Royal danish ministry of foreign affairs - Go to the frontpage of um.dk   Publication  
 
 
     
 
 

7 FFU Research Grant Projects (North-driven)

7.1 Introduction and Background

Calls for proposals

The earlier calls, from 2006 to 2008, for research proposals identified capacity strengthening projects(ENRECA) as well as research project grants and initiative grantsin Denmark and developing countries. The ENRECA grants were abolished in 2009 and the Initiative Grantin 2010; from that point, the focus became research grants for development research, although development researchis not defined.

The FFU is an ad hoc Committee under the Strategic Research Council, which is appointed to ensure the strategic use of the funds designated for development research, in which importance is attached not only to technical quality but also to the relevance of the research in the context of development assistance.

The scope of those eligible to apply remains consistent as …an organisation, such as a governmental institution, business enterprise or private organisation in Denmark and a main applicant attached to the Danish organisation, although the wording changes slightly. Despite this the principal recipients of grants have been from universities (86%) with the remainder going to research institutes[44].

Research themes and focus

From 2006 to 2008 the calls state that research should generate knowledge for the pro motion of Danish development assistance in line with strategic planning documents[45] with an overall objective of combating poverty. In 2006, the call invites applications for research or for building research capacity in developing countries with topics covering the development and role of the private sector, children and young people and market-based agricultural production. In 2007 and 2008 calls focus on Danish programme countries and research in fields in which research and new knowledge relevant to Denmark’s development assistance may contribute to solving the problems of developing countries. From 2009 onwards the objective is refined to generate knowledge to promote the overall objective of the Danish development assistance to reduce poverty and to support research in fields in which research and new knowledge that is relevant to Denmark’s development assistance and may contribute to solving the problems of developing countries. The importance of projects that contribute to the enhancement of the research capacity in developing countries, and that it is driven by the countries’ own demands and strategies, is stressed. In 2011, support to encouraging sustainable development is also included in the wording.

Research areas and themes are identified in all the calls, in some detail and are summarised in Table 10 below[46]. The most significant change over the period is the appearance of climate and the environment with more socially linked topics such as fragile states, conflict, employment and rights.

The type of projects which could be supported under the FFU grants has evolved over the period under evaluation, and is summarised in Table 11. The key changes here are the removal of ENRECA and small grant projects, coupled with the reduction in the number of singleton post-doctoral and PhD studies.

It is made clear in the earlier calls, in 2007 and 2008, that the Ministry of Foreign Affairs reserves the right to merge multiple applications, where appropriate and appoint a single project manager. The length of large projects was set at three to five years duration. Applications for initiative grantsup to a maximum of DKK 200,000 could be sent to the Steering Committee (SC) of the FFU throughout the year and the SC meeting twice a year would decide which projects to support.

Table 10 Summary of Themes and Research Topics 2006-2011
Theme or Research Area 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
Agriculture and Natural Resource Management            
Market-based agricultural production X          
Environment and sustainable use of natural resources and the development of energy in Africa   X X      
Agriculture and Sustainable Development         X  
Food Security       X    
Climate, Energy and sustainable use of natural resources       X X X
Capacity Strengthening            
Building Research Capacity (ENRECA) X X X      
Youth and Gender Roles            
Youth Education and Employment X     X    
Children and young people X          
Civil Society and Rights            
Good governance at Central and/or decentralised level   X X      
Fragile States, Conflict and Civil Society         X X
Economic Growth, Employment and Property Rights           X
Development and role of the private sector X          
Health            
Health systems in Africa X X X X    

Table 11 Summary of Grant Types 2006-2011 (*signifies only limited support)
Theme or Research Area 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
Projects for building research capacity (ENRECA) X X X      
Major research projects (>DKK 5 million) X X X X X X
Smaller research projects (<DKK 5 million) including singleton Post-doctoral and PhD X X X X X X*
Small Initiative Grants for the preparation of ENRECA-projects and/or major research projects with institutions in developing countries (Maximum DKK 200,000) X X X X    

From 2009 support to PhD awards was tightened so that students from partner countries could only be supported if they were part of a larger strategic project and preferably enrolled at an institution in their own country.

From 2010 all larger strategic research applications had to go through a prequalification process, with priority being given to larger strategic research projects/programmes with joint collaboration between several Danish institutions and partners in the South. Selection criteria favoured projects where PhD and post-doctoral studies were included in larger research programmes instead of being submitted as separate small projects.

