public administration and development

Public Admin. Dev. 27, 381–392 (2007)

Published online in Wiley InterScience

(www.interscience.wiley.com) DOI: 10.1002/pad.471

RESEARCH CAPACITY BUILDING THROUGH TWINNING:EXPERIENCES FROM A DANISH–MALAYSIAN TWINNING PROJECT

MARINA BERGEN JENSEN1*, CARSTEN NICO HJORTSØ2, JASPER SCHIPPERIJN1,ABDUL-RAHIM NIK3 AND KJELL NILSSON1

1Forest & Landscape Denmark, University of Copenhagen, Denmark2Institute of Food and Natural Resource Economics, University of Copenhagen, Denmark

3Forest Research Institute, Malaysia

SUMMARY

Twinning and its contribution to institutional capacity building in developing countries is the theme of an ongoing debate inPublic Administration and Development. Unlike earlier contributions this article focuses on twinning in the context of researchcapacity enhancement. Using a 3 year Danish–Malaysian twinning research project as case our objective is to evaluate whetherthe general premises regarding a twinning project, as formulated by the Danish Development Cooperation Agency (Danida),appropriately support the twinning ambitions when the capacities in focus concern research. Besides institutional capacitybuilding, twinning is expected to favour local ownership, involvement of the Danish resource base and continuing of cooperationafter termination of funding. From 21 semi-structured interviews with project participants it was found that although newresearch capacities had been gained, the prospects on continued cooperation are rather discouraging, both sides pointing to thelack of truly joint research experiences as the main reason. To care for this important incentive, the twinning premises arerecommended to be modified to allow for the Northern resource base to advance its own research, and for Southern partner todemonstrate in-house research capacities. Further, the North–South balance in project management needs to be more equal. Thisapart, the twinning premises appear sound. Copyright # 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

key words— twinning; research capacity building; Danida; assessment

INTRODUCTION

Although ‘twinning’ is not exactly a new concept in the development aid arena (Cooper, 1984), the concept and its

theoretical basis and practical experiences are not well described or documented (Askvik, 1999). There is a need for

continued evaluation of practical experiences (Proctor, 2000), especially in the field of research enhancement where

innovative approaches are much needed (Cooper, 1984). At a global scale, research capacity is highly unbalanced

between the more developed and the less developed world (Annan, 2003), and on this background most donor

agencies prioritise research enhancement programmes (Danida, 2000a; Maxwell, 2003; McGrath and King, 2004).

Twinning emerged as an alternative to the form of development cooperation known as technical assistance

(Jones and Blunt, 1999). As the deficiencies of the technical assistance approach, emphasising provision of physical

infrastructure, formal education and training of individuals and the substantial presence of Northern experts in

Southern projects became increasingly apparent during the 1980s and 1990s, twinning offered a vehicle for shifting

the focus of donor agency from supporting ‘transfer’ of knowledge and skills at the individual level to building

capacity at the institutional level. As documented through a series of articles in Public Administration and

Development (Askvik, 1999; Jones and Blunt, 1999; Proctor, 2000; Olowu, 2002) twinning constitutes a viable

strategy for this shift.

An unambiguous definition of ‘twinning’ does not exist and as pointed out by Jones and Blunt (1999) and

O’Connor and Kowalski (2005), the meaning attached to the concept depends on the specific context as well as

*Correspondence to: M. B. Jensen, Associate Professor, Forest & Landscape Denmark, University of Copenhagen, Rolighedsvej 28, DK-1958Frederiksberg C, Denmark. E-mail: mbj@life.ku.dk

Copyright # 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

382 M. B. JENSEN ET AL.

perspective and interpretation of the observer. Moreover, institutional collaboration is organised in a variety of

models and it may be difficult to identify when a model is twinning and when it is not (Askvik, 1999). Two

perceptions are discussed in the literature: twinning as a method and twinning as a metaphor. According to Askvik

(1999), the interpretation of twinning as a metaphor primarily refers to the notion of similarity between the partners,

not how partners are related to each other. Contrary to this perspective, twinning has also been applied as a

distinctive method, for example by the Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency (SIDA), for

institutional capacity building in development cooperation (Jones and Blunt, 1999), and by the Danish

Development Cooperation Agency (Danida) as described later in this article.

The basic idea of twinning is to provide assistance that is ‘more institution-based, flexible and withdrawn

compared to traditional forms of technical assistance’ (Norad, 1990). Twinning involves a partnership between

similar institutions in the North and South. The efficiency of twinning is based on the assumption that ‘two

institutions with the same or similar tasks in their respective countries should be able to create a more dynamic

cooperation atmosphere’ (SIDA, 1997 cf. Jones and Blunt, 1999). With reference to SIDA’s (1997) assumption that

‘twinning of two organisations means learning; the two organisations learn from each other through sharing

experience’ Jones and Blunt (1999) and Jones (2001) address the learning dimensions of such partnerships and

argue that twinning offers enhanced possibilities for organisational learning and sustainable capacity building.

