Birgit Habermann, Commission for Development Studies at the Austrian Academy of Sciences (KEF)

1. Birgit Habermann, Commission for Development Studies at the Austrian Academy of Sciences (KEF) Challenges and opportunities for research partnerships with developing countries Sustainable Development for Poverty Alleviation from an Austrian Perspective

2. Poverty today • Every day 20 000 people die of absolute poverty • Every year more than 8 Mio people die due to poverty • 1200 Mio people live in absolute poverty (<1 $/day) Photo: Entwicklungshilfeklub

3. An unequal world…

4. An unequal world…

5. Poverty = Poverty ? (1) • Extreme/absolute poverty: < 1 US$/day • ‘households cannot meet basic needs for survival’ • ‘the poverty that kills’ • 1,2 billion people • Moderate poverty: < 2 US$/day • ‘basic needs are met, but just barely’ • 2,8 billion (47 %!) people

6. Poverty = Poverty ? (2) • Relative poverty: household income below proportionate share of the resp. national average income • ‘means lacking things that the middle class takes now for granted’ • undetermined number of people

7. Natural resource degradation • Arable land per person: • 0,38 ha in 1970 • 0,23 ha in 2000 • 20 % of irrigated land in DCs damaged by water logging or salinity • 75 % of genetic diversity of agricultural crops lost since 1900 • 250 million people affected by desertifiction + 1 billion at risk Photo: Habermann

8. Millennium Development Goals (1) • September 2000: United Nations General Assembly Millennium Declaration • Later developed - Millennium Development Goals • Targets for 2000 redefined for 2015 • 8 Goals

9. Millennium Development Goals (2) • Goal 1: Eradicate extreme poverty and hunger. • Goal 2: Achieve universal primary education. • Goal 3: Promote gender equality and empower women. • Goal 4: Reduce child mortality.

10. Millennium Development Goals (3) • Goal 5: Improve maternal health. • Goal 6: Combat HIV/AIDS, malaria and other diseases. • Goal 7: Ensure environmental sustainability. • Goal 8: A global partnership for development.

11. Disparity at all ends • Increasing gap between scientists/inhabitants in North and South • DCs represent 78 % of population but only 28 % of researchers worldwide • Resources spent on research worldwide: • 85 % high income countries • 10 % India, China and East Asia • 4-5 % for the rest of the world

12. The potential of capacity development (1) • Sustainable development not possible without local potential at individual and institutional level • Multidimensional concept • Problem solving capacity • Local and global challenges • Investment in institutions, infrastructure, access to information.... • Technology transfer and innovation • Long term benefits Photo: Habermann

13. The potential of capacity development (2) • Reforms of northern research industry • Continuous dialogue • Demand oriented research • Regional networking/upscaling • S/S and S/N networks • Support endogenous institutional and personnel capacities • Create synergies

14. Capacity development at university level:Constraints in developing countries • High investment, benefits not always immediate, but: • Insufficient support for young researcher • Lack of human resources – brain drain • Infrastructure weak • Support for tertiary sector prerequisite for development and growth • Comprehensive donor policies required

15. Capacity development at university level – a discourse ? (1) • Often seen as support of elites • Widens gap rich-poor • Enhances brain drain • Highly qualified researchers migrate • Lack enabling environment at start of career Photo: Glatzel

16. Capacity development at university level – a discourse ? (2) • Scientific leadership required for development • Solutions developed on local level • Reduce dependency on foreign support • Invest in structural reforms, institutional partnerships, long term commitments • Universities hold comparative advantages

17. Austrian initiatives in capacity development • Training programmes and exchange of students (Bhutan, Ethiopia) • Cooperation agreements with Uganda, Mozambique, SE-Asia • North-South Dialogue • One World Scholarship (EWS) • Specific university level agreements • EU funded programmes (ERASMUS MUNDUS) • KEF Research partnerhips

18. KEF Research partnerships • KEF + Austrian university/research organisation + DC university/research organisation • Criteria: • Scientific quality and value • Revelance for development • Sustainability • Institutional cooperation • Beneficiaries • Partnership ?

19. One way democracy... ‚participation‘ DONOR & CONTROLLER ‚AID‘ RECIPIENT & CONTROLLED imposes Provider of KNOWLEDGE ? KNOWLEDGE ? Which knowledge counts ? decides DECISION MAKER ‚STAKEHOLDER‘ selects RESEARCH TOPICS OBJECT OF RESEARCH provides FUNDS RECIPIENT exercises POWER DISEM- POWERED

20. Fair partnership ? TRANSPARENCY LOCAL LEVEL IMPLEMENTATION DEMAND/USER-ORIENTATED PLANNING PARTNER PARTNER share KNOWLEDGE KNOWLEDGE exchange ACTORS ACTORS participate RESEARCH ASSISTANCE RESEARCH TOPICS develop ADMINISTRATOR PLANNER & IMPLEMENTOR provide support enabling COOPERATION EMPOWERMENT

21. Fair partnerships ? (1) • Fair partnership or aid ? • Transparency and share of profits • Shift power – hand over the stick ! • Research demand-oriented and priorities developed locally Photo: Sieghardt

22. Fair partnerships ? (2) • Respect for local knowledge • Intercultural communication, self-reflection, conflict management,... • Transdisciplinary research • More emphasis on training Photo: Habermann

23. Fair partnerships ? (3) • Institutional strengthening • Collaborative, participatory and problem-oriented research • Mutual advantages to multiple stakeholders in North and South Photo:Mentler

24. Success and failure of projects • Failure to formulate at grassroots • Insufficient regard to choice of technology • No condition is permanent – flexibility ! • Know your partners • Lack of understanding – communication problems Put more trust in people !

25. Success and failure of KEF projects (1) • Individual contacts unsustainable • Lack of institutional back up and coherence • Funding constraints • Lack of written documentation • Wrong understanding of ‚partnership‘: delivering aid, top-down approach

26. Success and failure of KEF projects (2) • Actual beneficiaries have to be clear to all partners from start • Objectives, expected output, indicators should be jointly developed • Monitoring and (self-)evaluation • How does this research help people ? • Results locally applicable ? • Policy support ?

27. Conclusion and outlook (1) • High potential at universities for reserach cooperations with DCs • Follow up of cooperation with graduates, continued partnership • Incentives • Guidelines and criteria • MDGs – beware of international declarations !

28. Conclusion and outlook (2) • Diversification of funding • University networking: inner-university, but also with policy and NGO sector etc. • Support for researchers at their institutions • ‚legitimate scholarly pursuit‘ • Mobilise new generation of researchers • Develop new leadership

29. Contact Birgit Habermann Commission for Development Studies at the Academy of Sciences (KEF) Dr. Ignaz Seipel Platz 2 • 1010 WIEN AUSTRIA Telefon:++43(0)1 515 81– 3202 Email: Birgit.Habermann@oeaw.ac.at Web: http://www.oeaw.ac.at/kef