development partner cooperation in support of...

Office of ADG/EDAn Education Sector Working Document

Development Partner Cooperation in Supportof Education for All:

Rationale and Strategies

A Discussion Paper

United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural OrganizationOrganisation des Nations Unies pour l’éducation, la science et la culture

© UNESCO 2000Printed in France

(ED-2000/WS/36)

i

C o n t e n t s

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................................... 1

I. CONTEXT ................................................................................................................................. 3

Education for Human Development......................................................................................................... 4

The Financial Challenge of Achieving Education for All........................................................................ 5

II. STRATEGIES FOR INTERNATIONAL SUPPORTOF EDUCATION FOR ALL ................................................................................................. 9

(i) Increasing external finance for (basic) education .......................................................................... 10

(ii) Ensuring greater predictability in the flow of external assistance.................................................. 12

(iii) Providing debt relief and/or cancellation for poverty reduction and basic education .................... 13

(iv) Facilitating more effective donor coordination .............................................................................. 14

(v) Strengthening sector-wide approaches........................................................................................... 15

(vi) Monitoring of progress towards the goals and targets of Education for All................................... 16

Targeting of international assistance of Education for All ....................................................................... 16

III. CONCLUSION ......................................................................................................................... 19

REFERENCES.................................................................................................................................... 20

Development Partner Cooperation in Support of Education for All:Rationale and Strategies

A Discussion Paper1

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1 The discussion paper (revised 3.11.2000) was prepared by Lene Buchert, Office of the Assistant Director-General forEducation, UNESCO. Comments and reactions should be addressed to her at: 7 Place de Fontenoy, 75352 Paris 07 SP,France. Tel: (+33 1) 45 68 08 26. Fax: (+33 1) 45 68 56 27. E-mail: [email protected]

1. UNESCO was mandated at the WorldEducation Forum in Dakar in April 2000, tocoordinate a global initiative aiming atformulating the strategies and mobilizing theresources needed to provide effective support tonational efforts in the achievement of the goalsand targets of Education for All by the years 2005and 2015. The following elements should beconsidered in the design of strategies andresource mobilization: (1) increasing externalfinance for education, in particular basiceducation; (2) ensuring greater predictability inthe flow of external assistance; (3) providingearlier, deeper and broader debt relief and/or debtcancellation for poverty reduction, with a strongcommitment to basic education; (4) facilitatingmore effective donor coordination;(5) strengthening sector-wide approaches; and(6) undertaking more effective and regularmonitoring of progress towards the goals andtargets of Education for All, including periodicassessments. UNESCO’s proposals in thisrespect are outlined in this paper and aresupplemented by the strategies for targeting ofinternational assistance. The corerecommendations are the following:

2. (1) Increasing external finance for education,in particular basic education: In view of thedrastic decline in Official DevelopmentAssistance (ODA) during the 1990s, membercountries of the Development AssistanceCommittee (DAC) of the Organisation forEconomic Cooperation and Development(OECD), in particular those with largeeconomies, are urged to translate their expressedcommitments into practice and provide increasedand targeted assistance to countries most in need.Specifically, DAC member countries should:• Double their support for education toconstitute a total of $7 billion by 2005,$10.5 billion by 2010 and $14 billion by 2015.

• Within the foregoing increased overallsupport for education, significantly increaseODA for basic education from the current$700 million.• Fulfil their commitments towards the HeavilyIndebted Poor Countries (HIPC) Initiative andensure that significant amounts of debt relief arechannelled into support for Education for All.• Ensure coherence and coordination of allassistance internationally and nationally, andmonitor progress towards the fulfilment of thegoals of Education for All.• Target their assistance to achieve optimaleffect, including support for innovativeapproaches to Education for All, partly built onbest practices.3. A range of alternative sources for mobilizationof international resources must also beconsidered. These include:• Former aid recipient countries andnon-member countries of DAC /OECD.• Private investment financing, in particular thepossibility to forge partnerships among thefinancial services industry, the state and civilsociety to promote social development and to linkprivate and public finance with public education.• Non-governmental organizations, privatefoundations and large-scale corporatefoundations to undertake innovative funding andfund-raising for Education for All, assist inawareness-raising and lobbying together withrelevant ministries, and undertake specificeducation programmes or provide financial orsupport in kind in fulfilment of the goals andtargets of Education for All.4. (2) Ensuring greater predictability in the flowof external assistance: Predictability dependsboth upon political will and procedures that taketheir point of departure in recipient country needsrather than aid-providing country interests.Predictability also depends on recipient country

Development Partner Cooperation in Support of Education for All

2

capacity to absorb and use funding in accordancewith nationally defined plans and goals.Aid-providing countries and agencies must,individually and collectively, revisit theirconditionalities for aid provision and ensureconsistency between declared politicalcommitment and actual action. In particular,special soft terms must be applied for educationaid in view of its critical role for povertyreduction and sustainable development. Withrespect to the largest funding agencies, theInternational Monetary Fund (IMF) and theWorld Bank, it is important that socialdevelopment goals become core objectivesalongside macro-economic targets in theestablishment of lending programmes. In the totalWorld Bank investment projects, the soft-loanconcessional commitments through theInternational Development Association (IDA)should constitute a comparatively higherproportion than non-concessional IBRD lending.5. (3) Providing debt relief and/or cancellationfor poverty reduction and basic education: In thecurrent situation of declining ODA, it isimportant to identify innovative financialschemes which can supplement ODA financing.Debt relief and/or cancellation is one mechanismwhich, together with debt-for-development-swaps, have received strong internationalattention and political backing. The core notion isthat forgiven debt in specific countries would betranslated into social development activities,including financial support for Education for All.The various debt relief mechanisms must beenacted with the utmost urgency. Financing ofdebt relief schemes must be undertaken throughthe mobilization of new and additional resources,and not be diverted from already declining ODA.Furthermore, the underlying terms of the schemesmust be revisited in order to ensure that they trulybenefit the countries and their social andeducational development. This includes possiblyexpanding the eligibility criteria in order thatlarger, including the nine high-population (E9)countries, gain access to the scheme. The criteriamust be conditioned on social and humandevelopment goals and not, as is currently thecase, on short-term macro-economic targetsrelated to the Enhanced Structural AdjustmentFacility (ESAF) (recently renamed PovertyReduction and Growth Facility (PRGF)). Finally,countries must be provided with the necessarytechnical assistance in order for them to producea national poverty strategy, one of thepreconditions for the scheme.