Typical learning processes identified in twinning arrangements include: formal, off-job training courses; in-house

training courses; on-job training and study visits.

Benefits of the twinning approach may include a diverse range of expertise offered within the involved

institutions, and the development of a flexible platform for continued programme development. When the most

appropriate human resources are assigned to the programme, the political and institutional context is increasingly

understood and specific tasks are identified through the learning process (Proctor, 2000).

Notwithstanding the positive qualities of the current twinning practice some limitations have been noted, for

example by Jones and Blunt (1999): risk of selecting an unsuitable partner due to differences in cultural,

institutional and organisational settings; focus on individual learning and personal objectives rather than

institutional development; problems associated with partner motivation if a partner operates along commercial

lines and seeks financial gains from the partnership, and risk that crucial project management issues do not get

sufficient attention. Other limitations identified include the risk that applying twinning as project method may result

in lack of experimentation with more effective approaches; that working with discrete organisations may create a

contextual vacuum enhancing the organisational capacity in unchanged surroundings and the risk of not being able

to document the complex social processes involved in capacity building when success is evaluation based on

quantitative methods like the Logical Framework Approach (LFA). In conclusion one of the major limitations noted

by Jones and Blunt (1999) and Askvik (1999) in their evaluation of SIDA and Norwegian Agency for Development

Cooperation (NORAD) is lack of ability to bring about institutional change by twinning arrangements. Most often

the impact is found at the operational level rather than at the management level (Askvik, 1999) and twinning

arrangements may not take into consideration the domain hierarchy of Southern partners and the need for

integrating the policy making level of organisations in programme development efforts (Jones and Blunt, 1999).

In this article, we expand the emerging debate on twinning into the subject field of research capacity

enhancement, drawing on experiences from a Danida funded Danish–Malaysian research partnership project based

on the twinning concept. Our purpose is to evaluate the usefulness and effectiveness of the twinning concept for

research capacity building in development projects, and, if needed, to suggest improvements. The specific

objectives are to (1) deduce the success criteria associated with twinning, and the premises to which twinning

projects are required to comply; (2) analyse the impact of twinning premises on the degree of success in the case

study and (3) identify premises specifically important for twinning to support research capacity building.

BACKGROUND TO THE DANISH–MALAYSIAN TWINNING PROJECT

The Danish–Malaysian twinning project ‘Multipurpose Forestry in a Changing Society’ was initiated in April 2003

and had duration of 3 years. The project was based on a Danida grant of approximately 1 million USD. The overall

Copyright # 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Public Admin. Dev. 27, 381–392 (2007)

DOI: 10.1002/pad

EXPERIENCES FROM A DANISH–MALAYSIAN TWINNING PROJECT 383

aim of the project was to enhance the capacity of the involved Malaysian research and education institutions by

improving the linkages between education, research and development and between policy and practice. The

immediate objective was to ‘strengthen a continuing cooperation between Malaysian and Danish institutions within

forestry research and education to the benefit of sustainable forest management achieved by improving the linkages

between education, research and development and policy and practice’ (Final Report, 2006).

The project was organised in three components with the following objectives:

� C

Co

1–Nature interpretation: Improved communication between forest staff and the general public in order to

increase public awareness and interest in nature and environment.

� C

2–Urban green structure: Strengthened research and educational capacity of the involved partners in order to

establish a basis for decision making in the field of urban forestry.

� C

3–Political decision support: Increased ability and capacity of forestry research to aid policy processes and

provide decision support for policy makers.

The executing agency was the Malaysian Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment. The implementing

agency was the Forest Research Institute Malaysia (FRIM). Additional Malaysian partners included the University

of Putra Malaysia (UPM), the Forestry Training Unit, the Forest Department (FD), Kuala Lumpur City Hall

(DBKL) and the Malaysian Nature Society (MNS). Danish partners included Danish Forest & Landscape Research

Institute (DFLRI), Department of Economics & Natural Resources at the Danish Royal Veterinary and Agricultural

University (KVL) and the Danish Forestry College (DFC). The project was organised by means of LFA, with major

outputs including a number of workshops, conferences, guidelines, reports and articles (Final Report, 2006).

METHODOLOGY

To evaluate the usefulness of twinning for research capacity building as experienced in the Danish–Malaysian

project we performed two analytical steps: (1) from a Danida policy paper on institutional change (Danida, 2004)

we deduced Danida’s expectations of the twinning concept, i.e. twinning success criteria, and their premises for

implementing twinning projects; (2) we then used an interview survey with participants from the Danish–

Malaysian project and the Final Report of that project (Final Report, 2006) to assess the twinning success of the

project, and its compliance with the identified twinning premises. The observed shortcomings are discussed and

finally turned into recommendations for improvement of the twinning concept when used for research capacity

building.

