ministry of foreign affairs. evaluation department .../media/um/english-site/documents/danida...1...
TRANSCRIPT
1
Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Evaluation Department
File no.: 2016-45640
Programme Committee Meeting 1. December 2016
1. Title: Building Stronger Universities, Phase III
2. Amount: DKK 90 million
3. Expected appropriation date: June 2017
4. Duration: 2017-2021, 48 months
5. Previous Grants: Building Stronger Universities, Phase II, November 2013
(DKK 100 million)
Building Stronger Universities, Phase I, July 2011 (DKK 60
million)
6. Summary:
Building Stronger Universities (BSU) is a university partnership programme aiming at strengthening research
capacity at six universities in Ghana, Tanzania and Uganda. BSU started in 2011 and this is the third phase
of the programme. The programme aims at enhancing the role of the participating African universities as
providers of scientific knowledge and research-based education and advice to society. Each African university is
partnering with a consortium of Danish universities organised around a number of scientific areas of support.
Furthermore, administrative services of the universities related to research are strengthened through the BSU.
7. Danish National Budget
account:
06.38.02.19
8. Channel of delivery:
Funding is channelled from Danida Fellowship Centre directly to the universities in the countries and to the
involved coordinating universities in Denmark.
9. Modalities:
Project funding.
2
Building Stronger Universities, Phase III 2017-2021
Concept Note
Introduction
All countries need academic institutions and capacity to educate their own workforce. These are
necessary to develop the society, meet the educational needs of the young, and to ensure
participation in an increasingly knowledge-based global economy. Research contributes with
new technology and knowledge and provides new perspectives and solutions to address
development challenges.
Over the last two decades, educational development in Africa has overall been characterised by
notable gains in the number of children and young people accessing schooling at all levels. The
overall pyramid of African education as it stands now shows a broad base (79% enrollment at
primary level), a narrow middle section (50% at secondary level) and a miniscule top (7% at
tertiary level). Furthermore, in contrast to the trend in many other parts of the world, tertiary
enrolment in Africa continues to be dominated by the humanities and social sciences. The
quality of university education and research remains an important issue. With the exception of
South Africa and Egypt, few African universities appear in the higher end of international
rankings, and there are significant quality differences between universities both across countries
and within countries.
In January 2016, the African Union adopted a Science, Technology and Innovation Strategy for
Africa. It reflects a growing recognition of the need to strengthen university and research
capacity in Africa in order to enhance the education of African youth and to provide locally
relevant knowledge to address the sustainable development goals.
Although increasing in recent years, national budgets for science, technology and innovation
continue to be insufficient in Africa and among the lowest in the world. International funding
remains essential and is estimated to constitute half of the overall funding for research &
development activities.
The Danish Ministry of Foreign Affairs provides support to development research through two
main channels of cooperation:
1. Research projects funded on a competitive basis under the Consultative
Committee for Danish Development Research (so-called FFU projects). These
FFU projects are undertaken in partnership between Danish universities and
research institutions in priority countries - and from 2017 also with partners from
growth and transition countries. The next call for applications is being announced
in November 2016.
2. Building Stronger Universities (BSU) is a partnership programme that provides
a group of universities in developing countries with opportunities to strengthen
3
their research capacity. The programme that started as BSU I in 2011 and
continued as BSU II from 2014 is now proposed for funding of a third phase of
four years’ duration from July 2017.
Programme justification
The overall objective of Danish support to development research is to strengthen research
capacity in developing countries and to create new knowledge capable of solving development
problems. In the new Draft Strategy for Development and Humanitarian Assistance, the role of
development research in enhancing cooperation within Danish core competence areas is
recognised, especially as developing countries reach middle income status. Development
research constitutes a link between development cooperation and the wider foreign policy
agenda by promoting Danish values and by promoting Danish know-how and technologies in
developing countries.
Danish researchers have considerable experience of undertaking research in developing
countries, and Danida support to development research is based on long-term cooperation
between Danish universities and universities and research institutions in developing countries.
The BSU programme allows the participating universities from Denmark and in the partner
countries to establish and strengthen their cooperation, and it represents an opportunity also
for students and young researchers to strengthen their capacity to participate in international
research collaboration. In the longer perspective, BSU represents an opportunity to strengthen
international partnerships and university relations and enable the partnerships to broaden their
joint research with other sources of funding (FFU projects, EU funding, etc.).