6. (4) Facilitating more effective donorcoordination: Effective donor coordination aimsat ensuring consistency in goals and strategiesadopted by all actors as a basis to promote holisticnational development processes and to ensuremaximum impact of international assistance.Coherence must be established within and acrosssectors as expressed in the attempts to linknationally and internationally developedstrategies and plans for education with povertyreduction and general development strategies.UNESCO will continue its support of nationalgovernments in order to strengthen their capacityto lead coordination of the development partnersat the country level. UNESCO also envisages tostrengthen its own role internationally throughseeking membership of the United NationsDevelopment Group. With respect to Educationfor All, UNESCO has already begun itscoordinating role through the use of national andregional UNESCO offices and, globally, throughthe establishment of two core bodies which bothhave representatives of all relevant actors: one isthe Working Group on Education for Allconvened by the Director-General of UNESCOand the other is a high-level policy group onEducation for All chaired by the Director-Generalof UNESCO.7. (5) Strengthening sector-wide approaches:Sector-wide approaches have been identified asthe best alternative or supplementary mode to thekind of fragmented international project supportwhich characterized international developmentcooperation in earlier decades. These approachesrepresent at the same time a new workingrelationship among international agencies, andbetween agencies and national governments,based on partnerships and policy dialogue; a newframework for development assistance permittingconsistency in purposes and means among allpartners; and a new instrument for developmentassistance promoting reforms through agreedoperational commitments and devolving greaterauthority to national governments concerningresource decisions. The existence of a supportivenational policy and institutional environmentcharacterized by longer term macro-economicplanning, strong government leadership andeffective participation of civil societyorganizations is an absolute precondition tosuccess. Such environments are often insufficientor lacking in aid-recipient countries. Theinternational community must, therefore, worktogether in the provision of technical assistance tostrengthen the human and institutional resource


3

base in specific countries. It must also, togetherwith national governments, ensure that lessonsand best practices in sector-wide approaches areproperly communicated and shared among allactors through research, seminar, and otherinformation and communication activities at thecountry level. Finally, criteria related to theeducation sector must be used together with themore general macro-economic and politicalcriteria when introducing sector-wideapproaches, and alternatives to these approachesmust be carefully considered in countries that donot yet have the appropriate pre-conditions.8. (6) Monitoring of progress towards the goalsand targets of Education for All: Monitoring ofprogress must be made the responsibility of allpartners nationally, regionally andinternationally. It must be an integral part ofnational, regional and international plans and aregular activity in the Education for All efforts. Itmust be based on common output and outcomesindicators that cover all aspects of themulti-faceted Education for All concept, whileallowing for national adaptations. Appropriateeducation management and information systemsmust be set up at the country level, trainingprogrammes must be conducted in undertaking

base-line surveys in order to enhance the quality,accuracy and validity of the underlying data usedat the country level to monitor progress, andcountry capacities in general evaluation andmonitoring must be strengthened. UNESCO willoffer to ensure monitoring of global progresstowards the achievement of Education for Allthrough its Institute for Statistics in activecooperation with its partners.9. Targeting of assistance for optimal use is asimportant as actual resource mobilization. Thecurrent climate of scarce resources has toughenedconditionalities and led to a strong focus on aideffectiveness. Reinforced support for governmentleadership, coherence and coordination of effortsamong all development actors have led to aconcentration on a more limited group ofcountries and areas selected for support bydevelopment partners, often based on principlesof “good” policies. Support for Education for Allmust, however, be based on inclusion rather thanexclusion. As the next step in this strategic Workin Progress, scenarios of packages of support forindividual countries will be developed that aim atensuring both holistic national development andoptimal use of external and national funding forself-sustained development purposes.

Development Partner Cooperation in Support of Education for All:Rationale and Strategies

I. CONTEXT

1. The World Education Forum (Dakar, April2000) reaffirmed the vision of the WorldDeclaration on Education for All (EFA) (Jomtien,Thailand, 1990) that all children, young peopleand adults have the human right to benefit from aneducation that will meet their basic learning needsin the best and fullest sense of the term (WorldEducation Forum, 2000). The Forum collectivelycommitted itself to attaining the following goals:(a) Expanding and improving comprehensiveearly childhood care and education, especially forthe most vulnerable and disadvantaged children.(b) Ensuring that by 2015 all children,particularly girls, children in difficultcircumstances and those belonging to ethnicminorities, have access to and complete, free andcompulsory primary education of good quality.

(c) Ensuring that the learning needs of all youngpeople and adults are met through equitableaccess to appropriate learning and life-skillsprogrammes.(d) Achieving a 50 per cent improvement inlevels of adult literacy by 2015, especially forwomen, and equitable access to basic andcontinuing education for all adults.(e) Eliminating gender disparities in primary andsecondary education by 2005, and achievinggender equality in education by 2015, with a focuson ensuring girls’ full and equal access to andachievement in basic education of good quality.(f) Improving all aspects of the quality ofeducation and ensuring excellence of all so thatrecognized and measurable learning outcomes areachieved by all, especially in literacy, numeracyand essential life skills.