The interview survey consisted of semi-structured interviews with different types of stakeholders, completed by

some of the authors during February and March 2006. In total 21 project participants were interviewed, of these

15 were Malaysian and 6 Danish. Each interview lasted 30–60 minutes. Interviewees were selected to represent end

users in Malaysia as well as project participants from both Malaysia and Denmark. Moreover, interviewees were

selected to represent the following participant categories: institutional representatives (leaders), researchers,

teachers/instructors and advisors/consultants (Table 1). Main themes covered included: stakeholders’ motivation

for participating; satisfaction with project output; drawbacks experienced in the project and expectations on

continued cooperation. Interviews have been transcribed and analysed using content analysis (Gillham, 2000).

DEDUCING TWINNING EXPECTATIONS AND PREMISES IN THE DANIDA CONTEXT

As is the case in other Scandinavian development aid agencies, Danida acknowledges twinning as an important

strategy for development cooperation. The Danish approach to development cooperation is two-sided: long-term

capacity building within powerful bodies in the receiving country goes side by side with direct initiatives for

poverty alleviation. In the field of research capacity enhancement, Danish development collaboration is organised

through Danida’s ENhancement of REsearch CApacity programme (ENRECA), operating with two types of

pyright # 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Public Admin. Dev. 27, 381–392 (2007)

DOI: 10.1002/pad

Table 1. Stakeholder category and affiliation of the 21 interviewed end users and project participants

Stakeholder type Nationality No. Institutional affiliation

End users M 1 Ministry of Natural Resources and EnvironmentM 1 Malaysian Nature SocietyM 2 Forestry Training Unit, Forest Department, Kuala Lumpur City Hall

Institutional leaders M 1 Forest Research Institute MalaysiaM 1 University Putra MalaysiaD 2 Danish Forest & Landscape Research Institute

Researchers C1 M 1 Forest Research Institute MalaysiaM 1 Forest Department

Researchers C2 M 1 University Putra MalaysiaResearchers C3 M 1 Forest Research Institute Malaysia

M 3 University Putra MalaysiaD 2 Department of Economics & Natural Resources, Danish

Agricultural UniversityTeachers/Instructors M 1 Forestry Training Unit, Forest Department

D 1 Danish Forestry CollegeAdvisors/Consultants M 1 Forest Research Institute Malaysia

D 1 Danish Forest & Landscape Research Institute

M: Malaysian; D: Danish.

384 M. B. JENSEN ET AL.

projects: capacity-building projects and research projects. Capacity-building projects are institutional collabora-

tions, mainly between Danish universities and universities in the South, whereas specific research projects are more

closely linked to specific researchers or research units. The concept of twinning is mainly associated with the

long-term objective of institutional capacity building. The ENRECA programme is acknowledged in several

evaluations as a very cost-effective programme obtaining impressive results for a relatively low budget (Danida,

2000b, 2000c; Danida, 2001).

In the Danida terminology ‘partnership’ is the predominant term used to describe the modality of institutional

collaboration (Danida, 2001). Few explicit references are made to ‘twinning’ as a distinct project strategy. One

exception from this is the policy paper ‘Institutional Cooperation–The use of public institutions in Danish

development cooperation’ (Danida, 2004), where the agency’s policy for involvement of Danish public institutions

in institutional development and capacity building is formulated. Here it is stated that Danida wishes to strengthen

both the involvement of the Danish resource base in development cooperation and the local ownership in the

receiving country, and that both objectives can be obtained by supporting ‘binding and systematic cooperation

between institutions and not only cooperation between individuals’. It requires a long-term perspective and seeks

among other things ‘to exploit possibilities of developing fruitful collegial relations across national borders based

on mutual interests within the professional field concerned’ (Danida, 2004, p. 4). Although not as explicitly

formulated, the assumptions underlying Danida’s emphasis of twinning as a useful development strategy are

parallel to those of SIDA and NORAD.

According to Danida (2004, pp. 2–3) institutional cooperation can be supported only if the cooperation complies

with the following premises:

� T

Co

he cooperation concerns institutions with comparable mandates and fields of operation, and they engage in a

long-term and process-oriented cooperation concerning a service that is not already offered in the market.

� T

he cooperation has a specific professional content that makes it natural to seek a mutually binding cooperation

with a Danish institutional counterpart.

� A

will is identified and a wish expressed by the Southern partner to enter a cooperation with the Danish partner.

Table 2 summarises the twinning premises and its’ anticipated gains in terms of success criteria.

pyright # 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Public Admin. Dev. 27, 381–392 (2007)

DOI: 10.1002/pad

Table 2. Criteria for twinning success and premises of twinning (Based on Danida, 2004)

Twinning success criteria

Capacity building in partnering institutions: The project has succeeded in transferring new capacities to the partneringinstitutions from the Danish institutions.Involvement of Danish resource base: Danish institutions have become involved to a wider extent than seen indevelopment cooperation focusing on technical assistance.Strong local ownership: The partner institutions have taken ownership of the project, both during the project periodand in the continued development and implementation of gained competencies.Long-term cooperation: A platform for continued cooperation at the institutional level has formed and fruitful collegialrelations based on shared interests have developed.Twinning premisesMatch of institutions: Institutions in the partner country need to match the institutions in Denmark with respect to mandateand field of operation.Expressed wish: The partnering country must have an expressed wish to ask for a mutually binding cooperation with aDanish institution.Service not in market: The cooperation must concern a service not already offered in the market.

