Tale til NUFUs formidlingskonferanse

Politisk rådgiver Roger Pedersens innlegg til NUFUs formidlingskonferanse i regi av Senter for internasjonalt utdanningssamarbeid, 04.06.07, Clarion Bergen Airport Hotel.

Ladies and gentlemen,

I am here to greet you on behalf of the Minister of Education and research, Mr. Øystein Djupedal, and to congratulate all of you in the NUFU family. You are partners in a very worthwhile program­me and as we shall see from the presentations here, your efforts produce results. In a climate of development pessimism, when we hear from every side how North-South programmes fail to deliver results and how we in the North harvest most of the benefits, NUFU is above criticism. In evaluations, international research and from NUFU partners we hear that NUFU achieves the balanced, equal partnerships it aims for. And the feeling in the South is that the contributions to institutional development are important – sometimes invaluable. So – well done NUFU!

Having said that, let us try to go a little beyond the congratulations and good wishes and look at the context. This seminar gathers a lot of partners involved in development and education and I’d like to share with you some perspectives on the developing world and on our efforts to make a positive difference.

Since NUFU was unveiled in 1991 the world has moved on. Globalization is the dominant tendency and education trade affects us all. Communications have developed and multiplied; conditions for academic mobility are completely different today, 16 years later. The burning topics in academic research and debate are new ones, and keep developing and changing year by year. Political maps are fluid, with new regimes, alliances and blocks. Even the physical context, our environment, is slipping, and we must consider the future in harsher tones. But one thing remains unchanging – the affluent North is still well off and the poor nations of the South lag behind according to most development indicators.

What does that mean for NUFU? Is NUFU a dynamic programme that moves with the times or is there a need for changes? Perhaps this sounds dangerous, but let me quickly reassure you and say that I am not here to warn you of great changes ahead. When I say that NUFU is a valuable programme that is precisely what I mean, and there are no plans to reduce it.

At a seminar two weeks ago the director of Norad  said that he wants the contributions of the best brains in our higher education sector, to use them in efforts to achieve maximum development progress in partner countries. "But", he said, "I do not really need the higher education sector in Norway where those people work. Institutional involvement is not really required."

For us this is very problematic.

NUFU is a programme not only for the South but also for the North. The mandate of our Ministry is to deliver the best possible education and research for the benefit of the people of Norway. The Norwegian education budget is not meant to cover expenses outside Norway, money for development assistance comes from a different source. While the direct expenses, funding in the South, are covered under the development budget, the institutional contributions – staff time, infrastructure etc. – are not. This is a very large contribution and we should ask ourselves why the Norwegian universities and colleges should make it, instead of quietly nursing their own projects and their own students. Why not do what the Norad leadership seemed to suggest and leave the difficult and expensive North-South co-operation to Norad and the development people and concentrate on doing our own stuff a little better than before?

The reason is of course that international partnerships and collaboration in higher education are necessary conditions for knowledge production in Norway as in all our partner countries. Since I represent the Ministry of Education and Research my focus is first the Norwegian higher education system and our public mandate. But I also must stand up for  the global knowledge network that more and more has become the lifeblood of academic development – in the North as in the South. Quality in education depends on international networking and partnerships.

In this context NUFU is an obvious focal point, since it depends one hundred percent on institutional partnerships. The contributions of the individual brains involved depend on the institutional environment that nourished them. The rewards that Norwegian universities and colleges harvest from their North-South activities are mainly contributions to quality. It is part of the mandate and the mission of a modern higher education institution to be globally aware and to turn out students and research that matter in a global setting. In other words: Participation in North-South activities are part of the quality assurance of every college. With this in mind it is legitimate for our institutions to insist on a fair return on the dedication, time and resources they contribute. The higher education sector is a senior partner in the design and development of North-South programmes and there are some aspects that are ours to defend:

The first I’d like to mention is quality. Meaningful academic relationships are those that give real and equal access to global knowledge resources and networks. We want first-class universities in the South. And that must be achieved through a full membership in the academic world with its strict standards and benchmarks. We must apply the same quality standards and expect the same high-class output from projects in a North-South setting as we would under any other circumstances. This is, after all, the only way to make sure that the North-South partnerships have the quality effects for both partners that I spoke of earlier. The second aspect is the relations with global education policy. Norway has ambitions to make a difference in education. We are actively involved in UNESCO and its Education for All programme, we try to make the GATS negotiations on education more development friendly, we play an important role in the OECD education activities and we have been in the forefront in the European Bologna Process, in particular the work on its Global Dimension. Our bilateral relations include many countries in the South, and we discuss many topics that have nothing to do with development assistance.