Building Stronger Universities addresses the need for institutional capacity strengthening within
research, the use of research in tertiary education and in outreach activities in relation to
external stakeholders and users of research. This includes for instance the capacity to manage
research projects, research infrastructure and research dissemination. It also involves education
of researchers (primarily through Ph.D. education), maintaining a scientific environment
around priority themes and engaging in good practices related to all stages of the research
process. Today, international cooperation is an intrinsic part of research, and the capacity to
engage in such cooperation is essential.
Building Stronger Universities Phase I and II
The Building Stronger Universities (BSU) programme was initiated in 2011 as collaboration
between Danish universities and 11 institutions in five countries (Tanzania, Ghana, Uganda,
Kenya and Nepal) organised around four thematic platforms. With a budget of DKK 60
million for two years, the programme focused especially on strengthening Ph.D. education, but
included some faculty staff exchanges as well. Although the programme largely met its targets,
an independent evaluation in 2013 found that, at least for some of the thematic platforms, there
4
was a risk of low sustainability due to missing ownership in the partner universities and that
administrative costs were too high.
In the second phase of the BSU programme (2014-2016), the cooperation continues with seven
universities in Ghana, Tanzania and Nepal each partnering with consortia including several
Danish universities. BSU Phase II activities were to a large extent defined by the Southern
universities and a match-making process was undertaken to partner with a consortia of Danish
universities responding to the needs identified. With a budget of DKK 100 million, BSU II has
included funding of a range of research capacity building activities within both faculty-related
topics (e.g. in health, agriculture, environment, social sciences) and university-wide
administrative issues such as facilities and regulations for Ph.D. students, financial and grant
management systems and access to literature. A mid-term review in early 2016 concluded that
there were indications of strengthened institutional capacity emerging, although most of the
projects were behind their implementation schedule. It was subsequently decided to continue
the projects up until mid-2017 within the existing budget, and by mid-2016 the projects have all
made considerable progress. In terms of results, the majority of outputs are well underway and
prospects are that these will largely be reached within the given timeframe. In terms of
outcomes, it is still too early to assess the results.
Experience from BSU II indicates that having Southern universities taking the lead in
identifying and implementing the programme has generated considerable ownership and
motivation. Alignment of project focus areas with university priorities is important for
attracting support from university management and sustainability. Danish researchers have also
consistently contributed and stayed engaged. Despite delays and some administrative
challenges, the present model of direct funding seems to be working well with administrative
support from Danida Fellowship Centre (DFC). A third phase will allow the BSU partnerships
to consolidate previous efforts by building on the well-functioning partnerships and enhancing
support within the most promising areas.
University partnerships should be considered as a long-term endeavour. It has therefore been a
limitation that both the first and the second phase were of a relatively short duration, but this
has made it possible to identify what seems to be a workable model for the programme. It is
therefore proposed to plan the third phase for four years’ duration.
The partnerships in BSU II have involved elements of support to strengthening university-level
administrative capacity as well as the work related to specific scientific areas, but sometimes it
has been difficult to link these two components. Strengthening the Ph.D. education within
specific areas has been a major activity area and constitutes an important basis for further
strengthening of research capacity in the next phase.
Furthermore, experience from BSU II indicates that peer-to-peer learning through joint pilot
research activities is an important part of this incremental learning process which could provide
opportunities for further collaboration using other types of funding.
5
The BSU II partnerships have involved a range of scientific areas and therefore a number of
partner faculties on the Danish side. In some projects, the activities may have been spread too
thinly to produce a reasonable effect. An important feature when preparing partnership
projects for BSU III will be to focus the partnerships on fewer scientific areas and ensure better
integration between the different activity types. This process will be undertaken on the basis of
the African universities’ priorities.
The African BSU universities are involved in a range of national, regional and international
cooperation. During BSU II, university collaboration has emerged also between the partner
universities. Further cooperation between South universities could be pursued in BSU III
where it is found relevant.
Phase III of Building Stronger Universities
The third phase of BSU will continue to be based on South partners’ identified priority areas,
and activity and output targets will be prepared by the six universities in Ghana, Tanzania and
Uganda1 in cooperation with their existing partners. The Danish partners are Copenhagen
University, Aarhus University, Aalborg University, Roskilde University, the Technical
University of Denmark, Copenhagen Business School and University of Southern Denmark.
The participating African universities are:
University of Ghana
Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology, Ghana
Sokoine University of Agriculture, Tanzania
Kilimanjaro Christian Medical University College, Tanzania
State University of Zanzibar, Tanzania
Gulu University, Uganda
A short description of the African university partners is included in annex 5.