4

2. The Dakar Framework for Action is acollective commitment. As stated (§2, p. 8),Governments have an obligation to ensure thatEFA goals and targets are reached and sustained.This responsibility, it is argued, can mosteffectively be met through broad-basedpartnerships within countries, supported bycooperation with regional and internationalagencies and institutions. The internationalcommunity is called upon to formulate thestrategies and mobilize the resources needed toprovide effective support to national efforts (§11,p. 9). UNESCO was mandated in Dakar tocoordinate this initiative.3. This paper, which has been developed in aninteractive process between UNESCO and itsmajor development partners, outlines UNESCO’sproposed strategies for the six elements listed inthe Dakar Framework for this initiative, namely:(i) Increasing external finance for education, in

particular basic education.(ii) Ensuring greater predictability in the flow of

external assistance.(iii) Providing earlier, deeper and broader debt

relief and/or debt cancellation for povertyreduction, with a strong commitment to basiceducation.

(iv) Facilitating more effective donorcoordination.

(v) Strengthening sector-wide approaches.(vi) Undertaking more effective and regular

monitoring of progress towards the goals andtargets of Education for All, includingperiodic assessments.

4. These elements are understood in this paper toaim at both resource mobilization and efficiencyimprovements. They are discussed based on anunderstanding that the contribution of theinternational community must be complementaryto that of national governments who bear the mainresponsibility for the achievement of the EFAgoals. In accordance with UNESCO’sinternational role as a broker and “neutral” adviserof its Member States, the perspective of the paperis that international efforts must serve the interestsof the countries and be designed and targeted fortheir individual, specific needs.

Education for Human Development

5. The EFA goals underline the long-existent andprevailing concerns of the internationalcommunity that have been expressed in numerousdeclarations and conventions since the Universal

Declaration of Human Rights in 1948 stipulatedfree education for all – a goal reaffirmed in theConvention on the Rights of the Child in 1989.Two of the EFA goals, universal primaryeducation by 2015 and elimination of genderdisparity in primary and secondary education by2005, also form part of the recognizedinternational development targets that aim atglobal poverty reduction through strategies forhealth and the environment in addition to those foreducation. Proposed at the World Summit forSocial Development in Copenhagen in 1995,these targets were agreed by the DevelopmentAssistance Committee (DAC) of the Organisationfor Economic Cooperation and Development(OECD) in 1996 and have been reaffirmed in theUnited Nations Millenium Declaration in 2000(United Nations, 2000).6. The breadth of the EFA goals is expressed inUNESCO’s current federating objective for itswork: globalization with a human face. The EFAgoals highlight the downside of globalization,namely marginalization and exclusion of certainpopulation groups, countries and regions thathave persisted, even expanded, despite thenumerous international declarations andconventions in support of free education for all,equity, social development and poverty reduction.According to the Dakar Framework, currentlymore than 113 million children have no access toprimary education, 880 million adults areilliterate, gender discrimination continues topermeate education systems, and the quality oflearning and acquisition of human values andskills fall far short of the aspirations and needs ofindividuals and societies (World EducationForum, 2000). Furthermore, disruptive conditionsrelated to, for example, persistent civil wars andthe HIV/AIDS pandemic call for radicalinnovative rethinking of, or at least a much widerrange of approaches to, the teaching and learningprocess.7. This situation highlights not only thecontinued validity of the plea of the late 1980s forstructural adjustment with a human face or theneed to protect the vulnerable while promotinggrowth (Cornia et al., 1987), but also thenon-enactment of international declarationsdespite widespread official government supportand relative consistency in international thinkingon the necessity and benefits of education fordevelopment. Investment in human and socialcapital are now widely accepted as means ofcreating sustainable development, achieving


5

poverty reduction and reducing inequalitieswithin and among nations. The relationshipsbetween education and improved health, higherproductivity, innovation, increased politicalparticipation and empowerment is comparativelywell established, although many of the precisemechanisms still have to be more clearlyunderstood, particularly because of differences inoutcomes in different contexts.8. Education is also central to the current,pervasive emphasis among the developmentpartners to establish a mutually reinforcingrelationship between macro-economic stabilityand structural reform on one hand, and growthand reduction of poverty and inequality on theother. It is reflected in the outcomes of top-levelmeetings, such as those of the G8 countries inCologne in 1999 and the G7 education ministersin Tokyo in 2000 – the latter including theparticipation of the Director-General ofUNESCO – at which investment in lifelonglearning, education and skills was placed at thecore of the development of futureknowledge-based societies. “Education and skillsare indispensable to achieving economic success,civic responsibility and social cohesion”, it isstated in the 1999 Cologne charter. The G8leaders in Okinawa, partly as a result of severalinteractions between UNESCO and thePresidency of G8 in preparation of the meeting,agreed to, according to their communiqué:

follow up vigorously the conclusions of therecent Dakar conference on Education for Allby ensuring that additional resources aremade available for basic education. ... Wereaffirm our commitment that no governmentseriously committed to achieving Educationfor All will be thwarted in this achievement bylack of resources. ...[And] ... to strengthen efforts bilaterally andtogether with international organizations andprivate sector donors to achieve the goals ofuniversal primary education by 2015 andgender equality in schooling by 2005.

9. The leaders also called on internationalfinancial institutions, in partnership withdeveloping countries, to focus on education intheir poverty reduction strategies and to providegreater assistance for countries with soundeducation strategies. “These strategies shouldmaximise the potential benefits of I[nformation]T[echnology] in this area through distancelearning wherever possible and other effectivemeans”, the leaders stressed.

