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

2100CHAPTER 4Box 4.17: A new global fund for education?Education for All Global Monitoring ReportThe newadministrationhas signalled thatit wants tostrengthencoordination withother donorswithin a broadcommitmentto countryownershipThe 2008 United States election brought to officean administration that has a strong commitment todevelopment and has identified education as a priorityarea for a scaled-up aid programme. Before HillaryClinton was appointed secretary of state, she wasthe principal sponsor in the Senate of a bill aimedat raising United States aid for basic educationto US$3 billion from a 2007 level of US$700 million.Part of an increased aid effort could be channelledthrough a new global fund which under the rightconditions could strengthen the multilateral aidarchitecture for education and enhance theeffectiveness of a reformed Fast Track Initiative.Details of the prospective initiative remain unclear.During his election campaign, President Obama saidhe would back a proposal to create a US$2 billionGlobal Education Fund.Some commentators believe a global educationfund should replace the FTI as the focal point forinternational action. While its positive elementsshould be retained, this argument runs, the FTI is toodiscredited to merit strong political support. Criticscite its difficulties securing financial replenishmentin support of this conclusion. This assessment ispremature and at least partially misplaced.It is premature because details of the United Statesproposal remain sketchy. The economic crisis hasraised questions over US funding increases for basiceducation. Moreover, it remains unclear whether thefund would be a bilateral programme (like theMillennium Challenge Account), a United States-ledmultilateral programme, or a bilateral programme thatcould be used to finance a global fund (along the linesof the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief,PEPFAR). Details may become clearer with the publicationin 2009 of a new USAID education strategy.Much will depend on governance design. Anarrangement like the Millennium Challenge Accountcould raise problems; only countries meetingstipulated good governance and free market criteriaare eligible for grants. Other options could offergreater flexibility. The legislation that authorizedPEPFAR in 2003 allows for assistance to bechannelled through global funds, provided it does notaccount for more than one-third of their total finance.In 2007, PEPFAR accounted for 27% of commitmentsto the Global Fund. However, bilateral PEPFAR supporthas different reporting requirements than the GlobalFund, and much of the support is channelled throughUnited States universities, faith-based organizationsand commercial companies.The new administration has signalled that it wantsto strengthen coordination with other donors withina broad commitment to country ownership. However,the nature of United States reporting requirementscould make this difficult. Equally difficult may bethe use of host-country procurement and reportingsystems. Currently only small amounts of UnitedStates aid are directed through national budgets,suggesting that much of the potential expenditurecould go through American non-governmentorganizations and separate projects.Such practices cannot serve as the basis for aneffective global fund in education. This position,however, does not preclude United States engagementand leadership in reconfiguring the multilateral aidarchitecture for education. Channelling part of theincrease in basic education financing through areformed FTI could help the United States broadenthe geographical coverage of its support withoutlarge transaction costs. More active United Statesinvolvement in FTI governance would also helpstrengthen donor coordination.Experience in the health sector demonstrates whatis possible. Through PEPFAR, the United States hasbeen a major contributor to the Global Fund withoutrequiring separate reporting structures. Reformingthe FTI along the lines advocated in this chapterwould open the door to a similar process ofengagement in education.Sources: PEPFAR (2009); Ingram (2009).into account the additional cost of reachingmarginalized groups. Donors need to mobilizethe additional resources needed – aroundUS$16 billion annually in this Report’s estimate –over a five to ten year planning horizon. That isthe meaning of the Dakar Framework pledgeto ensure that no countries seriously committedto education for all will be thwarted in theirachievement of this goal by a lack of resources.Establish the FTI as an independent foundationwith a strong independent secretariat and reformgovernance arrangements to strengthen thevoice of developing countries. Applying lessonsfrom the models developed by global funds forhealth, the FTI should be legally reconstitutedas an independent foundation, staffed by astrengthened independent secretariat andsupported by technical review and capacity-266