external evaluation of the scientific programme indonesia - … · 2015-08-27 · nuffic...

External evaluation of the Scientific Programme Indonesia - Netherlands (SPIN)

Final report

EP-NufficExpertise Department

May 2015

External evaluation of the SPIN programme – Final Report i

Contents

List of abbreviations ................................................................................................................................. iii

Acknowledgements ..................................................................................................................................v

Executive summary ................................................................................................................................. vi

Samenvatting ........................................................................................................................................... ix

1. Introduction .................................................................................................................................. 1

1.1 External evaluation of SPIN ..................................................................................................... 1

1.2 Structure of the report .............................................................................................................. 4

2. History of the scientific cooperation Indonesia - Netherlands ..................................................... 5

3. Effectiveness ............................................................................................................................. 11

3.1 Long-term collaboration ......................................................................................................... 11

3.2 Mutual benefits and reciprocity .............................................................................................. 12

3.3 Involving other stakeholders .................................................................................................. 15

3.4 Scientific output ..................................................................................................................... 16

3.5 Capacity building ................................................................................................................... 17

3.6 Impact .................................................................................................................................... 20

3.7 Non-academic impact ............................................................................................................ 24

3.8 Influencing factors ................................................................................................................. 28

3.9 The selection process ............................................................................................................ 29

4. Efficiency ................................................................................................................................... 30

4.1 Costs and outputs .................................................................................................................. 30

4.2 Coherence between the various SPIN programmes ............................................................. 33

4.3 Contributions from the parties involved ................................................................................. 35

4.4 The role of KNAW to maintain good relations ....................................................................... 37

4.5 Factors influencing programme implementation ................................................................... 38

4.6 Management of the programme ............................................................................................ 39

5. Additionality ............................................................................................................................... 41

5.1 Results ascribed to SPIN ....................................................................................................... 41

5.2 The strengths of the programme ........................................................................................... 42

5.3 Other collaboration programmes ........................................................................................... 43

6. Continuity ................................................................................................................................... 46

6.1 Sustainability of results .......................................................................................................... 46

6.2 Non-sustainable results ......................................................................................................... 46

6.3 Effects of SPIN's absence ..................................................................................................... 47

External evaluation of the SPIN programme – Final Report ii

6.4 Need and capacity for ongoing programmatic collaboration ................................................. 48

6.5 Contributions for continuation ................................................................................................ 50

7. Future perspectives ................................................................................................................... 51

8. Concluding remarks ................................................................................................................... 53

ANNEXES.............................................................................................................................................. 55

ANNEX 1. Technical proposal ............................................................................................................... 56

ANNEX 2. Interviewees and resource persons ..................................................................................... 60

ANNEX 3. List of documents ................................................................................................................. 63

ANNEX 4. Outcomes of the questionnaire survey ................................................................................ 65

ANNEX 5. SPIN II Priority Programmes ................................................................................................ 74

ANNEX 6. SPIN III Joint Research Projects .......................................................................................... 76

ANNEX 7. Open Science Meetings ....................................................................................................... 79

ANNEX 8. Indonesian policies on research .......................................................................................... 80

External evaluation of the SPIN programme – Final Report iii

List of abbreviations

AIO Assistent In Opleiding (= PhD position, employed for 4 years at a Dutch university).

AIPI Indonesian Academy of Sciences (Akademi Ilmu Pengetahuan Indonesia)

API Academy Professorship Indonesia

AMC Academisch Medisch Centrum, University of Amsterdam

ANRI Arsip Nasional Republik Indonesia

ARCG Australian Research Council Grant

ASEAN The Association of South East Asian Nations

BAPPENAS National Development Planning Agency of Indonesia

BIORIN Biotechnology Research Indonesia Netherlands

BPPT Badan Benerapan dan Pengembangan Teknologi Indonesia (= Agency for the

Assessment and Application of Technology in Indonesia)

DESDM Ministry of Energy and Mineral Resources, Jakarta

DG Research Directorate General Research

DGIS Directorate General International Co-operation

EKP East Kalimantan Programme

EKN Embassy of the Kingdom of the Netherlands

EMA Environmental Management Act

EPAM Extended Programme Applied Mathematics

ERA European Research Area

GEOCAP Geothermal Capacity Building Programme - Indonesia-Netherlands

ICoMAR Indonesian Consortium of Coastal and Marine Research

IMW Industrial Mathematics Week

IPB Institut Pertanian Bogor

ITB Institut Teknologi Bandung

ITC International Institute for Geo-Information Science and Earth Observation

JRP Joint Research Programme

JSTP Joint Scientific Thematic Research Programme

JWC Joint Working Committee for Scientific Co-operation between Indonesia and the

Netherlands

KEMENAG Ministry of Religious Affairs

KITLV Koninklijk Instituut voor Taal-, Land- en Volkenkunde (Royal Netherlands Institute of

Southeast Asian and Caribbean Studies)

KNAW Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences (Koninklijke Nederlandse

Akademie van Wetenschappen)

KWF Koningin Wilhelmina Fonds

LIPI Lembaga Ilmu Pengetahuan Indonesia (Indonesian Institute of Sciences)

LPDP Lembaga Pengelola Dana Pendidikan (Indonesian Endowment Fund for Education)

LUF Leids Universitair Fonds

LUMC Leids Universitair Medisch Centrum

MoRT Ministry of Research and Technology (RISTEK)

External evaluation of the SPIN programme – Final Report iv

MoU Memorandum of Understanding

MSc Master's degree in The Netherlands

NFP Netherlands Fellowship Programmes

NGOs Non-governmental Organizations

NICHE: Netherlands Initiative for Capacity development in Higher Education

NPT The Netherlands Programme for the Institutional Strengthening of Post-secondary

Education and Training Capacity

Nuffic Netherlands organization for international cooperation in higher education. Since 1

January 2015 EP-Nuffic.

NWO- WOTRO Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research - WOTRO Science for Global

Development

OCW Ministerie van Onderwijs, Cultuur en Wetenschap (Ministry of Education, Culture and

Science )

OSM Open Science Meeting

PhD Doctorate in The Netherlands

PP Priority Programme

RISTEK Ministry of Research and Technology

RUG Groningen University

RVO Rijksdienst voor Ondernemend Nederland

SEA-EU-NET ASEAN-EU Cooperation in Science, Technology and Innovation

SPIN Scientific Programme Indonesia - The Netherlands, under the auspices of the KNAW

S3 Doctorate in Indonesia

TU Delft Delft University of Technology

UGM Universitas Gadjah Mada (Yogyakarta)

UNPAD Universitas Padjadjaran

UI Universitas Indonesia

UNHAS Universitas Hasanuddin

UT University of Twente

UvA University of Amsterdam

UU Utrecht university

VSNU Association of Universities in the Netherlands (Vereniging van Universiteiten)

VU VU University

VVI Van Vollenhoven Insitute, Leiden University

WUR Wageningen University & Research Centre (Wageningen UR)

External evaluation of the SPIN programme – Final Report v

Acknowledgements

We have been able to conduct this evaluation thanks to the excellent collaboration we have received

from the participants and stakeholders in the SPIN programme in the Netherlands and in Indonesia.

The responses to the questionnaire were beyond expectations, the interviews very open, informative

and constructive. On the basis of their inputs we think that we have been able to capture the spirit and

value of the programme.

In the search for programme data and contact addresses we have received excellent support from

Sikko Visscher, Secretary of SPIN, and Geri de Leeuw-Mantel, Policy Officer SPIN, at the KNAW. We

are grateful for the time and commitment they have devoted to this evaluation.

In Indonesia the evaluation team has been able to meet with many people in a relatively short period

of time. This was made possible by the excellent support we received from the NESO office and the

Embassy of the Kingdom of the Netherlands in Jakarta. In particular we would like to thank Inty

Dienasari, Fellowship Officer, and Mervin Bakker, Director NESO, and Anja Roelofs, First Secretary

Political Affairs at the Embassy for their relentless efforts to organize our programme and meetings.

We are also grateful to Thijs Geurts, Senior Policy Advisor at the Ministry of OCW and the other

members of the Supervisory Committee Renėe van Kessel-Hagesteijn (NWO), Rudie Trienes (KNAW)

and Jurgen Rienks (VSNU) for their constructive comments and advice on the technical proposal of

the evaluation.

The Hague, March 2015

The evaluation team

Ad Boeren – team leader

Clara Ajisuksmo

Caroline Duits

Charlene de Zoete

External evaluation of the SPIN programme – Final Report vi

Executive summary

Indonesia and the Netherlands have worked together on scientific research for centuries. The two

countries’ shared past is reflected in unique archives, extensive collections and large quantities of data

and resources in both countries. In 1992 the Dutch and Indonesian governments signed agreements

to stimulate educational and scientific collaboration and exchanges. In1994 a programme of

collaboration started which was called the Programme Scientific Cooperation Netherlands-Indonesia.

In 2000 the programme was restructured under a new name Scientific Programme Indonesia –

Netherlands (SPIN). The aim of the programme is to facilitate long-term scientific collaboration

between Dutch and Indonesian researchers, based on the principles of reciprocity and mutual benefit.

SPIN is currently in its third five-year phase. Since 1995 the programme has been executed by the

Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences (KNAW) on behalf of the Minister of Education,

Culture and Science (OCW) who has been the main funder of the programme from its beginning.

With the end of the programme looming (foreseen in 2017), the Ministry decided to organise an

independent evaluation of how successful the SPIN programme has been. It asked EP-Nuffic to carry

out this external evaluation. The evaluation consisted of five broad topics of investigation:

• effectiveness (were the objectives achieved);

• efficiency (how well were resources used);

• additionality (to what extent did results achieved depend on the SPIN programme);

• continuity (to what extent will results be maintained in the absence of the SPIN programme);

• interest for ongoing collaboration in the future.

The evaluation looked at the programme from the start in 1994 but focused on the second (2006 –

2011) and third phase (2012 – 2017) and on the transition between these two phases. The budget for

the two phases combined is € 15.8 million and these funds have been provided by the Dutch Ministry

OCW. In the third phase the Indonesian government is contributing 40 PhD scholarships. The

evaluation has been carried out from 1 November 2014 to 1 April 2015 and included a visit to

Indonesia in the first two weeks of February 2015.

Effectiveness

Based on the information gathered through desk research, interviews and questionnaires, the

evaluators conclude that the SPIN programme can be regarded as a success in more than one

respect. It has achieved its main objective of establishing long term scientific collaboration between

researchers in the Netherlands and Indonesia and of building research capacity in Indonesia. Strong

research groups and networks have been formed and high quality research has been conducted on

themes which have priority for Indonesia’s socio-economic growth and development and appeal to the

research interests of the Netherlands (Economic Top Sectors and Speerpunten) and Dutch

researchers.

The programme has also been successful in producing good scientific output, in quality as well as in

quantity, although an exact number is difficult to establish. The vast majority of the PhD candidates

(126 between 1994 and 2011) have successfully defended their thesis. In the same period more than

600 articles, 150 book chapters and 22 books have been published. Apart from these scientific outputs

the Dutch universities have benefited from the spin-offs of their involvement in SPIN by expanding

networks, successfully applying for funds from other sources and receiving increasing numbers of

Indonesian students for study at their institution.

External evaluation of the SPIN programme – Final Report vii

Although mutual benefits have been generated in programme activities, the benefits have been of a

different nature for partners on both sides. Over the years the collaboration in the research groups has

developed into more equal forms of scientific cooperation. Impact in non-research fields has been

realized but is of incidental nature and has not systematically been recorded or reported.

As a model of bilateral scientific research collaboration SPIN is effective and efficient at the level of the

research groups. The SPIN programme is not equipped to change the institutional environment of the

research groups, nor the Indonesian higher education system, its funding arrangements and

governing principles. This enabling environment determines to a great extent the success and

sustainability of the SPIN projects. A more fundamental change of this environment is needed to

create a favourable environment for research at Indonesian universities.

Efficiency

The efficiency of the programme is also assessed as positive. Although the projects which involved

PhD tracks showed delays in finalizing results, on average projects have achieved their planned

results. The programme has benefited from substantial contributions in kind from the project

implementers which is a clear sign of their commitment to the projects and the programme.

Contributions from other external sources vary, depending on the research topic, but seem to be

modest. Overall, the programme has a good cost-benefit ratio if one compares the programme funds

invested with the scientific output realized and research capacity built.

The programme for scientific research between Indonesia and the Netherlands has a long history but

also an interesting learning curve and evolution. What started with the funding of small projects which

did not have any connection with each other evolved into a well-conceived programme with sets of

complementary projects in thematic clusters. This resulted in a clear focus, coherence in programmes

and opportunities for multidisciplinary research. This certainly has had a positive influence on the

scientific quality and relevance of the projects and the visibility of the programme as a whole.

The Open Science Meetings can be seen as a valuable component of the programme to promote,

showcase and enrich the Dutch –Indonesian scientific cooperation. The Academy Professorships

Indonesia (API) are an instrument to strengthen the research culture and lateral collaboration between

Indonesian universities. It is an integrated approach to improve research cultures and capacities at

selected institutions. The added value of the API for Dutch-Indonesian research collaboration still has

to manifest itself.

The management structure has had a considerable positive influence on the evolution and success of

the programme. The bilateral Joint Working Committee has been responsible for identifying relevant

research themes for the programme. The Programme Committee has selected projects on quality

criteria but also on their potential to contribute to the objectives of the programme as a whole. The

Programme Co-ordinators organized the coherence among projects, monitored their implementation

and the quality of the research being conducted.

KNAW has done a commendable job as administrator of the programme and interlocutor between the

Dutch science community and the Indonesian government and Indonesian institutions. KNAW has

been flexible and understanding in the administration of the programme and diplomatic in its

interactions with a variety of stakeholders. Data management in the programme is a weaker aspect.

Additionality

The majority of respondents and interviewees are of the opinion that without SPIN many of the

research partnerships would not have been developed, or not in the same successful way. The same

applies to the outputs and outcomes of the collaboration. The programme set-up is regarded as

unique as it enables long-term collaboration, combines capacity building with high quality research

External evaluation of the SPIN programme – Final Report viii

and stimulates collaboration between researchers in and between both countries. Research networks

have been built around research topics and in a number of cases have expanded from bilateral

(Netherlands – Indonesia) to regional and global.

Continuity

The announcement by the Dutch Minister of OCW to discontinue the funding of SPIN has led to

reactions of disappointment and disbelief among the immediate stakeholders and participants. They

find it difficult to understand why a successful and influential programme has to stop at a moment

when Indonesia is starting to become an important economic force in the Asian region. It is feared that

the good relationships and the advantageous position of Dutch science could easily be lost. It may

also lead to a loss of invested research potential which has been built over the years.

The need for research capacity building in Indonesia is still great in some disciplines, although levels

are improving, and there is still work to do in the improvement of the Indonesian education and

research system. Without SPIN funding it will be a challenge for many research groups to continue.

However, the opportunities to find funds for this in Indonesia are growing. Opportunities which are

offered through multilateral and interregional cooperation programmes can provide extra funds and

impetus to the bilateral collaborations. For well-established bilateral partnerships this is a logical

avenue to explore. New opportunities may present itself by creating better links between research and

the private sector ( more emphasis on application of research results and applied research) on the one

hand, and between research and education (interaction and exchange between the two domains) on

the other.

Interest for continuation of the collaboration

The Ministry of Research and Technology and Higher Education, the Indonesian Academy of

Sciences and the Indonesian universities are very much in favour of continuation of the scientific

collaboration, preferably in the same mode. The Dutch universities which participate in the programme

and for whom Indonesia is a focus country also strongly suggest to continue the scientific collaboration

between the two countries to consolidate the networks and capacity that have been built and to further

expand and deepen the research that can be done in and with Indonesia. The scientific collaboration

is also an important source of talents for the Dutch universities and it helps to interest more

Indonesians to study in the Netherlands.

In the bilateral relations between the two countries higher education and research play a key role. It is

an important ‘export product’ and opens doors to the higher echelons in the government, the big

universities and the private sector. The Netherlands Embassy is very aware of this particular role and

added value it generates and strongly supports a continuation of the scientific collaboration.

In short, the participants and stakeholders spoken to and consulted find it important to continue the

scientific collaboration with Indonesia for scientific, political and economic reasons. However, its set-

up and funding need to be carefully discussed at the appropriate levels of both governments. Issues

that need to be addressed are the objectives (or expected outcomes) of such collaboration, the mutual

interests it should serve, which parties should or could contribute to the funding of the collaboration,

and who should administer the collaboration.

There is also agreement on the principle of reciprocity and mutual benefit in the collaboration. This

was the intention from the start of the programme but has only recently become a fact. The Indonesian

economy is growing and the Indonesian government is giving higher priority to research in its

development strategies. Budgets for research are rising but they are still scattered. Substantial

numbers of scholarships are now available through DG Higher Education (DIKTI) and the Endowment

Fund for Education (LPDP).

External evaluation of the SPIN programme – Final Report ix

Samenvatting

Indonesië en Nederland werken al van oudsher samen op het gebied van wetenschappelijk

onderzoek. Dat gedeelde verleden komt tot uiting in unieke archieven, uitgebreide collecties en grote

hoeveelheden gegevens en faciliteiten in beide landen. In 1992 hebben de Nederlandse en

Indonesische regeringen overeenkomsten gesloten ter bevordering van de educatieve en

wetenschappelijke samenwerking en uitwisseling. In 1994 is een samenwerkingsprogramma van start

gegaan onder de naam Programme Scientific Cooperation Netherlands-Indonesia (Wetenschappelijk

Samenwerkingsprogramma Nederland - Indonesië). In 2000 is het programma herzien en is de naam

veranderd in Scientific Programme Indonesia – Netherlands (SPIN - Wetenschappelijk Programma

Nederland - Indonesië). Doel van het programma is het bevorderen van de wetenschappelijke

samenwerking op lange termijn tussen Nederlandse en Indonesische onderzoekers op basis van de

beginselen van wederkerigheid en wederzijds profijt. Op dit moment bevindt het SPIN zich in de derde

fase van vijf jaar. Het programma wordt namens het ministerie van Onderwijs, Cultuur en Wetenschap

sinds 1995 uitgevoerd door de Koninklijke Nederlandse Akademie van Wetenschappen (KNAW); het

ministerie van OCW is vanaf het begin de voornaamste financier van het programma geweest.

Nu het eind van het programma in zicht komt (naar verwachting in 2017) heeft het ministerie besloten

om een onafhankelijke evaluatie te organiseren van de resultaten van het programma. EP-Nuffic is

gevraagd om die externe evaluatie uit te voeren. De evaluatie bestond uit vijf brede

onderzoeksgebieden:

• effectiviteit (Zijn de doelstellingen gerealiseerd?);

• efficiëntie (Hoe goed zijn de beschikbare middelen gebruikt?);

• complementariteit (In welke mate zijn de bereikte resultaten een gevolg van het SPIN-

programma?);

• continuïteit (In welke mate blijven de resultaten doorwerken na beëindiging van het SPIN-

programma?);

• belangstelling voor de voortzetting van de samenwerking in de toekomst.

Bij de evaluatie is het programma weliswaar vanaf het begin in 1994 onder de loep genomen, maar de

nadruk lag op de tweede (2006 – 2011) en derde fase (2012 – 2017) en op de overgang tussen beide

fasen. De begroting voor beide fasen samen bedraagt EUR 15,8 miljoen. In de derde fase levert de

Indonesische regering een bijdrage van veertig PhD-beurzen. De evaluatie is uitgevoerd tussen 1

november 2014 en 1 april 2015 waarbij in de eerste twee weken van februari 2015 een bezoek aan

Indonesië is gebracht.

Effectiviteit

Op basis van de verzamelde informatie via deskresearch, interviews en vragenlijsten concluderen de

evaluatoren dat het SPIN-programma in meer dan één opzicht als een succes kan worden

aangemerkt. Zo is de hoofddoelstelling gerealiseerd om een langdurige wetenschappelijke

samenwerking tussen onderzoekers in Nederland en Indonesië tot stand te brengen en om

onderzoekscapaciteit in Indonesië op te bouwen. Er zijn sterke onderzoeksgroepen en netwerken

gecreëerd en er is kwalitatief hoogwaardig onderzoek uitgevoerd naar onderwerpen die prioriteit

hebben voor de sociaaleconomische groei en ontwikkeling van Indonesië en die tegelijkertijd relevant

zijn met het oog op de Nederlandse onderzoeksbelangen (Economische Topsectoren en

Speerpunten) en onderzoekers.

Het programma heeft daarnaast goede wetenschappelijke resultaten opgeleverd, zowel wat kwantiteit

als kwaliteit betreft, hoewel het exacte aantal moeilijk is vast te stellen. De overgrote meerderheid van

de PhD-kandidaten (126 tussen 1994 en 2011) hebben hun proefschrift met succes verdedigd. In

External evaluation of the SPIN programme – Final Report x

dezelfde periode zijn er meer dan 600 artikelen, 150 hoofdstukken in boeken en 22 boeken

gepubliceerd. Naast deze wetenschappelijke resultaten hebben de Nederlandse en Indonesische

universiteiten profijt getrokken van de spin-offs van hun betrokkenheid bij het SPIN door uitbreiding

van hun netwerken en het werven van financiering via andere bronnen.

De partners in het programma hebben wederzijdse voordelen weten te realiseren, maar deze

voordelen van verschillende aard zijn geweest voor beide kanten. Met verloop van tijd hebben

onderzoeksgroepen zich ontwikkeld naar meer gelijkwaardige vormen van wetenschappelijke

samenwerking. Het programma heeft ook tot niet-onderzoeksgerelateerde resultaten geleid, maar

deze zijn van een incidenteel karakter en niet systematisch geregistreerd of gerapporteerd.

Als een model voor een bilaterale wetenschappelijke onderzoekssamenwerking is het SPIN op het

niveau van de onderzoeksgroepen effectief en efficiënt. Het SPIN programma is niet toegerust om de

institutionele omgeving van de onderzoeksgroepen te veranderen; dat geldt ook voor het

Indonesische stelsel van hoger onderwijs, de financieringsregelingen en de bestuurlijke

uitgangspunten. Het succes en de duurzaamheid van de SPIN-projecten wordt in hoge mate bepaald

door een omgeving die een stimulerend effect op het verrichten van onderzoek heeft. Om een

dergelijke positieve omgeving voor onderzoek aan de Indonesische universiteiten te creëren, is echter

een fundamentelere verandering van deze omgeving vereist.

Efficiëntie

De efficiëntie van het programma wordt eveneens als positief beoordeeld. Hoewel er bij de projecten

waarbij PhD-trajecten waren betrokken, vertragingen zijn opgetreden bij de afronding, zijn bij de

andere projecten de verwachte resultaten gemiddeld genomen gerealiseerd. Het programma heeft

geprofiteerd van aanzienlijke bijdragen 'in natura' van de uitvoerders van de projecten, hetgeen een

duidelijke illustratie vormt van hun betrokkenheid bij de projecten en het programma. De bijdragen van

andere externe bronnen variëren afhankelijk van het onderzoeksonderwerp, maar zijn over het

algemeen bescheiden. In zijn totaliteit heeft het programma een goede kosten-batenverhouding

wanneer de geïnvesteerde programmamiddelen worden afgezet tegen de gerealiseerde

wetenschappelijke resultaten en de opgebouwde onderzoekscapaciteiten.

Het Indonesisch-Nederlandse programma voor wetenschappelijk onderzoek heeft een lange historie

en kent ook een interessante leercurve en ontwikkeling. Wat ooit begonnen is met de financiering van

kleine projecten die onderling geen verband met elkaar hielden, is inmiddels uitgegroeid tot een goed

gestructureerd programma met een serie complementaire projecten in thematische clusters. Dit heeft

geleid tot een duidelijke focus, tot samenhang tussen de programma's en tot mogelijkheden voor

multidisciplinair onderzoek. Dit heeft zonder meer ook een positieve uitwerking gehad op de

wetenschappelijke kwaliteit en relevantie van de projecten en op de zichtbaarheid van het programma

als geheel.

De 'Open Science Meetings' kunnen als een waardevolle component van het programma worden

aangemerkt om de Nederlands-Indonesische wetenschappelijke samenwerking te bevorderen en te

verrijken en om de praktische resultaten te laten zien. De Academy Professorship Indonesia (API)

vormt een instrument om de onderzoekscultuur en de onderlinge samenwerking tussen Indonesische

universiteiten te versterken. De geïntegreerde aanpak maakt het mogelijk om bij geselecteerde

instellingen de onderzoekscultuur en -capaciteiten worden verbeterd. Of er een toegevoegde waarde

van de API is voor de Nederlands-Indonesische onderzoekssamenwerking, zal in de toekomst nog

moeten blijken.

De managementstructuur heeft een aanzienlijk positieve invloed gehad op deze ontwikkeling en de

successen. Het bilaterale Joint Working Committee is verantwoordelijk geweest voor het in kaart

brengen van de relevante onderzoeksthema's voor het programma. De Programmacommissie heeft

External evaluation of the SPIN programme – Final Report xi

niet alleen op basis van kwaliteitscriteria projecten geselecteerd, maar heeft daarbij ook rekening

gehouden met hun mogelijkheden om een bijdrage te leveren aan het verwezenlijken van de

overkoepelende doelen van het programma. De programmacoördinatoren hebben de samenhang

tussen de projecten gewaarborgd en toezicht gehouden op de uitvoering ervan en op de kwaliteit van

het onderzoek.

De KNAW heeft als coördinator van het programma en als intermediair tussen de Nederlandse

wetenschappelijke gemeenschap en de Indonesische overheid en instellingen, lovenswaardig werk

verricht. De KNAW heeft het programma op een flexibele en begripvolle basis gecoördineerd waarbij

op diplomatieke wijze met de verschillende belanghebbenden is samengewerkt. Het gegevensbeheer

is echter een van de zwakkere punten binnen het programma.

