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

010CHAPTER 42Education for All Global Monitoring ReportPerhaps the mostserious criticismof the EDPFis that it has nothelpedinstitutions suchas educationministries to planand monitorprogressin education30. This is one issueassessed by the FTIevaluation. Countrystudies available at thetime of writing had notbeen able to identify anysignificant direct FTIinfluence in nationalplanning. The only othersystematic evaluation todate is a World Bankreview of twenty-eighteducation sector plansendorsed by the FTI. Whilethe plans were found tobe ‘above average’, theevaluation concluded thatthe Indicative Frameworkbenchmarks andassessment guidelineswere not usedconsistently (Woods,2009a).Supporting national education planningand building capacityIt is sometimes claimed that the real successof the Fast Track Initiative has been in nationalplanning rather than financing. Such claims aredifficult to evaluate. In some cases, FTI processesmay have improved the quality of dialogue betweendonors and governments, and increased donorcoordination. But it is not clear from the evidenceavailable that the FTI has strengthened nationalplanning processes overall, either in terms ofcosting education plans or by giving greaterattention to strategies aimed at includingmarginalized groups, though it may have doneso in individual cases (Woods, 2009a). 30The Education Programme Development Fund(EPDF), the second multidonor trust fund of theFTI, was established in 2004 to provide technicalsupport and capacity development to help countriesmeet FTI endorsement standards (FTI Secretariat,2004). Modelled on a Norwegian trust fund, it hasa mixed record. It has successfully supportedBox 4.12: The Education Programme Development FundThe EPDF was designed to address the planningconstraints facing many developing countries, witha view to improving prospects for FTI endorsementand additional aid. Funding commitments amountto US$114 million for 2005–2010. Norway contributesabout 40% of the resources, with the Netherlandsand the United Kingdom providing a further 20%between them.The EPDF is widely acknowledged to have contributedto technical analysis, planning scenarios and regionalmeetings to promote cross-country learning. Therehas been criticism of several points, however,including the disparity between allocations anddisbursements: at the end of 2008, less than half ofthe funds allocated since 2004 had been disbursed.Given that the EPDF was created to support capacitybuilding,the fact that capacity constraints have beencited as a reason for slow disbursement is troubling.EPDF funds have not targeted countries wherecapacity is weakest. A 2007 assessment found thatonly around 40% of EPDF recipient countries wereidentified as fragile states (according to the OECD-DAC definition) and that these received just 28%of country-specific funding. In some countries, EPDFfinance has been directed towards subsectors weaklylinked to FTI goals, such as higher education. Thefund has largely supported workshops, seminars andtraditional types of external technical assistance.preparation of technical data and backgroundanalysis for some countries (including Sierra Leone,as shown later in this chapter). However, criticsquestion its responsiveness to potentialbeneficiaries’ needs (Box 4.12).From local to global:governance of the FTI partnershipGovernance of the Fast Track Initiative involvesa large number of actors and complex processes.National planning, the foundation for entry intothe ‘FTI partnership’, brings together governmentsand donors. At the global level, the FTI is rootedin wider EFA planning processes through a Boardof Directors that includes developing countries andall major donors for education, including bilateral,multilateral and regional agencies, and civil societygroups (FTI Secretariat, 2004, 2009d; Buse, 2005).Reform of the governance system has been aperennial item on the FTI agenda. Debate on thispoint has focused on representation by developingcountries and non-government organizations, thePerhaps the most serious criticism of the EDPF isthat it has not helped institutions such as educationministries to plan and monitor progress in education.Some commentators argue that the EPDF hasbeen weakened through its domination by the WorldBank. A 2008 review found that the Bank executed90% of EPDF activities. This is partly becausethe management structure delegates proposaldevelopment authority to World Bank regional sectormanagers. The Bank also holds the EPDF Committeechair, adding to potential conflicts of interest.Several developing country FTI members haveindicated that they do not understand the processof securing EDPF funds. This may partly accountfor the relatively slow pace of disbursement. Withthe current EPDF commitment period ending in 2010,just two-thirds of funds have been allocated and lessthan half this amount has been disbursed.The EPDF remains an underutilized resource.As the single largest source of untied aid availableto support capacity development in education, itcould be used to address urgent priorities, suchas improving the integration into planning processesof policies designed to reach marginalized groups.Sources: Bermingham (2009a); FTI Secretariat (2008b, 2009a);Bellew and Moock (2008); Riddell (2009).252