Chapter 2. Progress towards the EFA goals - Unesco

More documents

Recommendations

Info

0 1 0 CHAPTER 2 2 Education for All Global Monitoring Report Sub-Saharan Africa accounts for about two-thirds of the financing gap, or US$10.3 billion 66. This is calculated by dividing the average financing gap by the average projected GDP of all countries included in the costing exercise from 2008 to 2015. Table 2.11: Average annual financing gaps in low-income countries, 2008–2015 Education level Pre-primary Universal primary education Adult literacy Basic education financing gap Lower secondary Total financing gap sector and region. The deficit that will have to be covered by increased development assistance is projected to widen to 2015 before narrowing as the domestic resource base expands and the need for additional capital spending declines. Results of the analysis include the following: Estimates of the financing gap for basic education are about 30% higher than the previous global estimates. Assuming that all low-income countries reach the ‘best effort’ thresholds by 2015, the aggregate average annual financing gap in basic education for the low-income countries covered is equivalent to about 1.5% of their collective GDP. 66 The cumulative deficit for basic education, calculated on a country-by-country basis, is around US$16 billion annually from 2008 to 2015. Current aid levels cover only a small part of the Education for All financing deficit. For the low-income countries included in this exercise, development assistance for basic education amounts to US$2.7 billion (Figure 2.49). 67 A sixfold increase in aid to basic education will therefore be required if the basic education goals are to be achieved. Financing gap Sub-Saharan Africa South Asia Conflict-affected countries (constant 2007 US$ billions) (%) (%) (%) 5.8 74 23 29 9.8 68 28 48 0.6 42 37 51 16.2 69 27 42 7.9 57 37 43 24.1 65 30 43 Note: The financing gap is the difference between the total investment requirement indicated by the costing exercise and levels of domestic financing associated with all countries reaching ‘best effort’ thresholds by 2015. Source: EPDC and UNESCO (2009). Sub-Saharan Africa accounts for about 69% of the financing gap, or US$10.3 billion. Low-income countries affected by conflict account for 42% of the gap, or US$6.4 billion. Adding the costs of lower secondary education increases the gap to US$24 billion – a figure that illustrates the enormous increase in resources required if countries are to universalize access. However, without addressing the financing gaps at the basic education level and building strong learning foundations, increased investment in post-primary education is unlikely to be equitable or to lead to the skills improvement that governments and parents demand. The global costing exercise raises important questions for the international community. With just five years remaining to the target date for the Education for All goals and the wider Millennium Development Goals, the United Nations Secretary- General has called on donors to act on their 2005 commitments, made at Gleneagles to substantially increase aid by 2010. Such a move would clearly help narrow the education financing gap, but it would not fully close it. Holding constant the distribution of aid between low-income and 67. Chapter 4 shows that aid commitments to basic education in 2006 and 2007 averaged US$4.9 billion (see Figure 4.7). The lowincome countries included in the costing exercise received 55% of these commitments. 130
PROGRESS TOWARDS THE EFA GOALS Estimating the cost of achieving Education for All middle-income countries, and between different levels of education, full delivery of the 2005 commitments would leave a deficit of US$11 billion (Figure 2.49). That scenario points to the case for an urgent reassessment of aid commitments and distribution patterns. With an international summit on the Millennium Development Goals planned for 2010, donors should as a matter of urgency convene a pledging conference to close the Education for All financing gap. Conclusion The limitations and uncertainties associated with global financial costing models have to be acknowledged. Yet the results of the exercise set out here provide a clear warning sign. In the absence of an urgent, concerted effort to make new and additional resources available for education, there is little prospect of the world’s poorest countries getting on track to meet the 2015 targets. If the policy goal is to ensure that all the world’s primary school age children are in education systems by 2015, the investment cannot be delayed. The global costing exercise underlines the importance of low-income developing countries and donors doing far more. However, the role of donors is critical because governments in the poorest countries lack the resources to close the Education for All financing gap. 131
Page 1 and 2:
0 Education for All Global Monitori
Page 3 and 4:
PROGRESS TOWARDS THE EFA GOALS Intr
Page 5 and 6:
PROGRESS TOWARDS THE EFA GOALS Earl
Page 7 and 8:
Page 9 and 10:
Page 11 and 12:
Page 13 and 14:
Page 15 and 16:
Page 17 and 18:
PROGRESS TOWARDS THE EFA GOALS Univ
Page 19 and 20:
Page 21 and 22:
Page 23 and 24:
Page 25 and 26:
Page 27 and 28:
Page 29 and 30:
Page 31 and 32:
Page 33 and 34:
Page 35 and 36:
Page 37 and 38:
Page 39 and 40:
PROGRESS TOWARDS THE EFA GOALS Yout
Page 41 and 42: PROGRESS TOWARDS THE EFA GOALS Yout
Page 67 and 68: PROGRESS TOWARDS THE EFA GOALS The
Page 81 and 82: PROGRESS TOWARDS THE EFA GOALS Esti
Page 91: PROGRESS TOWARDS THE EFA GOALS Esti
show all

Chapter 2. Progress towards the EFA goals - Unesco

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?