10. Thus, while education’s central role indevelopment efforts seems to be undisputed andbacked by high-level political commitment in thecase of Education for All, not all EFA goals seemto carry the same weight. In the widerdevelopment targets and in the statements of theG8 countries, the basic education concept hasbeen narrowed to universal primary education andgender equality. It is important to remindourselves of the wider basic education conceptthat underlies the discussion in this paper.

The Financial Challenge of AchievingEducation for All

11. In its Global Action Plan (GAP), Oxfam(Watkins, n.d.) identified a funding gap of anadditional $7-8 billion per year to achievehigh-quality universal primary education by theyear 2015. The validity of this figure isquestionable as a definite target for national andinternational resource mobilization for Educationfor All because the basis of its calculation isobscure and because it is set against achievingonly universal primary education. However, thefigure does provide some indication of currentthinking of the financial needs for education whileother work is ongoing, for example in UNESCOand the World Bank, to determine actual resourcegaps in specific national contexts. Meanwhile, thesheer numbers of out-of-school children andilliterate adults alone indicate the size of thechallenge ahead.12. The figure on perceived financial needsindicates that a funding gap is likely to persistunless often-stated rhetoric is followed by strongpolitical will to adopt more radical measures thanusually applied to ensure the attainment of theeducational goals. This concerns both the effortsof national governments that have alwaysfinanced the vast proportion of education, and ofthe international agency community whosefunding plays an often critical, catalytic andsupportive role. From an internationalperspective, the need to rethink funding strategiesis related to the discouraging trends in OfficialDevelopment Assistance (ODA) during the 1990swhich, for the most part, 95%, is provided byDAC member countries as either grants, in thecase of bilateral assistance, or concessional andnon-concessional flows, in the case ofmultinational assistance. As a percentage of thecombined GNP of DAC countries, ODA hasfallen by more than one-fifth in constant dollar


6

terms, from 0.33% in 1992 to its lowest level of0.22% in 1997 with some slight recovery to0.24% in 1998. Real net ODA (in constant 1997prices) fell from $60,524 million in 1992 to$48,324 million in 1997, then increased to$50,835 in 1998 (see Figures 1 and 2).Provisional DAC ODA figures for 1999 show afurther overall increase with, however, individualcountry fluctuations (Statistics from PressStatement by DAC Chairman, May 2000). Of themember countries, the largest four economies,France, Germany, Japan and United States,together with Canada and Italy, have had thegreatest reductions in their assistance during the1990s, although the trend for Japan, in particular,may become more encouraging if the provisional1999 figures are confirmed. By contrast, thenon-G7 group have allocated increased sharesthroughout the 1990s and new, smaller countrieshave joined in this support.13. With respect to geographical allocation ofODA, trends in both its volume and share for theleast developed countries and for sub-SaharanAfrica have been downward in recent years, withsome of the major aid providers being responsiblefor some of the largest reductions. Theproportional allocation to the least developedcountries dropped from 37 to 32% of the totalduring1987/88 to 1997/98 while that ofsub-Saharan Africa dropped from 32.1 to 29.5%of the total during the same period (OECD/DAC,1998, 1999, 2000a).14. As a proportion of total net resource flows,2

ODA dropped from 41.4% to an estimated 20.7%during 1991-98. Both bilateral and multilateralODA have been halved during the same period,bilateral assistance dropping from 30% to anestimated 14.7% and multilateral assistance from11.4% to an estimated 6.1% of the total. Of themultilateral assistance, non-concessional netdisbursements (constant 1997 prices) have gainedin importance, increasing from $2, 834 million in1994 to $16,343 million in 1998 whereasconcessional disbursements dropped from$17,503 million in 1994 to $14,722 million in1998. The largest contributors of concessionalflows were EC ($5,176 million) and IDA($4,693 million), constituting roughly two-thirdsof total flows in 1998. Of the non-concessionalflows, the highest proportion came from IBRD

2 Total net flows are constituted by Official DevelopmentFinance (which includes Official DevelopmentAssistance, Official Aid and other Official DevelopmentFinance), Export Credits and Private Flows.

($5,804 million) followed by those from theAsian Development Bank ($4,701 million) andIDB ($4,153 million) (OECD/DAC, 2000a).15. It is noteworthy that education seems to havesuffered relatively less within this overalldeclining ODA trend. Although persistentproblems of recording and analysing aid,including that for education, prevent a reliableanalysis, all sources consulted for this studyindicate that education has largely maintained itsproportionate level during the 1990s. Thus, totalDAC bilateral allocation for education constituted10.6% of the total in 1998 compared with 8.7% in1991 and 11.5% in 1989. In 1998, multilateralallocations constituted 7.6% of the total comparedto 8.8% in 1991 and 4.6% in 1989 (Buchert,1995; OECD/DAC, 2000a).3 According to DAC,the absolute value of bilateral commitments toeducation increased from $3,288 million in 1990to $3,553 million (constant prices) in 1997,having experienced a high of $4,632 million in1994. Multilateral funding increased from$1,748 million in 1990 to $2,789 million in(constant prices) 1997 (UNESCO, 2000b,p. 120).4 Total bilateral ODA commitments andcommitments to education from the twelvehighest ODA providers appear in Figures 3aand 3b.16. Based on DAC-data provided for Bentall etal. (2000, p. 25), the relative commitment frombilateral agencies to basic education as aproportion of total commitments for the educationsector rose steadily from 2% in 1993 to 14% in1997. According to OECD/DAC (2000a), basic

3 These figures are lower than those in the study preparedfor the World Education Forum (Bentall et al., 2000)which presents both DAC-provided data and surveydata collected specifically for the study. According tothe report (p. 20), ODA commitments to education basedon the survey data constituted 16% in 1990, declined to7% in 1992, and recovered to average around 15%during 1993-98. According to DAC data in the report,bilateral ODA commitments constituted around 14% atthe beginning of the decade and rose to nearly 16% in1997.