Additionaliteit

De meerderheid van de respondenten en geïnterviewden is van mening dat veel van de

onderzoekspartnerschappen zonder het SPIN niet tot stand zouden zijn gekomen, althans minder

succesvol zouden zijn geweest. Dat geldt ook voor de output en voor de resultaten van de

samenwerking. De opzet van het programma wordt als uniek aangemerkt aangezien het een

samenwerking op de lange termijn mogelijk maakt, capaciteitsopbouw met hoogwaardig onderzoek

combineert en de samenwerking tussen onderzoekers in en tussen de beide landen bevordert. Er zijn

onderzoeksnetwerken gecreëerd rondom een aantal onderzoeksthema's en in een aantal gevallen zijn

die netwerken van een bilateraal (Nederland – Indonesië) initiatief tot regionale en mondiale

samenwerkingsverbanden uitgegroeid.

Continuïteit

De aankondiging van de minister van OCW dat de financiering van het SPIN-programma wordt

beëindigd, heeft tot teleurstelling en ongeloof onder de belanghebbenden en deelnemers geleid. Zij

zien niet in waarom een succesvol en invloedrijk programma wordt stopgezet op het moment dat

Indonesië een belangrijke economische factor in de Aziatische regio begint te worden. Gevreesd

wordt dat de goede betrekkingen en de voorsprong die de Nederlandse wetenschap heeft

opgebouwd, in snel tempo verloren zullen gaan. Daarnaast zou dit ook tot een verlies aan het

geïnvesteerde onderzoekspotentieel kunnen leiden dat in al die samenwerkingsjaren is opgebouwd.

In bepaalde disciplines bestaat er in Indonesië nog steeds een grote behoefte aan de opbouw van

onderzoekscapaciteit (hoewel die capaciteit in het algemeen wel gaandeweg toeneemt) en er moet

nog steeds werk worden verzet om het Indonesische onderwijs- en onderzoekssysteem te verbeteren.

Zonder de SPIN-financiering zal het voor veel onderzoeksgroepen een uitdaging worden om de

samenwerking voort te kunnen zetten.

De mogelijkheden om hiervoor in Indonesië financiële middelen aan te trekken, worden steeds groter.

Via multilaterale en interregionale programma's kunnen extra fondsen geworven worden voor en kan

er een nieuwe impuls gegeven worden aan de bilaterale samenwerkingsverbanden. Voor gevestigde

bilaterale partnerschappen is dit een logische stap om nader te onderzoeken. Er kunnen ook nieuwe

mogelijkheden worden benut door het creëren van een betere koppeling tussen enerzijds de

onderzoekswereld en de particuliere sector (meer nadruk op de toepassing van onderzoeksresultaten

en op toegepast onderzoek) en anderzijds tussen onderzoek en onderwijs (interactie en uitwisseling

tussen de twee domeinen).

Belangstelling voor voortzetting van de samenwerking

Het Indonesische ministerie van Onderzoek, Technologie en Hoger Onderwijs, de Indonesische

Academie van Wetenschappen en de Indonesische universiteiten zijn een groot voorstander van de

voortzetting van de wetenschappelijke samenwerking, bij voorkeur op basis van hetzelfde model. De

External evaluation of the SPIN programme – Final Report xii

Nederlandse universiteiten die aan het programma deelnemen en voor wie Indonesië een focusland

vormt, bevelen ook met nadruk aan om de wetenschappelijke samenwerking tussen de beide landen

te continueren teneinde de netwerken en de opgebouwde onderzoekscapaciteiten te consolideren en

om het onderzoek dat in en samen met Indonesië gedaan kan worden verder uit te breiden en te

intensiveren. De wetenschappelijke samenwerking vormt ook een belangrijke talentenbron voor de

Nederlandse universiteiten en zet meer Indonesiërs ertoe aan om in Nederland te gaan studeren.

In de bilaterale betrekkingen tussen de beide landen spelen onderwijs en onderzoek een essentiële

rol. Zij vormen een belangrijk 'exportproduct' en openen deuren naar de hogere regeringskringen, de

grote universiteiten en de particuliere sector. De Nederlandse ambassade is zich terdege bewust van

die specifieke rol en de meerwaarde die hierdoor wordt gegenereerd en is derhalve ook een groot

voorstander van de voortzetting van de wetenschappelijke samenwerking.

Kortom, de deelnemers en belanghebbenden waarmee is gesproken en die zijn geraadpleegd vinden

het op grond van wetenschappelijke, politieke en economische redenen belangrijk dat de

wetenschappelijke samenwerking met Indonesië wordt voortgezet. De opzet en financiering van een

dergelijke samenwerking dient echter wel uitgebreid besproken te worden op de relevante

regeringsniveaus van beide landen. Kwesties die daarbij aan de orde moeten komen, zijn de

doelstellingen (of de verwachte resultaten) van zo'n samenwerking, de wederzijdse belangen die

daarmee worden gediend, welke partijen een bijdragen kunnen of moeten leveren aan de financiering

van de samenwerking en welke instantie verantwoordelijk moet zijn voor de coördinatie en het beheer

ervan.

Er bestaat wat de samenwerking betreft eveneens overeenstemming over het beginsel van

wederkerigheid en wederzijds profijt. Dit is vanaf het begin van het programma de intentie geweest,

maar de uitwerking ervan heeft pas sinds kort concrete vormen aangenomen. De Indonesische

economie groeit en de Indonesische regering geeft in haar ontwikkelingstrategieën nu ook een hogere

prioriteit aan onderzoek. De budgetten voor onderzoek nemen langzaam toe. Er is op dit moment een

aanzienlijk aantal beurzen beschikbaar via het Directoraat-generaal Hoger Onderwijs (DIKTI) en het

Subsidiefonds voor Onderwijs (LPDP).

External evaluation of the SPIN programme – Final Report 1

1. Introduction



and resources in both countries. In 1992 the Dutch and Indonesian governments signed agreements

to stimulate educational and scientific collaboration and exchanges. In1994 a programme of

collaboration started which was called the Programme Scientific Cooperation Netherlands-Indonesia.

In 2000 the programme was restructured under a new name Scientific Programme Indonesia –

Netherlands (SPIN). The aim of the programme is to facilitate long-term scientific collaboration

between Dutch and Indonesian researchers, based on the principles of reciprocity and mutual benefit.

SPIN is currently in its third five year phase. Since 1995 the programme has been executed by the

Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences (KNAW) on behalf of the Minister of Education,

Culture and Science who has been the main funder of the programme from its beginnings.

Since 2000 SPIN has been implemented in three phases of approximately five years each:

SPIN I: 2000-2005

SPIN II: 2006-2011

SPIN III: 2012-2017 (extension of SPIN II)

1.1 External evaluation of SPIN

Aim of the evaluation

The SPIN programme has carried out two self-evaluations in 1999 and 2003. With the end of the

programme (anticipated in 2017) looming, the Ministry of Education, Culture and Science (OCW)

decided to organise an independent evaluation of how successful the SPIN programme has been. It

asked EP-Nuffic to carry out this external evaluation. On the basis of a ‘Startnotitie’ EP-Nuffic

developed a technical proposal for the evaluation which was discussed with OCW and the Steering

Committee (KNAW, NWO-WOTRO and VSNU). The technical proposal is attached as Annex 1.

The evaluation consists of five main topics to be investigated:






In the technical proposal these main topics have been elaborated in sets of specific questions.

Scope

It was decided to focus the research on SPIN II and III, including the transition between these two

phases. The research was also meant to look at the extent to which the development of the phases

contributed to the effectiveness of the programme. A brief overview of the history of the entire

programme would be included.

Research approach

The evaluation approach consisted of the following parts:

Desk research in the Netherlands

Personal interviews with the most important actors and stakeholders in the programme in the

Netherlands and in Indonesia


Online survey of the other actors and stakeholders in the programme for both the Dutch and

Indonesian side

Focus group discussion with Dutch researchers in the Netherlands

Implementation of the evaluation and limitations encountered

The evaluation has been implemented according to the technical proposal. Relevant document and

data have been studied as provided by KNAW and gathered from other sources (see Annex 3 for a list

of references).

In the Netherlands interviews have been conducted with 14 participants and stakeholders in the

programme. Additional information has been obtained from several resource persons and

organizations.

In Indonesia the evaluators have been able to interview a much higher number of participants and

stakeholders than anticipated, due to the excellent logistical support from NESO Jakarta and the staff

of the Embassy of the Kingdom of the Netherlands in Jakarta. 18 interviews were held with a total

number of 28 SPIN participants and stakeholders.

The full list of interviewees and resource persons is included in Annex 2.

The group of interviewees in the Netherlands and in Indonesia is a good representation of the main

stakeholders and prominent participants in the various phases of the programme. The same applies to

the group of respondents in the questionnaire as can be seen from the data below. All interviews in

the Netherlands as well as in Indonesia were very open and gave a good and varied insight in the

opinions of the interviewees on the accomplishments of the programme, their own involvement in

programme activities and in the value of the scientific collaboration between researchers in Indonesia

and the Netherlands.

We are confident that because of these aspects the findings of the evaluation give a valid and realistic

picture of the programme and its accomplishments.

The questionnaire

An online questionnaire was designed for participants in the SPIN programme and distributed in the

Netherlands and Indonesia. Contact addresses were provided by KNAW.

The questionnaire was sent to 84 persons in the Netherlands and 74 in Indonesia. These were the

people who could be reached via a working e-mail address. The response rate in the Netherlands was

42% (N=35) and in Indonesia 26% (N=19). Of the Dutch respondents 16.7% had been involved in the

programme for more than 10 years, and 36.1 % between 5 and ten years. Half of them had been

involved less than 5 years.

As can be seen from Table 1. the Dutch population of respondents spans the total life span of the

programme since its beginning in 1994. The experience of Indonesian population with the programme

is shorter than that of their Dutch colleagues and is more concentrated in SPIN II and SPIN III.

The majority of the Dutch respondents has been involved as project coordinator, supervisor or

researcher. With regard to their participation in the various sub-programmes, 7 respondents had

participated in a Priority Programme, 11 in a Joint Research Programme, 13 in a Mobility Programme

and 12 in a Postdoc Programme.

Most of the Indonesian respondents (12) have been participating as researcher, 7 as project

coordinator and 5 as supervisor. 42% had participated in the Mobility Programme and 26% in the

Postdoc Programme. 37% of the respondents are involved in the SPIN III Joint Research

programmes.


Table 1. Involvement and role(s) in the various phases of the programme

Dutch respondents

Answer Options 1994-2000 SPIN I SPIN II SPIN III Response

Count

Member of the Joint Working Committee 0 0 0 0 0

Member of the SPIN Programme Committee 1 0 0 0 1

Project coordinator 3 6 9 4 17

Supervisor 4 10 11 4 20

Researcher 5 9 11 4 19

(Conference) organizer 1 4 2 0 5

Programme administrator 0 2 1 1 3

PhD student 0 0 0 0 0

Other: 1 3 3 1 4

Total 35

Indonesian respondents

Answer Options 1994-2000 SPIN I SPIN II SPIN III Response

Count









Other: 1 1 3 1 3

Total 19

Limitations

The accessibility of the SPIN programme data seemed in good order at a first inspection of the KNAW

archives before the start of the evaluation. All projects files and other programme documents were

properly organized in hard copies and much of the information was also available digitally.

In the course of the evaluation it became clear that the aggregation of the programme’s outputs was a

challenge. The KNAW does not have a project information database with data on projects, planned

outputs, realised outputs, and expenditures. Therefore, data reported in annual reports had to be

compared with aggregate data derived from project files in order to be able to compose a ‘reliable’

overview. It has cost the KNAW administrators and the evaluators considerable more time than

anticipated to produce such an overview.

Data on the programme before 2005 are better organized than after that date. Overviews of

programme outputs can be found in internal evaluations of the periods 1992-1999 and 2000-2004.


This practice has not been continued after 2005 except for an internal evaluation of the mobility

programme in 2010 and a scientific mid-term review of the SPIN II priority programmes, also in 2010.

The documentation from 2005 onwards consists of a) annual reports which contain descriptions of

activities carried out and indications of programme outputs, b) work plans for the phases II and III of

SPIN, and c) publications on the programme such as ‘A shared passion for Research’ (2007), ‘10

Years SPIN: looking ahead, looking back’ (2012) and the ‘Agriculture beyond Food’ book (2014).

These reports and publications provide a lively account of the programme and its achievements but

not an accurate picture of the outputs that have been realized, nor of activities that have not been

successful.

Evidence of impact has not been systematically collected in the programme. The reporting formats do

not contain a paragraph where the project implementers are requested to report on impact or

envisaged impact. Hence, in the project reports information on this aspect is lacking. In the

publications on the programme traces of impact can be found and in the questionnaires only a few

examples were given.

We have approached a number of the programme coordinators and participants in SPIN II with the

request to provide us with one example of scientific impact and one of non-scientific impact of their

involvement in SPIN. Fortunately we received six insightful short reports and these have been

included as cases in the paragraphs on impact.

1.2 Structure of the report

The report consists of three main chapters. Chapter 2 gives a description of the scientific cooperation

programme between the Netherlands and Indonesia from 1992 until now. The text is derived from

reports and publications by KNAW.

Chapters 3-6 present the findings of the evaluation. The chapters are organized according to the key

questions of the evaluation as they have been elaborated in the Technical Proposal. Sources of

information for this chapter are documents, interviews and questionnaires.

Chapter 7 discusses some views of participants and stakeholders on the future of the scientific

cooperation between Indonesia and the Netherlands.

Chapter 8 contains some concluding remarks.

In Chapters 3-6 tables have been included with responses to some of the questions in the

questionnaire. A full overview of the survey questions and answers can be found in Annex 4.

Other annexes contain the Technical Proposal (1), a list of interviewees and resource persons (2), a

list of documents consulted (3), overviews of the SPIN II Priority Programmes (5) and SPIN III Joint

Research Projects (6), a list of the Open Science Meetings that have been organized (7), and a brief

report on research policies in Indonesia (8).


2. History of the scientific cooperation Indonesia -

Netherlands1

History of scientific collaboration

The scientific links between the Netherlands and Indonesia go back a long way, to the colonial period.

Prominent Indonesian institutions such as the Eijkman Institute, the Bandung Technical College (ITB),

the College of Law, and the College of Medicine (now the Universitas Indonesia) date from that period.

This shared history has left its mark on the collaboration between the two countries, if only because of

the miles of archives of scientific source material and the way in which Indonesian law is based on the

Dutch legal system.

From 1964 onwards opportunities for research in Indonesia have been institutionalised through the

Foundation for the Advancement of Tropical Research (WOTRO), residing at the Netherlands

Organization for Scientific Research (NWO). In the early days research in Indonesia was 50% of

WOTRO’s portfolio. From a dedicated outpost at LIPI in Jakarta researchers were felicitated in logistic

and organizational aspects of their research activities. This arrangement became superfluous in the

early 90-ties when researchers were able to have more independent interactions with their

counterparts in Indonesia.

The long tradition of collaboration between the Netherlands and Indonesia, based on the Cultural

Agreement of 7 July 1968, was reconfirmed in 1992. Two Memorandums of Understanding (MoU)

were signed. One of them was between the Dutch Minister of Education and Science and the

Indonesian Minister of Research and Technology (MoRT); this expressed the wish to extend

collaboration in the field of science, research, and technology in the mutual interest of the two

countries and to intensify it by involving research institutes, institutions of higher education, and public

and private enterprise. The other MoU, between the Dutch Minister of Education and Science and the

Indonesian Minister of Education and Culture, was aimed at improving the overall opportunities for

educational and scientific collaboration and exchanges.

In 1997, a decision was taken to change the focus of collaboration. The main objective remained the

same: “to promote long-term scientific collaboration between research groups in both countries by

entering into bilateral research programmes based on the principles of reciprocity and mutual interest”.

Within the new structure, research programmes were to be arranged that would consist of a set of

logically associated research and support activities, whereas collaboration had in the past involved

unrelated projects without much in the way of cohesion. Each of these so called Priority Programmes

would be organised as a set of coherent and complementary research projects and supporting

activities related, for example, to training and the development of infrastructure. The main objective

remained the stimulation of long-term scientific co-operation between research groups from both

countries, but this was now to be accomplished by means of bilateral research programmes rather

than individual projects. The implementation of this new structure was planned to coincide with the

launching of the Scientific Programme Indonesia – Netherlands (SPIN) in 2000.

SPIN I (2000-2005)

SPIN was thus instituted and in 2000 the first priority programmes commenced. Quite soon after this,

the links with the Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research (NWO) were strengthened,

particularly with the then Netherlands Foundation for the Advancement of Tropical Research (now

WOTRO Science for Global Development). WOTRO invested approximately the same amount of

1 Sources: KNAW [2003a]; KNAW (2004a); KNAW [2004b]; KNAW (2010); KNAW (2012).


money in scientific research in Indonesia as SPIN. They found each other in a joint research

programme in the coastal zone of East Kalimantan and later on the Agriculture beyond Food

programme.

SPIN I started with five Priority Programmes comprising a total number of 25 research projects:

Indonesia in Transition (4 projects), Islam in Indonesia (4 projects), Infectious Diseases (5 projects),

Biotechnology Research Indonesia - the Netherlands (6 projects) and Applied Mathematics (6

projects). In 2003 SPIN was expanded with a pilot Programme for Coastal Zone Research (17

projects) as well as a Priority Programme on Legal Research Co-operation (2 projects).

In 2002 the Mobility Programme was added to the SPIN programme which awarded small travel

grants to talented Indonesian and senior Dutch researchers in disciplines that offered the potential for

successful cooperation. The programme facilitated senior researchers wanting to strike up new

partnerships, jointly execute small research projects, and prepare research proposals for funding by

multilateral programmes (e.g. EU). The first mobility grants were awarded in 2002 and the last in 2010.

In this period a total of 62 grants has been awarded.

The first phase of SPIN was formally concluded on 31 December 2005. It involved some 330 Dutch

and Indonesian researchers. The budget for SPIN I was approximately € 9.8 million of which €8.6

million was reserved for the six Priority Programmes. It led to 25 doctoral degrees being awarded at

Dutch universities (PhDs) and ten at Indonesian universities (S3). Another 22 PhD students and

twelve S3 students were still finalizing their research at that time. A total of more than 200 articles had

been published in international peer-reviewed scientific periodicals. Eighteen books (monographs) had

been published and SPIN participants had contributed more than 100 chapters to a large number of

publications in book form.

SPIN II (2006 – 2011)

The first phase of SPIN revealed the merits of supporting scientific cooperation with Indonesia by

means of a select number of integrated Priority Programmes. The main advantage of Priority

Programmes was the establishment of joint research networks, which involve close collaboration

between a range of researchers from different institutions in the Netherlands and Indonesia. In SPIN II

new thematic Priority Programmes were established, both mono-disciplinary and programmes

crossing the traditional borders between the natural and life sciences on the one hand and the social

sciences and humanities on the other hand.

SPIN II funded four thematic Priority Programmes with a total of 24 research projects: Parasitic

Infections and Inflammatory Diseases (3 projects), High Quality Solanaceous Vegetables (5 projects),

Valorisation of Indonesian Renewable Resources (9 projects), and In Search of Middle Indonesia (7

projects). An overview of the Priority Programmes is enclosed in Annex 5. A brief description of each

of these programmes can be found in KNAW’s publication ’10 Years SPIN. Looking ahead, looking

back’ (2012).

In order to improve the success in selecting suitable candidates a one-year pre-PhD track for

prospective Indonesian PhD students in Priority Programmes was introduced. Indonesian supervisors

were enabled to visit their Indonesian students in the Netherlands on a regular basis.

The Mobility Programme was continued and a a new modality was introduced to stimulate young

Indonesian PhDs to develop further as researchers. This Postdoc Programme arranged research

positions for outstanding Indonesian PhDs based at Indonesian universities or research institutes.. It

encouraged talented young Indonesian PhDs to continue developing as researchers and to improve

the environment for science in Indonesia. The programme ran for a five year period from 2005-2009.

Each year an amount of Euro 300,000 was available. A total number of 36 grants has been awarded.


SPIN II had a budget of € 8.3 million of which € 3.6 million was spent on the four Priority Programmes.

€ 0.3 million was reserved for the Mobility Programme and € 1.5 million for the Postdoc Programme.

SPIN III (2012 – 2017)

Based on the experiences with the various modalities of the programme in SPIN I and SPIN II, it was

decided that in SPIN III the emphasis should be on a small number of integrated research

programmes. In SPIN III there would no longer be separate programmes for training and exchange

missions (Mobility Programme) and Indonesian Postdocs (Postdoc Programme). Instead, the

Indonesian Postdocs would become integral parts of the Priority Programmes, while the Mobility

Programme was discontinued. This approach was expected to better embed the PhD and postdoc

training in the research programmes with appropriate guidance for PhD students and Postdocs by

both Indonesian and Dutch supervisors.

After consultation with its national and Indonesian partners, KNAW decided to focus SPIN on three

topics from which mutual benefits for Indonesia and the Netherlands are to be gained:

Food, Non-Food and Water Research (FNFWR)

Infectious Diseases and Health (IDH)

Social and Economic Development (SED)

The topics offer many opportunities for innovative scientific and technological research that could be

open to multi-sectoral and multi-lateral participation. The Netherlands has sufficient scientific expertise

and capacity to play a significant role in the international development of these topics, and in this

respect can be an important strategic partner for Indonesia.

In 2009, 86 collaborative teams of Indonesian and Dutch researchers submitted a Letter of Intent for

participation in this phase of the programme. Eventually 8 proposals were selected for implementation

in SPIN III. These so called Joint Research Projects are being clustered in the three topics. An

overview of the projects can be found in Annex 6. For a short description of the projects we refer to

KNAW’s ’10 Years SPIN. Looking ahead, looking back’(2012).

An important development took place in 2010 when the Indonesian Director General of Higher

Education (DIKTI) signed an agreement with the Dutch Ministry concerning the embedding of fifty

DIKTI PhD scholarships in the SPIN programme. This can be regarded as a very substantial

contribution to the Indonesian-Dutch scientific cooperation.

The intention was to embed these positions in existing SPIN networks of collaboration. While DIKTI

only provides three years of fully funded scholarship for doctoral candidates, the Dutch hosting

universities have been willing to cover the cost for the fourth year of the research period.

A total of 19 DIKTI scholarships have been integrated in the 8 JRPs and four were added to the

Agriculture beyond Food Programme. It was agreed that another 17 could be used for eligible JRP

proposals that had been submitted but had not been selected for implementation. The PhD

scholarships represent a maximum value of €3 million. For the 17 DIKTI scholarships which are used

outside the JRPs KNAW has invested € 50,000 for the training and selection, and the proper

integration of these PhDs in research projects.

The total budget for SPIN III amounts to € 7.5 million, of which € 4.8 has been committed to the 8

JRPs.

Jointly funded research programmes

In the course of SPIN I and II KNAW and NWO jointly funded two integrated research programmes:

the East Kalimantan Programme (EKP) and the Agriculture beyond Food programme (AbF).


The East Kalimantan Programme for Coastal Zone Research Indonesia – Netherlands (EKP), was a

programme which started in 2003 with a pilot phase and which had its main phase during the period

2005 – 2009. EKP was a cooperative Priority Programme between NWO, LIPI (ICoMar) and KNAW

and in the Netherlands was co-financed and co-managed by NWO and KNAW. The programme which

was piloted in SPIN I consisted of 7 research projects in SPIN II. The aim of the East Kalimantan

Programme was to strengthen collaboration between Dutch and Indonesian research groups in the

area of Indonesian coastal studies. The research focused mainly on coastal areas in the Mahakam

delta and the Berau region. The research projects revolved around the connection between natural

processes, biological variability and human activity in coastal regions. The research aimed to

understand how socioeconomic factors influence human activities and how these activities affect the

dynamics of coastal systems.

The Agriculture beyond Food (AbF) focused on research into the development and sustainable

exploitation of bio products. The programme consisted of research, capacity building and valorisation

of research results. The programme had multidisciplinary set-up combining technological, socio-

economic, ecological and legal perspectives in the research. In 2009 three integrated research

clusters were selected:

JARAK: the commodization of an alternative biofuel crop in Indonesia (Jatropha)

Breakthroughs in biofuels: mobile technology for biodiesel production from Indonesian

resources

Sliding from greasy land? Migration flows and forest transformation caused by palm oil

expansion in Riau, Sumatra and Berau, East Kalimantan

The programme was coordinated by Wageningen University Research Center (WUR) and

administered by NWO. In 2014 a book was published on AbF and its achievements2.

The SPIN programme has contributed € 1.25 million to each these two programmes.

Table 2. Number of programmes and projects in SPIN

Phase AbF EKP JRP MP PD PP Total Budget

I 2 25 271 52 € 9.8 mln

II 3 7 37 35 42 86 € 8.3 mln

III 1 8 9 € 7.5 mln

Total 3 9 8 62 36 31 147 € 25.6 mln

1: Divided into 6 clusters 2: Consisting of 24 projects

AbF: Agriculture beyond Food EKP: East Kalimantan Programme JRP: Joint Research Programme

MP: Mobility Programme PD: Postdoc Programme PP: Priority Programme

Combined with the information found in a Joint Working Committee report produced in 2009,

one can estimate that in the period between 2003-2007 the SPIN programme took care of 20-

25% of the total Dutch funding of the scientific collaboration with Indonesia. The report

estimates that approximately 140 projects were executed each year by the Netherlands universities

and para-university institutes. KNAW and NWO financed about 40 projects each. The universities

2 Löffler, H. et al. (2014), Agriculture Beyond Food: Experiences from Indonesia, Den Haag, NWO-WOTRO,

2014.


financed the other 60 projects. Most NWO projects were in the field of Natural Sciences and

Environment, the KNAW projects in Social Sciences and Humanities, and the university projects in

Health. It was estimated that the Netherlands invested between € 8-10 million in scientific cooperation

with Indonesia per year. 50 to 60% was funded by KNAW and NWO (curiosity driven and applied

research) and 40 to 50% by Senter Novem (nowadays called RVO), EP-Nuffic (capacity building) and

the universities (‘1st money stream’).

