link in an institution or bureaucracy in their home country considered to be a relevant development cooperation partner for Norway, and thus contributes with capacity building in government institutions and NGOs. Applicants shall return to their institutions with new, updated relevant methodologies and understanding of how to address prioritized development cooperation issues. The secure link to their home base institution results in virtually all of them returning to their previous home country institution. Such a selection process also enhances the “ added value” of the programme because returnees to the home country institutions represent a “brain gain” as opposed to the “brain drain” that happens when such graduates remain abroad. The NFP fellows are from this perspective potential “change agents” (p. 120, Evaluation Report).
The arguments against the current programme While acceding this the evaluation report was critical of the programme at various levels and concluded that: • The programme does not follow the needs as defined by the South • It is supply driven • Norad has nothing to say in the defining and selection process • The Norwegian institution selects among applicants from the South to their studies in Norway • The board members are merely looking after their own Norwegian interests • The programme has devolved from a relevant to an irrelevant portfolio of courses and from a vocational to an academic programme • The programme is too much like the Quote scheme, and the two programmes need coordination • Administration is inefficient and too expensive • Scholarship programmes to the North are not trendy. The same courses are offered cheaper in the South and
should be taken there, if necessary with some help from Norwegian experts. The cultural aspects of studies are unimportant. There are 109 courses at Makerere University that could be used. • The programme is not focused on a few institutions in a few countries to secure impact through mass.
Travails for the future The Evaluation Group on the basis of its assessment of the programme recommended the following directions of change: • The development relevance of NFP should be made more visible • There should be synergies between the NFP and other similar programmes such as Quota and NUFU, and a harmonisation of stipends • NFP needs specific objectives regarding what it plans to achieve and indicators for assessing success. • To make NFP more demand driven, the programme must be moved “closer to the South” • Employers should to a greater degree be actively involved in the planning, follow-up and evaluation of study programmes • Norway should assess limiting the number of countries, sectors and courses in the programme to enable genuine societal “value added” impact • Norad should move its focus upwards in the NFP chain providing a clear and timely set of development policies, criteria and priorities for the selection of institutions and courses. These suggestions together with the comments from the higher education sector were the basis for discussions and negotiations between Norad, SIU and other stakeholders in late Autumn 2005. Although no conclusive results can be reported at the end of 2005, the process evolving towards a new Programme Document and Agreement for the period 2006-2010 with a revised focus and content were well under way.
NFP ANNUAL REPORT 2005/ 23