EXPERIENCES FROM A DANISH–MALAYSIAN TWINNING PROJECT 385

ACHIEVEMENT OF TWINNING SUCCESS IN CASE STUDY

The success of the Danish–Malaysian case study is assessed by comparing stakeholders’ perception as expressed in

the interview survey with the success criteria derived from the Danida policy paper (Table 2). The Final Report of

the project is used as a supplementary source of information (Final Report, 2006).

Has capacity building in Malaysian institutions taken place?

According to both the Danish and Malaysian interviewees, capacity building has taken place. Both sides listed

numerous examples, including tools and techniques like training needs assessment, cognitive mapping, roundtable

discussions and economic evaluation. Also new strategies were developed: tree management guidelines, an in

service training programme, curricula for a university degree within nature interpretation and guidelines on nature

interpretation centres in urban areas. Additionally, capacities concerning institutional infrastructure development

and changes in professional attitude are highlighted:

‘The establishment of the Malaysian Association of Arborists (MAA), and its role in the ISA (International

Society of Arboriculture)-approved certification of arborists is very good. Arborist has now been recognised as

official job-title in Malaysia’ (Malaysian end-user)

‘Our contact to Forestry Department has improved much and there has been a real break-through within

recreation and nature interpretation’ (Malaysian researcher)

‘Nature interpretation has become a much stronger focus point within the Forestry Department, leading to

better trained staff, and hopefully leading to raised nature awareness among the general public in the future’

(Malaysian researcher)

‘Approaching stakeholders is no longer a problem; rather stakeholders are considered a resource, providing a

platform for approaching the decision makers. This change in view has been obtained due to the cognitive

mapping of stakeholders and the roundtable discussions’ (Danish institutional leader)

Most of the outputs reported in the Final Report are repeated by the project participants as examples of gained

capacities, and it is thus concluded that the majority of project activities were perceived as representing new

capacities.

Copyright # 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Public Admin. Dev. 27, 381–392 (2007)

DOI: 10.1002/pad

386 M. B. JENSEN ET AL.

However, several project participants claim that higher levels of capacity building could have been reached, as

illustrated by the following statements:

‘If the Danes were to provide more experts we could have produced more, especially scientific results’

(Malaysian researcher)

‘We had a lot of ideas on political decision support systems for sustainable planning of forestry and nature

resources, with Ayer Hitam as case study. However, due to lack of response from Malaysia I lost interest.’

(Danish researcher)

‘The training needs assessment should have included higher level officers that support the policy makers

directly. We interviewed the officers but the level above was not reached’ (Malaysian researcher)

To improve staff exchange and exchange of information, as called for in the first two statements, several

interviewees suggested a more strategic staff exchange with intensive exchange early in the project, as they

expected this to strengthen the commitment, create team spirit and help overcome the long communication distance

between Malaysia and Denmark. Further, to compensate for the uneven hour balance due to wage differences with

the Malaysian side holding 2.7 times more hours than the Danish, interviewees suggest a few Danes, for example

one for each of the three project components, constitute key-persons that visited more often and were able to

effectively link new participants to the project. The need for improved vertical anchorage of institution activities in

the political system, as called for by a project participant in the last statement, is also highlighted by one of the

Malaysian end users:

‘The Ministry of Housing and Local Government, and the Ministry of Education could have been involved in

the project. The Ministry of Education could have had a programme in schools, and lift the results from C1

further, through their nature class, etc. The Ministry of Housing and Local Government could have helped on

Urban Forestry in C2. They have this 10% green roof requirement for new development, which could have

been combined with urban forestry, and they could claim the tree certification standard for people to deal with

local green areas’

In conclusion, the project did meet the success criteria in terms of building capacities, but project participants

had the impression that the level of gained capacities could have been higher, if staff exchange, flow of information

and vertical anchorage had been better planned.

Have Danish research base become involved?

The Danish resource base has definitely been involved, both at the institutional and individual level. Of the three

contributing Danish institutions DLFRI has been especially involved as a core partner, while at the individual level

the involvement has been equally distributed among the three institutions. The four interviewed Danish project

participants (Table 1) all point to the chance of gaining personal experience on international development projects

as one important reason for entering the project, for example as expressed by one interviewee, looking back:

‘My main achievement has been successful facilitation of the Malaysians in their attempt to formulate a

strategy, where my experiences from Denmark seemed highly relevant and appreciated. I have gained

experience as international advisor’

The Danish participants’ personal expectations of gaining international experience from the project reflect that

this field of operation is not their main area of activities. If the twinning project had not been arranged and the

assistance of these people specifically asked for, it is unlikely that they would otherwise have participated in

international development projects. Thus, the project succeeded in expanding the fraction of the Danish resource

base contributing to international development.