In the 2011 call, it is stated that larger strategic research programmes should have substantive elements of capacity building, with a focus on national priorities and ownership in developing countries.

In the assessment of the quality of the applications, individual PhD and post-doc as well as larger strategic applications, the innovative nature of the research was considered to be central.

Requirements for applications

In 2007 and 2008 the application format and process required a logical framework matrix with indicators and milestones; however in 2009 the guidelines and formats were revised to comply with those of the Danish Council for Strategic Research in order to ease the administrative burden on the applicants, and the logframe requirement was dropped, and with it a potentially useful M&E tool.

In 2008 the Ministry of Foreign Affairs outsourced the administration of the support to development research to Danida Fellowship Centre (DFC). The requirements regarding the applications as well as the application procedure, formats and assessment criteria in the guide to applicants, as well as the formats for the application, budget form, and guide were made available on the internet.

The technical assessment of applications has been done by FFU since 2007, with the assessment of large, prequalified applications, being done by external professional assessors followed by part-consultation. Applications are also sent for evaluation to relevant departments and embassies in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs

From 2007 to 2009 comprehensive criteria were listed in the calls for proposals themselves, and these included not only reference to the overall objective of the support, but went into some detail on the specific items. In 2010 this was simplified to three criteria used by the Danish Council for Strategic Research, with the detail to be found in the Application Guide. The three criteria were:

  • Qualityof the research being proposed


  • The Relevanceof the research to national and Danish priorities and policy


  • Potential Impactof the research.

7.2 General Management Issues and Findings

Relevance and nature of calls

There have been several shifts in strategic direction and these changes have had implications for stakeholders and those evaluating the proposals, but despite this there has been no deliberate change management process to support them. With any change there will be winnersand losers, and in terms of both effectiveness and efficiency, it is important that this is deliberately managed. Reviewers need to be aware of the nature and rationale for the criteria they are using in assessing applications, for example.

The themes for the calls are decided and drafted by the Technical Advisory Services of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, in May of each year. The draft is discussed with relevant departments and submitted to FFU in June. The FFU does not decide the themes but can propose formulations and sometimes suggests themes which are then included. The calls under this funding modality are linked to Danida priorities (see Table 10) and are not necessarily based on, or driven by, Danish research capacity.

The role of the Danida Fellowship Centre

Stakeholder responses to the role of the DFC in the general administration and support to logistics and finances of this modality and the PRCP, was very positive, and well appreciated. The only minor issue being that for activities outside of Copenhagen, DFC support for visitors was not of the same high quality. DFC monitors compliance with administrative and financial requirements of the modality but has no role in technical monitoring or evaluation. This area of technical oversight and quality assurance is very limited, with no formal structures or mechanisms in place, especially for individual projects.[47]

Communication and information

Danida has initiated an information portal which was setup by DDRN and launched in July 2011. It contains some information on projects that were granted after January 2008 and a limited number of older projects where coordinators were able to confirm project details. It is currently maintained by DFC; prior to this, there was no adequate system.

The FFU research projects have produced a large amount of information and knowledge[48] but except where projects have specifically planned and budgeted for uptake or dissemination, there is no formal or institutionalised communication-information system, or requirement, for the sharing or promotion of output. Dissemination and uptake of research findings has taken place in FFU projects through a range of mechanisms including policy briefs[49], workshops, publications and posters. However the approach is not systematic or guided by an overall strategy, it very much depends on the individual researchers and research topic.

Of the 88 FFU projects for which the Evaluation had data, 20 have had specific budgets for dissemination, ranging from 0.1% to 7.4% (with an average of 3.6%) of the total project cost. Of these 12 are larger strategic projects, where the average was 4.8% and the remaining eight being PhD and post-doctoral studies (average 2.4%). These specific budgets were in projects started after 2009.

Likewise, there is no requirement for researchers or embassy staff to interact and exchange information on outputs or outcomes, even where research may be relevant to the development of Danida’s country programmes, national sector programmes or more general planning and policy.

7.3 Relevance

The thematic approach of the calls for FFU proposals, based on Danida policy and priorities, means that successful projects are, by definition, relevant in this context.

The task of assessing relevance to Southern partners falls mainly to embassy staff, which can sometimes create difficulties if proposals are highly technical or if no clear statement of national policy or priorities is in place.