4 Note that these figures are lower than those provided byDAC to Bentall et al. (2000) which (converted intoconstant 1997 prices) represent a drop from$5,114 million in 1990 to $4,793 million in 1997 asbilateral commitments.


9

education constituted 1% of total bilateral ODAand 1.8% of total multilateral ODA in 1998. Eventhough the 1% figure was recently adjusted byDAC based on updated information from itsmember countries, the total amount in support ofbasic education is still remarkably low, being nowestimated at $700 million instead of the original$400 million for 1998 (OECD/DAC, 2000b). Thefigure indicates the huge distance to the perceivedfunding gap of an additional $7-8 billion per yearfor universal primary education alone.17. By contrast, the total net resource flows to aidrecipients more than doubled from 1991 to 1996(from $138 billion to $369 billion), but has beenseverely declining since then (estimated at $239billion for 1998) (OECD/DAC, 2000a). Of thetotal amount, the proportional shares of OfficialDevelopment Finance (which includes ODA) andprivate flows have reversed during 1991-1998,Official Development Finance constituting 61%of the total in 1991 and 37% in 1998, compared to38% and 61% of the total, respectively, for privateflows in the same years. Of the private flows,bond lending and international portfolio flowshold the dominant position as bank lending hasnot yet recovered from the negative impact of theAsian financial crisis.18. This picture of total flows underlines severalof the challenges that have to be addressed if theinternational community is to play a trulysupportive role in meeting the goals and targets ofEFA. First, the recent reverse in importance ofprivate flows over ODA seems to match theincreased importance of establishing supportivemacro-economic environments as a preconditionto poverty reduction, social and educationaldevelopment. In this thinking, private sector flows

are considered to be catalytic to national economicdevelopment. However, if a mutually reinforcingrelationship between macro-economic stabilityand structural reform on one hand, and growthand reduction of poverty and inequality, on theother, is to be established, then the comparativeimportance of ODA must be heightened and theunderlying conditions for private flows revisited.Second, while the relative proportion ofmultilateral compared to bilateral assistance hasremained the same within overall ODA during the1990s, multilateral non-concessional resourcesnow constitute the larger proportion of totalmultilateral assistance. This highlights apotentially continuing or increased financialburden on aid receiving countries. Third, supportfor education and for basic education is feeble.This leaves national governments and theinternational community with the need to designstrategies that are not only all-encompassing andcreative in terms of approach and content, but alsowith the responsibility to ensure that all fundingraised is used to its maximum benefit in thepursuit of the stipulated EFA goals and targets.19. What follows are proposals for strategies thatrespond to each of the stipulated elements in theDakar Framework: to increase and ensure morereliable external financial assistance, to use debtrelief and/or debt reduction to promote Educationfor All, to facilitate donor coordination andstrengthen sector-wide approaches, and tomonitor EFA goals effectively. An importantextension of these elements is the use of externalfunding to its maximum. Strategies for targetingof aid, both geographically and thematically, are,therefore, also included.

II. STRATEGIES FOR INTERNATIONAL SUPPORT OF EDUCATION FOR ALL

20. Discussions on increasing internationalassistance has focused particularly on the use ofprivate investment, improved trade relations anddebt relief as potential, supplementary measuresto international aid. Less influential has been thereallocation of resources from military spending,the size of which would permit immediateattention to the funding needs of Education for All(see, for example, OECD/DAC, 1996, 1998,2000a; Watkins, n.d.; K hler and Wolfensohn,5 September 2000). The establishment ofcoherence through coordination, sector-wideapproaches and monitoring can be understood as

important measures for efficiency improvementsin international aid.21. International and national resourcemobilization must be complementary and welltargeted in the pursuit of holistic nationaldevelopment processes. Several preconditionsmust, therefore, be met in order for policies andstrategies to be successful. One is to ensure thatsupport for EFA is not isolated from support forthe full education sector or from other coreelements of a government’s budget. Education forAll must be linked within sector frameworks withpoverty reduction and development strategies, as


10

stated in the Dakar Framework for Action. Thismeans coherence, on one hand, among nationalEducation for All action plans, education sectorplans, development strategies and other policyframeworks, such as the Common CountryAssessments (CCA), the United NationsDevelopment Assistance Framework (UNDAF),the World Bank Comprehensive DevelopmentFramework (CDF), the Poverty ReductionStrategy Papers (PRSP) and the Heavily IndebtedPoor Countries (HIPC) Initiative.22. Another precondition is that internationalsupport be provided as a function of the differentinstitutional and structural contexts andconstraints at the national level which determinethe appropriate approaches, strategies andresource utilization. In this respect,macro-economic and sectoral reform must belinked in order to ensure a supportiveenvironment enabling the education system tofunction efficiently and effectively as adevelopment tool. Reform efforts must includepolicy reform to enhance locally generatedresources for education and other developmentpurposes through, for example, more effectivefiscal instruments, appropriate taxation andtaxation incentives, enhanced private sectorcontributions and budgetary re-allocations, andthe attraction of additional private internationalcapital flows, concessional resources andimproved measures for debt relief. All resourcesand expenditures must be treated within acommon budgetary framework. Simultaneouspolicy reform of the education sector must aim atcost-shifting and cost-sharing, without adverseeffects for the poor and without enhancing gender,rural/urban, regional and other inequalities.Efficiency and effectiveness of theteaching-learning processes must be heightenedthrough locally adapted solutions, including theuse of new information technologies as animportant delivery mode. This also includes theadoption of sector-wide approaches to educationaldevelopment and improving aid conditionalities.23. The detailed strategy work, which must bedone at the country level in view of the specificcountry circumstances, should take intoconsideration the elements of the DakarFramework that aim at enhancing the contributionand impact of international developmentcooperation.

