Both NPT and NFP focus on capacity building, qualitatively as well as quantitatively. Contrary to NPT, in the case of NFP the attention is more strongly focused on the individuals to be trained rather than on the individuals together with their institutional context. NFP actions are thus usually of a more limited nature. They may also be of shorter duration, particularly for non-degree training. The latter modality is often tailor- made to attend to specific human competency needs. In the case of Multi-Year
Agreements, and to a lesser extent Tailor-Made Training interventions, the distinction with NPT tends to blur, considering that in those cases agreements are signed with institutions and the TMT procedure for providing grants is substantially the same as the one that applies in the case of NPT, except if the budget remains under € 50 000. It should also be noted that NFP is available in a substantially larger number of countries than NPT, which makes NFP the only option for capacity building in the non-NPT countries. In the NPT countries, NFP is an additional option that may sometimes be the preferred choice if no more is needed than the specific training or if capacity building is sought outside the sectoral interests of the RNE in the country in question.
As stated in the inception report for the current evaluation, it is too early at this stage to assess whether the NPT and NFP programmes have achieved their programme aims, because the programmes have just started after some initial delays in the start-up phase. More specifically it was noted that the NFP was gradually introduced from 2003 onwards, while at the same time the old NFP was being phased out. For the NFP, 2004 was the first ‘normal’ year, while only in 2005 all implementing institutions had the same possibilities and conditions. Moreover, to assess the effectiveness of the NFP one would need a tracer study, but this is not part of the evaluation and will be done separately in 2007. The current assessment of the NFP will thus focus on the multi-year agreements and the tailor-made training interventions.
Details about the different modalities available under NFP and statistics regarding their use have been given above in Section 6 of this report. In the current section we focus on the effects of the programme.
10.2 Individual modalities (Masters, PhDs, short courses, refresher
courses)
Opportunities to pursue training via the NFP programme are generally in high demand. The success of the programme is well known among aspiring students. Embassies receive far more requests than can be accommodated. The programme is thus highly competitive. Fellowship Officers at the Embassies consequently spend a considerable proportion of their time—they usually accumulate several tasks—on NFP business. Also, applicants themselves have to go through a process of complex paper work, which, if the fellowship is awarded, pays off; if the fellowship is not awarded it will have been a frustrating experience, particularly as the receiving institutions in The Netherlands are quick to acknowledge those that are accepted but it may take months before the unsuccessful applicants and the respective Embassies are notified.
Successful applicants are invariably satisfied with their experience, so much so that in countries where enough wealth exists for individuals to study in The Netherlands using their own or alternative resources to which candidates have access, the known quality and relevance of degrees obtained in The Netherlands by NFP graduates becomes a strong attractor also to non-NFP candidates. Returning fellows usually report back on their experience to the Embassies. According to the Embassies contacted by the evaluators, NFP participants are in general very content with the courses they followed.
A highly visible impact of NFP and its predecessor arrangements is the strong network of NFP alumni one comes across in many countries that have a history of benefiting from the programme. As already mentioned in Section 5.5 above, an impressive number of alumni are now often in key positions and make an important contribution to the advancement of their country. At present, for instance, in Tanzania two Ministers, two Vice-Ministers, one Permanent Secretary and the Chief Minister of Zanzibar have all studied in the Netherlands; in Vietnam the Rector of Can Tho University, who holds a PhD from Wageningen, plays a very active and highly effective role in using both the NFP and NPT facilities for capacity building efforts that benefit the development of the Mekong River Delta. A proportion of his faculty members are equally graduates from Netherlands institutions and assist him in these efforts. A typical example is that of former NFP student Dr Nguyen Thi Gam, now Project Coordinator of the Vietnam– Netherlands Higher Education Project (reported in Nuffic’s NFP-NPT Newsletter of March 2006, available at http://www.nuffic.nl/nfp-npt/pdf/newsl0306.pdf). All in all, this creates an interesting multiplier effect, as does the emphasis on training of trainers, which is strongly present in Vietnam’s use of the programme. The stated goals of NFP are more modest and do not envisage such enhanced effects, which clearly are well above the programme’s expectations.
There are also effects beyond the level of expectation that are more secondary but equally positive. One of them is that the presence of so many graduates from Netherlands
institutions in developing countries is often of great help to the Embassies in their search for qualified personnel for different internal or external tasks. In addition, there is the considerable amount of goodwill that is associated with the alumni network.
On the other hand, it is difficult in the case of individual fellowships to pinpoint exactly how the investment in training contributes to the overall program aim of capacity building. This association is more easily made in the case of Tailor-Made Training and that of the Multi-Year Agreements. However, the flexibility associated with the individual fellowships may be seen as a positive asset that compensates for the lack of direct relationship with the capacity building effort.
The graduation rate is very high. Typically more than 95 % of NFP fellowship holders— obviously a highly select group due to the competitive selection process—complete their courses successfully. Less than 1 % of the students abandon the effort prematurely. In some cases extra guidance is provided and/or students are allowed to extend their fellowship up to a maximum of three months in order to complete unfinished work over the summer months.