There are considerable differences between the participating African universities in terms of
their present capacity and research activities, and the potential end of programme situation
varies accordingly. Some of the universities may continue research collaboration with Danish
and other international partners after the end of BSU III whereas others are aiming for a
situation where they in future can better plan and manage international funding of various
university-led activities.
The overall objective of BSU III is that the partnering African universities have enhanced their role as
providers of scientific knowledge and research-based education and advice to society. This will be reflected in
the research and educational output from the universities as well as their direct engagement
1 Due to the phasing out of Danish development assistance in Nepal and the termination of Danish embassy presence in Nepal, the cooperation with Kathmandu University will not be continued beyond the present phase.
6
with external partners. In the larger universities, it is not expected that overall changes can be
attributed to the Danish support, but only at faculty level.
Including the use of research in the objective is new in this phase of support, although several of
the partnerships have already worked with university outreach activities drawing on long
Danish experience in this area.
The BSU III outputs will be organised around the following three outcome areas:
Outcome area 1: University capacity is improved by strengthening administrative
frameworks for university research.
The administrative framework includes services and facilities to support research
activities, such as administrative and financial processes, library and laboratory
facilities, etc. Many of the administrative systems are university-wide and it will be
important to focus the partnership on those areas that influence most on the work
under outcome areas 2 and 3.
Outcome area 2: University capacity is improved by strengthening organisation
and systems for researcher education and research processes.
This involves the academic aspects at faculty level of the university research
capacity, such as establishment of thematic research groups, faculty-wide
enhancement of research methodologies and approaches, etc. It also involves
further work on strengthening the Ph.D. education within specified areas.
Outcome area 3: University capacity is improved by strengthening research and
outreach practices and networks.
The increased emphasis on research practices and outreach in the third phase is a
reflection of the improved capacity for planning and undertaking research
established in earlier phases. The activities include for instance pilot research
activities, dissemination of research results and mechanisms for strengthening
cooperation and linkages with private sector, civil society and public sector
research users.
The outputs will be related to specific scientific areas across the three outcomes and will be
determined during the formulation. A tentative results framework is included in annex 2. As
indicated above, new scientific areas will not be included in phase III, but the existing areas will
be focused further and some thematic areas may be discontinued.
Incorporating aspects of the human-rights based approach in BSU III will be considered during
the formulation. Standards for participation, transparency, accountability and non-
discrimination are relevant to consider also for universities, and the capacity strengthening
efforts will include these aspects where relevant. During BSU II, there has been emphasis on
ensuring women researchers’ access and output-reporting has been gender disaggregated. This
will continue in BSU III.
7
Risks and opportunities related to the environment and to climate change are relevant in
relation to some of the scientific areas in BSU and will continue to be observed. The
formulation process will specify these areas further.
Assumptions and risks
The theory of change for BSU is that if the administrative framework, the organisation and
systems and the practices and networks for university research are strengthened, then, then the
participating universities will enhance their research quality, education and outreach and hence
provide a more significant contribution to social and economic development.
The most important assumptions in the theory of change are related to factors both within the
participating universities and in their environment which influence the overall university
functions (funding, policy framework, infrastructure, economic development) as well as staff
incentives (management, career options, salaries).
Each of the participating universities is government funded, but they are also involved in a
range of international cooperation programmes, which are not always coordinated and not
easily predictable. This coordination is a task for the universities, but during the formulation
process, attention will be paid to other initiatives relevant for the BSU III support areas in
order to promote stronger coordination. Where relevant, the partnerships will be encouraged to
include exchange of experiences and mutual learning with other efforts to foster university
capacity development, as part of BSU III.
Project management and administration at university-level caused some delays in BSU II and
this continues to be a risk in the third phase, which should be taken into account when
planning the activities.
It is assumed that most Danish partners, depending on the scientific areas maintained, will stay
engaged in the BSU-partnerships. Their continued commitment throughout BSU II leaves little
doubt that this is not a major risk factor and many have already indicated their interest to
continue in a third phase.
BSU is a centrally managed programme, but there is scope for coordination with Danish
funded programmes in the three countries. In Uganda, a new country programme is under
formulation and it is envisaged that support to Gulu University under BSU will be an important
supplement to the strengthened emphasis on support in Northern Uganda. Reconciliation and
other post-conflict issues are interesting thematic areas in this regard. In Tanzania, the BSU
will strengthen national capacities to address key issues in sectors where Denmark is engaged
such as agriculture, business development and health. In Ghana, where the partnership with
Denmark is in transition, research is an opportunity to strengthen cooperation in areas of
Danish competences and provide linkages between the public sector and the business sector.
