UNESCO-IHE taps into local capacity
18 Jun 2010
Nuffic interviewed Erwin Ploeger, Head of the Office of the Rector at UNESCO-IHE Institute for Water Education and Jeltsje Kemerink, Researcher and Lecturer in Integrated Water Resources Management, about their experience with NPT and NFP.
UNESCO-IHE Institute for Water Education has a long track record in research, education and capacity development activities in the field of water, environment and infrastructure and has conducted several NPT projects in the water sector. It offers a wide range of degree and short courses for mid-career professionals, including NFP scholars.
Importance of NPT for UNESCO-IHE
Although NPT only accounts for around ten per cent of UNESCO-IHE’s project portfolio, it is an important programme. NPT enables us to conduct long-term capacity development projects and develop regional networks. As NPT projects often build on existing projects, we are able to achieve lasting results.
It typically requires eight to ten years to change institutional settings and develop the staff capacities needed to build sustainable academic programmes. We imbed partner organizations in UNESCO-IHE's regional networks and promote South-South collaboration.
Differences between countries
We do not see major differences between countries, apart from the level of capacity development, although some institutions are more experienced in making new programmes sustainable (e.g. by using their equipment for income-generating services). We do notice that often the well-established institutions find it hard to change and innovate.
It takes time and effort to build confidence and to get local academics and sector professionals work together. There are promising signs of emerging and effective knowledge networks of staff trained at UNESCO-IHE.
Differences between NPT and other programmes
We have positive experiences with NPT, but it's quite a rigid programme. WaterNet, a programme funded by DGIS and Sida offered a lot more flexibility. With less programme rules and more interaction between donor and implementers, it was easier to adjust the programme to new developments and changes in the country involved.
Water is a typical regional cross-border issue, which requires a regional approach and collaboration between countries. Unfortunately, NPT works at national level, which we see as a serious shortcoming.
Ensuring lasting long-term relationships
Our policy is to only participate in NPT projects when we are confident that a long term mutually beneficial relationship can be established. This approach has proved its merit. The difference with SAIL (NPT’s predecessor) is, that NPT was a “blind date” programme.
Whereas SAIL projects could be designed to complement our existing international partnership scheme, partners in NPT projects had to prove their added value in the course of the projects. In some projects this proved to be an obstacle.
Success stories
We assisted the Rwanda National University to set up a master’s programme, resulting in a doubling of the number of water professionals in Rwanda. Around 75% of the local professionals passed through this programme.
We also sent students from Delft-based programmes to Rwanda to do applied research and ensured that their curriculum addressed the local context. It is impressive to see the impact on the Rwandan water sector.
NFP
NFP provides scholarships for about 50% of our MSc students, with one third of them women. Since we are a UN organisation, we see a growing interest from other donors to support staff training (examples are Indonesian students sponsored by the Asian Development Bank and groups of Iraqi students with UN fellowships).
More co-financing possibilities would allow us to attract more students with the same amount of NFP funding. Employers are often willing to contribute and co-funding would be a great opportunity to encourage them to do more.
We intend to develop a pilot with Nuffic and the the Ministry of Foreign Affairs to prove the success of a more flexible NFP.