Copyright # 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Public Admin. Dev. 27, 381–392 (2007)

DOI: 10.1002/pad

EXPERIENCES FROM A DANISH–MALAYSIAN TWINNING PROJECT 387

Has a strong local ownership been established?

The involved Malaysian institutions seem to have taken strong ownership of the project and its intentions. The Final

Report reflects a high degree of fulfilment of objectives, which would have been unlikely, had the local ownership

been limited. Further, the contentment expressed by Malaysian project participants and institutional leaders, for

example regarding networks established internally in Malaysia, arborist certification programme, tools for decision

support and guidelines in various disciplines, is in support of this.

Meanwhile, both sides have expressed some doubts regarding the long-term ownership, for instance concerning

the arborist certification programme:

‘I am uncertain whether the arborist certification programme has been properly anchored in the Malaysian

organisational frame’ (Danish consultant),

and concerning guidelines on nature interpretation centres and associated network:

‘The completed guidelines still need to withstand the final tests—are they useful for real implementation?

Project progress was too slow for reaching a test of this’ (Danish teacher)

‘The making of nature centres could have been pushed harder. If we have a common centre, the network now

formed on nature interpretation will never break’ (Malaysian end-user)

Due to this scepticism, which can only be judged after a longer period of time, the project is assessed to succeed

well regarding ownership in the project period, but leaves some doubt concerning the ownership of at least some of

the gained capacities in the long run.

An additional issue that holds implication for the local ownership has been raised from both sides. It relates to

the power imbalance in project administration:

‘It is undesirable that the Danish side brings the money, define the tasks and control the deliveries. This is not

the best set off for a true twinning—it needs to be more balanced’ (Danish institutional leader)

‘If FRIM rather than DFLRI had been responsible for the project administration, we would have decided on

certain activities as to how much input from Denmark we needed. That would have given direct involvement

on certain, very specific matters. Whether we could have reached higher levels depends on the experts coming

over. But certainly, face to face meetings only once a year is not enough. Once we have somebody here, they

allocate time and real exchange takes place’ (Malaysian institutional leader)

Has a platform for long-term cooperation been established?

Although several of the project outputs have an explicit permanent character, for example the many programmes

and courses developed (Final Report, 2006), none necessarily include participation of the Danish counterparts. This

also goes for the much improved networking among Malaysian institutions within all three components. Another

striking observation is that the immediate objective of the programme ‘to strengthen a continuing cooperation

between Malaysian and Danish institutions within forestry’ holds a rather non-prominent position, both in the

project LFA, and in the minds of the interviewees. As expressed by one of the Malaysian researchers:

‘The talks about new projects I heard for the first time yesterday [almost at the end of the project] and the

long-term twinning has not been into my mind before’

Although several interviewees highlight the Malaysia–Denmark network now established and its obvious

possibilities for future contacts, there is a common perception of having paid too little attention to the aspects of

continued twinning, i.e. after ending of the project period.

Copyright # 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Public Admin. Dev. 27, 381–392 (2007)

DOI: 10.1002/pad

388 M. B. JENSEN ET AL.

Many ideas on new common projects are put forward, for example the Malaysian side suggested projects on

biodiversity, carbon sequestration, downstream river management and policy processes, but none have matured

during the project period. As formulated by one of the Danish leaders, the Danish side likewise considers the

Malaysian institutions valuable in new projects, where not least their strategic potential is considered valuable:

‘Internationally Malaysia is a very strategic partner. It is an Islamic country, and in this way the project can be

seen as a door-opener to the Muslim world. FRIM is a world leading capacity among forest research institutes,

and are far ahead compared to other countries in the developing world. They are a highly qualified partner,

productive and effective, and they will be of interest in EU projects, where the inclusion of developing

countries is being increasingly encouraged’ (Danish institutional leader)

Lack of specific initiatives for continuation of the cooperation may be associated with the disappointment

regarding joint research experiences expressed by several interviewees, for example:

‘The Danes have more acted as consultants than as partners’ (Malaysian researcher)

‘The LFA should have included a comparable study between our two countries, for instance on public

participation in a developed and a developing country. This would have improved the conditions for two-way

exchange of knowledge and research’ (Malaysian researcher)

‘Cynically speaking, my interest in putting up long term milestones is not very high, because I don’t see which

capacities they [the Malaysians] can contribute with, and I have to select more comprehensive partners’

(Danish researcher)

As touched upon later, joint experiences within research are dependant on both sides being able to contribute to

advancing the research topic in question. In the Danish–Malaysian case this option was limited on both sides, i.e.

