Financing Education / pdf - Unesco

More documents

Recommendations

Info

PROGRESS IN FINANCING EDUCATION FOR ALL Contribution of external aid to EFA since Dakar Table 4.11: Number of major donors to the education sector in sixty-eight low-income countries, 2003—2005 Number of donors Number of countries 0 1 1 4 2 10 3 10 4 6 5 9 6 5 7 3 8 4 9 3 11 3 12 5 13 3 14 2 Democratic People’s Republic of Korea Central African Republic, Kiribati, Liberia, Tuvalu Comoros, Congo, Côte d’Ivoire, Equatorial Guinea, the Gambia, Guinea-Bissau, Sierra Leone, Solomon Islands, Togo, Zimbabwe Cape Verde, Lesotho, Maldives, Mongolia, Myanmar, Samoa, Sao Tome and Principe, Somalia, Timor-Leste, Uzbekistan Burundi, Djibouti, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Papua New Guinea, Republic of Moldova, Vanuatu Bhutan, Cameroon, Chad, Eritrea, Guinea, Haiti, Kyrgyzstan, Rwanda, Tajikistan Cambodia, Madagascar, Mauritania, Nigeria, Sudan Malawi, Uganda, Yemen Benin, Democratic Republic of the Congo, the Niger, Senegal Angola, Mali, Nepal Afghanistan, Ghana, Nicaragua Burkina Faso, India, Mozambique, Pakistan, Zambia Kenya, United Republic of Tanzania, Viet Nam Bangladesh, Ethiopia The share of aid through sector programmes increased between 1999–2000 and 2004–2005 from 6% to 18% Source: FTI Secretariat. of development activities. The desire for overall sectoral coherence has also had an impact on the adoption of new approaches. Declining share of project aid and increasing programme support One indicator for monitoring the Paris Declaration is the share of aid provided to programmes, rather than to projects. It was determined that by 2010, 66% of aid flows should be in this form. Despite this precise target, the indicator is difficult to measure precisely and the information donors have provided to the OECD-DAC Secretariat is only approximate, particularly for earlier years. However, the reported change in the composition of aid to education in general, and to basic education in particular, between 1999 and 2005 is so substantial as to make quite clear that changes have indeed occurred (Figures 4.16 and 4.17). Figure 4.16: Share of aid commitments to education and to basic education, all countries, by type of aid, 1999—2000 and 2004—2005 26% 56% 6% 12% Education 22% 49% 18% 11% 1999–2000 2004–2005 Source: OECD-DAC (2007c). Unspecified Technical cooperation Sector programme Investment project Basic education 28% 32% 20% 20% 30% 23% 34% 13% 1999–2000 2004–2005 Figure 4.17: Share of aid commitments to basic education by type of aid, by income group, 1999—2000 and 2004—2005 For the education sector as a whole, across all developing countries, the share of aid through sector programmes increased between 1999–2000 and 2004–2005 from 6% to 18%, while that of project aid remained almost constant at 11–12%. For basic education the change was even more substantial: support for sector programmes increased from 20% to 34% and project support fell from 20% to 13%. Sector aid increased from 13% to 35% for the fifty least developed countries and from 21% to 39% for all low income countries. These are significant changes over a period of just five years. Least developed countries 33% 32% 13% 21% 34% 22% 35% 8% 1999–2000 2004–2005 Source: OECD-DAC (2007c). 28% 27% 21% 24% Low income countries 26% 19% 39% 17% 1999–2000 2004–2005 Middle income countries 28% 36% 22% 25% 40% 28% 13% 6% 1999–2000 2004–2005 Unspecified Technical cooperation Sector programme Investment project 165
2 0 8 0 CHAPTER 4 Education for All Global Monitoring Report Nine bilateral donors put over 20% of their aid in the form of sector support Not all donors have adopted the more programmatic aid modalities equally. Again, the data are approximate and depend on how donors report aid, but the multilateral agencies appear to have moved further than the bilateral donors as a group: for the former, 38% of their education aid in 2004–2005 was in the form of sector support, compared to only 14% for the latter. Nevertheless, nine bilateral donors put over 20% of their aid in this form, and for Canada, Denmark, Finland, Norway and Sweden the share was over 40% (OECD-DAC, 2007c). Some implications of the new aid modalities for education The move to more programme lending is not simply a change in financing modalities. It is part of a broader movement to improve the harmonization and alignment of efforts between donors and between governments and donors. This does not occur automatically. The appropriate conditions must exist within countries for it to be possible to move away from a project focus towards more programmatic support around the sector-wide reforms called for in the Dakar Framework for Action. While there is broad support in principle among donors for the change in focus, there are also differing interpretations of the implications and of the desirable speed for adopting the new modalities. Developing country governments have shown similar differences in viewpoint. In 2005, the Global Campaign for Education named the Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency (Sida) the premier donor to education in terms of supporting the countries with the largest needs and using local plans and systems as its starting point. An examination of Sida’s experiences in shifting towards more programmatic support for aid to basic education is, therefore, particularly useful in highlighting some of the challenges. Sida’s current annual report describes the situation in each of the fifteen countries it supports in basic education, in terms of type of funding (project, sector programme, or direct budget support), the degree of interaction with other donors and the relationship with the government, including its ability to meet the requirements of a more programmatic approach (Sida, 2007). Only in Bolivia, Honduras, Mali, Mozambique, Rwanda and the United Republic of Tanzania does Sida provide aid as sectoral or general budget support. In Bangladesh and Cambodia, specific activities within sector programmes are supported. In the remaining seven countries, support is still provided for individual projects, though in some there are discussions with other donors to improve coordination and harmonization. The strong involvement of governments in sector programmes in the six countries receiving Sida budget support is made clear, but in several of the other countries there are said to be low levels of government ‘ownership’ of donor-supported activities and a severe lack of management and planning capacity and accountability. In the Lao People’s Democratic Republic, there are differing views within government on the desirability of a sector-wide approach. The lesson here is that even when the donor agency is fully committed to sector-wide programmes and is joined by likeminded donors, this approach does not work automatically – it still requires strong government implementation capacity and support. The Netherlands has also been at the forefront of introducing changes in aid modalities. It has used budget support and SWAps as the organizing principle for bilateral aid since 1998, with education as a priority sector (Riddell, 2007a). In assessing whether countries are ready for such an approach, the requirements are (a) an effective poverty reduction strategy, which must translate the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) into national policies and allow for partnerships, including with civil society; (b) effective policy dialogue with the government on improving governance and reducing poverty; and (c) a results-based approach with clearly defined progress indicators for institutional and policy reforms. A recent evaluation of the changed focus since 1998 concluded that: the rapid adoption of a uniform approach in the introduction of SWAps outstripped the capacity of recipient-country ministries, and in most countries the institutional infrastructure was inadequate to meet such a drastic change; in most cases, the expected increase in ownership in the recipient countries did not materialize; in most sectors, the recipient governments have great difficulty in effectively reaching the poor (Netherlands Ministry of Foreign Affairs, 2006). 166
Page 1 and 2: Education for All Global Monitoring
Page 3 and 4: 0 0 2 8 CHAPTER 4 Education for All
Page 5 and 6: 8 0 CHAPTER 4 2 0 Education for All
Page 7 and 8: 0 0 8 CHAPTER 4 2 Education for All
Page 27: 2 0 0 8 CHAPTER 4 Education for All
Page 31 and 32: 2 0 Education for All Global Monito
Page 35 and 36: 2 0 Education for All Global Monito

Financing Education / pdf - Unesco

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?