From the review of project documents and objectives, and based on broad national priorities of poverty reduction and food security, it is reasonable to assume that in general all FFU projects are relevant to development issues and priorities. However at the detailed level, it should be noted that gender issues were poorly dealt with in both research calls and in the subsequently approved proposals, despite the fact that Danida had a strategic focus on women’s rights and access to resources[50]; Broegaard[51] notes that micro-finance, property rights and disaster prevention are also marginalised, and the Evaluation can confirm this.

7.4 Effectiveness

General management issues

There is no logframe or result framework for the FFU approach as a whole and no clearly articulated objective or set of outputs which succinctly describe what it is trying to deliver, apart from a very broad sense that it is about capacity strengtheningand research.This, and the lack of indicators, makes it difficult to measure the full extent of its effectiveness. This shortcoming is not unique to the FFU modality.

The logframe also ceased to be a requirement for FFU projects from 2009. Of the 24 larger projects required to include a logframe between 2006 and 2008, examples were only found in six, although complete project documentation was not available for all projects. The sample did, however, provided a useful insight into the way in which the logframes had been generated and used.

Within the sample there were a range of format and formulation issues including large numbers of specific objectives and results, and in one rather extreme case[52] there were three overall objectives, two specific objectives and one result. Indicators where they were present were exclusively expressed in terms of completed activities, and in one case activities were listed under the specific objective. It is clear from the associated reports that the logframes were not understood or considered a key tool for project cycle management and M&E, they appear to have been treated as a box-filling exercise once project documentation had been completed.

Financial management by Danish partners is done well and is effective; however, the development of budgets in project proposals was not always done jointly with Southern partners. This resulted in Southern partners not understanding the nature of the budgets and with control coming from the North the limited ownership created misunderstandings and in some cases resentment that certain activities or purchase were not possible. Despite the fact that guidelines on expenditure and financial management are available online, understanding of Danida financial systems amongst Southern partners was variable.

Technical support and collaboration

Overall the FFU projects can be seen to have developed strong partnerships at an individual level, with good collaboration and support being provided by Danish researchers. Some of these partnerships have a long history, and although not institutionalised, young researchers taking part in projects also get opportunities to establish links.

There is a requirement for FFU projects that proposals should be implemented with a Southern partner; however the selection of those partners by a lead Danish organisation is on a non-competitive basis. This has created something of a closed-shopwhich can make it difficult for new or alternative organisations in the South to access FFU project funds or Danish partners. This non-competitive selection is the opposite of the PRCP modality which allows Danish organisations to submit expressions of interest to Southern organisations when concept notes from the South are part of a call.

The lack of a requirement for project proposals to include a logframe or result framework has implications for measuring not only project success but also the contribution each project makes to the overall thrust of FFU project support by Danida. The proposal format requires Objectives, Outputs and Indicators but lacks guidance on how these should be defined and articulated, and whilst implying a results-based managementapproach the Evaluation could find no evidence that this was understood by applicants in either the North or South. Broegaard noted the lack of indicators and the variability in defining and measuring objectives and outputs whilst also recording the fact that in many cases progress is measured by reporting on completed activities, judging success by the delivery of product, notoutcome.

A study of research proposals indicated that the necessary information for appropriately articulated objective, output and outcome statements is present, but that there is a lack of clarity and consistency in the way they are presented (see Annex J for two typical examples).

Several senior managers at Southern institutes, who are working with other development partners, stated that they missed having clear frameworks with indicators. The World Bank now uses a reduced form of a logframe, referred to as a Results Framework,and other development partners all have some form of causal structure which links the use of inputs with the delivery of results, outcomes and impact[53].

For projects operating in Francophone countries, effectiveness can sometimes be hampered by language issues, with communication between Francophone and Anglophone countries, especially in Africa, being an issue. Language training has not generally been included in project budgets, but there are no administrative reasons why this could not be done.

Use of research findings in Danida programmes is very limited although at national level there were positive examples with follow-up research activities, with or without Danida funding. Similarly there were instances where FFU project outputs became incorporated into larger multilaterally-funded projects. Responses to the eSurvey (Figure 3 and Figure 4) confirmed that project outputs were largely utilised in one way or another, with less than 5% indicating no measurable outputs.An analysis of how the research outputs were used shows that new research initiativesand research into useconstituted the main areas, although there were interesting differences when the responses from Danish and non-Danish respondents was considered.

Figure 3 Responses to What have project outputs led to? (n=191 responses)

Figure 3

Figure 4 Responses to What have project outputs led to? filtered by nationality

Figure 4

7.5 Efficiency

In general, resources have been used as planned and agreed in project proposals. DFC has received very few requests for significant changes, and these have largely been justified and agreed, although in one case communication delays caused some transitory difficulties[54].

