Ben Beuming gives his view on NFP
18 Jun 2010
Ben Beuming is specialist in rural development and international training with more than 30 years’ professional experience. At Wageningen UR he is responsible for the NFP and NPT programmes.
Please tell us about your experience with NFP
Having worked with all of NFP’s predecessors, I can say that, in essence, the programme has remained unchanged, despite several makeovers concerning the allocation and selection system. It has always been a broadly-oriented programme focused on many countries.
For me, its strengths are the large number of subjects and the fact that it's a one-to-one programme for mid-career professionals.
Are there any NFP alumni who really stood out?
It's hard to give a specific 'success story'. Wageningen is a heavy 'user' of NFP and we have many alumni of master's studies and short courses. Consider that in the last fifteen to twenty years we have had twelve thousand short course participants, with two thirds of those financed through NFP.
But I do know that some of our students went on to become minister, dean or vice-chancellor. Wageningen definitely exploits its alumni network as it is important for us to know what is going on in NFP countries and where our expertise can come in.
Most alumni tend to maintain a close relation to their host country and they often cherish fond memories. I know of a Vietnamese vice-chancellor and NFP PhD alumnus, who always makes sure he gets his share of raw Dutch herring when he visits Europe for work.
Does NFP lead to interesting collaborations or spin-offs?
Yes, there have been lots of spin-offs and Wageningen MSc alumni often return to Wageningen to do a short course. Many alumni remain connected to Wageningen through study groups or research contacts. There are lots of different forms of interaction and collaboration.
How has the programme developed?
The programme has always been subject to political whims. In 2002, for example, DGIS introduced a new set of criteria including ownership and demand-orientation. I believe the latter criterion can be quite flexible in that it can be interpreted at will.
After an initial period of rigid interpretation, in the current political climate ‘demand’ needs to be in line with our bilateral priorities. I am not sure what to make of this form of ‘guided demand’. If we only offer what we believe is best for a country, then this is not really ‘demand driven’.
We need a clear system, particularly in view of the introduction of a new allocation system, where both the institutions and the embassies will rank applications. I wonder if the system will be transparent in exceptional cases, but I am sure that the end result will be good.
Then there is SOL: will it work and will it be compatible? Time will tell.
If you were put in charge of NFP what would you do?
I would fight for the core values of the programme. NFP allows professionals to develop capacities that are not necessarily in line with a country’s local policies or interests. This allows NFP to contribute to reform and democratization processes.
This reflects the present situation. There is not really something fundamental I would change. Having said that, Wageningen has always benefited well from NFP and demand for scholarships for Wageningen has always been high.
In January 2011 you will retire. What will you miss most about working on NFP?
There are many things I will miss. I particularly enjoyed my contacts with my colleagues in Wageningen, at other institutions, at the consultative body PIE and at Nuffic. We're all in the same business and our joint challenge is to create a smooth running programme.
Of course there is the odd disagreement, but the overall climate has always been very constructive. That's not always the case in other industries. The general consensus is that we are working on something important and looking to improve all the time.
What does the ideal capacity building programme look like?
I believe that NICHE and NPT fail to fully exploit the expertise available in Holland. I would welcome more openness and more information about the capacity and context of requesting organizations.
Also, and different from NFP, I would like to make the criterion demand-orientation more flexible so it can better match with our expertise. Obviously, if there is no demand, we don’t offer anything.
Finally, as we’re basically dealing with change management, which is a slow process, I would welcome an extension of the programme period.