(i) Increasing external finance for (basic)education

24. In view of the mismatch between rhetoric andreality in ODA, it seems to be pertinent to remindDAC member countries, and particularly thosewith large economies, of the urgency of fulfillingtheir expressed commitments to sustainabledevelopment, poverty reduction and Educationfor All. In this respect, DAC member countrieshave to:• Allocate a proportionately higher share of

ODA to social development in accordancewith the principles of the 20:20 Initiative andbased on specific country circumstances.

• Double their support for education from thecurrent level of $3.5 billion to constitute$7 billion by 2005, $10.5 billion by 2010 and$14 billion by 2015.

• Within increased overall support foreducation, significantly increase ODA forbasic education from the current$700 million.

• Fulfil their commitments towards the HIPCInitiative and ensure that debt relief ischannelled into support for Education for All(see below).

• Ensure coherence and coordination of allassistance internationally and nationally, andmonitor progress towards the fulfilment ofthe goals of Education for All (see below).

• Target their assistance to achieve optimaleffect, including support for innovativeapproaches to Education for All, building onbest practices (see below).

Expanding the sources of financing

25. Due to the political climate andpolicy-making processes in the individual DACmember countries, even in the best scenario theperspectives for increasing ODA would bemedium to long term rather than short term innature. It is important, therefore, also to seek toexpand the sources of financing to include, forinstance, certain former aid recipient countriesand non-DAC OECD member countries, as hashappened in the case of the Republic of Korea.26. Furthermore, the current strongest de factosource of financial flows, private investmentfinancing, must be exploited to its utmost as long


11

as it leads to positive development for developingcountries. In this respect, it might be worthwhileto forge new partnerships among the financialservices industry, the state and civil society topromote social development and to link privateand public finance with public education, as hasbeen proposed by some observers (Berg, 2000;Findakly and Berg, 1997). As argued by them, theoverall purpose would be to build solid financialsystems, inter alia through benefiting from thepotential of private financial markets, which aregrowing in many parts of the world where basicchallenges for education remain, and to usedifferent funding mechanisms to relieve pressureon the public systems, for example issuing ofgovernment bonds to finance education.Multilateral capital could be used forintermediation purposes, i.e. to facilitate the flowsof savings from economies that have managed toaccumulate capital to the ones that are in urgentneed for it. The multinational banks could alsoassist in fostering the growth of debt markets indeveloping countries by, for example, issuingdebts in such markets and deploying liquidity inorder to attract private capital, and by devisingspecific financial instruments to leverage theprivate market while providing risk reduction andsecurity.27. Contributions from the private sector mayalso be increased through intensified use of andcollaboration with national and internationalnon-governmental organizations (NGOs), privatefoundations and large-scale corporatefoundations. At the national level, NGOs,community-based organizations and other private,charitable organizations are a potentially strongmechanism for collaboration among government,the business community and private citizens thatcould lead to focusing private charity towardsorganized investment in human and social capital.In a recent study on indigenous philanthropy inPakistan, an aggregate amount of Rs 70 billionhas been estimated for charity donations for 1998,money which might better serve developmentpurposes if a focused institutional rather thanindividual approach guided its use (Bonbright andAzfar, 1999).28. With respect to international NGOs, theircontributions to ODA reported throughOECD/DAC is low, constituting only 3% to 4%of the total since 1994 (OECD/DAC, 2000a), butmost organizations operate outside of thisframework. Some, for example Oxfam andActionAid, have a key function in raising public

awareness on a range of development issues. Thisis a function which needs to be expanded andrethought and to become a major obligation of alldevelopment partners involved in Education forAll. Relevant ministries bear a particularresponsibility for this. However, in contrast to thenecessary lobbying and awareness-raising work ofand by ministries, NGOs, as grass-rootsorganizations, are particularly suited to alsoundertake innovative fund-raising throughmarket-oriented events, such as concerts orlotteries. Other initiatives could be considered inthe context of the UNESCO follow-up to Dakarwhich incorporates the NGO alliance. Ofparticular relevance and interest would be todevelop information programmes on Educationfor All along the lines of those on variousdevelopment issues appearing regularly on themajor international television channels producedby the World Bank, United Nations Children’sFund (UNICEF) and United NationsDevelopment Programme (UNDP). Suchprogrammes might assist in providing thenecessary public awareness-raising to increasepolitical support for international assistance toeducation in countries such as the United Stateswhich, despite being the second major ODAprovider in 1998 (after Japan), contributed thelowest proportion of the total for education(1.7%).29. With respect to private foundations, somehave traditionally supported educationprogrammes in different sub-sectors of education,such as the Ford Foundation, the RockefellerFoundation, the Carnegie Foundation, the AgaKhan Foundation and the Bernard van LeerFoundation. The latter is, for example,particularly important for one of the leastconsidered EFA goals, namely early childhoodcare and education, especially for the mostvulnerable and disadvantaged children. Otherfoundations, established more recently, also havean interest in wider development and specificeducation issues, such as the United NationsFoundation (Ted Turner), the Melissa and BillGates Foundation and the Gates LibraryFoundation. Special arrangements might also bemade with, for example, the Soros Foundationthat runs its own selected programmes in the areaof education. Finally, a number of big corporatefoundations, such as Kellogg, which have beensupportive of education projects in a range ofdeveloping countries could be engaged in specificsupport for Education for All. Others, in particular


12

IT companies, such as Hewitt-Packard, arealready involved in supporting primary educationprogrammes and could, in addition to the Melissaand Bill Gates Foundation, be approached inorder to solicit support, on favourable terms to thecountries concerned, for the strategy to harnessnew information and communication technologiesin the pursuit of EFA goals.