The thematic focus on private sector development and health is particularly interesting in this
regard.
8
Budget
The following indicative budget is proposed for the four years:
University partnership projects 80 mio. DKK
DFC administration 4 mio. DKK
Reviews and mid-term seminar 3 mio. DKK
Unallocated 3 mio. DKK
Total budget 2017-2021 90 mio. DKK
The budget distribution between the involved partnerships will be decided during the
formulation phase based on the project proposals. DFC administrative costs of DKK 1 million
per year continue as in phase II. Overhead costs are expected to continue as under BSU II
(12% for African universities and 20% for Danish university consortia). An amount of DKK 3
million is reserved to be allocated for new activities under existing outputs in year 3 and 4.
The overall budget allocation of DKK 90 million is pending approval of the Danish finance bill
2017.
Programme management, monitoring and reporting
The management set-up of BSU II will continue in BSU III. The overall programme
responsibility rests with MFA’s Evaluation Department (EVAL) in Copenhagen, and the
Danida Fellowship Centre (DFC) is responsible for overall programme administration and
financial management. Each partnership has one of the African universities as the project
holder and responsible towards DFC. This university holds the overall responsibility for
prioritising, coordinating and managing the BSU III grant and will endorse all activities to be
implemented and approve release of funding by DFC to the Danish universities. These
arrangements will be set out in separate partnership agreements with DFC.
The management set-up by each of the African universities will be aligned to existing university
management structures as much as possible and described in the partnership agreements. A
BSU III coordinator will be appointed in each university and act as the primary entry point for
all communication between the university and DFC.
The African partner universities (project holders) are responsible for documenting programme
progress to DFC and the MFA in accordance with Danida guidelines for programme
management, DFC project management guidelines and the partnership agreements, including
annual progress reports with audited accounts.
9
The following reviews are envisaged:
An in-country midterm review after 2 years.
A mid-term review seminar after 2½ years.
An end-of phase review before completion in year 4.
The mid-term review seminar involving representatives from all six partnerships is an
important event for sharing experience across the partnerships. In order to enhance
coordination with Danida country programmes, the Danish embassies in Ghana, Tanzania and
Uganda will be invited to participate in relevant meetings and reviews in relation to BSU III.
10
Annex 1
Process Action Plan (PAP) for Building Stronger Universities, Phase III
Time line
Programme Documentation
April 2016
BSU II mid-term seminar and initial discussions with partners on a possible phase III.
Mid-term seminar report.
October-November 2017 Drafting Concept note and annexes.
Draft concept note and annexes.
November 2017 Public consultation of Concept note.
Concept note with annexes.
1 December 2016 Meeting in Danida Programme Committee.
Concept note and annexes. List of received responses from the consultation and summary conclusions from Danida Programme Committee.
21.12.2016 Deadline for submission of outline project proposals from existing partnerships.
6 outline project proposals.
January - Early February 2017 Preparation and submission of detailed implementation plan. Country visits by process consultant.
6 detailed implementation plans.
15.2.2017 Deadline for submission of BSU III Draft Development Engagement Document (DED).
Draft DED.
20.2.2017 Draft ToR for appraisal forwarded to KFU.
Draft ToR.
All draft documentation for programme forwarded to TAS.
Development engagement Documents and associated partner documentation.
15. April 2017 Appraisal process finalized. Appraisal Report, recommendations summary.
30. April 2017 DED with appropriation cover sheet forwarded to KVA.
Development engagement Document.
June 2017 Presentation for Danida appropriation.
After Danida External Grant Committee meeting
The minister approves the programme.
Resumé from Danida External Grant Committee.
After Minister’s approval Signing of legally binding agreements (commitments) with partner(s).
Government-to-government agreement(s) and/or other legally binding agreements.
11
Annex 2
Results Framework for Development Engagement Document
Programme Building Stronger Universities, Phase III
Programme Objective
The partnering African universities have enhanced their role as providers of scientific knowledge and research-based education and advice to society.
Impact Indicator No. of peer reviewed articles, no. of Ph.D. and M.Sc. students continue in research; no. of private of public sector collaborations,
Baseline Year 2017 [Situation prior to engagement activities]
Target Year 2021 [Intended situation by the end of engagement (phase)]
Engagement Title Building Stronger Universities, Phase III
Outcome area 1
University capacity is improved by strengthening administrative frameworks for university research
Outcome indicator Researchers experience more well-functioning university administrative systems related to research
Baseline Year 2017 [Situation prior to engagement activities]
Target Year 2021 [intended situation by the end of engagement (phase)]
Engagement Title Building Stronger Universities, Phase III
Outcome area 2
University capacity is improved by strengthening organisation and systems for researcher education and research processes.