Academy Professorship Indonesia (API)

Through their partnership in SPIN, KNAW and the Indonesian Academy of Sciences (AIPI) explored

the possibility of installing academy-funded rotating professorships at Indonesian universities, to be

held by eminent Indonesian scientists. Subsequently designated the Academy Professorship

Indonesia, this initiative was first proposed by the Royal Netherlands Institute of Southeast Asian and

Caribbean Studies (KITLV) in Jakarta in 2004 and embraced by both academies. The academies use

these special appointments to strengthen the position of the sciences and arts in Indonesia, to foster

scientific curiosity and an academic culture, and to raise awareness in society of the importance of

science to the Indonesian community. The Academy Professorship Indonesia was officially launched

in February 2007 at Gadjah Mada University in Yogyakarta, when Dr Yunita Winarto was inaugurated

as the first Academy Professor in the Social Sciences. After three years she continued her API

professorship at Universitas Indonesia.In December 2011, at Hasanuddin University of Makassar, Dr

David Handojo Muljono was inaugurated as the Academy Professor Indonesia in the Life Sciences.

In SPIN III two new API will be selected, one in the social sciences and one in the domain of food,

non-food and water research. With the new appointment each of the three thematic JRP clusters will

be strengthened with the presence and contributions of an API.

Open Science Meetings

Since 2002 seven Open Science Meetings (OSMs) have been organised which bring together

scientists from Indonesia and the Netherlands, and increasingly from many other countries, to present

their findings emanating from and discuss issues pertaining to scientific work on SPIN related themes.

The OSMs have been organised under the responsibility of the Joint Working Committee. Each one

addressed topical themes of mutual interest to the two countries. Recurring themes included synergies

between differing disciplines (notably the social and natural sciences) and between science and

society. Universities, research institutions and both academies have played an active part in

organizing the OSMs. Private sector, government agencies and NGOs were also invited to get

acquainted with the research and possibilities for valorisation and utilization of research outcomes. A

list of the seven OSMs is enclosed in Annex 7.

SEA-EU-NET

In line with the JWCs intention to link the SPIN research activities better to inter-regional research

networks and programmes, KNAW and the MoRT became partners in a consortium which submitted a

proposal for EU FP7 funding to strengthen EU-Asian science and technology cooperation. The

German led consortium was successful and the SEA-EU-NET project started in 2008 and ended in

2012. Seventeen EU and ASEAN member states participated in this programme. The project aimed to

strengthen the scientific and technological dialogue between the European Union and South-East Asia

on the basis of coordinating and supporting measures. In 2009, the consortium conducted a SWOT

analysis of the participation of Europe and South-East Asia (the Indonesia case study was conducted

by KNAW) in bilateral intergovernmental S&T programmes en European Framework Programmes,

with the aim to formulate recommendations for the strengthening of S&T collaborations. In 2013, the

SEA-EU-NET was extended until 2017.


Management

In 1995 the minister of OCW delegated full responsibility for the execution of the cooperation

programme to KNAW. Formally, this resulted in a separation of decision-making responsibilities. Thus,

the ministry is responsible for making decisions about policy. As an executive agency, KNAW is

responsible for the day-to-day management of the programme, implementation of government policy

and overall co-ordination of the bilateral scientific co-operation. In addition, KNAW advises the minister

of OCW on policymaking with regard to scientific co-operation and, when necessary, on bilateral

relations with Indonesia in a broader context.

The Indonesian Steering Committee led by the Indonesian Ministry of Education and Culture (later

changed to the Ministry of National Education) was the formal counterpart of the programme in

Indonesia until the end of Phase I. It was then decided that the Ministry of Research and Technology

should become KNAW’s formal counterpart since MoRT’s specific tasks in respect of the development

of research, science and technology programmes were considered more relevant for SPIN than the

Ministry of National Education’s more educational focus. Recently the Indonesian government has

decided to merge MoRT and the Directorate General for Higher Education (DIKTI) into a new Ministry

with the provisional name Ministry of Research, Technology and Higher Education (February 2015).

The Joint Working Committee

In 2002, MoRT and KNAW installed a Joint Working Committee for Scientific Research Co-operation

(JWC). The JWC members represent science, the universities and other educators, the research

funding agencies and agencies intent on engaging science and society through valorisation. The main

task of the JWC is to act as a strategic discussion forum for the strengthening of bilateral scientific co-

operation between the two countries. In addition, the JWC advises the governments of Indonesia and

the Netherlands on matters related to such co-operation. The Committee’s identifies common priority

areas and specific topics. It aims to concentrate scientific focus and critical mass and to foster human

and organizational capacity-building. The JWC is responsible for centrally co-ordinating bilateral

scientific co-operation in basic science as well as applied science. The members in the Netherlands

are: KNAW, NWO, the Rijksdienst voor Ondernemend Nederland (RVO), the Association of

universities in the Netherlands (VSNU) and EP-Nuffic. The members in Indonesia are: MoRT, AIPI,

LIPI, DIKTI, the Agency for the Assessment and Application of Technology and the National Research

Council. The JWC is convened irregularly.

The SPIN Programme Committee

In its first decade the programme (1992-2000) had a Steering Committee, a Programme Committee

and two Advisory Committees. Based on the recommendations of evaluation reports, it was decided

that for SPIN a single Programme Committee should be installed. The SPIN Programme Committee

includes expertise within each of the priority research fields covered by the programme. The

establishment of one committee covering all relevant scientific expertise has proven instrumental in

safeguarding the coherence of SPIN as a whole, with regard to both its organizational and its thematic

structure. The Programme Committee advises the KNAW Board on the organization of SPIN, it

prepares biennial SPIN work plans, it oversees the development of SPIN, it conducts the assessment

and selection of applications for programme grants, it advises the KNAW Board on formally appointing

science coordinators in the Netherlands for each approved Priority Programme, it monitors progress

and carries out interim and final evaluations of the implementation plans. The jointly financed EKN and

AbF programmes had their own Programme Committees.


3. Effectiveness

3.1 Long-term collaboration

Since its start in 1994, the main objective of the programme for scientific co-operation between

Indonesia and the Netherlands has been to stimulate long-term scientific co-operation between

research groups from both countries, by initiating bilateral research projects based on the principles of

reciprocity and mutual benefit, granting Netherlands’ and Indonesian researchers access to scientific

resources and research areas. A related objective was to strengthen research capacities, especially

in Indonesia.

The SPIN programme indeed is an example of a long scientific collaboration. The lifespan of the

programme is remarkable and has enabled some research groups to work together for more than 20

years. By successfully applying for grants in the successive phase of the programme these groups

have created a strong Dutch-Indonesian research network. This has happened in the research

domains of infectious diseases, biotechnology, bio-fuels, decentralisation and governance, and law.

SPIN has enabled young scholars from both countries to build a career, some from PhD candidate to

senior applicant responsible for an integrated Priority Programme. Below, three ‘histories’ of such long

term involvement and development serve as an illustration. They are based on interviews which were

conducted in Indonesia.

The present dean of the Faculty of Cultural Sciences at the Gadjah Mada University, Pujo

Semedi, received a PhD scholarship from NWO in 1996 to study fishing communities in

Indonesia. The host institution was the University of Amsterdam. Later on he received a

Postdoc scholarship to study tree plantation communities in Indonesia. This time the Radboud

University was the host institution. Since the start of SPIN he has participated in Priority

Programme ‘ In search of Middle Indonesia’ (with a study on the political aspects of the

Indonesian boy scouts movement), supervised PhD students in the AbF programme (on social

dimensions of the Jatropha cultivation – through the eyes of the farmers) and is now

participating in the project ‘ New Indonesian economic frontiers’ which focuses on the

successive development stages of Kalimantan over the last 100 years and on the social

implications for the local indigenous and immigrant societies. This project involves Indonesian

and Dutch PhD students. Since 4 years the Dutch and Indonesian partners have established an

exchange programme for Master students making use of their own funding. It is not restricted to

the partners but can also lead to placement in other European universities. UGM does the same

with partner universities in USA, Europe and Australia.

------------------

A similar history applies to Robert Manurung of the School of Life Sciences and Technology of

ITB. He received an NFP scholarship to do a PhD at the University of Twente. Soon he moved

with his supervisor to the University of Groningen. After his graduation, RUG and ITB set up a

double degree Master programme (1993-1994). At ITB he started a new Department of Bio-

engineering in 2005. He has equally strong bonds with WUR. The department collaborated in

the Jatropha programme (SPIN II) which resulted in 6 completed PhDs and also in the

Agriculture beyond Food programme which resulted in 3 PhDs.

------------------

Bachti Alisjahbana, Infectious Disease Specialist at the HIV & TBC Research Centre of the

Padjadjaram University (UNPAD) in Bandung participated from 2004-2009 in a WOTRO funded

project called PRIOR (Poverty Related Infectious Oriented Research). It made use of the


outcomes of a SPIN I project and the same researchers were involved. 4 PhDs were completed

on TBC issues. From 2007-2011 the UNPAD research group participated in the EC funded

IMPACT Programme, in which also the Dutch SPIN partners were involved, plus the University

of Antwerp and Maastricht University. The focus was on HIV. 6 PhDs were successfully

completed, among them one in the field of economy and one in psychology.

In 2012 another EC funded project started on TBC and Diabetes. A broad consortium of

partners is participating: UNPAD, Radboud University, Leiden University, Groningen University,

London, Germany, Otago University in New Zealand, McGill University in Canada and South

Africa. The project is managed by a professional organization in Germany. Under SPIN II

UNPAD received 2 Postdocs and in SPIN III UNPAD implements a project together with AMC,

University of Amsterdam.

Other telling examples of long term collaboration can easily be found in the programme, such as the

collaboration between Leiden University Medical Centre (LUMC) in the Netherlands and the

Universitas Indonesia (UI) and Universitas Hasanuddin (UNHAS) in Indonesia on infectious diseases.

Wageningen university (WUR) established strong links with the Institut Pertanian Bogor (IPB), Institut

Teknologi Bandung (ITB) and LIPI research institutes on various food and environment related topics.

In the consecutive phases of SPIN WUR has collaborated in the BIOTRAIN, BIORIN, INDOSOL and

AbF programmes. One of the tangible results has been the setting up of a biotechnology laboratory at

IPB.

The availability of funds for this collaboration through the SPIN programme has been an important

factor in achieving these long-term partnerships. The access to funds for scholarships and research

grants is an important condition for continuation of such collaborations.

The possibilities for Dutch universities to co-fund these partnerships have become more difficult over

the years. Universities in the Netherlands focus on a limited number of priority countries in their

international cooperation agenda, and faculties specialize in certain disciplines and topics. Activities

outside the scope of these two foci are difficult to justify or fund from central budgets. On the

Indonesian side, universities have limited research funds from their own, and access to funds in

Indonesia is very much restricted by bureaucratic hurdles.

The respondents in the questionnaire were also positive about the success of the programme in

achieving long-term scientific collaboration. Of the Indonesian respondents 40% answered that SPIN

has been more successful in achieving long-term collaboration than expected. 53% thought that the

success was just as expected. The Dutch respondents slightly less positive: 35% considered the

programme on this account more successful than expected, and 39% just as expected.

3.2 Mutual benefits and reciprocity

On the question whether the cooperation has led to mutual scientific benefit, 94% of the Indonesian

respondents and 85% of the Dutch responded positively. The satisfaction with the collaboration is high

on both sides. On the Dutch side 42% of the respondents was very satisfied with the collaboration and

49 % satisfied. 53% of the Indonesian were very satisfied with their collaboration and 41% satisfied.

Mutual benefits


different nature for partners on both sides.

For the Indonesians the main benefits consisted of the capacity building of research, teaching and

technical staff, getting introduced in a broader international scientific network, and strengthening of the


research facilities. Researchers have learned to do high quality research and to publish the results in

international journals. Outcomes of some research projects have led to utilization in economic and

political contexts. Data sets have been produced which can be used for further research, policy

making and application.

The Dutch partners benefited from access to talented students, PhDs granted at their home institution,

international publications, finding interesting partners in the S-E Asian region for international

collaboration projects and broadening the horizon of their own staff and students. It has given them

opportunities for finding new research data and it allowed them to send their students abroad to get

experience in a new environment. Some of the Indonesian research findings can also be applied in the

Dutch context (e.g. on flooding).

Both sides have benefited from the international publications which resulted from the projects, and in a

some cases a double degree programme resulted from the collaboration. For example, the University

of Twente – ITC has developed strong Double Degree MSc programmes with ITB and the Universitas

Gadjah Mada (UGM). With UGM a double degree programme is being implemented in Geo-

information for Spatial Planning and Disaster Risk Management. With the UNPAD in Bandung a

double degree programme on Environmental Management is conducted.

Based on its expertise and track record in Indonesia UT-ITC is now involved in the

Geothermal Capacity Building Programme - Indonesia-Netherlands (GEOCAP). The

programme is an initiative of the National Development Planning Agency of Indonesia

(BAPPENAS) and aims to increase the capacity of Indonesia’s ministries, local government

agencies, public and private companies and knowledge institutions in developing, exploring

and utilizing geothermal energy sources, and to assess and monitor its impact on the

economy and environment. It is an education, training as well as research programme. The

programme is implemented by a Consortium that takes the form of a Public-Private-

Partnership and includes universities, knowledge institutes and geothermal companies on both

sides. Jointly they cover all required knowledge and expertise to execute the programme. UT

is the Dutch coordinating partner. Apart from UT also Delft University of Technology (TU

Delft) , Utrecht University (UU) and TNO participate. UI and UGM are the participating

universities at the Indonesian side.

The programme is funded by the Netherlands Ministry of Foreign Affairs. The programme has

a duration of 3.5 years and started in 2014. The programme envisages outliving its duration as

it strives to implement a number of joint-degree MSc programmes with Dutch and Indonesian

universities after the lifetime of the programme. It offers a number of PhD opportunities in

different aspects of geothermal value chain. The programme also serves as gateway for Dutch

companies to liaise with the Indonesia geothermal sector to develop business to business

case studies and corporation. Furthermore, the alliance aims to foster south to south

cooperation through trilateral collaboration (https://www.geocap.nl/ ).

Reciprocity

While the mutual benefits for both sides are quite clear, this is less so for the principle of reciprocity. In

SPIN reciprocity is understood both as a sharing of equal levels of research expertise and of financial

commitment (i.e., both countries contributing equally to the funding of research projects). This is a

definition which seems applicable to collaboration between partner countries of the same economic

and scientific standing but not very realistic for a collaboration between a highly developed country like

the Netherlands and a middle income country which Indonesia was at the start of the programme. For

many years Indonesia did not have the research capacity nor the funds to meet this expectation.

https://www.geocap.nl/


Nowadays Indonesia has become a middle income country which devotes considerable funds to

education (20% of the government budget). Government funds for research are still low and scattered

over ministries and departments in ministries, but slowly increasing. Indonesia spends just 0.02 per

cent (US$300 million) of its GDP on R&D — far less than neighbouring Malaysia, which spends about

0.64 per cent (US$1.1 billion), and much lower than the 1 per cent that most developing countries aim

for (Shetty, 2012). The Government R&D budget is 1% of the government development budget, and

81 percent of the R&D expenditure in Indonesia was provided by the government (Brodjonegoro and

Green, 2012).

The number of international peer-reviewed publications by Indonesians has risen between 2001 and

2010 from 520 to 1,000 in 2010. In the same period the annual number of citations of Science &

Technology publications increased from 85 to 11,150 (Sakura, 2012). The highest number of

publications come from clinical medicine, the most cited publications regard molecular biology and

genetics.

Based on 2010 figures on participation in FP7 programme applications, Indonesia ranked second in

the number of applications among the ASEAN countries, with 115 proposals of which 20 were main

listed. Thailand was more productive with 151 proposals and Vietnam more successful with 33% main

listed proposals (Degelsegger, A. and Cosima Blasy, 2011).

Despite these improvements, there is near unanimity among scientists in Indonesia that the country is

not producing science or innovation at the rate it should. According to Brodjonegoro and Green [2012],

Indonesia does not have the financial infrastructure in place to support cutting-edge science and

technology. Nor does it have an infrastructure in place to allocate and disburse funds to researchers,

provide research facilities, or maintain a state budgeting system that would allow the flexibility needed

for scientific research.

The research capacity needs in Indonesia are still enormous but the research clusters which have

been collaborating in SPIN have now managed to create a research capacity which enables equal

collaboration as researchers. Fortunately, the Indonesian government is increasingly stressing the

importance of research for socio-economic development.

Also more emphasis is put on staff development and capacity building in research. Through the DG for

Higher Education (DIKTI) scholarships are available for permanent teaching staff in universities. Last

year DIKTI had 800 scholarships available of which 80% for PhD training. The Endowment Fund for

Education (LPDP) of the Ministry of Finance awarded 3,025 scholarships of which 292 were meant for

PhD training abroad and 77 in Indonesia. LPDP expects that the number of PhD scholarships will rise

as the quality of candidates improves. LPDP scholarships are available for candidates with an

Indonesian nationality. High priority areas for LPDP are: Engineering, Health and Agriculture. Second

priority: Law, Accounting, Finance, Religious Studies.

This serves to demonstrate that the principle of reciprocity is very context and time specific. The

economic situation of Indonesia in the past and recent more positive development have definitively

resulted in a situation where reciprocity in scientific and monetary terms is realistic and possible.

A clear indication of this is the initiative of DIKTI in 2012 to provide 50 PhD scholarships to be used in

the third phase of SPIN. 40 of these scholarships have been used within and outside the Joint

Research Projects. What also should be acknowledged is that the Indonesian partners have made

substantial contributions in kind to the programme in terms of staff time, the use of facilities, the

organizations of programme and project events etc.

When asked whether the principles of reciprocity and mutual benefit had been applied during the

implementation of SPIN activities, the Indonesian answers are more positive than the Dutch. 25% of

the Indonesian respondents answered that the principles had been applied more than expected, and


6% less than expected. For the Dutch respondents the rating was opposite: 6% were more positive

and 35% less positive about reciprocity and mutual benefits.

Table 3. Achieving programme objectives

Q9. To what extent has the SPIN programme succeeded in:

Dutch respondents

Answer Options Less than

expected

Just as expected

More than

expected

Response Count

Achieving long term (>5 years) scientific collaboration between Dutch and Indonesian researchers

26% 39% 35% 31

Applying the principles of reciprocity and mutual benefit during the implementation of SPIN activities

35% 58% 6% 31

Involving other stakeholders (e.g. GOs, NGOs, private sector) in the programme?

36% 46% 18% 28

answered question 31

skipped question 4



expected

Just as expected

More than

expected

Response Count


7% 53% 40% 15


6% 69% 25% 16


27% 60% 13% 15


skipped question 3

3.3 Involving other stakeholders

Many projects have involved other stakeholders in the implementation of activities. This ranged from

collaborations with Indonesian firms on vegetable seed improvements (East-West Seed), with Dutch

consultancy firms on water flows in coastal areas (Deltares), to community health services in the

research on infectious diseases (e.g. Flores). These collaborations were initiated either to be able to

get access to research data, to implement research or to make sure that outcomes of the research

would eventually be implemented.

The possibilities to engage private sector, government and NGO’s in research activities varies per

discipline and research topic. In the food and water sectors the collaboration with private sector is

more obvious than in research which studies governance and democratization issues. In the health

sector collaboration with private sector (pharmacy), clinics ( trials), and public health services is likely

to happen.

The collaboration with private sector is reported to be problematic. Enterprises are prepared to

contribute in kind to the research project but await the results before investments are made for

application/commercialization. From the perspective of the private sector, universities have difficulty in

understanding that private sector has different interests and works with different time frames. Firms

cannot wait 4-5 years until a PhD research has been completed and only then will know whether the

research is successful and the results interesting enough. Most consultancy or advisory firms work on


short term contracts and with short term perspectives. The big Dutch engineering firms like Witteveen

& Bos, HasKoning and DHV have long term ambitions and agendas for their presence in Indonesia.

These firms are a better target for linking up with scientific research as they have their own research

and development programmes. The key thing is to find complementarities between what firms are

doing and where science is interested in. Another complicating issue is that firms are not keen to

share their data with external researchers.

At programme level, the KNAW and JWC have made efforts to create an interest and solicit the

participation of other stakeholders in the programme and its activities, in the Netherlands as well as in

Indonesia. In the Netherlands they include the Ministries of Economic Affairs, Health and Foreign

Affairs, RVO and VSNU. In Indonesia ministries, government agencies and research institutes. The

efforts have not resulted in a broad commitment for the programme among these stakeholders.

The composition of the JWC reflects the intentions to involve the most important government

agencies, research bodies and capacity building agencies in the decision making of the programme.

The Open Science Meetings were not only a platform for the exchange of findings and experiences

among SPIN participants but also to present the programme to a broader audience of government

ministries, researchers and private sector. One of the purposes of the meetings was to create an

interest among private sector for the research that had been carried out and identify possibilities of

collaboration.

Through the participation in the SEA-EU-NET project the KNAW and the SPIN programme became

involved in broader efforts to facilitate interregional cooperation on Science and Technology between

Europe and South-East Asia.

3.4 Scientific output

In the SPIN programme the indicators for scientific output consist of PhD dissertations, published

articles, books and book chapters, presentations, conference proceedings, etc. The focus of the

capacity building on the Indonesian side is on staff development and the improvement of research

facilities, the building up of a research culture within the higher education systems and individual

institutions, and improvements of the research climate in Indonesia. Capacity building on the Dutch

side involves PhD tracks, broadening research experiences and opportunities in Indonesia and

establishing research networks in Indonesia and the region.

The expected impact has several dimensions. Firstly, the way SPIN activities have been able to

change research capacities and research culture in Indonesia. Secondly, the foreseen and unforeseen

effects of the programme on Dutch science, bilateral and economic relations between Indonesia and

the Netherlands. Thirdly, the effects of research outcomes when they are being utilized in society and

the economy in Indonesia but also in the Netherlands.

Table 4 gives an overview of the outputs of the various programme phases and modalities which we

have been able to trace on the basis of KNAW reports and project documents. The output figures for

the period 1994 – 1999 represent the situation as known in 1999, and for SPIN I that of the year 2004.

For SPIN II we have been able to update output data for the priority programmes in March 2015. More

information on this update can be found in paragraph 4.1.

The output figures with an asterix (*) regard outputs which at the date of reporting were not yet

finalized but work in progress. The grantees are supposed to report about the realization of these

pending outputs after the contract has been finished. However, this does not seem to be standard

practice.

The impression is that the majority of delayed PhDs was successfully completed.


Table 4. Programme outputs

1994-1999 2000 - 2005 2006 - 2011 2012-2017

Output category

Programme for

Scientific Co-

operation

between the

Netherlands

and Indonesia

(1999)

SPIN I

(2004)

SPIN II

(March 2015)

SPIN III

(2013)

PhD theses 4, 58* 21, 26* 15, 2*

MSc theses 10, 4* 7

S3 theses 21* 6, 16*

Publications/Articles 79, 49* 213 279 2

Books 1, 1* 18 2

Book chapters 35, 5* 105 5

Presentations 58, 13* 280 138 9

Conference/workshop papers 100 28 3

(Conference) proceedings 20, 6* 24

Workshops/symposia/

summer schools 86

3.5 Capacity building

Capacity building consists of three dimensions: individual, organizational and institutional capacity

building. The SPIN programme has trained many staff and students to become researchers and to do

research. On the Indonesian as well as the Dutch side. The PhD trajectories have been rigorously

executed according to Dutch scientific standards which can be quite demanding for foreign students.

Many of them nevertheless appreciate the coaching which they have received, the open

communication with the supervisor, the discipline required and the pressure from the supervisors to

write publishable articles. Since most of the trained Indonesian staff have remained employed by their

parent institution, the individual capacity built has been an asset for the institution in several ways.

Some continued doing research, others applied their knowledge in teaching, and some have been

promoted to managerial positions.

The Indonesian institutions have broadened their international scientific network, have strengthened

their staff’s capacity to write and submit research proposals for external funding, and gradually

acknowledge the importance of publications for the individual graduates but also for the standing of

the institution as a whole.

At the institutional level important developments are taking place. A National Research Agenda is

being finalized and an Indonesian Research Fund is planned for. Considerable funds are being

allocated for scholarships, research and mobility grants by the Indonesian Government. These

possibilities are offered on a competitive basis.


The universities we visited have a research agenda and provide incentives for staff to write articles, for

proposal writing and for having articles published. They are encouraged to apply for DIKTI and LPDP

scholarships and grants.

It is of course impossible to determine what the effect of SPIN has been on these organizational and

institutional dimensions of capacity building. A multitude of stakeholders, advisors and donors shape

the development of the education and research system in Indonesia. It is worth mentioning though that

there are plans to establish a new Indonesian Research Council with a similar mandate as NWO in the

Netherlands and a budget to give out block grants on a competitive basis (Oey-Gardiner & Sejahtera,

2011).

It is fair to note that the SPIN programme has not been designed nor equipped to change the

institutional environment of the research groups, nor the Indonesian higher education system, its

funding arrangements and governing principles. However, this enabling environment determines to a

great extent the success and sustainability of the SPIN projects. A broader and integrated approach is

needed to create a favourable environment for research at Indonesian universities.

The respondents in the questionnaires are positive about the achievements of the programme in terms

of scientific output and research capacity building of the staff in Indonesia. In some cases the outputs

were less than planned, in others the outcomes exceeded the plans.

The Dutch respondents are more reserved in their assessment than the Indonesian partners. In

general they rate the achievements as being in accordance with what was planned. They are most

positive about the quality of the research capacity that has been built in Indonesia. 28% indicated that

more has been achieved on this aspect than what was planned. Almost the same percentage

mentioned that the programme had broadened the research opportunities more than was anticipated.

The Dutch respondents were less positive about the quantity of the scientific output. 28% rated that

aspect as less than planned.

The Indonesian respondents are particularly pleased with the improvements in the quality of the

research capacity in Indonesia (65%) and the broadening of research opportunities (65%). They are

also positive about the quality of the output (47%), improvements in the quantity of the research

capacity in Indonesia (47%) and the support which the programme has provided to the strategic aims

of their institution (47%). Less satisfied they are with the improvements of research facilities and the

quantity of the scientific output.