Although no major changes or budget costs have been incurred, approximately half of the FFU projects have had to request no-costextensions in order to ensure completion of PhD studies. This is largely due to the original project length, typically three years, and the time taken to identify personnel and implement a PhD award, a minimum of three and a half years.

73% of respondents to the eSurvey indicated that they were aware of other development partner initiatives in the same technical area as their project and also indicated that they engaged with these to some(43%) or a large extent(22%), see Annex D. Often researchers, particularly in Southern organisations, were engaged on several different projects funded from different sources. Based on analysis of the situation in Burkina Faso and Tanzania, there has been little official harmonisation of FFU projects with research initiatives supported by other development partners, although neither was there evidence of duplication or conflict of interests.

The embassies in these countries have no official role in the implementation of the FFU projects and there is no official interaction between project and embassy staff, although some limited personal interactions do take place. The lack of a governance structure to support embassy-FFU project interaction has meant that opportunities to incorporate or promote research output in programme development or national sector planning have not been realised.

Table 12 shows the reported output from FFU North-driven projects for which data are available. The Evaluation reviewed all the Project Completion Reports available for the period from 2006 to 2011. The data are incomplete, however from the information available the ENRECA projects produced higher numbers of publications and PhD awards at a lower cost than the Larger Strategic Projects which replaced the funding instrument. The lowest cost for PhD awards came, not surprisingly, from the projects designed specifically to deliver this output. In general terms all projects delivered the outputs in terms of degrees and produced an overall average of 3.2 publications per project at a nominal cost of DKK 1.3 million.

Table 12 Numbers of PhD awards and publications for agricultural and NRM FFU North-driven projects 2006-2011
  PhD Awards
Publications
Category Projects Planned Awarded Average* Papers Average**
ENRECA Projects 7 27 21 3.0 49 7.0
Larger Strategic Projects 4 6 5 1.3 18 4.5
Smaller projects, PhD 8 8 8 1.0 10 1.3
Total 24 41 34 1.4 77 3.2

* Average number of PhD awards/project category.
** Average number of papers in peer reviewed journals/project.

7.6 Impact and Sustainability

At an institutional level it has been difficult to measure the extent and nature of impact attributable to the FFU projects, with little baseline data and fewer targets against which to make judgements. Some proxy indicators exist however and a case study for SUA in Tanzania is presented below since SUA has a long and extensive history of collaboration with Danish researchers and institutions.

The PhD and MSc training through FFU projects has undoubtedly improved the human resource base at Southern institutions where projects were located, in terms of the number of degrees awarded[55]. The perception amongst stakeholders (including those who responded to the eSurvey) was that engagement with Danida supported projects had improved their personal performance and to some extent that of the organisation they were based in.

Institutional status and Danida links with SUA

During the period from 2006 and 2011, SUA has had between 100 and 150 research projects within agricultural and NRM, including environment and climate change, for improvement of livelihoods and the reduction of poverty producing on average of 60 scientific papers each year[56].

Table 13 Staffing and Degree Information SUA, Tanzania 2006-2011[57]
Category/Description 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
Number of Undergraduate Programmes n/a n/a n/a 20 n/a 30
Number of Postgraduate Programmes n/a n/a n/a 36 n/a 48
Student enrolment, BA 820 712 1,470 1,918 2,078 1,517
Student enrolment, MSc 225 348 236 547 562 377
Student enrolment, PhD 31 12 16 52 48 23
Student output (PhD) 13 13 8 7 14 8
Student output (Masters) 151 150 195 151 252 204
Student output (BA) 657 657 696 695 655 1,103
Academic staff, total n/a n/a n/a 476 n/a 508
Academic Staff with Bachelor degree n/a n/a n/a 33 n/a 93
Academic Staff with Master degree n/a n/a n/a 148 n/a 155
Academic Staff with PhD degree n/a n/a n/a 235 n/a 320
Financial support to SUA from Government of Tanzania (DKK million) 60.8 59.1 70.2 91.3 89.9 98.1
Financial support to SUA from development partners[58] (DKK million) 18.6 18.6 26.0 94.5 57.3 81.0
Own income generated at SUA (DKK million) 0.6 8.7 17.0 22.2 29.0 37.0

During this period, the financial support to SUA has increased by more than 150% reflecting significant increases in contributions from both Government of Tanzania and development partners, mainly through additional funds from Norway, EU, DFID and USAID.