Outcome indicator Completion time for Ph.D.’s shortened; Researchers apply a wider variety of research methodologies.
Baseline Year 2017 [Situation prior to engagement activities]
Target Year 2021 [intended situation by the end of engagement (phase)]
Engagement Title Building Stronger Universities, Phase III
Outcome area 3
University capacity is improved by strengthening research and outreach practices and networks.
Outcome indicator University is able to maintain and attract high-level researchers within priority fields. University norms and practices develop become more client-oriented as witnessed by clients.
Baseline Year 2017 [Situation prior to engagement activities]
Target Year 2021 [intended situation by the end of engagement (phase)]
12
ANNEX 3
Contextual Risks Context:
Tertiary education sector in Ghana, Tanzania and Uganda
File No:
2016-45640
Risk factor
Likelihood Background to assessement
Impact Background to assessment
Risk response if applicable / potential effect on development cooperation in context
1
Weakened national political commitment to strong and independent universities in African partner countries
Unlikely Political commitment to tertiary education and research seems to be on the rise
Major National funding and legitimacy is a prerequisite for meaningful university research
2
Key researchers choose to leave the university / the country
Likely Researchers frequently take up positions in foreign countries
Minor University capacity building should be anchored in the institutions - not with individuals
Ensure the that the cooperation projects are not dependent on single individuals
3 4
13
5 6 7 8 9 10
14
Programmatic and Institutional Risks
Title:
Building Stronger Universities, Phase III
File No:
2016-45640
Programmatic Risks Risk factor
Likelihood Background to assessement of likelihood
Impact Background to assessment to potential impact
Risk response
Combined residual risk
P1 Poor partnership
relations between the involved universities
Unlikely The partnership has been tested through earlier phases.
Significant Trust and collegial relationshipds are a foundation for a successful partnership programme
Phase III should as little as possible include new constellations of partners
P2 Poor focus of
partnership projects could lead to small effect
Likely This was to some extent the case in phase II
Major Too little activities within each focus area will have some consequences for the potentital effects of the programme
Phase III formulation should focus on narrowing the number of activity areas
P3 Administrative and
fiduciary risks from programme management
Likely Delays are likely to occur also in phase III, but therehave nor been instances of financial mismanagement in phase II.
Significant Financial mis-management could bring the programme to a halt.
Vigilence and support to financial oversight at all levels.
15
P4 Inefficient use of funds due to lack of coordination with other (donor funded) activities
Likely Research support is dominated by projects and donor harmonisaton is low
Minor Programme impact is not likely to be affected by this
Programme formulation should take other related donor assistance into account
P5 P6 P7 P8 P9 P10
16
Institutional Risks Risk factor
Likelihood Background to assessement of likelihood
Impact Background to assessment of potential impact
Risk response
Combined residual risk
I1 Lack of coordination
with Danida Likely BSU III is a centrally
managed Major Country level
partners receive Involve embassies in country-level
I2 country programmes
programme
uncoordinated
Danida support meetings regarding BSU III
I3 I4 I5 I6 I7 I8 I9 I10
17
Deviations and follow-up
Title:
Building Stronger Universities, Phase III
File No:
2016-45640
Planned date for first assessment: Date of assessment: Nov. 2016 Deviations from original assessment: Follow-up: Date for next asssment: Feb. 2017 Date of assessment: Deviations from original assessment: Follow-up: Date for next asssment: Date of assessment: Deviations from original assessment: Follow-up: Date for next asssment: Date of assessment: Deviations from original assessment: Follow-up: Date for next asssment: Date of assessment: Deviations from original assessment: Follow-up: Date for next asssment:
18
ANNEX 4
Climate Change and Green Growth Screening Note
Basic Information
Programme title: Building Stronger Universities, Phase III
Country/region: Ghana, Tanzania, Uganda
Estimated allocation: 90 Million DKK
Brief description of the Programme support:
University cooperation between Danish universities and six universities in Ghana, Tanzania and Uganda aiming at research capacity building within a range of topics, including health, agriculture, environment, water, social sciences.
Dates (expected): Programme committee: 1.12.16 Appraisal: 1.4.16
Climate change screening
Assess the status of policies and strategies to respond to climate change in the country and sector. If the issue is inadequately dealt with (indicated by a tick in the “no” box), please add comments and assess the potential impact on the program (see also “next steps” section, below).