The following two quotes illustrate the positive influence of the capacity building aspect.

Indonesian respondent 1:

“This research project that I supervised was really an achievement in improving the quality of the researcher(s) in our University in our Islamic University Ar-Raniry. Our researcher is now able to share her/his experience to other young researchers. We are not only contributing to our University, but also to other academic level institution namely ICAIOS (International Center for Aceh and Indonesian Studies). With that support and experience our researcher is now able to publish her works abroad, including at E.J. Brill, Routletge and Kegan Paul, and also at Amsterdam University Publisher. What an achievement !!!.”

Indonesian respondent 2:

“I have been doing research under SPIN Mobility Programme at 2008 and 2009. I went to Tilburg University and doing research with colleague at the university. We have produce some papers more than we planned. The collaboration continues until now (more than we have planned) with writing some joint papers and giving joint supervision to doctoral degree from my department (from Indonesia). We planned to do a joint research in this year (2015) with funding from DIKTI, Indonesia”.


On the question whether the programme activities had improved the quality of the research capacity in

the Netherlands, 43% of the Dutch and 24% of the Indonesian respondents indicated that this was not

applicable. These are rather high figures and make one wonder how the respondents have interpreted

this question. It may well be that mobility and postdoc grants are not regarded as contributing much to

the quality of Dutch research capacity. The comments do not shed light on this matter.

As mentioned above, the Dutch are quite positive about the increase in research opportunities which

the programme has provided and also positive about alignment of their involvement with the strategic

aims of their organization.

Table 5. Assessment of scientific output and capacity building

Q5. What has your project/activity achieved in terms of:

Dutch respondents

Answer Options Less than planned

As planned More than planned

N/A Response

Count

Quality of the scientific output

19% 59% 19% 3% 32

Quantity of the scientific output

28% 53% 16% 3% 32

Improving research capacity in Indonesia (quality)

6% 53% 28% 13% 32

Improving research capacity in Indonesia (quantity)

16% 48% 19% 16% 31

Improving research capacity in Indonesia (facilities)

7% 30% 13% 50% 30

Improving research capacity in the Netherlands (quality)

10% 43% 3% 43% 30

Broadening research opportunities

7% 52% 28% 14% 29

Supporting the strategic aims of your institution/organization

4% 60% 12% 24% 25


skipped question 3




N/A Response

Count


6% 41% 47% 6% 17


12% 59% 18% 12% 17


0% 29% 65% 6% 17


0% 47% 47% 6% 17


12% 65% 12% 12% 17


6% 41% 29% 24% 17


0% 29% 65% 6% 17



0% 47% 47% 7% 15


skipped question 2

From the interviews with Dutch participants we learned that over the years the level of the PhD

candidates has improved. This can be explained by a more rigorous selection process and the fact

that the candidates are getting younger. In the early days of the programme the mid-career staff were

suggested as candidates for a PhD research. Nowadays more chances are given to younger

members of staff.

3.6 Impact

The impact of the programme manifests itself in many forms. First of all there are the international

research networks that have been built and which expand to various countries in Europe, North

America and Australia. The expansion of the networks has also opened doors to other sources of

funding (national and international) for doing collaborative research and staff development.

Benefits for Dutch universities

Dutch universities have directly and indirectly benefited from the new talents and research terrains

which came accessible through SPIN. It has strengthened their academic profile in Indonesia and

made it easier to initiate new initiatives in research and teaching in Indonesia. No doubt SPIN has also

contributed to stimulate Indonesians to study and do research in the Netherlands.

The selection of themes for the research programmes has considerably contributed to the scientific

impact of the programme as the themes match Indonesian development priorities and fields of

expertise where Dutch scientist can make a difference. The scientific impact of the programme on

Dutch science has been evident for the Dutch scientific community throughout the programme. This

impact has previously been described in internal evaluation reports (KNAW, 2004a) and SPIN

publications (KNAW, 2012) and has been repeated in the interviews and questionnaires of this

evaluation. The scientific impact of SPIN for the Netherlands universities can be summarized as

follows:

The programmes in the social sciences and humanities (Indonesia in Transition, In Search of

Middle Indonesia, Islam in Indonesia and Legal Research co-operation) are unique: there are

no similar programmes between Indonesia and other countries. The large-scale and integrally

managed programmes are not yet part of the established research culture in these fields. SPIN

contributes significantly towards raising the international profile of Netherlands socio-cultural

research on Indonesia.

In the field of biotechnology, co-operation with Indonesia enables Netherlands scientists to profit

from opportunities to access new plant genetic resources and to perform experiments with

tropical plants in their natural environments.

In terms of the programme on infectious diseases, Indonesia provides Netherlands scientists

with the possibility of accessing and building up large clinical data sets of patients not found in

the West.

Research on coastal zones is of great scientific interest to the Netherlands, because of the large

and intricately related variety of biotic and a-biotic processes, the richness of the biological


systems, and the important social and economic aspects that typify coastal areas in Indonesia

as well as in the Netherlands.

The interrelations between many aspects of the natural and social systems are insufficiently

understood. In this respect, coastal zone research in Indonesia offers countless scientific

challenges to Netherlands research groups. The results of this research may also be important

for the development of sustainable coastal zone management in the Netherlands.

Over and above these specific benefits, the Netherlands scientific community profits from SPIN

because it provides access to an extended pool of potential PhD students who can play an

important role in contributing to the Netherlands’ knowledge economy. The significance of this

dimension of the programme lies in the shortage of graduates in our labour market, especially in

the fields of natural, life and technical sciences.

The nature and size of SPIN Priority Programmes has attracted the attention of researchers and

research groups from outside the framework of SPIN. This has led to new joint research

activities and spin-off projects.

We have tried to make the benefits for the Dutch scientific community more concrete by asking a

sample of universities about their collaboration with Indonesia and a number of researchers about the

impact and spin-offs of their participation in SPIN.

Three universities

Three universities have been asked to provide the evaluation team with an overview of their teaching

and research cooperation with Indonesia with the aim to establish the relative importance of the SPIN

programme in their overall collaboration with Indonesia. The request was submitted to WUR, RUG and

UL. This proved to be a difficult assignment for the universities. None of them keep these records at

central level. WUR does have an online searchable database with 110 hits on research activities

which have a relationship with Indonesia. However, an overview of education and research

collaboration with Indonesia could not be produced. Also RUG lacks an overview of the collaboration

with Indonesia. The Program Manager Southeast Asia at the Office of the University acts as the

‘database’. Leiden University happened to have an overview of some teaching and research activities

with Indonesia because UL is in the process of finalizing a cooperation strategy with Indonesia.

RUG has been an active partner in the SPIN programme and had several collaboration projects with

Universitas Indonesia, de Universitas Airlanga and ITB, mostly related to chemical engineering and

bio-technology. It participated in Jatropha Priority Programme and the Agriculture beyond Food

programme. RUG was not successful in the SPIN III selection round with a joint proposal with ITB on

aquaculture. RUG is now focusing on setting up PhD hubs on specific research themes with staff from

universities and research institutes in Indonesia and financed with LPDP and DIKTI scholarships.

Focal areas at the moment are aquaculture and good governance. Other disciplines in which PhD

research is conducted with Indonesia include health, pharmacology, production of expensive

medicines and medical instruments, plastic surgery, private international law, health insurance, law

and rural economic development. At the moment RUG has 30 Indonesians who study in Groningen

with an LPDP scholarship (PhD and Masters). Another 20 is being sponsored via other sources, such

as the NFP.

Leiden University is collaborating with Indonesia in six fields:

History and Heritage - Indonesian partners: UGM and Arsip Nasional Republik Indonesia

(ANRI) - with funding from KNAW, NWO, LUF, DIKTI and LPDP

Languages & Linguistic Diversity - Indonesian partners: UI, UGM, DIKTI, Universitas Udayana,

Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia, Universitas Sumatra Utara - funding from NWO Vici


Popular Culture & Islam – Indonesian partners: UGM, Ministry of Religious Affairs (KEMENAG)

– funding from NWO and KNAW

Law & Governance – Indonesian partners: UGM, DIKTI, ANRI – funding from NWO and KNAW

Health – Indonesian partner: UI – funding from KNAW and other sources

Environment & Biodiversity – Indonesian partners: LIPI, Universitas Mulawarman, IPB – funding

from LIPI, DIKTI and UL

SPIN participants

We asked a number of institutions and coordinators to try and describe the impact and spin-offs of

their participation in the SPIN programme. We have received a number of contributions which are

presented in separate boxes in this paragraph and the next. The first case lists the benefits and spin-

offs of SPIN for the UMC of the Radboud University. The second the scientific and non-scientific

impact of the ImmonuSpin project, a project implemented by LUMC and Universitas Indonesia.

In the following paragraph there are four cases. Case 3 reports on the impact of two projects

implemented by the Van Vollenhoven Institute (VVI). Impact of the INDOSOL programme is described

in case 4. In case 5 reports on the importance of two books which resulted from the projects in which

KITLV was involved. Case 6 illustrates the spin-off of an EKP project for the private sector.

Case 1. University Medical Centre of the Radboud University - submitted by André van der

Ven

Research programmes that have been funded based on the activities in SPIN:

1. PRIOR program: NWO-WOTRO funding 1.35 million euro: research and capacity building on poverty related diseases in Indonesia, Tanzania and Netherlands

2. IMPACT Programme: EC funding € 4 million: research and capacity building on HIV in West Java

3. Tandem Programme: EC funding € 6 million, of which € 750k for Bandung and €750k for Nijmegen

4. 4 Radboud University fellowships (to do research on dengue, TB and HIV): 4 x € 230.000 euro

5. Zon-MW clinical fellowship (€ 225k) en VIDI van Crevel (€ 800 k)

6. 2 WOTRO fellowships (€ 55k)

7. 2 KNAW Postdoc fellowships

8. 2 DIKTI fellowships

The spin-offs of the involvement in SPIN:

Better collaboration between Dutch Universities/institutions for instance Leiden/RIVM/Radboud collaboration TB, or Maastricht/Radboud collaboration HIV

Widening and strengthening the international perspective of the medical faculty at Radboud, opening horizons for departments such as biochemistry, clinical pharmacy, etc

Creation excellent oversea electives for Radboud students, where they are exposed to high standard research in low-income settings

Contribution to upgrading national guidelines for TB treatment In Indonesia

Development national guidelines for HIV care in prisons in Indonesia

Recognition from the Indonesian president by rewarding Indonesian Millennium Development Goal Award

Creation of team of Indonesian experts in Bandung on HIV and TB who are represented in national advisory boards (national AIDS committee, national TB programme.)


Increased research capacity (e.g. microbiological, immunological and pharmacokinetic lab capacity; electronic data capture)

Creation of a unique educational programme in Indonesia for instance on addiction care

Increased international academic collaboration (also of Indonesian partners with other overseas universities, especially Mc Gill Canada and Otago University of New Zealand)

7 completed International PhDs for Indonesian researchers in TB; 6 in HIV, 5 on Dengue, 3 on Salmonella, and many ongoing PhD

>80 international publications, some in high impact journals (Lancet Inf Dis, Nature Genetics, etc.)

Case 2. LUMC and Universitas Indonesia – submitted by Maria Yazdanbakhsh and

Taniawati Supali

The ImmunoSPIN project was based on investigating helminth infections and malaria as

communicable diseases and allergies as a non-communicable disease in rural areas of

Indonesia where researchers interacted with health care workers and policy makers.

Scientific impact in terms of applied research:

1-Through ImmunoSPIN, it has become clear that eradication of helminth infections in the

rural areas of Indonesia in a mono-disciplinary manner will be impossible. It was found that

intensive treatment of communities with anti-helminthic drugs does not have sufficient impact

as a result of heavy reinfection and will require decontamination of the environment. This will

need proper national policy change regarding the helminth elimination programme.

2 -The ImmunoSPIN project was the first of its kind to use sensitive diagnostic tools in

epidemiological studies where control of malaria and helminths are to be achieved. The

relatively high tech methods have been considered as not suitable for use in developing

countries. The ImmunoSPIN project has shown that it is possible to use such methods when

central laboratories with trained personnel are present and can act as reference centre to

guide control programmes.

Scientific impact in terms of fundamental research:

3 - ImmunoSPIN has provided unique dataset on the status of the immune system of

individuals living in rural areas of Indonesia. It has indicated that there are strong regulatory

immune mechanisms in place not only in adults but also in children where responses to co

infections and vaccines might be compromised.

4-The outcomes of the deworming that was conducted in rural areas of Indonesia through

the ImmunoSPIN, indicated that although carrying worms in children and adults has impact

on malaria and allergies, it is likely to have more impact when exposure to helminths is

prevented in early life.

Non Scientific impact of ImmunoSPIN:

5 - Capacity building - Through the ImmunoSPIN project, students from University of

Indonesia in Jakarta and Hasanuddin University in Makassar have received training in

medical and biomedical research skills. Through the PhD programme, 3 PhD students from

Indonesia have obtained their PhDs (two already in 2014 and one in expected in Sept 2015).

These highly qualified medical doctors with biomedical skills are applying successfully for

international (Gates Foundation, Wellcome Trust) and national grants to conduct research in

Indonesia.


6 - Student and teacher exchange programme - due to the close collaboration fostered due

to ImmunoSPIN between Leiden University Medical Center and two Universities in

Indonesia, agreements have been signed and undergraduate students have attended

courses in the international curriculum of medicine in LUMC. The reciprocation of this will

strengthen the international dimension of our Dutch (bio)medical programme, which we hope

will empower our students to excel at international environments.

7 - Community health - The presence of a strong medical team working for ImmunoSPIN

project in the rural study area in Nangapanda on Flores Island has had a number of

consequences of importance to the community health. A) the local puskesmas nurses and

doctors were aligned with the project medical team and as a result obtained training in a

number of diagnostic skills of diseases such as malaria, cardiovascular health and diabetes.

B) the regional heads of the puskesmas have had annual meetings in Ende with the

ImmunoSPIN medical team where increase in non-communicable diseases as an upcoming

problem in increasingly urbanizing regions was discussed in order to prepare the regional

teams for the double burden of disease expected to challenge the health system still

struggling to get infectious diseases under control. C) Health education programmes to stop

smoking was initiated and maintained by the ImmunoSPIN medical and para medical team

with the outcome of a significant drop in smoking habits in Nangapanda.

3.7 Non-academic impact

The impact of SPIN on social and economic development in Indonesia is difficult to assess. Impact is

a long-term effect which usually manifest itself long after a project has been closed. In most cases it

remains outside the perception of project implementers. In longer term collaborations such as in SPIN

the chances for observing impact are much greater. However, SPIN projects are asked to report on

scientific outputs which are being achieved, not whether any form of impact has been observed.

Hence, impact is reported in a very incidental manner. Traces of impact can be found in reports and

KNAW publications. Long-term participants in the programme can quote a few examples.

Non-academic impacts most likely have been achieved in many SPIN projects. This is due to the fact

that SPIN has focused on research that is highly relevant in the Indonesian context and aimed at

delivering applicable outcomes. Research projects have involved private sector companies,

government agencies and NGOs in their activities. Some have organized workshops to train local staff

in new methods or to share new insights. The BIOTRAIN and BIOBREES projects in SPIN I for

example organized complementary training and breeding projects on crops. Policy briefs have been

prepared to inform decision makers.

Concrete examples of impact are reported from the health programmes. A simple but striking

examples comes from Bandung where the HIV project managed to convince the management of the

local prison to distribute clean needles among the addicted prisoners which contained the spreading of

the infection.

The research on planning, land registration and community forestry has been used to influence policy

through the engagement of Indonesian researchers in policy-development, either directly or through

their NGO-activities. Some researchers came to occupy important positions in policy-making, like in

the National Human Rights Commission, special advisor on constitutional matters to the President,

etc. SPIN has furthered researchers' careers in governance positions, as well as in making them more

capable to assess and develop policies - and set up new research. Indirectly this has 'strengthened

democracy' in Indonesia.


Case 3. The Van Vollenhoven Institute, Leiden University – submitted by Adriaan Bedner

The INSELA-project, which ran from 1998 until 2003, has had significant impact on

environmental law making in Indonesia after the project was completed. For the final

workshop of the project all of the researchers drafted research and policy notes specifically

aimed at the revision of the 1997 Environmental Management Act (EMA). These notes were

discussed with a number of stakeholders and subsequently further improved. During all

stages of the drafting of the new EMA the Indonesian researchers from the project were

involved in the discussions, both within the Ministry and with Parliament. The large majority

of suggestions for legal change were indeed incorporated into the 2009 EMA.

The personal basis for the involvement in the drafting process had been established at an

early stage of the INSELA-project, when we organised a two-week training course for

government officials, NGO-activists and academics, sponsored by the Dutch Ministry of

VROM. This provided us with excellent access to the Indonesian Ministry of the Environment

throughout the project and after. This training course would not have been possible without

the opportunities offered by the INSELA-project.

The practical spin-off of the INDIRA-project (2003-2008) was less direct, but also significant.

It materialised in the first place by the involvement of the Indonesian researchers in the

drafting of the National Strategy on Access to Justice STRANAS) in 2011. Land issues

feature prominently in this strategy, and many ideas regarding community forestry and

spatial planning can be brought back to work done within the INDIRA project. The

Indonesian researchers are moreover partly active in NGOs (HuMa and Epistema) and

continue to push for change in land law issues in that capacity. They have published many

policy notes based on their PhD-research, which have been circulated widely in activist

circles and have helped to shape the land management agenda.

Case 4. Impact and spin-off from INDOSOL – submitted by Richard Visser

The main scientific result has been the identification and characterisation of a resistance

gene against whitefly in tomato. This was the first time a gene with such a large effect was

found. The research was a combination of extensive phenotyping, next generation

genotyping and high throughput metabolomics. The gene originated from a crossable, close

relative of tomato: S. galapagense. After identification of the gene, its location on

Chromosome 2 of tomato could be precisely determined and its mode of action was

determined. The companies involved in this SPIN program use this information in their

breeding programs and soon the first whitefly resistant tomato varieties are to be expected.

This scientific result leads to non-scientific consequences such as reduced spraying and

more yield of good quality tomatoes. This SPIN program made it also possible to extend our

network in Indonesia, a network based on long lasting research cooperation. In this

cooperation four different masterclasses were organised also aiming at participants not

directly involved in the SPIN projects.

Case 5. The KITLV, University of Leiden – submitted by Henk Schulte Nordholt

Especially within Indonesia two SPIN books were considered as ground breaking

publications which helped to establish new academic concepts and approaches after the

demise of the Suharto regime. Henk Schulte Nordholt & G. van Klinken eds (2007),

Renegotiating Boundaries. Local politics in post-Suharto Indonesia, had and still has a great


impact on activists and students in Indonesia as it helped to frame new perspectives on

socio-political consequences of decentralization and in particular the informal effects it had

on regional societies. Internationally Renegotiating Boundaries is widely acclaimed as the

key standard work on decentralization in Indonesia since 1999.

Bambang Purwanto, Ratna Saptari & Henk Schulte Nordholt (eds) (2008), Perspektif Baru

Penulisan Sejarah Indonesia, (New perspectives on Indonesian Historiography), contains a

series of innovative articles which open new perspectives on Indonesian historiography and

stimulate alternative and plural approaches to the past after the demise of authoritarian rule.

Till today it is standard reading at the leading history department of Universitas Gadjah Mada

in Yogyakarta.

Case 6. Spin – off in the water sector – submitted by Ton Hoitink

The impacts of Indonesian-Dutch research cooperation on Dutch consultancy in the water

sector can be exemplified by spin-off from the project ‘Discharge regimes, morphometry and

tides in the Mahakam delta channel network’, funded by NWO and KNAW. In this PhD

project, an extensive data set was collected and analysed, and a model has been setup to

simulate river discharge and tidal hydrodynamics in the delta. During the project, a public-

private partnership was established including Total Global Paris, Deltares and Wageningen

University, in which the knowledge gained during the PhD research was used in a

consultancy project by Deltares, commissioned by Total Global Paris. This project was

mainly focussed on sediment transport and morphodynamic developments in the delta, to

evaluate the risk of pipelines becoming uncovered. After this project, the data availability

allowed Deltares to use the Mahakam Delta as a showcase for new consultancy software. D-

Flow Flexible Mesh (D-Flow FM) is a new software engine developed for hydrodynamical

simulations on unstructured grids in one, two or three dimensions. The D-Flow Flexible Mesh

website shows the Mahakam Delta unstructured mesh as an example

http://oss.deltares.nl/web/delft3d/d-flow-flexible-mesh .

Respondents’ opinions on impact issues

The respondents were asked to indicate to what extent the SPIN programme has succeeded in

achieving impact on a number of scientific, social and economic indicators. The assessment of the

respondents on most of these indicators is fairly neutral, i.e. the impact which has been achieved is

what they had expected. On a small number of indicators they seem to be more outspoken, because

more had been achieved than expected, or less.

The Dutch respondents are most positive about the new collaborative research that has resulted from

programme activities. For 40% of them this was beyond expectation. The same percentage appeared

disappointed in the collaboration with the private sector. Less collaboration had taken place than

expected.

Overall the Indonesian respondents tend to be more negative about the programme’s success in

achieving impact. They are positive on the new collaborative research that has been initiated and the

new research partnerships that have been established. Their expectations have clearly not been met

with regard to the registration of patents and the collaboration with private sector. Also less positive

they seem to be on the accreditation of research laboratories and the income from contract research.

http://oss.deltares.nl/web/delft3d/d-flow-flexible-mesh


Table 6. Perceived impact of SPIN

Q11. To what extent has the SPIN programme succeeded in achieving impact?

Dutch respondents


expected

Just as expected

More than

expected

Response Count

New collaborative research has been initiated (follow-up to SPIN activity)

28% 32% 40% 25

New research partnerships have been established (follow-up to SPIN activity)

26% 48% 26% 23

Patents have been registered 25% 75% 12

Collaboration with private sector is taking place 40% 60% 15

Research results have had positive effects on economic productivity or competitiveness

25% 75% 12

Research results have had positive effects on social welfare of citizens in Indonesia

15% 69% 15% 13

Research results have had positive effects on the political climate or levels of democracy in Indonesia

17% 75% 8% 12

Research results have had positive effects on environmental protection in Indonesia

25% 75% 12

Results of research are being utilized in science 11% 72% 17% 18

Strengthening of research policy in Indonesia 10% 85% 5% 20

Structural increase of research budget in Indonesia 18% 82% 11

Increase in research staff 25% 58% 17% 12

SPIN established research facilities are being used for new research

9% 82% 9% 11

Research laboratories have been accredited 10% 90% 0% 10

Income from contract research 21% 64% 14% 14

Actively used research websites 9% 82% 9% 11


skipped question 9



expected

Just as expected

More than

expected

Response Count


0% 64% 36% 14


7% 57% 36% 14

Patents have been registered 80% 10% 10% 10

Collaboration with private sector is taking place 70% 20% 10% 10


20% 60% 20% 10


30% 60% 10% 10


44% 44% 11% 9


44% 56% 0% 9




Structural increase of research budget in Indonesia 27% 64% 9% 11



23% 54% 23% 13

Research laboratories have been accredited 50% 50% 0% 12




skipped question 4

The Dutch and Indonesian respondents are moderately positive about the impact of the programme’s

activities on economic productivity and competitiveness, social welfare, the political climate and

environmental protection in Indonesia as can be seen from the scores in the table above. The Dutch

are more positive about impact on social welfare and the political climate and less about economic or

environmental impact. The Indonesians are markedly less positive about the impact on the political

climate and environmental protection.

3.8 Influencing factors

The long-term perspective of SPIN has been an important positive factor in the successful

implementation of the programme and in achieving its objectives. It provides the universities the time

and the means to get to know each other well, to build trust, to discover where the mutual interests are

and think and plan long term.

A second factor is the cordial relationship between both sides. When they start cooperating they may

be on a different footing with regard to scientific quality and international expertise but there is a solid

basis of mutual respect and commitment to make the cooperation a success.

A third factor regards the relevance of the thematic fields of cooperation and application oriented

topics of research in the projects. The thematic fields reflect on the one hand needs and priorities of

Indonesia and on the other hand research interests of Dutch researchers.

A fourth, the multidisciplinary approach adopted in the programmes of SPIN. Although not welcomed

by all researchers, this approach has enriched the research undertaken and has made the results

more relevant and the chances for implementation of its outcomes more likely.

A fifth, the embedding of PhD’s in collaborative research projects with supervision from both sides and

the more rigorous selection process that has been developed in Phases II and III especially in the

Priority and Joint Research Programmes. Through the introduction of research workshops (the

example of Priority Programme Applied Mathematics (EPAM) in SPIN I and summer courses (the

example of INDOSOL, SPIN II) better candidates could be selected from a broader group of interested

and talented candidates. One-year pre-PhD tracks have been included for prospective Indonesian

PhD students in the SPIN PPs and JRPs to be able to better prepare candidates for the research.

A last factor which needs to be mentioned is the flexible way in which the programme has been

managed by KNAW. It was not difficult for the partners to change some of their planned activities and

results if they could provide the proper arguments to justify the changes.


3.9 The selection process

The SPIN Programme Committee has selected the proposals for the various modalities on the basis of

assessments by independent referees and her own judgement. Major criteria where scientific quality,

integration of scientific development and capacity building, and commitment from the partner

institutions.

Indonesia is not represented in the Programme Committee when selections of projects are made. This

is different from the joint funded EKN and AbF programmes which had their own Programme

Committees with representatives from Indonesia and the Netherlands. In a programme which aims to

achieve mutual benefits and reciprocity, it is remarkable that the selection of the projects is done by a

completely Dutch committee. Some critical comments about this set-up were brought up during the

interviews in Indonesia and the Netherlands.

From interviews with a committee member and project coordinators the evaluators got the impression

that the committee selected from the best scoring proposals those that were expected to contribute

best to the achievement of the programme’s objectives. It appears that the committee tried to balance

between continuation of strong partnerships and opening up the programme to newcomers.