(ii) Ensuring greater predictability in theflow of external assistance

30. From the perspective of aid-receivingcountries, external financing serves nationaldevelopment best if it forms part of a holistic,long-term planning process. Predictability infinancing is, therefore, equally important asenhancing the flows. Predictability rests, on onehand, on the capacity of aid providers to transferresources according to specified time schedulesand, on the other, on the capacity of aid-receivingcountries to absorb and use the funding inaccordance with nationally defined plans andgoals. This is related to the need to ensurecoherence between national and internationalstrategies and plans, and to the rationale for debtrelief schemes and the adoption of sector-wideapproaches which will be discussed below.31. Both enhancing and ensuring greaterpredictability in the flow of external assistancedepend upon political will and procedures thatmust relate to recipient country needs rather thanaid-providing country interests. Such kinds ofprocedures are difficult to enact due to thediversity of prevailing interests within and acrossaid-providing countries and to the underlyingdifferent national purposes for provision ofexternal assistance. Constrictions on countriesbecause of tying of aid, of funding agencypreference for investment in capital rather thanrecurrent costs or in sectors and areas of their ownchoice, have all long been identified as impedingnational ownership and holistic developmentefforts. Similarly, specific underlyingconditionalities for assistance, such as freezing ofstaff recruitment and wages, certain specifiedbudget cuts, lack of indexing to inflation anddelays in disbursement have limiteddecision-making, implementation capacity andflexibility of governments that should be more incharge of their own development process.32. Development partners must, therefore,individually and collectively revisit theirunderlying terms of aid provision not only to

ensure higher consistency between declaredpolitical commitment and actual action, but alsoin consideration of the fact that support foreducation should be provided on special, softterms in view of its critical role for povertyreduction and sustainable development.Development partners must work with nationalgovernments in the establishment of procurementand reporting procedures that have their point ofdeparture in country needs and interests, an issuewhich is also pertinent in the context ofsector-wide approaches (see below). The majorfunding agencies, IMF and the World Bank,represent a special case in point. Much criticismhas been raised of IMF macro-economicconditionalities related to structural adjustmentand macro-economic reform. The critical issueremains to provide funding on the best possibleterms for the countries and to establish socialdevelopment goals as core objectives alongsidemacro-economic targets.33. Countries would obviously be better served ifthey did not have to resort to borrowing foreducation, and if such lending from just onesource, the World Bank, did not constitute apredominant proportion of external funding foreducation. But even in the current situation,ameliorative steps could be taken. In contrast toDAC countries overall, the World Bank hasconsiderably increased its commitments foreducation in its overall funding and, withineducation, for basic education understood morespecifically as primary education. The Bankintends to continue to do so, partly throughincreased investment financing and partly throughalternative sources, such as social/communityaction programmes, public expenditure reformcredits, poverty reduction support programmesand HIPC debt relief. Overall lending foreducation increased from 7.9% of total lending in1996 to 10.9% of the total in 1998 when itamounted to $3,160 million (constant 1997prices) (World Bank, 1998, p. 8). Withineducation, support for basic (primary) educationhas been above 30% of the total since 1990 andconstituted 40% of the total in 1996 (Mundy,1999, p. 107).34. It is notable, however, that most World Bankcommitments for education have been provided asnon-concessional funding through theInternational Bank for Reconstruction andDevelopment (IBRD), the proportion havingincreased from 53% of total lending for educationin 1996 to 62% of the total in 1998 (World Bank,


13

1998, p. 8). It has been provided mostly tomiddle-income countries in Latin America. Bycontrast, the soft-loan commitments through theInternational Development Association (IDA)have been fluctuating during the 1990s. Theywere at a lower level at the end than at thebeginning of the 1990s. The commitments tosub-Saharan Africa dropped during the 1990s incontrast to increases for both South-East Asia andLatin America (Watkins, n.d.). Thus, arestructuring of internal lending leading to agreater proportionate focus on concessional IDAfunding and on countries with highest need mightboth ease the financial burden on the recipientcountries and be more supportive of the goals andtargets for Education for All.

(iii) Providing debt relief and/or cancellationfor poverty reduction and basic education

35. Debt relief and/or debt reduction have beenidentified as the potentially most importantcatalyst, particularly in the HIPC countries, forpoverty reduction and social, includingeducational development, and for bringing theinternationally agreed development targets by2005 and 2015 within reach. It is also animportant part of the discussion to establishcoherence both across different policy areas, suchas development policy, foreign policy, andinternational trade and investment policies withinand among countries in the North and the South,and between nations and external agencies(Forster and Stokke, 1999). The intention of thedebt relief schemes is to free up national resourcesthat through pre-agreement between the creditorand the debtor government, are converted intosupport, for example, for the attainment ofEducation for All. Debt-for-development-swapshave been proposed as another possible financialmechanism which could be adopted, for exampleby bilateral and multilateral organizations that arethe main creditors in Africa (Saravanamutto andShaw, 1995). The swaps would also imply that anamount of debt would be forgiven if a governmentpledges to allocate the equivalent amount in localor foreign currency for agreed activities, such assupport for Education for All. This is similar tothe principles of the 20:20 Initiative.36. These mechanisms must be enacted into theirfull potential for countries in need. It is alsoimportant to consider the possible inclusion oflarger countries currently excluded from thescheme, for example E9 countries. In order that