the Malaysians were deprived the possibility of demonstrating their full research capacity and the Danes were not

allowed to advance their own research, both conditions are locked by the required focus on uni-lateral transfer of

capacity from Denmark to Malaysia. These conditions are considered a major drawback for research institutions to

continue twinning, as expressed in the following statement:

‘All issues dealt with had a Malaysian off-spring, for instance green infrastructure in Kuala Lumpur, protection

of Ayer Hitam, copy educational structure from DFC to Malaysia, etc., as also reflected in the LFA, where all

outputs are related to Malaysia. We could for instance have worked with clean development mechanisms or

biodiversity. Collaborating on these topics, where both FRIM and DFLRI are rather new, would have given us

the opportunity to join the same conferences, meet jointly with the World Bank, make a demo-project in

Malaysia, and approach Danida together. To obtain a more equal platform we must deal with topics in which

we hold complementary competencies and work together from there’ (Danish institutional leader)

The interview survey clearly demonstrates that the project has not significantly advanced the options for

continued cooperation after termination of funding.

COMPLIANCE OF CASE STUDY WITH TWINNING PREMISES

In the following the degree to which the Danish–Malaysian twinning project complied with the three premises for

successful twinning (Table 2) is assessed.

Match of institutions—did they form twins?

At the organisational level the match was almost perfect with Danish DFLRI matching FRIM in Malaysia as

sector-associated research institutions with consultancy and in-job education as common services; the Danish

Copyright # 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Public Admin. Dev. 27, 381–392 (2007)

DOI: 10.1002/pad

EXPERIENCES FROM A DANISH–MALAYSIAN TWINNING PROJECT 389

university KVL matching Universitı Putra Malaysia with the involved department/faculty both focusing on forestry

research and education at university level; and finally the Danish Forestry College matching the Forest Training

Unit in Malaysia, both operating with 1–3 year educations of forest craftsmen, forest rangers and forest engineers.

In total, three sets of almost identical twins with respect to mandate and field of operation entered the project, truly

fulfilling the premise of matching institutions.

On the Malaysian side two additional partners, the Malaysian Nature Society (MNS) and Kuala Lumpur City

Hall (DBKL), were involved in the more applied parts of the project, providing links for the implementation of

project output. However, as these institutions neither received funding from Danida, nor were the target institutions

regarding capacity building, this institutional imbalance is considered insignificant to the premise of matching

institutions.

Did Southern partners express a wish to engage with the Danish institutions?

FRIM and DFLRI have been in frequent contact and exchanged services since 1994. According to the interviewed

institutional leaders not only FRIM but also DFLRI had a wish to explore further the possibilities for cooperation,

and from both sides the chance of gaining international reputation was emphasised as a main reason. The FRIM

leader further emphasised FRIM’s interest in ‘obtaining long-term cooperation with the Danes’, while the DFLRI

leader pointed to the opportunity for the institution to ‘become more experienced within development projects’.

Regarding the two universities, and the two forest training colleges, the wish for engagement was not clearly

expressed. When asked about the university’s motive for entering the project the leader at the Universitı Putra

Malaysia points to the general advantages of entering international cooperation, for example rapid transfer of

knowledge and methods and better conditions for producing peer reviewed publications.

In accordance with the mutual interest of the core partners FRIM and DFLRI in cooperation already prior to

project specification, the fact-finding mission, which resulted in project inception, focused directly on professional

issues, and did not question the engagement of the two institutions (Final Report, 2006). This indicates that the

project was to a lesser degree demand-driven, and thus not in line with Danida’s twinning concept. More likely

services were selected that matched the potential supply from the Danish partner institutions, rather than the

services in specific demand by the Malaysian partners. The fact that DFLRI, the Northern partner, also had a strong

wish to engage with FRIM is not considered in conflict with premise no. 2.

In conclusion, the core partner FRIM had explicitly wished to collaborate with DFLRI but not on specific services.

The other institutions in Malaysia had not formulated a specific wish to engage with their partner in Denmark.

Did project focus on services not in the market?

All three project components dealt, among other things, with building of ‘soft’ capacities, which several of the

interviewees highlight as representing new and valuable approaches to their specific field of operations. One of the

Malaysian researchers puts it this way, referring to the soft tool cognitive mapping:

‘Cognitive mapping with indigenous people really surprised me. They have a rich botanical knowledge and

they must be included in the early stage of conservational planning’

Although techniques for problem structuring (such as cognitive mapping), stakeholder involvement methods

and curriculum development may be available as commercial services offered by consultancies, such services are

unlikely to be requested by researchers in traditional state owned university systems. In this perspective the project

activities represented services not already in the market, and thus the premise seems valid.

DISCUSSION

In summary, the Danish–Malaysian twinning project on research capacity building was assessed to succeed quite

well regarding transfer of capacities from the Danish to the Malaysian institutions, in involving the Danish resource

base, and in obtaining ownership of activities in Malaysia. Regarding the long-term goals of establishing a platform

for continued cooperation after termination of funding the project has yet to deliver the desired result.

