eva
and Democracy:What can Norway do?8.97Evaluation of the Nordic Africa Institute, Uppsala9.97Evaluation of Norwegian Assistance to Worldview International10.97Review of Norwegian Assistance to IPS11.97Evaluation of Norwegian Humanitarian Assistance to the Sudan12.97Cooperation for Health Development WHOÕs Support to Programmes at Country Level1.98ÒTwinning for DevelopmentÓ. Institutional Cooperationbetween Public Institutions in Norway and the South2.98Institutional Cooperation between Sokoine and Norwegian3.98Development through Institutions? Institutional DevelopmentPromoted by Norwegian Private Companies and ConsultingFirms4.98Development through Institutions? Institutional DevelopmentPromoted by Norwegian Non-Governmental Organisations5.98Development through Institutions? Institutional Developmentin Norwegian Bilateral Assistance. Synthesis Report6.98Managing Good Fortune Ð Macroeconomic Management and7.98The World Bank and Poverty in Africa8.98Evaluation of the Norwegian Program for Indigenous Peoples9.98Evaluering av Informasjonsst¿tten til RORGene10.98Strategy for Assistance to Children in Norwegian Development11.98Norwegian Assistance to Countries in Conflict12.98Evaluation of the Development Cooperation between Norway13.98UNICEF-komiteen i Norge14.98Relief in Complex Emergencies1.99WlD/Gender Units and the Experience of GenderMainstreaming in Multilateral Organisations2.99International Planned Parenthood Federation Ð Policy andEffectiveness at Country and Regional Levels3.99Evaluation of Norwegian Support to Psycho-Social Projects inBosnia-Herzegovina and the Caucasus4.99Evaluation of the Tanzania-Norway Development Cooperation5.99Building African Consulting Capacity6.99Aid and Conditionality7.99Policies and Strategies for Poverty Reduction in Norwegian8.99Aid Coordination and Aid Effectiveness9.99Evaluation of the United Nations Capital Development Fund10.99Evaluation of AWEPA, The Association of EuropeanParliamentarians for Africa, and AEI, The African European1.00Review of Norwegian Health-related Development Cooperation2.00 Norwegian Support to the Education Sector. Overview ofPolicies and Trends 1988Ð19983.00The Project ÒTraining for Peace in Southern AfricaÓ4.00En kartlegging av erfaringer med norsk bistand gjennom5.00Evaluation of