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

001CHAPTER 42Education for All Global Monitoring ReportFigure 4.2: Nearly all donors are falling short of their aid pledges for 2010OECD-DAC donors’ total aid as a share of GNI, 2004–2008 (net disbursements),and targets for 2010ItalyGreeceUnited StatesJapanAustriaNew ZealandSpainAustraliaCanadaGermanyUnited KingdomFinlandIrelandBelgiumSwitzerlandFrancePortugalNetherlandsSwedenLuxembourgDenmarkNorwayTotal DACDAC-EU countriesSource: (OECD-DAC, 2009d).20042008 (increase)2008 (decrease)2010 target0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1 1.2ODA as % of GNIto the G8 for the aid target of a US$50 billionincrease by 2010. As G8 countries account fortwo-thirds of global development assistance,the group’s collective and individual performanceis clearly of great importance in terms of reachingaid targets.The data show that G8 performance has beenvariable. Preliminary 2008 data for France, Japanand the United States indicate they have made littleprogress towards their fair share target whileGermany and the United Kingdom are progressingat a rate that would see them surpass that target.Figure 4.4 looks at the broader group of OECD-DACdonors, providing a league table in terms of fairshares. It highlights the strong performance ofsome countries, including the Netherlands, Spainand Sweden, which have exceeded their share ofthe overall commitment.The large prospective 2010 deficit facing sub-Saharan Africa is a source of growing concern.Aid represents a large share of revenue for theregion and is a vital source of finance for education.The 2005 Gleneagles commitment was promptedin part by donor recognition that the region was faroff track for many of the Millennium DevelopmentGoals and that a stronger aid effort could helpchange this picture. In the event, though, manydonors have failed to give higher priority to aidfor sub-Saharan Africa (ONE, 2009).Some countries,such as Germanyand Spain,have significantlyincreasedaid-to-GNI5. Individual EU countrytargets differ butrepresent 0.56% ofEU GNI.While some countries, such as Germany and Spain,have significantly increased aid-to-GNI from themiddle of the range, others have registered amarginal increase (Italy), no increase (the UnitedStates) or have fallen back (Japan) from a low level.Some donors have set the bar far higher thanothers. That is one reason it is problematic tocompare donors on the basis of progress towardsnational targets. Starting from a high level, Norwayand Sweden aim to reach an aid-to-GNI level of 1%,while EU members have set a collective target of0.56%. 5 The financial target for Canadian aid wouldtranslate into a 0.34% aid-to-GNI ratio and meetingthe Japanese target would produce a ratio of 0.28%.Another way to measure donors’ comparativeperformance is to look at ‘fair shares’, allocatingeach donor responsibility for delivering on a shareof the global pledge based on the size of their GNI.Figure 4.3 illustrates this approach with referenceFour years after the 2005 pledges were made,confusion over targets and monitoring criteriacontinues to hamper effective scrutiny of donorperformance. At the 2009 G8 summit in L’Aquila,leaders agreed to explore a ‘whole of country’approach to development that takes into account‘a wide range of factors such as government aidand non-aid policies, private sector and civil societyefforts’ (Group of Eight, 2009c, p. 37). It is not clearwhat this means in practice. An obvious danger isthat the conspicuous failure of some donors todeliver on measurable aid pledges will be obscuredby a poorly defined reporting system designedto report on indicators that are not comparable– and in some cases not readily measurable.The financial crisis threatensfuture aid flowsProspects for achieving the 2010 aid targets havediminished with the global economic downturn.Donor country governments are grappling withswelling fiscal deficits as they seek to balancea shrinking revenue base with rising expenditure222