Income generated at SUA has also increased by more than 300% due to a sharp increase in the demand for SUA consultancies, production activities and services charged from research activities.

As a consequence of the sharp increase in the inflow of funds, SUA has been able to increase its capacity over the same period shown by increases in the number and qualifications of the academic staff employed at SUA, increases in the number of Undergraduate and Postgraduate Programmes offered and increases in student enrolments and outputs at Bachelor and Master levels. In terms of PhD awards, neither the enrolment rate nor the output number has increased.

Researchers at SUA are now more inclined to stay at the university rather than move to other organisations, because the university’s reputation provides ample opportunities for staff to generate additional income as consultants as well as accessing grants and funding from development partners.

Although Danida-funded research activities have contributed[59] to the capacity development achievements at SUA between 2006 and 2011 attribution is difficult/ impossible. Norway is by far the most influential development partner at SUA[60]. Funding provided through Norwegian programmes[61] has composed more than 50% of the total external funding to SUA within the period. In addition, a large share of the Norwegian funding has been through comprehensive institutional research programmes, which have aimed at addressing capacity development issues at the institutional level (management and administration of research) as well as at the individual level (research projects). This is contrary to the Danish research funding to SUA within the period, which has focused on support to individual researchers and research projects.

Additional outcomes and benefits

Individual links continue post-project and allow continued research from both Danida and other sources. The contacts allow networking and exchange of ideas and there were many examples of FFU projects stimulating access to funding from a variety of additional and new resources, even where FFU funding was declined because proposals were too focussed on uptake and dissemination. This impliesan impact on institutional capacity through training and publications.

The mechanisms and platforms for information exchange are often limited in partner countries and this reduces stakeholder access to research output. In addition there were also limited budgeting and dissemination-uptake activities designed into in many projects (see above), further reducing access to research output by those who might directly benefit.

Although impact has not alwaysbeen obvious and is not commonly financed or supported through project design (these are research projects) there is a visible, positive shift in some of the more recent projects[62].

7.7 Conclusions

Design and monitoring

The lack of indicators not only hinders evaluation but prevents adequate technical monitoring during implementation. Although the monitoring of administrative and financial compliance has been done efficiently by DFC, there is little evidence of technical monitoring beyond the numbers of degrees and publications produced; outcomes have generally not been considered. The use of planning tools such as result frameworks or logframes would have made it easier to do so, and to institutionalise such technical monitoring.

FFU project success

The FFU projects have been largely driven from Denmark and have provided an attractive, bilateral funding modality in a relatively closed institutional environment that has benefited researchers in Denmark and selected Southern countries. It has functioned well within the scope of the Calls for research proposals, and has had an impact on the human resource capacity of some Southern universities and research institutes at an individual level through the award of postgraduate degrees and the gaining of research experience; the focus in most Southern countries has been at university-level. It has been successful at providing training and at the same time has generated a number of research publications.

The lack of baseline data, the multiplicity of donor and other funding sources and the multiple roles of individuals funded from these different sources make it very difficult to measure and attribute institutional impact from Danida support.

The researcher-researcher approach has focussed on individual research interests and operated in a research paradigm which emphasises the importance of making research output available for dissemination and uptake by others beyond the project boundary. This linear model of researcher-extension-farmer/user is discussed further below, and in relation to the other modalities and potential solutions, in Chapters 10 and 11.

Future focus for FFU projects

Throughout the period from 2006 to 2011 Danida and FFU have lacked a detailed strategy for support to development research and have relied instead on a set of broad objectives[63] and a number of thematic areas.

Under such circumstances any modality which is functioning well and delivering postgraduate degrees and publications, can be judged a success, but the question remains as to whether, in the participatory and holistic environment which characterises modern development research, the FFU project approach remains an appropriate modality.

FFU project research is driven by a thematic approach based on shifting Danida priorities, and projects are linked to the skills and strengths of Danish researchers, the majority of whom are in universities. The research focus aims to satisfy academic criteria of quality research publications and PhD/MSc degrees with the links and partnerships being largely built at a personal-project, rather than institutional- programme, level. This linear approach to research assumes that the responsibility for dissemination and uptake of successful outputs is outside the project boundary and the responsibility of others.

The PRCP has started to address some of these issues (see Chapter 8) but a longer-term view, built around Danida’s new strategy for development research,is required which addresses not only the issues of ownership, but also the issues of livelihoods, partici pation, value chains and the role of national research institutes (see Chapters 10 and 11).