This approach has pro’s and con’s. Continuation of partnerships allows for consolidation and

deepening of research collaboration and sustainable capacity building. Opening up to new players

may result in broadening research fields, new research topics and an expansion of networks. But with

the risk that a fresh collaboration may face the usual problems in starting up a joint project.

This is a dilemma in cooperation programmes which aim to establish partnerships. The provision of

long term financing affects the flexibility in the programme from the moment the partners have been

chosen. Restricting the funding to a limited period with no option of continuation, gives partners not

enough time to sustain the capacity that needs to be built, nor the partnership.


4. Efficiency

4.1 Costs and outputs

As reported in Paragraph 3.1 the programme has been able to realize many outputs in terms of PhDs

and publications. However, exact figures on the outputs are difficult to give. Quite a number of planned

and unplanned outputs are still to be finalized after projects have been formally closed. PhDs take on

average much longer than the planned 4-5 years. Articles and books may take longer to be accepted

for publication. Because project implementers in many cases do not inform KNAW about the

finalization of this ‘work in progress’, there are no reliable records on the total number of completed

PhDs and publications.

In order to get a more realistic idea on the achieved output of SPIN projects the evaluation team

performed a check on the Priority Programmes in SPIN II. The final reporting date for these

programmes was December 2012. The coordinators of these four programmes have been asked to

update the reported outputs in the final report to the present status in March 2015. The result is

summarized in Table 7.

The table compares the outputs of the four Priority Programmes in SPIN II as planned in the original

proposal (Pp), as reported in the final report (Fr - December 2012), and realized after the closure of

the project (status 1 March 2015).

Table 7. Planned and realized outputs of the Priority Programmes in SPIN II

Priority

Programmes

05-PP-03 05-PP-18 05-PP-21 05-PP-35

Planning and

reporting

Pp Fr 20

15

Total Pp Fr 20

15

Total Pp Fr 20

15

Total Pp Fr 20

15

Total

SPIN PhD 5 2 2 4 6 2 3 5 5 1 2 3 3 0 3 3

PhD other

source

1 1 2 ?

Postdocs 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 ? 2

Postdocs

other source

2 2 2

Publications 68 8 76 16 6 22 9 4 13 ? 1

8

18

Books 2 2

Pr = Programme proposal Fr = Final report 2015 = status March 2015

05 – PP – 03 In Search of Middle Indonesia

05 – PP - 18 Valorisation of Indonesian renewable resources and particularly Jatropha curcas using

the BIO-REFINERY concept

05 – PP – 21 High Quality Solanaceous Vegetables by Exploration of Natural Biodiversity

(INDOSOL)

05 – PP – 35 Parasitic Infections and Inflammatory Diseases: The web of immune responses, host

genetics and environmental exposure


In the four Priority Programmes a total number of 19 PhD and 6 Postdocs with SPIN funding had been

planned. Of the 19 PhD candidates five had defended their thesis before the closure of the

programme. The Postdocs had completed their research – not necessarily the publications. Two and a

half years later 10 other PhD candidates have successfully finished their PhD and two are about to

complete. In two cases the PhD studies were terminated without success.

At the end of the programme in 2012, 93 published articles and theses had been listed in the final

reports. In March 2015 an additional 36 published articles and thesis could be added as well as two

books. This brings the total score to 131 publications. As can be seen from the table there are

variations in productivity between the programmes. The programme ‘In Search of Middle Indonesia’

has been very productive. Most of these publications have been the work of the Postdocs in the

programme.

These scores are commendable.

The SPIN costs of the four Priority Programmes was finalized at almost € 3.6 million. 75% of this

amount has been devoted to scholarships, Postdocs and research costs. On average, the costs for

the 16 Indonesian PhD scholarships came approximately to € 52,000 per candidate and for the 3

Dutch scholarships to € 172,0003. These amounts are excluding the costs for research, fieldwork and

travel. If these costs are added to the scholarship, an Indonesian PhD scholarship in the SPIN II

programme amounted to approximately € 62,000 on average. This compares well with a PhD

scholarship in the NFP4 which has a value of € 83,000.

SPIN III consists of 8 Joint Research programmes with a combined budget of € 4.7 million. The

projects have included 6 SPIN PhDs, 9 Postdocs, 5 AiO’s as well as 23 DIKTI PhDs. These DIKTI

scholarships are additional to the SPIN budge (see Annex 6 for an overview of the JRPs)

In its work plan for SPIN III KNAW (2010) has included a detailed list of planned outputs of the

programme which reads as follows:

- 18 PhD theses and promotions

- 300 Refereed papers in international scientific journals

- 250 Conference Proceedings

- 10 Monographs

- 20 Chapters in scientific editions

This work plan was written before the agreement about the DIKTI scholarships had been reached.

With the 40 DIKTI scholarships added to the programme (17 are being implemented outside the 8

JRPs), the number of planned theses and promotions for SPIN III can be increased to a maximum of

48. With the addition of the DIKTI scholarships the other targets seem to be more realistic than they

were in 2010.

Compared to other Dutch funded programmes which support capacity building and research in

Indonesia, SPIN has a modest budget.

In the period 2006-2014 the NFP programmes granted 45 PhD scholarships and 101 Master Degree

scholarships to mid-career professionals in Indonesia for studies in the Netherlands. These

scholarships represent an approximate combined value of € 7.2 million.

3 Data derived from the accountancy reports submitted with the final scientific reports of the four SPIN II Priority Programmes.

4 Netherlands Fellowship Programmes (NFP) – funded by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and administered by EP-Nuffic


During SPIN II the NPT programme5 funded 13 capacity building projects with Indonesian universities

and polytechnics with a total budget of €23.4 million. The present NICHE programme6 sponsors 8

cooperation programmes with a total budget of € 11.3 million7. However, it should be noted that the

financing of the NFP and NPT/NICHE programmes is different from SPIN. In NFP, NPT and NICHE

the Dutch partners are to a large extent compensated for their time inputs. This explains the much

higher NPT and NICHE project budgets compared to those in the SPIN programme.

Since 2003, WOTRO financed 113 projects in Indonesia for a total amount of € 30 million. This

includes two contributions from KNAW for the AbF and EKP programmes (two times € 1,25 million).

The peak years of grants provided to projects in Indonesia are 2004 (54) and 2005 (26). From 2006

onwards 25 projects have received funding. The average grants amounted to € 243,000. At the

moment 11 projects in Indonesia are still in progress with an approximate joint budget of € 5.5 million8.

Because of the in kind contribution from the SPIN partners, the programme definitively provides value

for money. This is also the opinion of the respondents in the questionnaire. The Indonesian

respondents are more positive about the cost benefit ratio of the project and the programme than the

Dutch respondents. One third of them rates the efficiency of projects and programme more efficient

than expected. The Dutch respondents are in general more positive about the efficiency of the

programme than of the projects.

Table 8. Cost benefit ration of the programme and projects

Q13. What is your opinion about the cost benefit ratio of the:

Dutch respondents


expected

As expected

More than

expected

Response Count

Project achievements (inputs vs output) 29% 35% 26% 28

Achievements of the SPIN programme 13% 48% 10% 22


skipped question 7



expected

As expected

More than

expected

Response Count




skipped question 6

5 NPT: The Netherlands Programme for the Institutional Strengthening of Post-secondary Education and Training Capacity,

funded by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and administered by EP-Nuffic.

6 NICHE: the Netherlands Initiative for Capacity development in Higher Education – funded by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs

and administered by EP-Nuffic.

7 Data on NFP, NPT and NICHE provided by EP-Nuffic.

8 Data provided by NWO-WOTRO.


As stated in the a previous paragraph, the effects of the programme on social and economic

development in Indonesia are hard to uncover and quantify. Hence one can only speculate about the

efficiency of the programme in realizing these effects.

4.2 Coherence between the various SPIN programmes

The Priority, Mobility and Postdoc Programmes - on paper - form a complementary set of programme

modalities. They serve distinct but complementary objectives as described in Chapter 2.

It was reported in the questionnaires and during the interviews that Mobility Grants have been

successfully used to initiate research collaborations and that Postdocs Grants have led to new

research projects and joint teaching activities. Whether this was the case for most or all of these

grants could not be established.

Postdocs

The Postdocs provided many young Indonesian researchers the chance to do research after their

graduation and to continue their research career. Without these opportunities they would most

probably have returned to or continued with their teaching duties. In effect is has been a successful

instrument to sustain the research capacity and stimulate the research culture in Indonesian

institutions. The box below reports about one of these Postdocs and is based on an interview with the

grantee.

Sulistyowati Irianto, Legal Anthropologist and Head of the Graduate School of

Multidisciplinary Studies at Universitas Indonesia Her Postdoc research focused on the

position of women in inheritance law. The host institution in the Netherlands was the Van

Vollenhoven Institute. She planned to write an article about Islamic inheritance rights but the

research broadened to include civil and adat law on this issue and eventually the article

became a book. The research took her three years with field research in different places in

Indonesia. A very interesting and surprising outcome of the research is that in many cases

Islamic courts rule in favour of the woman which is not common in the other law systems.

The findings are of interest to the Indonesian ministries of Law, Human Rights, Religious

Affairs and NGOs. She has continued to collaborate with the Van Vollenhoven Institute in the

organization of specialized law courses in Indonesia. These courses are conducted by the

VVI in collaboration with UI and other Indonesian institutes. Each course consists of 3 two-

weeks teaching blocks over a period of two years. The courses are funded by the Dutch

Government.

The answers to the questionnaires provides an interesting difference between the opinions of the

Dutch and Indonesian respondents. The Indonesians are much more positive on the coherence

between the SPIN sub-programmes than the Dutch respondents.


Table 9. Coherence between SPIN sub-programmes

Q16. To what extent has coherence between the various SPIN sub-programmes been achieved?

Dutch respondents

Answer Options Definitely

not Sort of

Definitely yes

Response Count

The SPIN sub-programmes are complementary in terms of objectives

18% 73% 9% 22

Combining opportunities of the SPIN sub-programmes adds value to the overall objectives of the programme

14% 68% 18% 22

SPIN sub-programmes are being combined by implementers

25% 70% 5% 20


skipped question 12



not Sort of

Definitely yes

Response Count


20% 20% 60% 10


18% 27% 55% 11


20% 30% 50% 10


skipped question 8

Mobility Grants

In 2010 KNAW conducted an internal evaluation of the mobility programme. A questionnaire was sent

to 61 applicants of whom 36 responded. The respondents not only reported on scientific outputs (96

publications and 60 presentations) but also on spin-offs. Apparently the participants had succeeded in

obtaining 71 follow-up grants in the Netherlands and Indonesia. The brief evaluation report does not

specify the nature of these grants. Also international research networks had been initiated. During the

period in which the mobility grants were provide (2002 – 2010) the number of applicants decreased

from more 22 in 2004 to 6 in 2010. The report concludes that based on the scientific output and the

modest funds involved, the modality could be qualified as successful.

After SPIN II it was decided not to continue with the Mobility Grants and to integrate the Postdocs in

the Joint Research Programmes. Some participants in the programme regret this decision. The

Mobility and Postdoc Grants created flexibility in the programme and offered interesting opportunities

for exploration of new partners and networks and research topics. The annual calls for proposals also

added to the flexibility.

Open Science Meetings

Seven Open Science Meetings have been organized since 2002. Six of them took place in Indonesia.

The meetings have addressed topical themes of mutual interest to the two countries and recurring

themes. The latter include synergies between differing disciplines (notably the social and natural

sciences) and between science and society. Such synergies have led to interesting research

partnerships in the social and natural sciences, for example in the East Kalimantan Programme and

the Agriculture beyond Food Programme.


The meetings have been a showcase of the programme and have attracted many high level

Indonesian government officials. Attempts have been made to get the interest of the private sector for

the research that is being undertaken and to meet the researchers and institutions. For young

researchers it has provided an excellent occasion to expand their scientific network.

The opinion of the coordinators and supervisors on the OSMs is mixed. Some find them useful

because of the networking opportunities, others are critical about the apparent lack of focus in the

programme (especially the first OSMs), the dominance of the social sciences and humanities, the time

it costs to travel to and participate in the event, and the costs of the meetings.

Academic Professorship Indonesia

The installation of the API professorships is being regarded as a great development by AIPI and

KNAW. The idea has been stimulated by AIPI (Indonesian Academy of Sciences) and has being

funded by SPIN since SPIN II. The API is meant to stimulate lateral scientific mobility between

universities by professors of outstanding quality. The position for API is for five years, and is awarded

on merit through a nomination and selection process which involves international referees. The API

amounts to Euro 30,000 per year (salary, research funds, 1 research assistant at the home institution

(to compensate the loss of the awardee) and 1 assistant at the host institution). This year nomination

process for two new positions will start (social sciences and natural sciences).

In 2006 Prof. Yunita Winarto from Universitas Indonesia (anthropology) was the first to receive this

honorable position at Universitas Gadjah Mada (UGM) Yogyakarta. She encountered some problems

of acceptance at UGM. After three years it was decided that she could continue her position at UI. The

second awardee was Prof. David Mulyono from the Eijkman Institute (medicine) who was linked to

Universitas Hasannudin (UNHAS) Makassar. Apparently with great success.

In SPIN III there will be three API’s and they will be linked to the three focal research themes of the

SPIN programme. As such they are expected to boost the quality of research in the three clusters.

4.3 Contributions from the parties involved

Contributions from governments

The funding provided by the Ministry of OCW since the start of the programme has been the most

visible financial contribution to SPIN. The matching by the Indonesian government has been modest

until 2012 when the DIKTI scholarships were made available. One of the reasons is that Indonesia

does not have a specific research budget earmarked for co-operative research projects with the

Netherlands, and thus for matching SPIN resources. The other that after the start of the programme in

1994, the economic and the research funding situation in Indonesia deteriorated. MoRT only had a

small budget for organising a maximum of four joint Indonesian-Netherlands workshops per year in

Indonesia, or for supporting Netherlands researchers’ visits to the country. Approximately € 2,500 was

available per event per annum (KNAW, 2004).

Since the last 10 years Indonesia is realizing positive economic growth figures. The government has

acknowledged the importance of research and research capacity for economic development and is

investing in the quality improvement of higher education and research institutes through the provision

of scholarships for overseas studies and research grants. The DIKTI scholarships form part of this

scheme and aims at the capacity development of permanent university staff. The LPDP scheme has

similar objectives but is open to all qualifying talent with an Indonesian nationality. AIPI is working on

the establishment of an Indonesian Research Fund which could provide block grants for joint multi-

annual research projects.


These developments increase the possibilities for joint research programmes which are not only

scientifically but also financially reciprocal.

Contributions from SPIN partners

The contributions with Dutch and Indonesian partners and others contribute to the SPIN projects

varies. The partners have to indicate what these contributions might be in their project proposals.

In the proposals of the four SPIN II Priority Programmes the reported amounts of ‘other contributions’

vary between 31% and 59% of the total amount of the grant, which an average of 38% (33% Dutch

institutions, 2% Indonesian institutions, and 3% other sources). In the SPIN III proposals the other

contributions have considerably increased. On average the ‘other contribution’ are valued at 69% of

the total SPIN grant (51% Dutch institutions, 5% Indonesian institutions, 13% other sources).

The cost contributions consist a.o. of staff time for supervision, research funds and research materials.

It is a topic for discussion whether staff time for supervision of PhD students can be regarded as a

contrition by the Dutch institute. When successfully completed, Dutch host universities receive a ‘PhD

bonus’. One would expect that this amount is regarded as compensation for the time that a supervisor

invests in the supervision of his/her candidate. However, views on this issue differ and therefore the

percentages of own contributions given above should be regarded with caution.

Keeping records of real time inputs and real costs are not the most loved aspects of project

implementation. It came as no surprise that many respondents in the questionnaire survey skipped the

question on these financial issues and contributions. Halve of the Dutch respondents and 15 of the

Indonesian respondents did so.

According to the data provided by the respondents the Dutch participating organizations seem to have

increasingly invested more of their own funds in the consecutive phases of the programme. Own

contributions increased from 23% in the 90s to 68% in SPIN III. This finding may be interpreted in

several ways. Maybe it reflects a perception that in the past the programme offered better conditions,

maybe record keeping has been improved, or maybe it is a sign that the partners value the

programme and the opportunities it offers and are prepared to increase their own contribution.

Table 10. Contributions from partners

Q14. What has your organization/institute contributed to SPIN in funds or in kind, compared to the grant(s) received from the SPIN programme? Please indicate the own contribution in proportion to the grant(s) received (as a % - e.g. own contribution was x % or y % of the amount of the grant).

Dutch respondents

Answer Options Response Average

Response Count

% own contribution compared to grant(s) 1994-2000 23% 8

% own contribution compared to grant(s) Phase I 25% 13

% own contribution compared to grant(s) Phase II 52% 13

% own contribution compared to grant(s) Phase III 68% 11


skipped question 17



Response Count






answered question 4

skipped question 15

The interviewees confirmed that they had invested considerable time in the projects and in the

supervision of students, also in their spare time, and in most cases it amounted to much more than

was anticipated.

Apart from the DIKTI scholarships the Indonesian contributions to the programme activities have been

mainly in kind, notably staff time of the people involved in the projects and activities and the use that

could be made of facilities in Indonesia.

4.4 The role of KNAW to maintain good relations

The role which KNAW has played as administrator of the SPIN programme is highly appreciated in the

Netherlands and in Indonesia. KNAW has managed to establish and maintain good relations with

many stakeholders who are instrumental in the successful implementation and management of a

bilateral scientific cooperation programme.

The relation with the Ministry of OCW has been functional, but constructive. OCW has not interfered in

the programme since it had delegated the management of the programme to KNAW. KNAW has kept

OCW informed about the progress and results of the programme through annual reports and

programme publications. Work plans and budgets for new phases of the programme were prepared by

KNAW and discussed with OCW.

In Indonesia KNAW has been able to establish excellent relations with MoRT, AIPI , LIPI and DIKTI

which has contributed to the visibility of SPIN in Indonesia and a smooth implementation of the

programme. Also with the main Indonesian partner universities in the programme KNAW has

maintained frequent and fruitful contacts..

KNAW’s contact with the Dutch Embassy in Jakarta (EKN) has been functional. The embassy has

always involved in visits of KNAW delegations to Indonesia and has offered support with the planning

of such visits. There was a time when the Netherlands government’s applied more rigorous visa

application procedures and irritations occurred. However, communication has always been open and

constructive. The present staff at the Embassy is extremely positive about the SPIN programme and

the positive impact it has on Dutch-Indonesian relations and the promotion of Dutch scientific quality in

areas which are relevant to Indonesia.

KNAW and NWO have been able to arrange a fruitful collaboration in two jointly funded research

programmes: East Kalimantan Programme and Agriculture Beyond Food. This has turned out to be

very beneficial.

In the framework of the SEA-EU-NET programme, KNAW has managed to broaden its bilateral

relations with Indonesia to multilateral contacts in the region, notable with ASEAN member states such

as Malaysia, Singapore, Thailand, Vietnam, Myanma and Cambodia. Ten European partners are

involved in SEA-EU-NET.

There are hardly any links between SPIN and the NICHE and NFP programmes administered by EP-

Nuffic. A few NFP PhD scholarships have been added to/integrated in SPIN projects. KNAW and EP-

Nuffic have not explored complementarities between SPIN and projects in NPT or NICHE. Although

the programmes differ in focus (research in SPIN, education and training in NPT/NICHE) they both

involve capacity building, have an overlap in thematic focus and (to some degree) collaborate with the

same partner institutions.


There are few direct links between KNAW and the private sector. RVO is seen as the link between de

programme and the Dutch private sector. Through RVO it is hoped that chances for bilateral economic

and business contacts are enhanced. RVO therefore also plays a role in the organization of the Open

Science Meetings.

With the aim to strengthen the collaboration with the private sector and other Dutch capacity building

programmes RVO and EP-Nuffic have been invited to be members of the Joint Working Committee.

4.5 Factors influencing programme implementation

In the questionnaire a question was included about factors which in their opinion had a positive or

negative effect on the implementation of the programme and the results achieved. The factors ranged

from the objectives of the programme to the administration of the programme by KNAW as can be

seen from the table below.

Most of the listed factors are positively assessed by the respondents. The most positive are the

respondents about the objectives of the (sub)programme, the implementation strategy of the

(sub)programme and the duration of the programme. Also the administration by KNAW and the

management of the programme are regarded as factors with a positive influence.

Table 11. Factors influencing programme implementation

Q12. Which factors had a positive or negative effect on the implementation of the SPIN programme and the results achieved? Please indicate on a 5-point scale from -2 to 2 what your opinion is on the following factors. Where -2 means strong negative effect and +2 is strong positive effect.

Dutch respondents

Answer Options -2 -1 0 1 2 Response

Count

Objectives of the programme or sub-programme

30% 48% 22% 23

Implementation strategy of the programme or sub-programme

4% 35% 35% 26% 23

Embedding of the programme in national policies

13% 4% 50% 29% 4% 24

Rules and regulations of the programme or sub-programme

5% 67% 19% 10% 21

Selection process 0% 9% 48% 35% 9% 23

Funding of the programme 5% 18% 32% 27% 18% 22

Management of the programme (e.g. Joint Working Committee)

64% 18% 18% 22

Administration of the programme by KNAW

61% 22% 17% 23

Duration of the programme (consecutive phases)

5% 50% 23% 23% 22


skipped question 10

These positive opinions are a clear signal of the strengths of the programme and the way it has been

implemented. This perception is not confined to the Dutch participants but also echoed by their

Indonesian partners. These particular strengths – and some weaknesses – are further discussed in

paragraph 5.2.


The administration of SPIN is well organized with a set of clear procedures, guidelines and formats for

submitting proposals, annual reports and financial reports. The programmes uses a small set of

eligible budget categories with ceilings for each category and fixed costs for certain inputs (e.g. PhD

scholarship). This considerably simplifies the planning, monitoring and reporting in the projects and

programme.

A weakness of the administration is that there is no central ' database' of programme inputs and

outputs which would make it possible to easily aggregate these items in one overview for the whole

programme.

4.6 Management of the programme

Management structure

The management of the programme has three levels. The Joint Working Committee decides on the

focal areas for scientific collaboration between the Netherlands and Indonesia. For SPIN, central co-

ordination by the JWC helps to achieve synergy between SPIN and other co-operative research

activities between the Netherlands and Indonesia, whether in basic or applied sciences and as

managed by scientific organizations or universities. In effect, the JWC effectively enables SPIN to

identify its niche within a range of ongoing co-operative activities. The JWC has a mixed Indonesian-

Dutch composition.

The Programme Committee is composed of Dutch scientists and sees to it that coherence is achieved

in the programme as a whole and that good quality proposals are being selected and funded which

support the programme’s aim and scientific ambitions in the focal areas. The Committee initially

consisted of six members from different fields of research, each of them having thorough knowledge

and experience of scientific research in Indonesia. The Committee was expanded to eleven members.

The establishment of one committee covering all relevant scientific expertise has proven to be

instrumental in safeguarding the coherence of SPIN as a whole, both with regard to its organizational

and thematic structure. The Programme Committee also monitors the progress of the cooperation

programmes and other activities of the programme. The Programme Committee decides on

adjustments in programmes and projects if that is called for but also can decide on changes or

adjustments in the set-up of the programme on the basis of monitoring outcomes or external

developments.

As already observed in the mid-term review of SPIN I [2003a], the role of the Programme Co-

ordinators has been important for the execution of SPIN. The Programme Co-ordinators are the

intermediaries between KNAW and the participating Indonesian and Netherlands researchers involved

in the research projects. Because they have scientific expertise as well as relevant experiences in

Indonesia, the Programme Co-ordinators are closely involved with the research being conducted and

are familiar with the challenges of its implementation. They have an important role to play in

safeguarding the coherence in the integrated research programmes and to facilitate an efficient

exchange of information between KNAW and the researchers participating in those programmes.

This management set-up seems to work well and is appreciated by the participants in the programme.

As can be seen from the table above a vast majority of the respondents in the questionnaire is positive

or very positive about the management of the programme.

Some critical remarks have already been made about the management in previous paragraphs. The

first is that there is no Indonesian representation in the Programme Committee. It is also telling that

Annual Reports are written in Dutch and apparently not shared with the Indonesian government

partners. This – willingly or unwillingly – creates the impression that SPIN is regarded by OCW and

KNAW as a Dutch programme.


The second regards the data management. The lack of a database with basic programme and project

data has already been mentioned above.

The third regards transparency in strategy matters. On the basis of available reports it is difficult to get

a clear insight in the considerations which have led to adjustments in the programme. Adjustments

have taken place in 2000, 2005 and 2011 at the juncture of the consecutive phases in the programme.

Changes in the programme are announced in the annual reports and explained in the work plans for

the next phase. But, the justification which is given is rather brief.

Evolution of the programme

In interviews with KNAW and stakeholders the impression is created that the programme has made a

major change from SPIN II to SPIN III. In SPIN III the programme focuses on three thematic

programmes with coherent projects and embedded post-docs.

The idea of creating more focus and impact by clustering projects has a much longer history and was

the main argument for introducing a new approach for the cooperation programme in 2000 which

signalled the start of SPIN. The SPIN self-evaluation report of 2005 talks about a “co-operation [..]

structured by means of a number of larger research programmes, each consisting of a set of logically

interconnected projects comprising research and research-related activities” (p.4). This quote very

much resembles the arguments which have been used to continue with the clustered projects in SPIN

II and SPIN III.

Additional elements were added along the way, such as the Mobility Programme in 2002, the Postdoc

Programme in 2005 and the and the API professorships in 2007. Joint funded programmes with NWO

were started in SPIN I and SPIN II (EKN and AbF).

All of these additions have been presented as an enrichment of the programme and praised for their

results (see for example the internal evaluation of the Mobility Programme) but in 2010 the Mobility

Programme was discontinued and in SPIN III the Postdocs have ceased to exist as a separate

modality.