Copyright # 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Public Admin. Dev. 27, 381–392 (2007)

DOI: 10.1002/pad

390 M. B. JENSEN ET AL.

Apart from some minor deviations, the project was found to comply well with the Danida premises; three pairs

of almost identical twins of institutions were formed, the core partner FRIM clearly expressed a wish to collaborate

with the Danish core partner DFLRI, and the services in focus were not available in the market. Although some of

the lack of achieving full success may be explained by deviations from the premises, this is not the case regarding

the failure in establishing a platform for long-term twinning, where the premises are found to be non-supporting or

even counteracting.

Before turning to a discussion of shortcomings of the premises for long-term twinning, it is appropriate to

discuss shortly the interviewees’ suggestions on project improvements within the given premises. More strategic

staff exchange, as suggested as a means for improved communication, project commitment and team spirit, and

thus a better basis for exchanging capacities, may also serve to ensure focus on institutional objectives and help

avoid the danger of focusing on individuals’ objectives, as pointed out by Jones and Blunt (1999). Further, the work

by Jones and Blunt (1999) may inspire to focus on ensuring vertical project anchorage in the local political system.

They stress the importance of considering the ‘domain hierarchy’ and the role of the specific project as seen from

the perspective of local authorities. Regarding improved local ownership, the lack of an explicitly expressed wish

from two of the Malaysian twins to join their Danish counterparts, and thus deviations from one of the twinning

premises, should be stressed. The concern of lacking local ownership due to power imbalance in project

administration is supported by findings by Proctor (2000), who points out that success in twinning arrangements

may depend on Southern partners largely determining the areas of focus and activity. Moreover, the set-up in which

the North is dominant has been found to undermine the Southern partners’ critical attitude towards deliveries from

the Northern partner. Such a critical attitude may be a very important prerequisite for organisational learning to

emerge (Jones, 2001). To avoid project organisation supporting neo-imperialist attitudes, as stressed by Ishumi

(1992), and to ensure a more equal power balance several interviewees suggested a modification of the LFA to make

it more flexible. Adaptation of outputs as project proceeds has been identified by Jones and Blunt (1999) as a

requisite for enhancing capacity building. An LFA-modification that still acknowledges specific responsibilities of

involved institutions and holds a level of flexibility is perhaps to divide the approach into two stages: first, the

overall goals and main principles for their realisation are defined and agreed upon; secondly, during an initial phase

of the project a more detailed planning process is implemented and deliveries from donor institutions defined. Such

a model will allow the Northern side to maintain responsibility for the overall project definition, while the Southern

partners may take full responsibility for defining the intermediate deliveries from the Northern partners. A

two-stage LFA might need to be accompanied by a two-stage budget, where only the overall distribution is settled

initially, allowing for detailed budgeting to await component specification.

Twinning arrangements expand the classical challenge of post-project sustainability of obtained results to

include establishment of a basis for future collaboration. This is not an easy ambition and few concrete experiences

have been communicated on projects having achieved such long-term commitment between research institutions.

The disappointing prospects on continued cooperation in the Danish–Malaysian twinning project add to this list.

Two conditions were identified as limiting the options for gaining joint research experiences, and thus incentive for

continuing the cooperation: (1) if the programme exclusively focuses on Southern partners as receivers of new

capacities the Northern partners cannot advance their own research; (2) if the programme exclusively focuses on

capacities that are new to the Southern partners, the Southern partners cannot demonstrate their research potential.

Since researchers essentially build their career through research and not through training, using Northern

researchers mainly as short-course trainers, rather than providing them with opportunities for real collaboration,

builds-in a disincentive for participation. Likewise, if topics dealt with are selected only among the research areas

of the Northern partners, the Southern partners are reduced to play a receivers’ role with only limited chances of

significantly contributing to joint research. A number of studies emphasise that action and integration of theory and

practice are essential for obtaining efficient capacity building through twinning (Jones and Blunt, 1999; Jones,

2001; Olowu, 2002). Thus, to improve the chances of continued twinning between Northern and Southern research

institutions independently of development aid programmes, conditions for experiencing truly joint research need to

be ensured during the programme.

Recommendations derived from this investigation are summarised in Table 3.

Copyright # 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Public Admin. Dev. 27, 381–392 (2007)

DOI: 10.1002/pad

Table 3. Recommendations for future twinning projects aiming at research capacity building

Better transfer of capacities

Make a strategy for staff exchange with substantial time investment early in project, team building activities, appointmentof key-persons for integration of new colleagues and ensure a balance among institutions regarding staff exchange;Ensure vertical anchorage in political system based on domain hierarchy analysis;Employ a flexible LFA approach to allow for output and actors to be adapted as project progress;Broader involvement of Danish resource base;Maintain focus on premise for close match of institutional twins and ask potential participants specifically for theirparticipation;Stronger local ownership;Insist on fulfilment of the ‘expressed wish’;Share project administration in a balanced way, for example by employing the suggested two;Improved prospects on continued twinning;Allow for Danish researchers to advance their own skills by including research topics of mutual interest;Allow for partnering institutions to demonstrate research capacities by including research topics representing keycompetencies at the partnering institution;Encourage long-term joint research by allowing long-term targets in the LFA.