Issue: Yes No Comments and further work to be done:
1. Are the processes and impacts of climate change documented (e.g. in national communications to the UNFCCC)?
2. Is there a national climate change policy or strategy, including estimates of the economic costs of adaptation?
3. Have nationally appropriate mitigation actions (NAMAs) and or Low Carbon Development Plans been identified (e.g. targets for renewable energy production)?
4. Has a national adaptation programme of action (NAPA) been approved identifying key sectors where adaptation is required?
5. Are there effective and operational meteorological and disaster preparedness organizations?
Summarize the overall assessment of climate change impacts and responses:
On the basis of internationally available information it would appear that all three countries have developed a range of policies and strategies to respond to climate change. Further verification will be completed at the appraisal, when it will also be possible to assess how these will be taken into account with respect to the prioritised BSU research themes.
19
Screening of Country Green Growth Framework
Assess the status of policies and strategies for green growth and the procedures for environmental impact assessment in the country and sector. If an issue is inadequately dealt with (indicated by a tick in the “no” box), please add comments and indicate further work to be undertaken (see also “next steps” section, below).
Issue: Yes No Comments and further work to be done:
1. Do national procedures and legislation for Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) and Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) exist?
2. Are there operational Green Growth Strategies/actions plans and/or National Environmental Action plans?
3. Are there regularly updated state of the environment reports and green growth monitoring systems with indicators?
4. Is there sufficient institutional and human capacity for green growth and environmental management in the sector concerned?
Summarize the overall impression of the Country Green Growth Framework:
On the basis of internationally available information it would appear that all three countries have developed environmental legislation and green growth strategies. Further verification will be completed at the appraisal, when it will also be possible to assess how these will be taken into account with respect to the prioritised BSU research themes.
Climate change and Green Growth opportunities and risks of programme
Assess how climate change and environmental opportunities and risks will arise through the programme:
Will the programme ... Oppor-tunity:
Risk: None:
1. ... support green growth initiatives including livelihood improvements and resource efficiency
2. ... support the creation of decent and green job?
3. ... contribute to effective management and efficient use of natural resources
4. ... have direct or indirect impact on climate change (e.g. through increasing or reducing emissions of greenhouse gases)?
5. ... have direct or indirect impact on occupational health and safety?
6. ... lead to changes in land and resource tenure and access rights, including the rights of indigenous peoples?
7. ... include activities within or adjacent to protected or environmentally sensitive areas?
20
8. ... have direct or indirect impact on the resilience of communities in the face of natural disasters?
Summarize and explain climate change and green growth opportunities:
Building capacities at universities is unlikely to impact directly on climate change and green growth, but the research areas which the cooperation will deal with could represent both opportunities and risks. The detailed cooperation projects that will be formulated by each participating university should consider these issues and this will then be checked in the appraisal process.
Summarize and explain climate change and green growth risks:
See above
Identify requirements for undertaking an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA). Categories are: [ A ] Full EIA required; [ B ] Partial EIA required; [ C ] No EIA required2. Intervention Name Category A, B or C:
1: Building stronger universities B/C
2: Select category:
3: Select category:
Will national regulations and procedures for EIA be applicable to activities of the programme that have potential environmental impacts? – Yes - No When will the EIA be undertaken?: Further EIA screening will be undertaken in the appraisal process whereby the need for partial EIA will be determined.
Next Steps – process action plan
Need for further work during the preparation, appraisal and implementation of the programme arising from the climate change and green growth screening: Suggested activity: Action needed Comments and elaboration:
1. Assessment of green growth and climate change opportunities in sector development plan.
n/a
2. Assessment of capacity for green growth and climate change management in the sector/country.
At faculty level where relevant
3. Prepare ToR for and conduct Country Analytical Work.
n/a
4. Prepare ToR for and conduct SEA(s) of sector policies or plans.
5. Prepare ToR for and conduct EIA(s) for programme interventions.
2 Category A = Intervention is likely to have adverse environmental impacts that may be sensitive, irreversible, and
significant in scale/scope; B = Intervention is likely to have negative impacts, but which are less significant, not as sensitive, numerous, major or diverse; C = The environmental risk of the intervention are of little or no concern.
21
6. Initiate donor harmonisation in the sector on green growth and climate change.
n/a
7. Other...?
Signature of Screening Note
Place and date Copenhagen, 7th November 2016………EVAL…………………….