In our interviews with long-time participants in the programme comments were made on this so called

‘evolution’. Clustering was already realize in some thematic research fields. However, this good

practice was an exception, not the rule. Other participants regretted the discontinuation of the Postdoc

Programme. The Postdocs in SPIN II gave the opportunity to explore areas outside the PP boundaries

which was regarded as stimulating. The DIKTI scholarships which are used outside the JRPs can be

regarded as a welcome compensation.

In SPIN III the API professorships are presented as an integral part of the three thematic research

clusters but how this will be operationalized or how this will work out is not very clear.

The role of the Ministry of OCW

The Ministry has been a structural financial supporter of the scientific collaboration between the

Netherlands and Indonesia from the start of the programme. After handing over the execution of the

programme to KNAW in 1995, the Ministry has followed the programme from a distance. From the

documentation we gather that the Ministry has not taken the opportunity to comment on the

achievements of the programme as presented in the progress reports nor on the proposed new

directions of the programme.

This has enabled the programme to continue for more than 20 years without much external

interference. Now it is confronted with a unilateral decision by OCW to discontinue the funding of SPIN

after this phase. The distance which OCW has kept from the programme was advantageous during

the lifetime of the programme but may now have turned into a disadvantage.


5. Additionality

5.1 Results ascribed to SPIN

The paragraphs on scientific output and impact provide an indication of the exclusive role which SPIN

has played in the results that have been reported. Although several Dutch universities have a history

of collaboration with Indonesia which predates the SPIN programme, the programme provided the

opportunity and necessary funds to create research groups and to invest in focused research

programmes. The long-term nature of the programme made it possible to build research capacity in

Indonesia in a well-planned and sustainable way and to form strong scientific partnerships and

networks.

The research topics are strongly linked with the context and needs of Indonesia. This has created

unique opportunities for Dutch researchers to deepen their knowledge of phenomena specific to

Indonesia. It is hard to imagine that without SPIN the same depth of research outcomes would have

been achieved as is the case.

For a number of Dutch institutions SPIN has provided the opportunity to expand and deepen their core

research interests. This regards the institutions for which Indonesia is one, if not the most important,

research location, e.g. for the KITLV and the Van Vollenhoven Institute. These institutes have made

excellent use of the opportunities which SPIN provided.

Another result which would have not been achieved without SPIN is the formation of the API

professorships. They benefit not only the Indonesian research community but also add value to the

quality of the research that is being conducted in the SPIN thematic areas.

The majority of the respondents in the questionnaire survey are of the opinion that the project or

activity in which they have participated would not have started without SPIN funding. The Dutch

respondents (73%) are more certain about this than their Indonesian colleagues (45%).The Dutch and

Indonesian respondents differ in their opinion regarding the question which results or effects would not

have been achieved without SPIN. It should be noted that many respondents skipped this question.

For the Dutch respondents research capacity building in Indonesia stands out as the main difference

which SPIN has been able to achieve, followed by sustainable scientific collaboration and scientific

networking. The Indonesian respondents rate sustainable scientific collaboration as the number one

difference, and scientific networking as the number two.

Table 12. Additionality

Q 19. Which of the following results/effects would not have been achieved without (opportunities provided by) SPIN?

Dutch respondents

Answer Options Response Percent

Response Count

Sustainable scientific collaboration between Dutch and Indonesian researchers 75,0% 18

Research capacity building in Indonesia 83,3% 20

Research opportunities for Dutch researchers in Indonesia 58,3% 14

Scientific networking 70,8% 17

Improvement of science culture in Indonesia 66,7% 16


skipped question 11



Answer Options Respons

e Percent

Response Count

Sustainable scientific collaboration between Dutch and Indonesian researchers 90,9% 10

Research capacity building in Indonesia 54,5% 6

Research opportunities for Dutch researchers in Indonesia 54,5% 6

Scientific networking 72,7% 8

Improvement of science culture in Indonesia 54,5% 6


skipped question 8

5.2 The strengths of the programme

From the interviews with participants and stakeholders in the Netherlands as well as the

questionnaires a very positive impression arises about the set-up and value of the SPIN programme.

Many positive aspects have been mentioned which include:

The long term perspective of the programme which the creation of small communities of scholars (senior, mid-career, junior; Dutch, Indonesian and often others) interacting regularly on areas of shared interest for a period of some years. The benefits of these exchanges are very great - compared for example to individual research grants - and they tend to continue after conclusion of the project. PhDs are embedded in cooperation project with supervision from both sides and form part of a broader programme. The programme provides funding possibilities for scientists at different stages in their career. Through Postdocs Indonesian staff is retained for research and research capacity sustained. Hence, SPIN allows for long-term, structural co-operation, in investing in building and maintaining research capacity, scientific culture and ambition and, by implication, longer-term prospects in scientific careers in Indonesia.

The evolution in the programme from small individual projects with no mutual links to thematic programmes with clusters of interconnected projects coordinated by an experienced scientist. This was a bottom-up development based on experiences in preceding phases. The approach furthers the establishment of a critical scientific mass in the selected research areas.

The multidisciplinary approach in the research programmes combining hard science research with social, economic, legal and historical perspectives. This can be clearly observed in the infectious disease programmes but also in Agriculture beyond Food and the East Kalimantan Programmes.

The historic links between Indonesia and the Netherlands create an advantage. The Netherlands has extensive data collections and unique expertise on Indonesia which form a strong foundation for current and future research. Because of this history, SPIN also conducts research in fields where other countries are not active such as law, humanities, anthropology and biodiversity.

The combination of capacity building with high quality research which is relevant and which focuses on applicable outcomes.

The fruitful and stimulating collaboration between research groups in the Netherlands which has resulted from the multidisciplinary nature of the research programmes.

The administration of the programme by a well-respected autonomous scientific body which has excellent relations with its counterpart in Indonesia and the also excellent collaboration with the relevant government ministries and research institutes.

For the Indonesian partners the added value of SPIN is the way research capacity building is built

through SPIN. They appreciate the quality of the capacity building and the fact that researchers are


being stimulated to publish the results of their research in international journals, and that they are

quoted as main or co-author by Dutch colleagues. For the Indonesians the long-term perspective is

important as it builds trust and it shows commitment. Through the research networks that have been

formed it has become easier to access sponsors and research partners.

DIKTI is very positive about the embedding of DIKTI PhD scholarships in the SPIN programme. It

increases the chances of success for the candidate and ensures good dual supervision. The

supervisors know the candidate before he/she starts. This is not the case when a candidate directly

applies to a university abroad. Since DIKTI only funds a scholarship for a period of three years, the

fourth years is covered by the Dutch host institution. Hence, for DIKTI the collaboration with SPIN is

seen as a win-win arrangement.

5.3 Other collaboration programmes

In the paragraph of impact follow-up activities and spin-offs have been reported by a small number of

Dutch institutions. In the questionnaire we have asked the respondents to list other programmes of

scientific cooperation they have participated in. The result provides a rather diffuse and not very

informative overview of other programmes and funding opportunities for research collaboration with

Indonesia.

Of the Dutch funders NWO-WOTRO is mentioned most frequently. Other Dutch funders/programmes

that incidentally were mentioned are Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Zon-WM, and KWF. Among the

international donors the EC is mentioned several times and private foundations (e.g. Bill and Melinda

Gates). Of the Indonesian funding agencies DIKTI, LPDP and MoRT are mentioned.

It is intriguing to observe that NFP, NPT/NICHE nor Stuned are mentioned as funding sources of

collaboration with Indonesia. This is rather surprising, especially in the case of NFP and NPT/NICHE.

Occasionally an NFP scholarship is mentioned in a SPIN project. NPT/NICHE collaborations and

Stuned are never mentioned. This can be explained by the fact that NPT/NICHE focuses on capacity

building in education and training and PhD scholarships are not part of the Stuned programme.

There is, however, an interesting similarity between the research themes of the NFP PhD candidates

and those of the SPIN projects and the same applies to the host institutions in the Netherlands. Of the

45 Indonesians who received an NFP PhD scholarship between 2006 and 2014, 29 are staff of an

education institute in Indonesia. Their research topics are in the domains of humanities, social

sciences and law (12), health and care services (7), agriculture and environment (4), natural sciences

(4) and business and management (4). The Dutch universities which receive most of these candidates

are WUR, RUG and RUN, VU, UVA and UL.

Of the 21 projects which have been or are being implemented in Indonesia in the NPT/NICHE

programmes since 2006, 11 operate in the same thematic fields as SPIN: 2 are in the domain of

agriculture, 2 in water & sanitation, 3 in justice & human rights, 1 in health and 3 in good governance.

ITB, IPB and UGM are participating in SPIN as well as in NPT/NICHE.

We have not gathered sufficient information from the interviews and questionnaire to be able to

provide a answer to the question what SPIN’s added value has been compared to other funding

channels. As mentioned earlier in the report we have asked a number of universities to try and give an

overview of their activities in research and education with Indonesia. The outcome is far from

complete. Huub Löffler of the WUR provided us with a rough indication of SPIN’s share in the WUR

research with Indonesia. His estimate is between 10-15%.


Other donors

We have also not been able to get a good overview of the programmes in Indonesia funded by other

donors. While in Indonesia, the evaluation team only managed to meet with AusAid. From the

discussions with the SPIN partners in Indonesia we learned that several countries collaborate with the

universities.

The Japanese provide funds for scholarships in Japan, training of technical staff, research funds, and

visits by Japanese scholars (IPB Bandung). At the moment many IPB PhD candidates go to Japan

with a Japanese scholarship. Compared to the funds provided under SPIN, the conditions of the

Japanese assistance are perceived as less strict and more flexible in how the money is spent and with

whom. In SPIN the collaboration is restricted to the partners in the project.

UGM collaborates with Norway, Australia, UK, Japan and New Zealand. The Norwegians donate Rp 4

billion per year for a joint research programme on the relationship between state politics, private sector

initiatives and civil society developments. The research is done by PhDs, Postdocs and Master

students from Indonesia and Norway. UGM participates in the UK funded Food Security Agricultural

Consortium UK – Indonesia which involves 7 universities form the UK and 19 Indonesian universities.

Seed money is available to establish and maintain the consortium, to prioritize research themes and

develop research programmes. Japan funds joint research activities of alumni who have studied in

Japan with their host institution.

New Zealand’s CARED programme funds joint research projects involving Indonesian and N-Z

researchers. It is a competitive process and UGM coordinates the selection process. Both sides can

take the initiative and be the lead. A maximum of Rp 2 billon is available for each project. The focus is

on applied research. Themes include economic development and energy. A drawback is that not

many Indonesians have studied in New Zealand.

The biggest international partners of UI are Japan, Korea and Australia. The focus is on scholarships /

mobility programmes. Very few joint research is being carried out with the partners from those

countries.

The Australian Research Council Grant (ARCG) is similar to SPIN with the big difference that in SPIN

the Dutch and Indonesians are equal partners while in ARCG the Australian researcher is the Chief

Investigator and the Indonesian researcher the partner. The funding goes to the universities; not to the

research partner directly. Other Australian programmes are the Australia Awards Indonesia (300

scholarships per year for long-term training in Australia) and the Knowledge Sector Initiative (provides

core funding to think tanks in universities, and NGOs to strengthen research capacity and to translate

research into messages that will be able to influence policy makers).

According to data presented by Sukara and Aiman (2012) the Netherlands ranked fourth in terms of

international co-authored research publications with Indonesian researchers in the period from 1976

until April 2011. The number of publications was 1,260, which represented 7.6% of the total number

of co-authored publications. Japan ranked number one with 2,659 publications, USA second with

2,598 publications and Australia third with 1,745 publications.

Bilateral versus multilateral

SPIN is an example of a bilateral collaboration programme that through its long-term perspective

allows researchers from both sides to get to know each other well, to develop trust, mutual respect

and cultural understanding. These are the foundations for sustainable partnerships. Most participants

in the programme value this aspect as one of the main strengths of the programme. And most of them


prefer to start a collaboration on a bilateral basis and from there to expand to other partners in other

countries or regions.

Multilateral collaborations have certain advantages because they provide access to a broad spectrum

of expertise and various sources of funding (national as well as multilateral) but they tend to be

complex and it takes a long time to develop a good understanding and to find effective ways of

working together. Broader international partnerships may add an interesting comparative perspective

to the research. However, certain phenomena are very context and culture specific which are hard to

compare with those of other countries.

A risks that needs to be avoided in bilateral partnerships is that it becomes an end in itself and must

be kept alive at all costs. Partners should be open to changing needs and interests on both sides and

this may require a change or adjustment in the collaboration. The collaboration between the RU and

UNPAD on HIV and TBC for example is very productive and valued for its specialized research. This

aspect is the most important for RU. But the collaboration does not cover the broader needs of

UNPAD in its clinical tasks and public health provision. Other partners are better equipped to assist

UNPAD in those areas. UNPAD is therefore quite happy that it also participates in broader

partnerships and projects.


6. Continuity

6.1 Sustainability of results

A number of researchers and research groups in Indonesia have been capacitated through SPIN to do

good quality research and publish about the results in international journals. Continuation of their

research will much depend on the availability of research funds in Indonesia and the opportunities

which the university system allows staff to do research.

Indonesia desperately needs more research capacity building, and preferably through joint research

collaboration like implemented by SPIN. According to Mayling Oey-Gardiner, member of AIPI, sending

people abroad for a PhD is not solving the problem. In many cases the host institution benefits more

than the sending institution or candidate. Research capacity and research culture need to become

institutionalized in the Indonesian system.

According to her this requires a complete overhaul of the Indonesian higher education system. The

universities still function as teaching institutions and there are not the right incentives for staff to

undertake research. The DIKTI/LPDP research grants are small and for maximum one year (linked to

the government budget cycle). The research grants policy is quantity not quality driven. With these

grants no serious research can be conducted, and no research capacity can be built. This is the

reason why AIPI has proposed to set up an Indonesian Research Fund which would provide block

grant financing for multi-year research projects.

The personal commitment of SPIN participants to the programme is generally very strong. The

professional relationships and friendships which have been created through SPIN are an asset for life.

They are each other’s ambassador and recommend their institutions for study and research. They can

easily find each other when opportunities for interesting research funding comes along.

The dialogues in the Joint Working Committee and the good communications between KNAW and the

Indonesian counterparts MoRT, AIPI and DIKTI have had a positive influence on the development of

research polices in Indonesia, and if implemented and backed by an efficient system of research

funding, this may lead to enormous progress in research capacity building and research in Indonesia

which is desperately needed to realize Indonesian development ambitions. In turn this may create new

opportunities for Dutch researchers and the private sector. The track record of Dutch-Indonesian

scientific collaboration in SPIN is a definite advantage.

6.2 Non-sustainable results

The questionnaire asked the respondents to report on results which turned out not to be sustainable.

The answers did not really focus on the sustainability of results but reported several things and factors

which had not gone well in a project or which has delayed processes. They include lack of

commitment from the (management of the) Indonesian partner, lack of motivation among Indonesian

staff, lack of organization at the Indonesian institute, delays in finalizing publication because staff had

teaching obligations etc. These problems sound very familiar to those who are involved in these types

of capacity building projects.

During our visit to Bogor we came across one example of a result that – unfortunately - has not proved

to be sustainable. It regards the BIORIN biotechnology laboratory which was set up by the BIORIN

programme in SPIN I at the IPB and which also played a key role in the INDOSOL and AbF

programmes. It was reported that over the years it has supported 10 PhD candidates and even more

Master degree students in their research. But at the moment quite a number of instruments have

broken down. The biotechnology group of IPB does not receive funds from the university to maintain


or replace the equipment or to do research. At the moment IPB gives priority to the improvement of

equipment for the undergraduate courses rather than other education or research areas.

The partners IPB and WUR have submitted a proposal to continue their collaboration in SPIN III but

their proposal on aquaculture was not selected. They also did not succeed in finding another research

topic of mutual interest. At the moment the research collaboration between the partners is on hold.

6.3 Effects of SPIN's absence

In the long term, enhancing Indonesia’s scientific and technological capacity is fundamental to

supporting this country’s socio-economic growth and development, and thus strengthening its position

in the world at large. Discontinuing SPIN would mean the loss of a high profile bilateral cooperation

programme and the ending of a very successful and fruitful relationship between KNAW and NWO on

the Dutch side and the AIPI, MoRT and DIKTI on the Indonesian side. The Netherlands may lose its

leading scientific position in one of the world’s largest countries; one with huge economic potential,

base material, natural resources, as well as rich cultural and bio(genetic) diversity. It may also lead to

a loss of invested research potential which has been built over the years.

On the Indonesian side the decision to stop the funding of SPIN is difficult to understand. Indonesia is

an important country in the region and the Netherlands and Indonesia have a history together and

share a common understanding. The Netherlands has a huge expertise on Indonesia and many data

collections from the past. These are very valuable source for research and gives the Netherlands a

considerable advantage to other countries that show an interest in Indonesia. The Americans,

Australians and Japanese are keen to collaborate with Indonesia on education and science, and more

recently Germany and also France have become very active.

If SPIN stops, it is feared that the good relationships and the advantageous position of Dutch science

could easily be lost. It would take time and efforts to rebuild this position. The respondents in the

questionnaire not only fear that it will undoubtedly lead to a decrease in scientific collaboration

between the two countries but also will decrease the interest in Indonesia to do research. The upward

curve in research capacity building in Indonesia could easily be disrupted.

For the Netherlands Embassy it would mean that they lose a small but very useful instrument to

pursue the bilateral cooperation agenda with Indonesia. The presence of Dutch higher education in

Indonesia is one of the cornerstones of its strategy. With the SPIN, Stuned, NFP, NICHE and Living

Labs programmes, all levels of Dutch higher education are well represented. Together they form an

impressive showcase of what Dutch knowledge institutes have to offer. Outside these programmes

Dutch institutes are active in setting up joint degree programmes and mobility schemes. Without SPIN

the top of the educational pyramid would be taken out of this showcase (as Wouter Plomp, Deputy

Head of Mission, EKN expressed it).

The active presence of Dutch knowledge institutes in Indonesia in research and education results in a

substantial interest from Indonesians to go to the Netherlands for studies. In the academic year 2014-

15 there are 1.115 Indonesian registered at Dutch higher education institutes for bachelor and master

degree studies. The highest number is registered at the RUG (115)9.

These numbers represent a big economic value (approx. € 30.000 per student for tuition fees and

scholarship). Apart from this monetary value, the Dutch universities need foreign students to

compensate for the decreasing Dutch student population and the shortage of Dutch AiO candidates in

the natural sciences and mathematics. Attracting foreign students is necessary and advantageous for

9 Source: OCW/DUO


the Dutch universities and the Dutch economy. When they go back to their countries of origin and rise

to positions of influence they may become important ambassadors of Dutch science, education,

culture or business.

The Dutch universities need research collaboration with countries like Indonesia to maintain their

broad international orientation and scientific standing and to be able to do highly relevant research in

local contexts which may have global relevance. SPIN research also results in outcomes which are

applicable in the Dutch context and can be used by Dutch consultancy firms and enterprises which

operate in Indonesia.

6.4 Need and capacity for ongoing programmatic collaboration

In Indonesia there still is an enormous need for research capacity building. The progress that has

been made in this respect over the last ten years has been slow and Indonesia lags behind

developments in the countries in the region. In KNAW’s mid-term review of 2003 it was observed that

“ … the Indonesian scientific environment is insufficiently developed in terms of financial and

infrastructural organization and academic climate to accommodate a solid base of highly trained

scholars or to stimulate the further development of individual researchers. The PhD-title in Indonesian

society is still too often considered as marking the conclusion rather than beginning of a scientific

career. Driven by the weak economy, newly trained PhDs are drawn into societal positions where

priority is given to short-term problem solving and the pursuit of economic benefits. Without denying or

trivialising the importance of such activities, SPIN focuses primarily on building and maintaining a

highly educated Indonesian scientific elite, which can fulfil an important function as the interface

between international scientific developments and national needs for research and knowledge. Such

an interface is especially important in the long term”.

The content of this quote is still topical for the situation today but there are some changes for the

better. The economic situation in Indonesia is much better than it was in 2003 and research has

become an important topic on the Indonesian development agenda. The SPIN programme has been

successful in making a big difference for a small number of research groups, but the education and

research system in Indonesia needs a larger change if it wants to make strides in the direction of a

knowledge based economy.

Seven universities in the Netherlands have selected Indonesia as one of their focus countries WUR,

RUG, RUN, UL, VU, EUR and UT. WUR, RUG and UL have a permanent representative to further

their research and education interests in Indonesia. There is also the NESO office which implements

the Stuned fellowship programme, promotes Dutch higher education in Indonesia and can facilitate

contacts between higher education institutes in Indonesia and the Netherlands.

The reasons for this interest in Indonesia are obvious to these institutions: the size of the population,

the strategic location in a fast developing region, the cultural and bio diversity, the research potential in

many disciplines, the economic prospects, the historic and special link between the two countries, and

the long scientific history between the two countries. For them the opportunities are quite clear in

terms joint research, joint education programmes, contract research, recruitment of students and

access to local scholarships. But they are also aware of the weaknesses in the education system, the

big gaps in education and research capacities in Indonesia, and the cultural differences. In many

areas capacity will need to be built first before equal and reciprocal collaboration may be realized.

For certain research topics collaboration with Indonesia is extremely important such as infectious

diseases, avian influenza, environmental problems, water management, coastal management,

biodiversity and transformations in Indonesian society. With regard to the latter, the VVI and KITLV

research institutes have developed a very long standing specialisation in Indonesian studies (law,


politics, culture). SPIN research has contributed very much in maintaining and upgrading this

specialisation, increasing the network, and producing data; to the benefit of both Indonesia and the

Netherlands. Without good opportunities for new research it will be hard to inspire a new generation of

researchers (current students). Leiden is an important knowledge hub for Indonesian scholars of

social science, law and history.

There are considerable overlaps between the Indonesian research priorities and related social

challenges, the Dutch priority sectors and the European Grand Societal Challenges. In 2014 NWO

has produced a table which clearly shows these overlaps. The table is included below.

The Netherlands is one of the most important investors in Indonesia in the financial sector,

telecommunication, oil and gas, water engineering and retail (food products). RVO facilitates a

consortium which focuses on Smart City development with a.o. Bandung. In 2013 and 2014 the Dutch

Prime Minister and three Dutch ministers have paid official visits to Indonesia which have led to the

signing of agreements to collaborate in food, fisheries & aqua culture, in water, weather and climate, in

coastal management, in the sustainable production of palm oil and in resistance of antibiotics.

Capacity for continuation of the research collaboration is certainly in place, thanks to the efforts of

SPIN, NWO and the capacity that has been built through NFP, NPT/NICHE and other sources. The

question is whether this should be organized in a programme like SPIN. The strengths and benefits of

this approach have already been highlighted and many would like to see a continuation of this formula.

A minority of the interviewees would give preference to providing more PhD scholarships instead of

funding collaboration projects. As mentioned above RUG is trying out a PhD-hub modality. However,

with a strong focus on individual scholarships one may lose the embedding of research tracks and

institutional partnerships which projects can create.

Table 13. Synergies in priority research themes

Priorities Indonesian

Goverment

WOTRO Platform

priorities

NWO R&D in

framework of

Economic Top

Sectors

EU Horizon 2020

Societal Challenges

Food Food Agrifood Food

Energy Energy Energy

Water Water Water

Transportation Logistics Transportation

ICT ICT ICT

Health and Medicine Reproductive Health

and Sexual Rights

Life Sciences and

Health Health and Wellbeing

Defense and Security Security, Rule of Law Security Secure societies

Inclusive Development Innovative, Inclusive

and Reflective Society

New Materials (incl.

nano)

High Tech Systems

and Materials

Climate Action,

Recourse Efficiency

and Raw Material

Chemistry

Creative Industry

Source: NWO


6.5 Contributions for continuation

It is the common opinion among participants and stakeholders that the continuation of the scientific

collaboration between the Netherlands and Indonesia should be mutually beneficial and reciprocal.

This was the intention from the start of the programme but has only has become reality. The

Indonesian government is now making considerable funds available for capacity building of staff of

universities and other nationals through the provision of scholarships, small research grants, small

incentives for university staff to publish, and 6-months English language courses.

For the Dutch and Indonesian universities the PhD scholarships are the most important part of the

programme. However, scholarships alone are not enough to create a relevant and effective

collaboration between institutions or research groups on themes that are of mutual interest. The SPIN

programme clearly has demonstrated the added value of bilateral programming of the collaboration,

the provision of Postdoc grants for sustaining research capacity, and the possibilities for staff and

student exchanges. The availability of enough funds for field work, equipment and materials is a

necessary requirement in order to be able to do meaningful research.

Dutch and Indonesian universities have shown a willingness to make a substantial contribution to the

collaboration in kind through staff time, use of facilities and topping up of scholarships. But for the

other costs involved in the collaboration they rely on external funding from research programmes,

foundations or private sector. To access these funds or to get private sector interested to co-fund

research activities is a complex process with often unpredictable outcomes.

Funds for the continuation of research (collaboration) may also be tapped from international

governmental and non-governmental sources. The SPIN activities and Indonesian research groups

have caught the attention of other international researchers and donor agencies and they seem to be

keen to make further use of this potential.

The Horizon 2020 programme of the European Union is one of these options and offers partial funding

for research collaboration with partner countries outside the EU. Many Dutch universities and

researchers already participate in EC funded programmes and are members of interregional networks

such as SEA-EU-NET which also includes organizations/institutions from the ASEAN region. The pro’s

and con’s of bilateral versus multilateral funding have been discussed above.

Other options that were mentioned regard the building of stronger links between research activities

and enterprises which would be of interest to the Ministry of Economic Affairs and enhancing the

interaction between research, education and training. Regarding the latter, the complementarity

between research (capacity building) and the NFP/NICHE programmes funded by the Ministry of

Foreign Affairs should be investigated.

