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

OVERVIEWThe reform process starts by setting an appropriatescale of ambition, identifying areas in which a multilateralframework can add value to current efforts and settingout an agenda for governance reform to give developingcountries a stronger voice.Insufficient clarity over the FTI’s remit should not beallowed to obscure its weak performance. There is nocredible evidence to support the argument that theinitiative has spurred an increase in bilateral aiddirected through country programmes. The FTI’s mainfinancing mechanism, the Catalytic Fund, has madelimited financial transfers with high transaction costs.While cumulative donor commitments had reachedUS$1.2 billion by March 2009, disbursementsamounted to just US$491 million. Several countrieswhose FTI plans were endorsed between 2002 and 2004have yet to receive their full allocation. Disbursementproblems have been compounded by the stringentapplication of World Bank rules, in some cases forcinggovernments and bilateral donors to adopt practices thatweaken donor coordination and undermine nationalownership.Limited disbursement is not the only FTI weakness.The estimation of financing gaps has been characterizedby inconsistency and systematic underestimation, withFTI plans reflecting what donors may be willing to financerather than what developing countries need to meet the2015 targets.© UNESCO/Ernesto Benavidesdrugs to 2 million people. Notwithstanding some obviousdifferences and the problems associated with verticalinitiatives geared towards specific diseases, there areimportant lessons to be drawn for FTI reform.There are several key ingredients for more effectivemultilateralism in education. Some of those ingredientscan be found in the principles underpinning the FTI,such as the commitment to back national planning andstrategies for achieving the Education for All goals withincreased aid. However, it is also important to establisha level of ambition commensurate with the challengeahead. The remit for the FTI should be clearly focused onclosing the Education for All financing gap, with a strongcommitment to the development of quality education andequity. Provision should be made for attracting supportfrom philanthropic foundations. And developing countriesshould have a far greater voice in governance. Butperhaps the most important ingredient for a moredynamic multilateral architecture, and the ingredientmost conspicuous by its absence to date, is high-levelpolitical leadership.Governance is another concern. While the FTI is widelypresented as a partnership, it is for practical purposes a‘donor club’. Developing countries are under-representedat all levels and have a weak voice in financing decisions.The FTI also effectively excludes from funding thosecountries most in need of a multilateral financingmechanism, since most conflict-affected countries havebeen viewed as not meeting the standards for accessingCatalytic Fund support.The FTI experience contrasts strongly with multilateralinitiatives in health. To take the most notable example,the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malariahas succeeded in mobilizing and delivering additionalresources through a broad donor base. One of thestrengths of the Global Fund, in contrast with the FTI,has been the creation of innovative financing windows forphilanthropic donations. Governance arrangements differmarkedly from those of the FTI. The Global Fund is anindependent organization, staffed by a strong secretariat,and developing countries have a strong voice at all levels.It has delivered significant results in terms of impact,including in countries with weak capacity: it haddisbursed US$7 billion by 2008 and supplied antiretroviral15