[44] KU (65%), Aarhus University (14%) and Roskilde, South Danish and Danish Technical Universities receiving the balance (7%). The institutes receiving 14% of project funding were DIIS, GEUS, DMU and Risø. See Table 5 in Broegaard for details.

[45] Strategy for Denmark’s Development Policy – Partnership 2000 and A World for All – Priorities of the Danish Government for Danish Development Assistance 2008-2012.

[46] Note it has not been possible to assign values to this table as the thematic information on the project database provided to the Evaluation is inconsistent with the stated titles of the themes, as advertised.

[47] The last formal evaluation of FFU projects was done in 2000, and for Danida overall support in 2001. See 1) Evaluation of Danida’s Bilateral Programme for Enhancement of Research Capacity in Developing Countries, December 2000, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Danida. 2) Partnerships at the Leading Edge: A Danish Vision for Knowledge, Research and Development – Report of the Commission on Development-related Research Funded by Danida, April 2001, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Danida.

[48] Knowledge is defined as information with the tools on how to use it.

[49] These are not always appropriate. However, in one case, a project produced policy brief documents for policy makers and published them on a website but there was no mechanism for them to share with the targeted decision makers, in fact the concept of a policy paperwas new to Francophone countries so there was an additional requirement for promotion and explanation.

[50] Women – a driving force for development – focus on strengthening women’s rights and access to resources – access to education – strengthening position of women in Africa (Danida’s five-point plan on gender equity), from: Commitment to Development – Priorities of the Danish Government for Danish Development Assistance 2007-2011. The Danish Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Copenhagen, August 2006.

[51] Issues Paper for future evaluation of effect of Danida supported research on agriculture and natural resource management. August 2012, Rikke Brandt Broegaard.

[52] DFC reference 207-LIFE.

[53] Indicator 11 for the Paris Declarationis Results orientated frameworks – an indicator which assesses the degree to which partner countries have results-oriented frameworks align with those of development partners.

[54] On one project the leadership changed, and although initially DFC passed a no-objection,12 months later FFU indicated that the change was not appropriate and funding was frozen. After further consultation the decision was reversed and the project continued.

[55] At SUA, the relatively large support provided through Danida FFU projects over several years has undoubtedly contributed to a documented increase in number of academic staff with PhD degrees, number of courses supplied and number of student uptake.

[56] SUA estimate.

[57] From Annual Reports and documentation provided by SUA, Tanzania.

[58] In 2009 the Danish contribution was <10%. No official figures could be provided to the Evaluation on contributions from individual development partners for other years, however perceptions from SUA management is that the Danish contribution has been no more than 10% over the period from 2006 to 2011. The Norwegian contribution is perceived to have been more than 50%.
The discrepancy between this estimate and the overall value of support to SUA-based projects lies in the amount of funding that is channelled directly through the SUA system.

[59] 26 PhD and 36 MSc degrees during the period.

[60] Norway provides support to Tanzania through the Norwegian Agency for Development Cooperation (Norad) for research based in Norway (10% of the budget) as well as in-country (90%). The in-country funding is managed by the embassy. Support to universities is untied and based on programmes developed by the universities who work together to produce a programme of what they need. Support to PhD studies encourages field work in Tanzania, and there is an emphasis on the need to make research output available and accessible. PhD and research have specific components for the production of policy briefs and information outputs.

[61] For example the Programme for Agriculture and Natural Resource Transformation for Improved Livelihoods (PANTIL), Enhancing Pro-poor Innovation in Natural Resources and Agriculture Food Chains (EPINAV), Climate Change Impacts, Adaptation and Mitigation (CCIAM) and Norwegian Programme for Development, Research and Education (NUFU).

[62] One recent project included a budget for dissemination activities, which it considered very important. Farmers were involved via surveys and plantation of oil-trees, the forestry/environment administration via information and reports and other stakeholders via classical media, such as radio, TV, scientific publications and brochures.

[63] The basic objective of support as defined in the calls for proposals was to generate knowledge to promote the overall objective of the Danish development assistance to reduce poverty and to support research in fields in which research and new knowledge that is relevant to Denmark’s development assistance and may contribute to solving the problems of developing countries.




This page forms part of the publication 'Evaluation of Danida supported Research on Agriculture and Natural Resource Management 2006-2011' as chapter 10 of 16
Version 1.0. 09-09-2013
Publication may be found at the address http://www.netpublikationer.dk/um/11214/index.htm

 

 
 
 
 
  Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Denmark © | www.um.dk