Looking in the direction of the Ministries of Economic and Foreign Affairs as possible co-funders of a

scientific collaboration between Indonesia and the Netherlands is logical as the outcomes and impact

of SPIN activities transcend the borders of scientific gains and the quality improvement of research

institutions on both sides. Scientific collaborations do have real and potential impact on political

relations, economic diplomacy and on economic and cultural collaboration. However, this inter-

ministerial coordination will require greater coherence in the policies of the ministries of OCW,

Economic and Foreign Affairs which in practice may be difficult to achieve.


7. Future perspectives

In the interviews that were conducted in the Netherlands and Indonesia also the future of the scientific

cooperation between the Netherlands and Indonesia was discussed. This chapter contains some

observations and opinions which were shared with the evaluators.

• Among the participants in the programme as well as the government partners in Indonesia there is

a great interest to continue the scientific cooperation between the two countries and preferably in a

form which builds on the strengths of the SPIN programme. The collaboration is felt to be beneficial

for both countries in a scientific, economic and political sense. The collaboration is particularly

valuable because of the long historic links between the two countries and offers Dutch researchers

excellent research opportunities in challenging topics and contexts.

• A greater interest and involvement of private enterprises in the research (collaborations) is

welcomed, in terms of contributions in finance and in kind and in the economic valorisation and

utilisation of research results. This would enhance the economic impact of the research. It is

acknowledged that this involvement is easier to organise on themes and topics with commercial

prospects.

• Although the advantages of bilateral collaboration are appreciated by most researchers it is also

well understood that broadening the partnership to multilateral and interregional collaborations

brings benefits in an expansion of expertise, adding a comparative perspective to the research and

enlarging the access to different sources of funding. The preferred sequence is of establishing a

partnership in a bilateral mode and, once it has settled, to broaden it.

• It is generally felt that the Indonesian government should increase its contribution to the

collaboration in financial terms, at least to 50% of the required funds. The current developments in

science policies and research funding opportunities in Indonesia make this a realistic demand. The

trade-off will have to be that Indonesia increases its say on the themes of collaboration and the

selection of projects. Fortunately there are considerable overlaps in priority research themes

between the two countries.

• As discussed in the previous paragraph, PhD scholarships are the heart of the collaboration

projects and for quite a number of universities this is the ‘carrot’ in the collaboration. The majority of

interviewees prefers a broader programmatic form of scientific collaboration in which the

scholarships are embedded. A programmatic approach also makes multidisciplinary research

possible and this has proven to create added value in a number of SPIN programmes.

• A high level bilateral programming body such as JWC is seen as an asset for the bilateral

collaboration and it is hoped that this will be continued. A similar set up is being used in the China

Netherlands Joint Scientific Thematic Research Programme (JSTP) a programme managed by

NWO. The programming body should be composed of representatives of the main funding

ministries/agencies and science agencies of both countries. In the opinion of the MoRT at least two

DG’s should be represented in the JWC in order to effectively influence co-funding opportunities

from the Ministry. The costs for this management structure are modest but the revenues

considerable and should be the joint responsibility of the collaborating countries.

• The same argument can be used for the organization and funding of the Open Science Meetings

which provide an excellent platform to showcase the scientific collaboration, its outcomes, added

value and possible impact.

• KNAW is praised for its role as administrator of the programme and interlocutor with the

government and institutions in Indonesia. At the same time questions were raised whether KNAW


should continue its task as programme administrator and whether this task fits well with the

mandate of the organization. Suggestions were made for KNAW to continue its role as interlocutor,

member of the JWC or similar body, counterpart of AIPI in research policy discussions, and co-

organiser of the Open Science Meetings. The administration of a grants programme could be taken

care of by an intermediary organization specialized in programme administration.

• The China Netherlands Joint Scientific Thematic Research Programme (JSTP) was mentioned as

a possible example for organizing the funding of future collaborations. It also has an JWC, funds

research projects with larger budgets and has more calls per year.

• If a programmatic approach is adopted for the continued collaboration, it will be essential to define

clear objectives for the programme, its scope and funding arrangements. Some critical issues need

to be tackled such as the balance between capacity building and high quality research, the need for

and value of long-term research partnerships, the interaction between research and education, the

links with private sector, and the complementarity of bilateral and multilateral collaboration.

• It is felt important that programme stimulate collaboration between national universities, in the

Netherlands as well as in Indonesia. Competition should be avoided or minimized. The length of

collaboration projects should be at least four years.


8. Concluding remarks

SPIN has achieved its main objective of establishing long term scientific collaboration between

researchers in the Netherlands and Indonesia and of building research capacity in Indonesia. The

lifespan of the programme is remarkable and has enabled some research groups to work together for

more than 20 years. By successfully applying for grants in the successive phase of the programme

these groups have created a strong Dutch-Indonesian research network.

High quality, relevant research has been conducted on themes which have priority for Indonesian’s

socio-economic growth and development and appeal to the research interests of the Netherlands

(Economic Top Sectors and Speerpunten) and Dutch researchers. The programme has been

successful in producing good scientific output, in quality as well as in quantity, although an exact

number is difficult to establish. Impact in non-research fields has been realized but is of incidental

nature and has not systematically been recorded or reported.


different nature for partners on both sides. Over the years the collaboration in the research groups has

developed into more equal forms of scientific cooperation. Reciprocity in financial terms has only

become a reality in SPIN III with the contribution of the DIKTI PhD scholarships.

SPIN has proven to be an effective and efficient model of scientific research collaboration at the level

of the research groups. SPIN also has influenced the thinking about research (funding) in Indonesian

government agencies. SPIN is not equipped to strengthen the institutional environment of the research

groups, nor the Indonesian higher education system, its funding arrangements and governing

principles. This ‘enabling environment’ determines to a great extent the success and sustainability of

the SPIN projects. A more fundamental change of this environment is needed in order to create a

favourable environment for research at Indonesian universities.

Overall, the programme has a good cost-benefit ratio if one compares the programme funds invested

with the scientific output realized and research capacity built. The programme has benefited from

substantial contributions in kind from the project implementers which is a clear sign of their

commitment to the projects and the programme.

The majority of respondents and interviewees are of the opinion that without SPIN many of the

research partnerships would not have been developed, or not in the same successful way. The

programme set-up is regarded as unique as it enables long-term collaboration, combines capacity

building with high quality research, and stimulates collaboration between researchers in and between

both countries.

The management structure of the programme has had a considerable positive influence on the

evolution and success of the programme. KNAW has done a commendable job as administrator of the

programme and interlocutor between the Dutch science community and the Indonesian government

and Indonesian institutions.

Discontinuing SPIN would mean the loss of a high profile bilateral cooperation programme and the

ending of a very successful and fruitful relationship between KNAW and NWO on the Dutch side and

the AIPI, MoRT and DIKTI on the Indonesian side. It is feared that the Netherlands may lose its

leading scientific position in one of the world’s largest countries; one with huge economic potential,

base material, natural resources, as well as rich cultural and bio(genetic) diversity. It may also lead to

a loss of invested research potential which has been built over the years.

The majority of participants and stakeholders finds it important to continue the scientific collaboration

with Indonesia for scientific, political and economic reasons. Enhancing Indonesia’s scientific and


technological capacity is crucial for supporting the country’s socio-economic growth and development,

and thus strengthening its position in the world at large. The need for research capacity building in

Indonesia is still great in some disciplines, although levels are improving, and there is still work to do in

the improvement of the Indonesian education and research system.

The Dutch universities for whom Indonesia is a focus country wish to consolidate the networks and

capacity that have been built and to further expand and deepen the research that can be done in and

with Indonesia. The scientific collaboration is also an important source of talents for the Dutch

universities and it helps to interest more Indonesians to study in the Netherlands.

There is agreement on the principle of reciprocity and mutual benefit in the collaboration. The

Indonesian economy is growing and the Indonesian government is giving higher priority to research in

its development strategies. Budgets for research are slowly rising but they are still scattered.

Opportunities which are offered through multilateral and interregional cooperation programmes can

provide extra funds and impetus to the bilateral collaborations. For well-established bilateral

partnerships this is a logical avenue to explore. New opportunities may present itself by creating better

links between research and the private sector (more emphasis on valorisation of research results and

applied research) on the one hand, and between research and education (interaction and exchange

between the two domains) on the other.

Continuation of the collaboration can take several forms, including a continuation of SPIN. It is

important that the set-up and funding of the collaboration is discussed at the appropriate levels of both

governments. Issues that need to be addressed are the objectives (or expected outcomes) of such

collaboration, the mutual interests it should serve, which parties should or could contribute to the

funding of the collaboration, and who should administer the collaboration.


ANNEXES


ANNEX 1. Technical proposal

The SPIN programme



and resources in both countries. To encourage scientific collaboration between the Netherlands and

Indonesia, the Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences (KNAW) was commissioned by the

Ministry of Education, Culture and Science to implement the Scientific Programme Indonesia –

Netherlands (SPIN). SPIN builds on a long tradition of relationships based on mutual exchange,

collaboration and trust. It gives Indonesia and the Netherlands the opportunity to benefit from the

scientific, human, natural and other resources available in both countries, and to establish or maintain

research networks. The aim of the programme is to facilitate long-term scientific collaboration between

Dutch and Indonesian researchers, based on the principles of reciprocity and mutual benefit.

The SPIN programme has carried out two self-evaluations. With the end of the programme

(anticipated in 2017) looming, the Ministry of Education, Culture and Science would like an

independent evaluation, for internal purposes, of how successful the SPIN programme has been.

SPIN programme components:

The Netherlands-Indonesia scientific programme started in 1994. In 2000, this was formalised as the

SPIN programme. In 2002 the Dutch and Indonesian governments signed an MoU and set up a Joint

Working Committee.

SPIN 1: 2000-2004

SPIN 2: 2006-2011

SPIN 3: 2012-2016

Aim of the evaluation

The research will focus on:






Scope

The focus of the research will be on SPIN 2 and 3, including the transition between these two phases.

This transition was an important hiatus, with a number of modifications introduced into SPIN 3. The

research will also look at the extent to which the development of the phases contributed to the

effectiveness of the programme. This assessment will incorporate both completed and ongoing

research projects.


The history of the entire programme will be mapped out, placing it as much as possible into context

(other collaboration programmes with Indonesia) and considering external policy or other factors which

have exerted an influence on it.

Research approach

The research will be desk-based and will also include conversations with the relevant actors and

stakeholders in the Netherlands and Indonesia. These actors and stakeholders include: the Royal

Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences (KNAW), the Netherlands Organization for Scientific

Research (NWO), the SPIN committee, the members of the Joint Working Committee on Indonesia,

Dutch and Indonesian researchers, SPIN project leaders/coordinators, the president of the Indonesian

Academy, officials from RISTEK and the Ministry of Education in Indonesia, stakeholders from the

Open Science Meetings, some rectors and researchers at Indonesian universities, stakeholders in the

private sector, etc.

For the broader objectives of the SPIN programme the evaluation will focus on the results of the

collaboration for both the Netherlands and Indonesia, the value placed on the collaboration both in the

past and present, and the concrete and perceived successes achieved by the programme.

The evaluation will also look at the extent to which both sides wish to continue the collaboration and

whether a programmatic approach would be desirable or feasible.

The evaluator will visit Indonesia to conduct the interviews and discussions (together with an

Indonesian evaluator). The final report, in English, will be presented to the key Dutch and Indonesian

stakeholders for comments.

The approach will therefore consist of the following parts:

Desk research in the Netherlands

Personal interviews with the 10 most important actors and stakeholders in the programme in

the Netherlands (to be determined by the Ministry of Education, Culture and Science (OCW)

and the Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences (KNAW)

Personal interviews with the 10 most important actors and stakeholders in the programme in

Indonesia (to be determined by the Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences

(KNAW) and RISTEK), conducted by the Dutch team leader and an Indonesian team member

Focus group interview with Dutch researchers and stakeholders from the private sector in the

Netherlands

Focus group interview with Indonesian researchers and the private sector in Indonesia

Online survey of the other actors and stakeholders in the programme for both the Dutch and

Indonesian side

Analysis and draft report (in English)

Feedback on the draft report from the Ministry of Education, Culture and Science (OCW), the

Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences (KNAW), and key stakeholders in Indonesia

Final report (in English)

Evaluation sub-questions

The overarching research questions can be divided into sub-questions. The questions below are not

exhaustive.

Effectiveness (were the objectives achieved)

- To what extent did the programme succeed in:

achieving long-term scientific collaboration between Dutch and Indonesian researchers


applying the principles of reciprocity and mutual benefit to the implementation of the programme

and its projects

involving other stakeholders in the programme?

- What has the programme achieved in terms of

scientific output

improving research capacity on both sides

impact (research, economy, society, relationships ….)?

- Which factors had a positive and negative effect on the implementation of the programme and the

results achieved?

- To what extent did the selection process influence the effectiveness of the programme?

Efficiency (how well were resources used)

- How do the results achieved compare to

the resources used – in both a quantitative and qualitative sense

the planned results – in both a quantitative and qualitative sense

the effects achieved?

- To what extent was there coherence between the various SPIN programmes?

- What did the parties involved contribute – in absolute terms, and proportionally?

- How did the programme's implementing body – the Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and

Sciences (KNAW) – create and maintain relationships with other stakeholders such as the Ministry of

Education, Culture and Science (OCW), Nuffic, the Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research

(NWO), the private sector and others?

- Which factors had a positive and negative impact on the effective implementation of the programme?

- To what extent is the management and implementation of the programme structured around

achieving effectiveness?

Additionality (to what extent did results achieved depend on the SPIN programme)

- What results can be exclusively ascribed to SPIN activities?

- What was SPIN’s added value compared to other research collaborations and funding?

- What was SPIN’s added value relative to collaborations between Indonesia and a number of Dutch

universities financed through other channels?

Continuity (to what extent will results be maintained in the absence of the SPIN programme).

- What sustainable results did the programme achieve?

- What results turned out not to be sustainable?

- What negative effects would result from SPIN's absence?

- What did the Indonesian government contribute?

- What preconditions have contributed to sustained programme results?

- To what extent is there a need and capacity for ongoing programmatic collaboration?


- What contributions would be required for this, and what is the likelihood of those contributions being

delivered?

Proposed implementation plan

The research will start in November 2014 and the findings will be presented to the Ministry of

Education, Culture and Science / Directorate of Research and Science Policy (OCW/OWB) no later

than 1 April 2015.

Final product

The evaluation will be submitted to the Ministry of Education, Culture and Science (OCW) in English,

in both digital and printed format (12 copies). The evaluation report will also include a summary in both

Dutch and English.

Supervisory committee

There will be a supervisory committee with representatives from the Royal Netherlands Academy of

Arts and Sciences (KNAW), the Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research (NWO), the

Association of Universities in the Netherlands (VSNU), and chaired by the Ministry of Education,

Culture and Science (OCW). The supervisory committee will first assess the purpose and proposed

implementation of the evaluation beforehand, and then the draft final result. The committee members

will therefore meet in person twice.

The evaluation team

The evaluation will be implemented by Nuffic, led by the Expertise Department. Nuffic has not been

involved in the SPIN programme, but it does have extensive expertise of international collaboration

programmes in higher education, knowledge of the higher education sector and teaching and research

policy, and access to extensive international networks of knowledge institutions, governments and

donors.


ANNEX 2. Interviewees and resource persons

The Netherlands

Interviewees:

Dr. R.J.H. Trienes – Team Leader International Relations Department Division Policy Advice

Dr. H.J.M. Löffler – Director Wageningen International

Prof. Dr. M. Yazdanbakhsh – Head Department of Parasitology and Leiden Parasite Immunology

Group

Dr. R.R. van Kessel-Hagesteijn – Director NWO Social Sciences

Prof. J.W.M. van der Meer MD PhD – Emeritus Professor of Medicine, Chair of Indonesia Committee

Scientific Programme Indonesia Netherlands (SPIN) and Chair of Joint Working Committee for

Scientific Research Cooperation Indonesia Netherland (SPIN)

Prof. Dr. H.G.C. Schulte Nordholt – Head of Research KITLV / KITLV professor Southeast Asian

Studies at Free University Amsterdam

Prof. Dr. Ir. M. Makkee – Associate professor Catalysis Engineering, Delft University

Dr. Ir. A.J.F. Hoitink – Associate professor of Environmental Fluid Mechanics / Head of the Kraijenhoff

van de Leur Laboratory for Water and Sediment Dynamics

Prof. Dr. S. Poppema – Chair of the University Board, Groningen University

Prof. Dr. Ir. H.J. Heeres – Chemical Technologies and Multidisciplinary Sciences, Groningen

University

Prof. Dr. R.G.F. Visser – Head Plant Breeding, Wageningen UR

Prof. Dr. M.D. de Jong - Professor of Clinical Virology, Head of de Department of Medical

Microbiology, Academic Medical Centre, University of Amsterdam

Prof. Dr. Jan Passchier – Academic Director VU-Indonesia, Free University Amsterdam

Prof. Bambang Hari Wibisono PhD – Education and Culture Attaché, Embassy of the Republic of

Indonesia, The Hague

Focus group members:

Prof. Dr. Henri L.F. de Groot – Professor of Regional Economic Dynamics, Free University Amsterdam

Dr. Adriaan Bedner – Senior Lecturer, Van Vollenhoven Institute, Leiden University

Prof. André van der Ven MD PhD – Professor International Heath, UMC Radboud University

Ben White PhD – Emeritus Professor of Rural Sociology, ISS Erasmus University

Resource persons:

Mr Thijs Geurts – Senior Policy Advisor, Department for Research and Science Policy, Ministry of

Education, Culture and Science

Dr. Sikko Visscher – Secretary SPIN, KNAW

Ms Geri de Leeuw-Mantel - Policy Officer SPIN, KNAW

Prof. Dr. F.D. van der Meer – Vice Dean Department of Earth Systems Analysis, University of Twente

Mr Tim Zwaagstra, Program Manager Southeast Asia, Program Manager Talent Funding, Groningen

University

Dr. Eric Beerkens - Policy Officer, Academic Affairs Department, Leiden University


Indonesia

Resource persons:

Embassy of the Kingdom of the Netherlands

Mr Wouter Plomp - Deputy Head of Mission,

Mr Nico Schermers - Counsellor Political Affairs

Ms Anja Roelofs - First Secretary Political Department

Mr Frits Blessing - Living Lab Indonesia

Mr Elmar Bouma - Director Indonesian-Netherlands Association

Mr Mervin Bakker, Director NESO Indonesia

Interviewees:

The Ministry of Research and Technology (RISTEK)

• Ms Nada Marsudi - Director for International S&T Network

• Ms Tri Sundari - Deputy Director for Facilitation of International S&T Network

• Ms Herlina Hadisetiawati - Head of Subdivision for Analysis on Involvement in International

Organization

Mr John I.Pariwono, PhD – Coordinator of Overseas Scholarship, Directorate General of Higher

Education (DIKTI)

Mr Eko Prasetyo – President Director, Indonesia Endowment Fund for Education (LPDP)

Mr Nur Muhlisin – Division of Business Development and Partnership, Indonesia Endowment Fund for

Education (LPDP)

Prof Satryo Soemantri Brodjonegoro, PhD - Vice President of Indonesia Academy of Sciences (AIPI)

and former Director General Higher Education

Prof. Mayling Oey – Gardiner PhD – Member Indonesian Academy of Sciences (AIPI)

Dr. Roger Tol - Director KITLV

Prof. Amin Soebandrio, PhD - Director Eijkman Institute

Prof. David H. Muljono, PhD- Academy Professor Indonesia

Prof. Yunita Winarto, Academy Professor, Universitas Indonesia

Dr.Taniawati Supali and Dicky Levenus Tahapary, MD. - Dept. of Parasitology, Faculty of Medicine

Universitas Indonesia

Prof.Dr. Sulistyowati Irianto – Dean Graduate School of Multidisciplinary Studies, Universitas

Indonesia

Ms Melda Kamil Ariadno, PhD – Head, Office of International Affairs, Universitas Indonesia

Prof. Sony Suharsono - Director of Research Center for Bioresources and Biotechnology, Bogor

Agricultural University

Dr. Pujo Semedi - Dean Faculty of Humanities, Universitas Gadjah Mada

Mr I Made Andi Arsana, PhD - Head, Division of International Collaboration, Universitas Gadjah Mada

Dr Siti Subandiyah – Professor/Plant Pathologist, Universitas Gadjah Mada

Dr. Robert Manurung - School of Life Sciences and Technology, Institut Teknologi Bandung (ITB)

Mr Yusuf Abduh - School of Life Sciences and Technology, Institut Teknologi Bandung (ITB)

Prof. Dr. Brenny van Groesen - Lab-Math Indonesia

Dr. Andonowati - Lab-Math Indonesia

Dr. Bachti Alisjahbana – Infectious Disease Specialist, HIV & TBC Research Centre, Padjadjaram

University (UNPAD), Bandung


Mr Marco Spits – President Director, FrieslandCampina Indonesia

Mr Kees Bons – Specialist Advisor S.E. Asia, Deltares

Ms Julia Wheeler – Senior Programme Manager, Basic Education Unit, Australian Agency for

International Development (AusAID)


ANNEX 3. List of documents

Brodjonegoro, Satryo Soemantri and Michael P. Greene [2012], Creating and Indonesian Science

Fund. AIPI, The World Bank, with funding from Australian Aid.

Degelsegger, Alexander, Cosima Blasy (Eds.) (2011), Spotlight on: Science and Technology

Cooperation Between Southeast Asia and Europe. Analyses and Recommendations from the SEA-

EU-NET Project. SEA-EU-NET.

GEOCAP Consortium (23013), Geothermal capacity building program – Indonesia-Netherlands

(GEOCAP): a contribution to the National Geothermal Capacity building Program of Indonesia.

University of Twente – Faculty ITC.

Joint Working Committee (2009), Scientific Co-operation Indonesia-Netherlands: Report 2003-2007,

KNAW, RISTEK, 2009.

Löffler, H. et al. (2014), Agriculture Beyond Food: Experiences from Indonesia, Den Haag, NWO-

WOTRO, 2014.

KNAW (1999), Werkplan Wetenschappelijke Samenwerking Nederland-Indonesië 1999-2000,

Amsterdam, KNAW, 1999.

KNAW [2000a], Evaluation of the Programme Scientific Cooperation Netherlands-Indonesia 1992-

1999, KNAW, Amsterdam, n.d.

KNAW (2000b), Scientific Cooperation Netherlands-Indonesia: Guidelines for Project Applications

2000, Amsterdam, KNAW, 2000.

KNAW (2001, 2002 and 2004), Rapportage Scientific Programme Indonesia – Netherlands ten

behoeve van het ministerie van OC enW .

KNAW [2003a], SPIN: Mid-term Scientific Evaluation 2000-2003, KNAW, Amsterdam, n.d.

KNAW, SPIN [2003b): Tussentijdse Proces Evaluatie 2000-2003, KNAW, Amsterdam, n.d.

KNAW, NWO and RISTEK (2003), Open Science Meeting 'Back to the Future, KNAW, NWO and

RISTEK, 2003.

KNAW (2004a), Self-evaluation 2000-2004 Scientific Programme Indonesia Netherlands, KNAW,

2004.

KNAW [2004b], Work Plan, Scientific Programme Indonesia – Netherlands (SPIN), 2005– 2009

KNAW, Eindverslag, (Jaarverslag 2005) , Scientific Programme Indonesia – Netherlands, SPIN

KNAW (2005), Scientific Programme Indonesia – Netherlands, Guidelines for Postdoc Programme

Applications.

KNAW (2006), Scientific Programme Indonesia – Netherlands, Priority Programme 2005-2009. Terms

and Conditions for the grant awarded by the Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences. July

2006.

KNAW (2007), Scientific Programme Indonesia Netherlands: A Shared Passion for Research,


KNAW, Verslag (2009, 2010, 2011), Scientific Programme Indonesia – Netherlands (2005-2011),

SPIN-2


KNAW [2010a], Evaluatie wetenschappelijke resultaten mobiliteitsprogramma, n.d.

KNAW (2010b), Work Plan Scientific Programme Indonesia-Netherlands (SPIN-3) 2012-2016,


KNAW, Verslag (2012), Scientific Programme Indonesia – Netherlands (2005-2017), SPIN-2 & 3

KNAW (2012), Scientific Programme Indonesia – Netherlands, Guidelines for Joint Research Projects

20012-2016.

KNAW (2012), Scientific Programme Indonesia – Netherlands, Joint Research Projects 20012-2016.

Terms and Conditions for the grant awarded by the Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences.

May 2012.

KNAW (2014), Scientific Programme Indonesia – Netherlands (SPIN), Zelfevaluatie 2005 – 2014,

November 2014.

Ministerie van Onderwijs, Cultuur en Wetenschap (2003), Wetenschapsbudget 2004. Brief aan de

Voorzitter van de Tweede Kamer der Staten-Generaal.

Nugrobo, Yanuar, Budiati Prasetiamartati and Siti Ruhanawati (2015), Adressing barriers to university

research. An input to diagnostic study. Report on findings from desk review and consultations with

working group, and recommendations on the scope and design of diagnostic study on university

barriers to research.

Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Science (2012), 10 years SPIN: looking ahead, looking back,

KNAW, 2012.

Shetty, Priya (2012), Biomed Analysis: Indonesia needs a central science fund, SciDev.Net, 20/07/12.

Stapel, J. (2003), Scientific Programme Indonesia-Netherlands: Proceedings of a workshop held on

February 12th 2002 in Bandung Indonesia, Amsterdam, KNAW, 2003.

Sukara, Endang and Syahrul Aiman (2012), Indonesia’s Science Funding and Review of Quality of

Science. Power Point Presentation, presented at 6th ASIAHORCS, Beijing, 9-12 October 2012.

Indonesian Institute of Sciences (Lembaga Ilmi Pengetahuan Indonesia, LIPI).


ANNEX 4. Outcomes of the questionnaire survey

Response rate

Dutch participants: 42% (of 84)

Indonesian participants: 26% (of 78)

Profile of the respondents

Q2. How many years have you been involved in the SPIN programme?

