Reaching the marginalized: EFA global monitoring report, 2010; 2010

010CHAPTER 42Education for All Global Monitoring ReportDonors still haveto mobilizean additionalUS$29 billion —in other words,they are lessthan halfwayto meetingtheir pledges1. As the 2010 targetof increasing aid byUS$50 billion is expressedin constant 2004 prices,so are the figuresthroughout this part.2. The 2008 aid data werestill preliminary at thetime of writing.Governance problems continue to undermine aideffectiveness. Aid works best when its provisionis predictable and when it operates throughviable national reporting and public financialmanagement systems. Under the ParisDeclaration on Aid Effectiveness, donors andrecipients adopted ambitious targets in theseareas. However, progress has been limited.Unpredictable aid and failure to use nationalsystems weaken the ability of developing countrygovernments to undertake long-term financialplanning and add to transaction costs.Conflict-affected poor countries receiveinsufficient support. Countries enduring oremerging from conflict often have large out-ofschoolpopulations, severely damaged educationinfrastructure, weak governance, and limitedfinancial, technical and human capacity. Whilethere are problems in building aid partnershipsin these countries, far more could be done.Opportunities to consolidate peace through thereconstruction of education systems are beinglost. Over one-third of out-of-school childrenare in conflict-affected poor countries. Yetdonors commit less than one-fifth of aid toeducation to these countries.Overall aid pledges:the record on deliveryInternational support for education depends on thesize of the global aid envelope and the allocation ofresources within that envelope. Here we examineoverall aid levels and donors’ progress towardsthe benchmarks set by their own pledges.Aid flows rose sharply in 2008 after two yearsof decline, but there is a real danger thatcommitments made in 2005 to increase overallaid by US$50 billion by 2010 – and to double aidto Africa – will not be honoured. Even beforethe global economic downturn, spending plansindicated that these targets would be missed bya wide margin. As budgets come under mountingpressure, the deficit could widen, with graveconsequences for international developmentgoals in education and beyond.Aid levels are rising — but too slowly‘Despite the severe impact of the crisis on oureconomies, we reiterate the importance of fulfillingour commitments to increase aid,’ the leaders ofthe Group of Eight industrialized countries statedat their July 2009 summit in L’Aquila, Italy (Groupof Eight, 2009c, p. 35). Their joint communiquémarked the fourth such reaffirmation of a pledgemade at the Gleneagles summit and other highlevelmeetings in 2005. Commitments under thatpledge include an increase in overall aid fromthe US$80 billion spent in 2004 to US$130 billionby 2010, with around half the increase, orUS$25 billion, directed towards Africa. 1Measuring progress towards these benchmarksis complicated by several factors. High levels ofdebt relief in 2005 led to a sharp spike in reportedaid, followed by a comparative decline in 2006and 2007. Another difficulty relates to the way aidis measured. The OECD Development AssistanceCommittee (OECD-DAC) converted donors’initial pledges to targets that expressed aid asa proportion of donor countries’ gross nationalincome (GNI). With economic growth projectionshaving fallen, the same aid-to-GNI ratios translateinto less real aid. The question is whether theGleneagles pledge should be adjusted to reflectthe new growth projections.Leaving the aid-to-GNI targets unchanged wouldcontradict the spirit of donors’ commitments.For aid recipients, what counts is real financingfor schools, teachers, clinics and roads, not thebookkeeping arrangements of the OECD-DAC.This Report, therefore, uses the original pledgeof increasing aid by US$50 billion by 2010 as thebenchmark for measuring progress.Overall development assistance rose sharply in2008 as debt relief reverted to more normal levels.Spending on aid increased by around US$10 billionto US$101 billion in 2008 – a rise of more than 10%from the previous year (Figure 4.1). The share of aidin the GNI of rich countries also increased, to 0.30%. 2The positive news on the recovery in aid flows iscounterbalanced by the prospect of large shortfallsagainst the targets set. Two years before the 2010deadline, donors still have to mobilize an additionalUS$29 billion. In other words, they are less thanhalfway to meeting their pledges. Their currentlyplanned increases fall far short of the level requiredto close the impending 2010 deficit. As Figure 4.1indicates, the estimated increases leave a globalgap between target spending and actual spendingof around US$20 billion.Africa accounts for a large share of the 2010financing gap. Donors are a long way from theaid spending targets they set for the region at220