22
Annex 5 - Partners:
Ghana: University of Ghana
Founded in 1948, University of Ghana (UG) is the oldest and largest of the eight public
universities in Ghana. The mission of UG is to become increasingly relevant to national and
global development through cutting-edge research as well as high quality teaching and
learning.
Recently the University decentralised into four colleges in order to improve the
administrative processes, these include: health sciences, basic and applied sciences,
humanities, and education. Within the last 10 years UG has increased the amount of
lecturers with PhDs from 42% to 63% - the aim is to reach 100%.
UG focusses international collaboration in research initiatives on four priority areas: Malaria
Research; Trans-disciplinary Research into Climate Change Adaptation; Enhancing Food
Production and Processing; Development Policy and Poverty Monitoring and Evaluation.
The student population is over 38,000 and international students come from over 70
different countries. The number of senior teaching and research staff is 1179.
Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology
The Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology (KNUST) in Kumasi was
established in 1951. In 2005 it transformed into a decentralized collegiate system. Colleges
of KNUST include agriculture and natural resources, health sciences, art and built
environment, humanities and social sciences, engineering and science. The university has the
ambition to advance knowledge in science and technology for sustainable development in
Africa.
KNUSTs work is based on the four core values of: Leadership in Innovation and Technology;
Culture of Excellence; Diversity and Equal Opportunity for All, and; Integrity and Stewardship
of Resources.
The total number of students at KNUST is 45,847. Of these 65,5% are male. The number of
full-time teaching staff is 778 – 85% male.
Tanzania: Sokoine University of Agriculture
Sokoine University of Agriculture (SUA) dates back to 1965 when it was started as an
Agricultural College offering diploma training in the discipline of agriculture.
Today SUA has colleges of agriculture, forestry wildlife and tourism, veterinary and medical
sciences, and social sciences and humanities. It furthermore hosts a school of agricultural
23
economics and business studies, a faculty of science, and the Southern African Centre for
Infectious Disease Surveillance. All together they offer 35 undergraduate programmes and
45 postgraduate degree programmes.
The vision of SUA is to become a centre of excellence and a valued member of the global
academic community in agriculture and other related fields, with emphasis on impacting
practical skills, entrepreneurship, research and integration of basic and applied knowledge in
an environmentally friendly manner. Among the over 50 universities and university colleges
in Tanzania, SUA is the only university that offers degree programmes in the broad field of
Agriculture.
The number of students at SUA is 8,544. The total number of teaching and research staff is
529, of whom 58% are PhD holders.
Kilimanjaro Christian Medical University College
Kilimanjaro Christian Medical University College (KCMC), established in 1971 in Moshi, works
under the Ministry of Health and Social Welfare (MoH) and works a referral hospital for over
15 million people in Northern Tanzania.
KCMC is a teaching hospital and thus hosts 16 Allied Health Schools that offer different
specialties in certificate and diploma levels. Kilimanjaro Christian Medical University College
trains health professionals of all cadres ranging from Diplomas, Ordinary Degrees, Post
Graduate Degrees and PhDs. Research is one of its core functions. Through the Kilimanjaro
Clinical Research Institute (KCRI) KCMC has managed to harmonize health services, health
training and health research.
The number of students at KCMC is 1,852 students. The total number of staff is 1,560.
State University of Zanzibar
Founded in 1999 and having started its academic activities in 2001, the State University of
Zanzibar (SUZA) is the only public university in Zanzibar.
SUZA has five Schools each forming an administrative grouping of Departments: The schools
at SUZA are Natural and Social Sciences, Education, Kiswahili and Foreign Languages,
Continuing and Professional Education, and Medicine and Health Sciences. In the nearest
future SUZA plans to establish 6 other schools.
SUZA’s stated Vision is to become the preferred higher learning institution in education and
research in the region. It is a core strategic objective of the university to increase the volume
and promote research-oriented education, research, publications, and outreach services to
the public. It is the strategic vision to strengthen research, publications and community
24
services through building capacities, increasing quality, efficiency and effectiveness of
research, publications and outreach activities.
In the academic year of 2016/17 over 900 new students were admitted. It has been decided
that SUZA will merge with the Zanzibar Institute of Financial Administration (ZIFA), Zanzibar
Institute of Tourism Development (ZiTOD) and College of Health Sciences (CHS). After the
merge the number of students will be more than 7,000.