EXPERIENCES FROM A DANISH–MALAYSIAN TWINNING PROJECT 391

CONCLUSION

The idea of twinning is to enhance capacity building in developing countries by formation of pairs–or ‘twins’–of

alike Northern and Southern institutions. Based on an assessment of a Danish–Malaysian twinning project that

encompassed three pairs of institutional twins, we confirm twinning to represent a sound concept for institutional

capacity building, capable of transferring capacities not in the market, expanding the contributing Northern

resource base and ensuring a strong local ownership. The aid agencies’ ambition of institutional twins to continue

their cooperation after termination of the aid-supported period is however not found to be appropriately sustained

by the twinning concept, essentially due to limitations of options for North–South researchers to experience truly

joint research. To establish a platform for long-term institutional North–South twinning within research, and thus

continued long-term transfer of capacities, the basic incentive behind joint research, which is the synergy

experienced when research topics of mutual interest are advanced by combining complementary competencies,

must be cared for. Thus, Northern researchers must be allowed to advance their own research, and similarly

Southern researchers must be allowed to display in-house competencies, during the aid-supported project period.

Accordingly, immediate goals for truly joint research during the project period as well as long-term goals for

continued joint achievements are recommended to be incorporated in the LFA.

REFERENCES

Annan K. 2003. A challenge to the world’s scientists. Science 299: 1485.Askvik S. 1999. Twinning in Norwegian development assistance: a response to Jones and Blunt. Public Administration and Development 19:

403–408.Cooper L. 1984. The Twinning of Institutions: its Use as a Technical Assistance Delivery System. World Bank Technical Paper 23. World Bank:

Washington, DC.Danida. 2000a. The Role of Research in Danish Development Assistance. Danish Ministry of Foreign Affairs: Copenhagen.Danida. 2000b. Evaluation of Danida’s Bilateral Programme for Enhancement of Research Capacity in Developing Countries (ENRECA).

Evaluation Secretariat, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Danida, Copenhagen, Denmark.Danida. 2000c. Enhancing Research Capacity in Developing Countries (ENRECA), Vol. 1. Main Report. Danish Ministry of Foreign Affairs:

Copenhagen.Danida. 2001. Partnerships at the Leading Edge: A Danish Vision for Knowledge, Research and Development. Danish Ministry of Foreign

Affairs: Copenhagen.Danida. 2004. Institutional Cooperation: the Use of Public Institutions in Danish Development Cooperation. Danish Ministry of Foreign Affairs:

Copenhagen.Final Report. 2006. [maske en mere formel title in her!!!]Can be downloaded from www.sl.kvl.dk/twinning-malaysia.

Copyright # 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Public Admin. Dev. 27, 381–392 (2007)

DOI: 10.1002/pad

392 M. B. JENSEN ET AL.

Gillham B. 2000. The Research Interview. Continuum: London.Ishumi AGM. 1992. External aid: a lever for social progress in developing countries? A case study of SIDA-supported educational projects in

Tanzania, 1970–1990s. International Journal of Educational Development 12: 265–276.Jones M. 2001. Sustainable organizational capacity building: is organizational learning a key? The International Journal of Human ResourceManagement 12: 91–98.

Jones ML, Blunt P. 1999. ‘Twinning’ as a method of sustainable institutional capacity building. Public Administration and Development 19:381–402.

Maxwell S. 2003. Development research in Europe: towards an (all)-star alliance. The European Journal of Development Research 15: 194–198.McGrath S, King K. 2004. Knowledge-based aid: a four agency comparative study. International Journal of Educational Development 24:

167–181.Norad 1990. Strategi for NORADs Arbeid med Institusjonsutvikling I Utviklingsland. Norwegian Agency for Development Cooperation: Oslo.O’Connor S, Kowalski R. 2005. On twinning: the impact of naming an EU accession programme on the effective implication of its projects.Public Administration and Development 25: 437–443.

Olowu D. 2002. Capacity building for policy management through twinning: lessons from a Dutch–Namibian case. Public Administration andDevelopment 22: 275–288.

Proctor R. 2000. ‘Twinning’ and the South Africa/Canada programme on governance: Some reflections on blunt, Jones and Askvik. PublicAdministration and Development 20: 319–325.

SIDA. 1997. Appraisal of the Project Proposal for the Swedish Support to the National Statistical Centre in the Lao PDR. Phase 3.

Copyright # 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Public Admin. Dev. 27, 381–392 (2007)

DOI: 10.1002/pad