Dutch respondents


Response Count

0-5 years 51,4% 18

5-10 years 34,3% 12

>10 years 17,1% 6


skipped question 0



Response Count

0-5 years 51,4% 18

5-10 years 34,3% 12

>10 years 17,1% 6


skipped question 0

Involvement and role(s) in the various phases of the programme

Dutch respondents

Options 1994-2000

2000-2004

(Phase I)

2006-2011

(Phase II)

2012-2016

(Phase III)

Response Count



Project coördinator 3 6 9 4 17






Other: 1 3 3 1 4



skipped question 0


Options 1994-2000

2000-2004

(Phase I)

2006-2011

(Phase II)

2012-2016

(Phase III)

Response Count









Other: 1 1 3 1 3


skipped question 0

Participation in sub-programmes

Dutch respondents

Options Response Percent

Response Count

Priority Programme 21,2% 7

Joint Research Programme 30,3% 10

Mobility Programme 39,4% 13

Postdoc Programme 36,4% 12

Agriculture beyond Food 9,1% 3

East Kalimantan Programme 12,1% 4

Indonesian Challenges Exploration Grants 3,0% 1

SEA EU NET 3,0% 1

Academy Professorship Indonesia 3,0% 1

DIKTI scholarships 9,1% 3


skipped question 2


Options Response Percent

Response Count

Priority Programme 0,0% 0

Joint Research Programme 36,8% 7

Mobility Programme 42,1% 8

Postdoc Programme 26,3% 5

Agriculture beyond Food 0,0% 0

East Kalimantan Programme 0,0% 0

Indonesian Challenges Exploration Grants 0,0% 0

SEA EU NET 0,0% 0


Academy Professorship Indonesia 0,0% 0

DIKTI scholarships 10,5% 2


skipped question 0

Satisfaction with the collaboration

Indonesian respondents Q7. Has the project provided mutual scientific benefit?


Response Count

Yes 94,1% 16

Hardly 0,0% 0

No 5,9% 1


skipped question 2

Indonesian respondents Q8. How satisfied are you overall with the collaboration?


Response Count

Very satisfied 52,9% 9

Satisfied 41,2% 7

Not satisfied 5,9% 1


skipped question 2

Indonesian respondents Q 6. Would the same result have been reached with another (international) research partner?


Response Count

Yes 47,1% 8

No 17,6% 3

Not sure 35,3% 6


skipped question 2

Dutch respondents Q7. Has the project provided mutual scientific benefit?

Answer Options Response

Percent Response

Count

Yes 84,8% 28

Hardly 9,1% 3

No 6,1% 2


skipped question 2

Dutch respondents Q8. How satisfied are you overall with the collaboration?


Percent Response

Count

Very satisfied 42,4% 14

Satisfied 48,5% 16

Not satisfied 9,1% 3


skipped question 2

Dutch respondents Q6. Would the same result have been reached with another (international) research partner?


Percent Response

Count

Yes 27,3% 9

No 18,2% 6

Not sure 54,5% 18


skipped question 2


Success in achieving programme objectives

Q9. To what extent has the SPIN programme succeeded in:

Dutch respondents


expected

Just as expected

More than

expected

Response Count


26% 39% 35% 31


35% 58% 6% 31


36% 46% 18% 28


skipped question 4



expected

Just as expected

More than

expected

Response Count


7% 53% 40% 15


6% 69% 25% 16


27% 60% 13% 15


skipped question 3

Q10. To what extent has the SPIN programme succeeded in

Dutch respondents


expected

Just as expected

More than

expected

Response Count

Achieving relevant scientific output 27% 47% 27% 30

Improving research capacity in Indonesia (quality/quantity) 23% 52% 26% 31

Improving research capacity in the Netherlands 14% 76% 10% 29

Linking up with other research programmes or funding sources

32% 39% 29% 28


skipped question 4



expected

Just as expected

More than

expected

Response Count

Achieving relevant scientific output 8% 46% 46% 13

Improving research capacity in Indonesia (quality/quantity) 50% 50% 14

Improving research capacity in the Netherlands 92% 8% 12

Linking up with other research programmes or funding sources

23% 46% 31% 13



skipped question 5

Realisation of outputs

Q5. What has your project/activity achieved in terms of:

Dutch respondents



N/A Response

Count


19% 59% 19% 3% 32


28% 53% 16% 3% 32


6% 53% 28% 13% 32


16% 48% 19% 16% 31


7% 30% 13% 50% 30


10% 43% 3% 43% 30


7% 52% 28% 14% 29


4% 60% 12% 24% 25


skipped question 3




N/A Response

Count


6% 41% 47% 6% 17


12% 59% 18% 12% 17


0% 29% 65% 6% 17


0% 47% 47% 6% 17


12% 65% 12% 12% 17


6% 41% 29% 24% 17


0% 29% 65% 6% 17


0% 47% 47% 7% 15


skipped question 2


Realisation of impact

Q11. To what extent has the SPIN programme succeeded in achieving impact?

Dutch respondents


expected

Just as expected

More than

expected

Response Count


28% 32% 40% 25


26% 48% 26% 23

Patents have been registered 25% 75% 12

Collaboration with private sector is taking place 40% 60% 15


25% 75% 12


15% 69% 15% 13


17% 75% 8% 12


25% 75% 12



Structural increase of research budget in Indonesia 18% 82% 11



9% 82% 9% 11

Research laboratories have been accredited 10% 90% 10




skipped question 9



expected

Just as expected

More than

expected

Response Count


64% 36% 14


7% 57% 36% 14

Patents have been registered 80% 10% 10% 10

Collaboration with private sector is taking place 70% 20% 10% 10


20% 60% 20% 10


30% 60% 10% 10


44% 44% 11% 9


44% 56% 9




Structural increase of research budget in Indonesia 27% 64% 9% 11



23% 54% 23% 13

Research laboratories have been accredited 50% 50% 12




skipped question 4

Q18. Has the project led to other projects and/ or spin-offs?

Dutch respondents


Response Count

Yes 71,4% 20

No 28,6% 8

Not applicable 0,0% 0


skipped question 7



Response Count

Yes 66,7% 8

No 25,0% 3

Not applicable 8,3% 1


skipped question 7

Efficiency issues

Q13. What is your opinion about the cost benefit ratio of the:

Dutch respondents


expected

As expected

More than

expected

Response Count




skipped question 7



expected

As expected

More than

expected

Response Count





skipped question 6

Q16. To what extent has coherence between the various SPIN sub-programmes been achieved?

Dutch respondents


not Sort of

Definitely yes

Response Count


18% 73% 9% 22


14% 68% 18% 22


25% 70% 5% 20


skipped question 12



not Sort of

Definitely yes

Response Count


20% 20% 60% 10


18% 27% 55% 11


20% 30% 50% 10


skipped question 8

Contributions from partners and Indonesian government

Q14. What has your organization/institute contributed to SPIN in funds or in kind, compared to the grant(s) received from the SPIN programme? Please indicate the own contribution in proportion to the grant(s) received (as a % - e.g. own contribution was x % or y % of the amount of the grant).

Dutch respondents


Response Count






skipped question 17



Response Count






answered question 4

skipped question 15

Q15. What did the Indonesian government contribute towards the project/activity and/or programme?

Dutch respondents


Response Count

Facilities 39% 11

Staff time 61% 17

Scholarships 32% 9

Research funds 18% 5

Other 11% 3

N/A 14% 4

Please specify and quantify where possible: 14


skipped question 7



Response Count

Facilities 77% 10

Staff time 85% 11

Scholarships 54% 7

Research funds 46% 6

Other 0% 0

N/A 0% 0


skipped question 6


ANNEX 5. SPIN II Priority Programmes

Project Title NL university Other NL institutions IND university Other IND

institutions

Theme

05-PP-18 Valorisation of Indonesian

renewable resources and

particularly Jatropha

curcas using the BIO-

REFINERY concept

Groningen University,

Stratingh Institute

Wageningen UR ITB, Centre for

Biotechnology

Badan Pengkajian

dan Penerapan

Teknologi

Technical

Sciences

05-PP-03 In Search of Middle

Indonesia

KITLV University of

Amsterdam; Leiden

University; Institute of

Social Studies

Universitas Gadjah

Mada (UGM),

Fac.Social and Political

Sciences

University of

Indonesia

Social

Sciences

05-PP-35 Parasitic Infections and

Inflammatory Diseases:

The web of immune

responses, host genetics

and environmental

exposure

LUMC, Dept. of

Parasitology

University of Indonesia,

Department of

Parasitology

Universitas

Hasannudin

(UNHAS)

Health

05-PP-21 High Quality Solanaceous

Vegetables by Exploration

of Natural Biodiversity

(INDOSOL).

Wageningen UR Bogor Agricultural

University (IPB)

Green


Project Title No of

projects

No of SPIN

PhD

No of PhD

other

funds

No of

Postdocs

No of

AIO’s

Approved costs

05-PP-18 Valorisation of Indonesian renewable

resources and particularly Jatropha curcas

using the BIO-REFINERY concept

9 6 2 2 € 900,000

05-PP-03 In Search of Middle Indonesia 7 5 2 € 894,781

05-PP-35 Parasitic Infections and Inflammatory

Diseases: The web of immune responses,

host genetics and environmental exposure

3 3 2 € 900,000

05-PP-21 High Quality Solanaceous Vegetables by

Exploration of Natural Biodiversity

(INDOSOL).

5 5 € 900,000

Total 24 19 2 6 € 3,594,781


ANNEX 6. SPIN III Joint Research Projects

Prog

Number

Title NL

university

Other NL

institutions

IND university Other IND institutions Theme*

21-SPIN

III-JRP

Social and economic effects of

partnering for sustainable change in

agricultural commodity chains

Maastricht

University

Agribusiness

University of

Lampung

(UNILA)

Universitas Gadjah Mada (UGM);

University of Brawijaya (UB);

Institute for Development of

Economics and Finance (INDEF);

Indonesian Coffee and Cocoa

Research Institute (ICCRI)

SED

23-SPIN

III-JRP

Regional dimensions in Indonesia’s

social and economic development; a

governance approach

VU

University

Amsterdam

and

Tinbergen

Institute

University of

Twente

Universitas

Indonesia;

(LPEM_FEUI)

Institut Teknologi Bandung (ITB) SED

29-SPIN

III-JRP

Hydrology-geomorphology links in the

Kapuas river system

Wageningen

UR

Indonesian

Institute of

Sciences (LIPI)

FNFWR

30-SPIN

III-JRP

Novel strategies and tools for

antimicrobial resistance surveillance

University of

Amsterdam

(AMC)

Universitas

Padjadjaran

(UNPAD)

University of North Sumatra;

National Institute of Health

Research and Development

IDH

34-SPIN

III-JRP

The Indonesian banana: protecting a

staple food from Panama disease

Wageningen

UR

University of

Amsterdam

Indonesian

Tropical Fruits


Research Center for Biotechnology

(LIPI-Biotek); Research Center for

FNFWR


collapse and exploiting its genetic

diversity for discovery research

Research

Institute (ITFRI)

Biology (LIPI-Biology); Bogor

Agricultural University (IPB)

56-SPIN

III-JRP

From Clients to Citizens? Emerging

Citizenship in Democratizing lndonesia

Royal

Netherlands

Institute for

Southeast

Asian and

Caribbean

Studies

(KITLV)

Leiden

University;

University of

Amsterdam;

Van

Vollenhoven

Institute

Universitas

Gadjah Mada

(UGM)

President University SED

57-SPIN

III-JRP

Helminth infections and type 2 diabetes

mellitus in Indonesia. Integrating

parasitological, immunological,

behavioral and metabolic studies

Radboud

University

Nijmegen

Leiden

University

Medical

Center

Universitas

Indonesia

Universitas Sam Ratulangi

(UNSRAT)

IDH

61-SPIN

III-JRP

Incentives driving the transmission of

highly pathonogenic Avian Influenza

Virus in Indoneisan poultry chain

Utrecht

University

Wageningen

UR; De

Leeuwenborch

Bogor Agricultural

University (IPB)


Eijkman Institute

IDH

*

FNFWR: Food, Non-Food and Water Research

IDH: Infectious Diseases and Health

SED: Social and Economic Development


Prog

Number

Title No of

projects

No of

DIKTI

PhDs

No of

SPIN

PhDs

No of

Postdo

cs

No of

AIOs

Approved

budget

21-SPIN

III-JRP

Social and economic effects of partnering for sustainable

change in agricultural commodity chains 6 4 1 1

€ 570,534

23-SPIN

III-JRP

Regional dimensions in Indonesia’s social and economic

development; a governance approach 3 1 2 1

€ 480,000

29-SPIN

III-JRP

Hydrology-geomorphology links in the Kapuas river system 4 1 1 2

€ 670,000

30-SPIN

III-JRP

Novel strategies and tools for antimicrobial resistance

surveillance 2 2 2

€ 609,910

34-SPIN

III-JRP

The Indonesian banana: protecting a staple food from

Panama disease collapse and exploiting its genetic

diversity for discovery research

5 4 1 1

€ 670,000

56-SPIN

III-JRP

From Clients to Citizens? Emerging Citizenship in

Democratizing lndonesia 7 4 1 1

€ 597,250

57-SPIN

III-JRP

Helminth infections and type 2 diabetes mellitus in

Indonesia. Integrating

parasitological, immunological, behavioral and metabolic

studies

5 3 1 1

€ 590,750

61-SPIN

III-JRP

Incentives driving the transmission of highly pathonogenic

Avian Influenza Virus in Indonesian poultry chain 4 3 1 1

€ 572,355

Total 36 20 6 9 5 € 4,760,799


ANNEX 7. Open Science Meetings

The tradition of the Open Science Meetings (OSMs) began in 2002, when Indonesia and the

Netherlands reconfirmed their long history of scientific cooperation. Seven OSMs have been

organised so far by various Indonesian and Dutch institutions. Each one has been innovative and

addressed topical themes of mutual interest to the two countries.

Recurring themes include synergies between differing disciplines (notably the social and natural

sciences) and between science and society. Such synergies have led to interesting research

partnerships in the social and natural sciences, for example in the East Kalimantan Programme and

the Agriculture beyond Food Programme.

Open Science Meetings:

OSM 2014: Science and Society, February 2014, Makassar, Indonesia

OSM 2011: Rise to the Water Challenge, November 2011, Jakarta, Indonesia;

OSM 2009: Science, Innovation and Valorisation: Bridging the Gap between Science, Market and

Society, November 2009, Amsterdam, the Netherlands;

OSM 2007: Towards a Sustainable World, November 2007, Bali, Indonesia;

OSM 2005: Science and Society: New Challenges and Opportunities, September 2005, Yogyakarta,

Indonesia;

OSM 2003: Back to the Future, September 2003, Jakarta, Indonesia; and • OSM 2002: Scientific

Programme Indonesia Netherlands, February 2002, Bandung, Indonesia

OSM 2002: Scientific Programme Indonesia – Netherlands, February 2002, Bandung, Indonesia


ANNEX 8. Indonesian policies on research

INDONESIAN POLICIES ON RESEARCH: COOPERATION, CAPACITY BUILDING AND FUNDING

by Clara Ajisuksmo

Referring to Indonesian Law No. 17/2007 on Long-term National Development Plan, a long term

planning should be a visionary activity and that the preparation should be focused on society

participation i.e. universities, strategic institutions, individuals, and government who have

competencies in rational thought, while interests of people as the intended beneficiaries of

development are maintained.

The Long Term National Development Plan of the Republic Indonesia spans from 2005 to 2015, in

which the medium-term plans was segmented into 5 years, and each has development priorities. The

present medium plan covering 2010-2014 is the second phase and focuses on the following aspects

1. Promoting quality of human resources

2. Development of science and technology 3. Strengthening economic competitiveness

For the development of science and technology, the Long Term National Development Plan of

Republic Indonesia stated that

a) Science and technology development is directed to create and master of science, both basic and applied science, as well as develop social sciences and humanities to generate technology and utilize it for the welfare of the community, self- reliance and nation's competitiveness.

b) The development of science and technology are always guided by religious values, culture values, ethics, local wisdom, as well as resources and preservation of the environment.

c) Science and technology development aimed at supporting food security and energy, the creation and utilization of information and communication technology, provision of transport technology, defense technology needs, health technology, development of advanced materials technology, and increasing number of discovery and utilization in the production sector.

All of the above mission should be done through the development of human resources in science and

technology, increase research budget, development of science and technology policies synergized

across sectors, formulation of research agenda which is in tune with the needs of the market,

improvement of infrastructure for science and technology, and the development of science and

technology intermediation mechanism. These are all intended to strengthen the innovation system in

order to encourage the development of knowledge-based economy. In addition, it is intended to

improve research collaboration between domestic and international research institutes, universities

and private sector, as well as the growth of new industries based on research product with the support

of venture capital.

In a global era like today, development of science and technology is regarded important for many

countries. Countries that are able to master advance science will be able to strengthen its position in

the cooperation and competition between nations in the world. Also, by having advance technology,

each country is able to enter and expand markets for commodities exports. Therefore, it is also valid


for the Republic of Indonesia to place efforts in promoting science and technology, to increase

invention and innovation of science and technology, and to make science and technology as a

backbone of economic development. Besides, development of science and technology is believed to

be the key factor for the improvement of civilization and well-being of people.

Various efforts have been made to improve and to utilize science and technology. In 2005-2009

attempts for improving the acquisition and utilization of science and technology has been completed

through 4 programs, i.e. (a) research and development of science and technology program; (b)

diffusion and utilization of science and technology program; (c) science and technology institutional

strengthening program; and (d) production system of science and technology capacity building

program. The programs are implemented within the framework of Sistem Nasional Penelitian,

Pengembangan dan Penerapan Ilmu Pengetahuan (National System on Research, Development and

Utilization of Science and technology) elements.

The fourth programs have achieved the following:

1. Legislative Aspect of Science and Technology, as the bases for implementing science and technology development has passed four government regulations, i.e.:

a) No 20/2005 on intellectual property and technology transfer research and development carried out by higher education and research institutes. The results of research and development should be disseminated, so that it can be improve the ability of communities to utilize and master the science and technology.

b) No. 41/2006 on licensing foreign universities and research institutes as well as foreign business entities in conducting research and development in Indonesia. This regulation aims at avoiding the make use of biological and non-biological resources, artefacts, and all treasures irresponsibility by foreign parties.

c) No. 35/2007 on allocating government most enterprises revenue to improve engineering capability, innovation, and technology diffusion. This regulation aims at improvement the capability of engineering, innovation and technology diffusion in the business sector, and encouragement of partnership between research and development institutions, universities and the business sector.

d) No. 48/2009 on licensing high risk and dangerous research. This regulation is intended to ensure the implementation of research, development and application of science and technology that have a high risk for implementers and community

2. Institutional Aspect of Science and Technology, at the level of universities, research and

development institutes, and business sectors.

a) The number of higher education has increased significantly, in 2009 there were 2,600 universities both public and private. In term of quality, the rank of some universities has increased from year to year. Based on Times Higher Education, in 2008 the University of Indonesia, the Institute of Technology Bandung, and the Gadjah Mada University respectively ranked numbers 287, 315, and 316.

b) The Indonesian Institute of Science (LIPI), the Center for International Forest Research (CIFOR), and the National Research and Development of Ministry of Agriculture, are regarded as the best research institute in Indonesia. According to World Rank Research Center, their rank is 201, 425and 771.

c) The Institute of Biology Eijkman Molecular is an institution and laboratory established by World Health Organization to confirm the diagnosis of avian influenza and become a world reference regarding the H1N1 virus. It is a world class research in the field of molecular biology.

d) In 2005-2009 a variety of intermediary institutions has been developed that bridge the producer and user of science and technology. For example, Business Innovation Center (BIC), Business Technology Center (BTC), and several units working under research and


development institutions, such as Pusat Innovasi LIPI, Pusat Kemitraan Nuclear BATAN, Balai Inkubator BPPT.

3. Science and Technology Resources Aspect, including infrastructure for human resources,

intellectual property and information. Infrastructure for research and development has been established in several locations, such as

a) Pusat Penelitian, Ilmu Pengetahuan dan Technology or PUSPITEK (Center for Research on Science and Technology) in Serpong and in the Cibinong Science Center. PUSPITEK has 35 laboratories to support research institutes, e.g. LIPI, BATAN, BBPT and Ministry of Environment.

b) Pusat Peraga IPTEK, the Center is intended for the community to know more about science and technology.

4. Human Resources Aspect in various Non-Government Research Institutions.

In term of educational level of those who work for non-government research institutions has increase in the period of 2005-2009 (including are, researchers, engineers, computer personnel, supervisors radiation, nuclear engineer, surveyors mapping, earth investigators, special energy researchers, etc. There were 11,846 in 2005, 12,465 in 2006, 12,756 in 2007, and 12,889 in 2008.

There were approximately 7,649 researchers in the various research and development institutions, and 286 have qualification as research professors. At the universities currently there are 80,000 researchers.

5. Intellectual Property and Information Aspect

Patent and scientific publications which result from research and development. In December 2008 there have been registered as many as 65,695 patents, of which 2,718 (4.14%) were domestic and 28,227 (42.97%) from abroad.

International scientific publications in the period of 2005-2009 have increased. In 2005 1,376 articles were published, in 2006 1,559, in 2007 1,726, and in 2008 1,892 articles. They were contributed by researches in the universities (i.e.: ITB, UI, UGM, and IPB) and R&D institutions (i.e.: LIPI and Ministry of Health, Biopharm Pharmaceutical Company). Articles in international scientific publications came dominantly from clinical medicine and plant and animal sciences.

6. Networking and Collaboration Aspect

A variety of R&D collaborations involving academic, business and government have been established. Among others are:

a) Herbal medicine, collaboration between several Universities, Association of Herbal Companies and DG of Drugs and Food MOH.

b) Biotechnology-based drugs, between Novartis Institute for Tropical Disease (NITD), Eijkman Institute, Univ. Hasannudin.

c) Stem-cell research between IPB, LIPI and PT Kalbe Farma Tbk.

d) and other collaboration in research and development of science and technology, i.e.: Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) Science and Technology Center, Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation Industrial Science and Technology Working Group (APEC-ISTWG, SEA-EU Net.

e) Bilateral collaboration with 21 countries, i.e. South Africa, USA, Australia, Austria, Netherlands, China, Cuba, Hungarian, India, Iran, Italia, Germany, South Korea, North Korea, Malaysia, France, Rumania, Russia, Slovenia, Sudan and Tunisia

In order to respond to the needs of science and technology development, Indonesian government

launched national development strategic policy on science and technology through Menristek Decree

No. 193/M/Kp/IV/2010 - National Development Strategic Policy on Science and Technology. National


Research Priorities focuses on three things: Food, Energy and Water (FEW), and it was agreed that

each focus would have a minimum of three proposed research topics. For Food it is expected that the

topics will be Land Sub-Optimal, Bio industry Palm Oil, and Maritime Products. Energy is divided into

Geothermal, Bio Fuels, and Energy Conservation. Water will be devoted to research related to Water

Management, Water Availability and Water Control.

National Research Priorities will be part of National Research Agenda 2015-2019, which consists of

seven research focus areas, i.e. Food Technology, Information and Communication Technology,

Energy Technology, Health Technology and Medicine, Technology of Transportation, Defense and

Security Technology, and Advanced Materials. For each focus areas a sector policy, research themes,

research sub-themes, and research topics will be developed. The following are examples of research

themes:

1. Food technology – horticulture, agriculture, aquaculture, food production efficiency, etc.

2. Energy technology – oil and gas, coal, renewable energy, etc.

4. Health and medical technology – vaccine, medicinal raw materials, medical devices, bio similar, etc.

5. Transportation technology – multimodal transportation, urban transportation, safety and security transportation, etc.

6. Defense and Security Technology – research support Committee for Policy on Defense Industry.

7. Advance Materials Technology – coal gasification, raw material steel, batteries, etc.

8. Information and Communication Technology – development of infrastructure for IT security and IT safety, system development framework/platform-based on Open Source software to support e-Government, e-Business, e-Services, e-Health, etc.

According to Satryo Soemantri Brodjonegoro, former chair of DGHE and currently is the Vice

President of Indonesia Academy of Science, the SPIN program is considered very important, not only

to improve the capability of Indonesian scientists, but also to maintain historic relationship between

Indonesia and the Netherlands. In relation to this, the SPIN program should be continued, although

there may be a need to adjust the collaboration to suit the current situation and condition of the two

countries.

Also it is important that in the new format of SPIN program the opportunity to conduct joint research is

given to both parties. The Indonesian scientists should be given the opportunity to conduct research in

the Netherlands, as well as the Dutch scientists to have the opportunity to conduct research in

Indonesia. Research themes that are regarded important for both countries should be found together,

and a vision on "excellence" in research that will lead to "Nobel awards" needs to be formulated.

Apparently, the Indonesian Academy of Science has a program so called the Indonesian Science

Fund (ISF). This program is focused on the distribution of funds for excellent research. ISF will seek

excellent researchers who already have a roadmap on specific research themes, and will ask them to

develop research proposals, which would then be peer reviewed. ISF will serve as financial funding for

such research.

In the opinion of Prof. Mayling Oey-Gardiner – member of Indonesia Academy of Science - expressed

during an interview, the research environment in Indonesia limits the researchers to explore great

ideas to produce excellent research outputs. DGHE provides rules on academics in universities to

conduct research, but with a limited timeframe and limited budget so that they perform and produce

poor-quality research. In other words, the regulations made by the DGHE put more emphasis on the

quantity of research outputs and not on the quality of research results. This DGHE strategy is

counterproductive. Moreover, often expressed by the researchers in universities, DGHE focuses on

administrative factors of research implementation, such as financial statements of the research

activities carried out, and not on the quality of the content of the research itself.


Based on the interview with the key informants, some theme that should be developed by the New

SPIN is, Law Reformation and indigenous values needed for future. Many archives of Indonesian

history are in the Netherlands museum, these resources are very important in finding out what good

values and Indonesian local wisdoms needed for the development of Indonesia in the future and the

global community.

external evaluation of the scientific programme indonesia - … · 2015-08-27 · nuffic...

Documents