Uganda: Gulu University
Gulu University (GU) is a young university founded in 2002. Initially, the intention of the
Ugandan Government was for the University to focus on training in, and promotion of,
agriculture and environmental conservation. Being the only university in the greater
Northern region, it was realised that other disciplines were equally important to be
introduced to spur development in the conflict-ridden region, particularly conflict
management, health, education, business and entrepreneurial development skills. Hence,
the focus of GU has broadened to include both natural and social science disciplines. Today
Gulu University consists of six faculties of Medicine, Agriculture and Environment, Science,
Education and Humanities, Business and Development Studies, and Law, and of two
institutes of Peace and Strategic Studies, and Research, Graduate Studies and Staff
Development.
The mission of GU is to provide access to higher education, research and conduct quality
professional training for the delivery of appropriate services directed towards community
transformation and conservation of biodiversity.
In the academic year of 2016/17 2,567 new students were admitted.
25
Annex 6
HRBA/Gender Screening Note (will be prepared during formulation)
Tool for Human Rights Based Approach (HRBA) and Gender Equality
Screening
Purpose: The HRBA and Gender Screening Note complement the HRBA Guidance Note and the up-coming Gender Equality Strategy and the Gender Equality Toolbox. The purpose of the note is to facilitate and strengthen the application of the Human Rights Based Approach and mainstreaming of gender equality programming related to Danish development cooperation. It can be used as an inspirational checklist by all staff.
The information in the note should be based on the analysis undertaken as part of the preparation
of the Country policy paper and should draw on major Human Rights and gender equality analysis
relevant for the country such as UPR-processes, reports and documents from OHCHR, EU HR
Strategy, CEDAW-reporting as well as relevant analysis prepared by other major donors. The
Screening Note should be attached to the (country) programme concept note, and the questions
raised below should be reflected in the (country) programme document. Appraisal of country
programmes will include a specific focus on HRBA and Gender Equality.
Basic info
Title Building Stronger Universities, Phase III
Country/ region Africa (Uganda, Tanzania and Ghana)
Budget in DKK mio. 90
Starting date and
duration
July 2017, 4 years
Human Rights Based Approach
Assess whether a Human Rights (HR) Based Approach has been applied in the programme: Human Rights Assessment and Standards
Issues: yes no Explain:
Have major HR analysis relevant for the country been consulted (UPR, OHCHR, EU HR Strategy, other relevant donor documents)
Have key international HR standards and/or mechanisms influenced choice and formulation of outcome areas?
Where relevant, is application at national level, including major gaps between human rights in principle vs. human rights in practice, evaluated
26
and identified?
Are key recommendations from UPR for the thematic programmes and from any treaty bodies, special procedures, INGOs, HNRIs etc. that require follow up at national level considered?
Are rights-holders identified?
Are duty-bearers identified?
Assess whether Human Rights Principles have been applied in the preparation and in the design of the programme?
Non-discrimination: Are any groups among rights-holders excluded from access and influence in the thematic programme areas identified?
Are disaggregated data available on most vulnerable groups?
List any key support elements included to promote non-discrimination
Participation and inclusion: Are barriers for participation, inclusion and empowerment of rights holders identified?
List any key support elements included to promote participation and inclusion
Transparency: Is the extent to which information is accessible to rights holders including marginalised groups assessed? Where relevant, whether information is available in other than official languages of the country in question should be indicated.
List any key support elements included to promote transparency
Are key accountability mechanisms in the relevant area – both horizontal and vertical listed?
Are obstacles, e.g. capacity and political-economy incentives that duty-bearers and rights holders face to exercise their obligations and rights listed?
List any key support elements included to promote accountability
Results/Indicators
List any indicators designed to monitor the realisation of specific human rights
a. b. c. d. ..
List any indicators designed to monitor the integration of the four principles
a. b. c. d. ..
List any key indicators chosen to track capacity of a.
27
key partners (both rights holders and duty bearers)
b. c. d.
Dialogue Partners
Define key dialogue partners (duty bearers) to be addressed by the country programme
Define key alliance partners, including other likeminded donors, multilateral partners and CSO’s
State major dilemmas/risks associated with the policy dialogue and proposed mitigation measures (incl. reference to Framework for Risk Assessment)
Gender Screening Tool Are key challenges and opportunities for gender equality identified?
Are reference made to CEDAW-reporting, UPR, and other relevant gender assessments?
Identify opportunities/constraints for addressing gender equality issues
Describe key strategic interventions to promote gender equality within each thematic programme?
Explain how gender specific purposes with be reached, which strategic approach, what activities are planned
Define expected outputs.
Identify gender equality indicators aligned with national targets on gender if possible.