My point is that Norway has an international education policy that promotes quality, equal access to knowledge, recognition of credentials and many other objectives. That policy should apply to all international arenas, including the ODA-funded North-South programmes. Third, geographical focus – we all agree that development funding should go to developing countries. But in that group there are countries with highly developed links to Norwegian higher education as well as countries where less has been done. At the same time as we keep in mind the overall strategies of development policy it must also be allowed to consider the long-term commitments of researchers and networks. Because it is that commitment which secures progress and quality in the collaboration.

Number four is the choice of partners in the South. The academic groundwork for successful projects and for the practical results in development is done by institutions; institutions with a shared ambition to produce new knowledge of the highest quality, appropriate for its context, and the skilled professionals to put it to use. The academic meeting of minds is a condition for that to happen. It may seem attractive to identify the development need, locate a key resource and call in a team of brains from Norway to build competence. But in reality partnerships grow from trust, not from terms of reference. In that reality it is necessary to build on true academic links and let the shared interest lead to results. What those four points mean is that – yes, the motives of the higher education institutions are not entirely unselfish; yes, we do have a mandate to get something out of it for the benefit of Norwegian higher education. So what!?

I think the director of Norad misses the point when he suggests that the institutional frame­work is not needed. The reason why we have some successes and the reason why we have such a good climate in our co-operation is that we do more than just supply the brains. And unless the institutions find challenging and inspiring involvement in North-South programmes they will not take part. Well-paid consultancies and guest lectures in a pleasant southern climate is not enough to interest the colleges – nor the brains – in long-term, sustained efforts. Therefore we have the right and the mandate to influence future strategies in this field and to demand that they take seriously the motivation of the Norwegian partners as well as the development results on the ground. I am sure all of us here share a strong conviction that a more equal distribution of global resources and a fairer division of labour globally is a good cause. But unless we could also claim that it benefits our universities and colleges it would be difficult to allocate scarce education resources to NUFU and other development activities. This is entirely legitimate.

 

Does NUFU provide such a benefit to the universities and colleges that take part? I think it does, and I think that is one important part of the reason why it continues to appeal to new partners and why it shows results. As my final point I’d like to remind you of the challenges posed by the threat of brain drain. Even with good intentions, results in development co-operation almost never quite match expectations. In addition they always produce unintended effects. Many of you will have followed a Norwegian debate recently. On one side there are those who think we should make a better effort to recruit qualified professionals from other countries – including students and researchers who have come to Norway – to fill the holes in our own service sector. On the other side you find the people who warn against the effects of skilled professionals leaving African countries for better pay and working conditions in the North. Norway should not allow a flow of resource people from the South to settle here,they say, and students certainly should not be able to stay on after their degrees. This is a very complex issue and strong forces pull both ways. The remittances – the money migrants send home from abroad – and the poor working conditions for academics in their home countries are important arguments for allowing graduates to stay. International recommendations from the United Nations and many of the sending countries count in the opposite direction. Ghana has a drastic shortage of doctors. But three out of every ten doctors they educate leave to work abroad. Clearly this is a real problem.

In Norway we have decided not to accept targeted recruitment of health personnel from developing countries. But how can we guard against individuals preferring to stay here and work? We are about to take up discussions with Norad to try to find project models that combine education, recruitment and efforts to upgrade the work conditions in the South and secure suitable employment for students who return. Making the return home more attractive has often been recommended as the best approach to brain drain. But in the meantime, programmes such as NUFU are in the middle of this debate. I think we can be quite proud of the Norwegian North-South programmes in this respect. Studies and figures show that Norwegian academic mobility programmes have had very limited brain drain effect. NUFU has nothing to be ashamed of.

The reasons for this positive situation may be many, of course. Perhaps Norway is simply a very unattractive country where nobody wants to stay? I believe it is more likely that the emphasis on institutional partnerships help students and researchers stay in contact with their home environment while they are here. It is easier to find work at home if your professional contacts are up-to-date, you are kept updated on important developments in your field or at your institution and you can rely on future connections to your Norwegian partners after your return. All these are factors that make it easier to keep your roots while you are away, and roots, as we know, are what nourish us. To us this is another important factor in favour of institutional programmes. I am sure there are examples in this room of partnerships over a very long time, where brain drain has been replaced with planned brain circulation to the benefit of both partners.

In conclusion – after this little field trip in the landscape of North-South education policy – let me go back to the beginning, and repeat what I said: You are partners in a very worthwhile program­me and your efforts produce results. Your enthusiasm and your dedication is clear for all to see – keep up the god work!

 

Thank you!