debt relief can be used as a social developmentmechanism, a stronger accord must urgently bereached between rhetoric and practice, as in thecase of ODA. This is highlighted by the fact that,since debt schemes were first put into place in the1980s and until 1996, the debt stock in the HIPCcountries has increased by a factor of four, ratherthan having decreased, that 40% of bilateral aid toHIPC countries has been used to repay debt tomultilateral creditors (IMF and the World Bank),and that debt forgiveness has constituted only 2%of the total net flow of financial resources fromDAC countries to developing countries during the1990s. Six of HIPC sub-Saharan countries spendmore than one-third of the national budget on debtservicing, while spending 4 to 11% on basic socialservices (Oxfam, 1999a, pp. 7, 11-12; OECD/DAC, 2000a). Serious concerns have also beenexpressed concerning the prospects for success ofthe HIPC Initiative – which was revised by theWorld Bank and IMF following therecommendations of the G7 meeting in Colognein 1999 – unless bilateral and multilateralorganizations and the G7 countries translate theircommitment into immediate generation of newresources that are additional to ODA. Otherwise,there is a strong risk that the reform may not takeplace or may be financed through a diversion ofdevelopment assistance, likely from non-HIPCcountries (Oxfam 1999a, 1999b).37. Another concern is that the underlying termsfor the scheme must favour countries rather thancreditors. Among the perceived benefits of therevised HIPC scheme are an increase in thenumber of eligible countries from 26 to 33because of a reduction in the debt-to-export ratiofrom 200-250% to 150%, and the release ofearlier flow of resources because debt relief willbe fixed at the Decision Point rather than at theCompletion Point.5 However, in order to servepoverty reduction and human developmentpurposes, it has been argued, eligibility criteriamust be tied to national revenue instead of export

5 The HIPC Initiative involves two stages. According tothe original terms, the country would work during aperiod of up to three years with IMF/the World Bank toestablish a record of good economic policies and povertyreduction related to improving social programmes,particularly in education and health. At the end of theperiod, i.e. at the Decision Point, some debt relief wouldbe provided and a full package of debt relief would beidentified if needed by the country. This full packagewould be provided at the Completion Point, after up toanother three years, based on an evaluation of goodpolicy performance.


14

flows since the private sector rather thangovernments in HIPC countries now account for80-100% of export earnings, preventing thegovernments from using the resources from debtservicing which instead has to be met from thebudget revenue (Oxfam 1999b; Martin, 1999quoted in Oxfam, 1999a). Furthermore, sinceeligibility criteria are currently conditioned onlyon compliance with the Enhanced StructuralAdjustment Facility (ESAF), 6 which prioritizesshort-term macro-economic targets rather thanmedium-term human development goals, ESAFneeds to be integrated with wider developmentand poverty reduction strategies in order for debtrelief to serve social development purposes.38. Finally, although lending agencies haverecently eased some of the conditions for access tothe scheme – for example, proof of goodperformance in an official lending programmeover several years – the precondition for countriesto join the scheme is the production of a complexpoverty strategy with plans for social developmentin interrelated areas and detailing the roles of thegovernment, the private sector and civil society.Even though lenders now accept far less rigorousplans as a first step in a debt relief process, theproduction of a national poverty strategy, in manycases, depends on knowledge which countries donot have. The World Bank which, as mentioned,is planning to use the HIPC scheme as onemechanism to increase funding for education, hasproposed to provide support for the developmentof poverty plans as a separate low-interest loanscheme. The international community shouldinstead provide the necessary technical assistanceto countries that may wish to be considered for thescheme without this causing additional financialburden on the countries. This is important notonly for the immediate financial reasons, but alsobecause the national poverty strategy papers mustform an integral part of the ongoing effort toachieve coherence between national andinternational policy-making and action.

(iv) Facilitating more effective donorcoordination

39. Effective donor coordination is both a policyquestion and a practical issue. Its purpose is toensure consistency in goals and strategies adoptedby all actors as a basis to promote holistic national

6 ESAF was renamed the Poverty Reduction and GrowthFacility (PRGF) in September 2000.

development processes and ensure maximumimpact of international assistance. It is, therefore,considered to be a particularly importantmechanism for efficiency gains. Coherence mustbe established both within and across sectors andsubsectors, and between nationally andinternationally developed strategies and plans.The nature and forms of coordination in theeducation sector have, however, varied indifferent contexts and over time. It has includedall or part of: consultation and exchange ofinformation, common understanding of policyand programme objectives and priorities, policyand sector analysis at the country level,cooperation in project and programme design andexecution; and cooperation in policy formulation(Sack, 1995). All of these aspects are nowexpected to form an integral whole in the kind ofcoordination effort represented by sector-wideapproaches, as discussed below. Coordination isexpected to take place both among all funding andtechnical assistance agencies, and betweennational governments and agencies and civilsociety organisations active in the sector orsub-sector in a specific country. At thecountry-level, national governments are expectedto lead the coordination effort (King and Buchert,1999).40. In the forthcoming coordination efforts, theinternational community needs to build on alreadyachieved experiences at the national levelthrough, for example, Round-Tables. There is aneed, however, for better coordination acrossUnited Nations agencies which might be achievedif UNESCO, as the specialized United Nationsagency for education, became a member of theUnited Nations Development Group in an attemptto ensure that, amongst others, Education for Allbecame an integral part of all relevant UnitedNations activities.41. In fulfilment of its coordinating role in thefollow-up to Dakar, UNESCO has already put anumber of mechanisms in place aiming atensuring openness, transparency, interaction andsharing of experiences within countries, acrossregions and globally. UNESCO is workingthrough its national and regional offices and atheadquarters through carefully set up bodiesaiming at coordinating the work both internallywithin the organization and externally with itspartners. Two bodies have been or are in theprocess of being set up within UNESCO withrepresentatives of key external actors: a high-levelpolicy group chaired by the Director-General


15

himself and a Working Group on Education forAll convened by the Director-General. The twogroups provide forums for sharing the concretenational, regional and international experiences inEducation for All, for discussing some of the coreissues related to reaching its goals and forensuring that the already expressed high-levelpolitical commitment is translated into practice.UNESCO is also hoping that its Guidelines for theDevelopment of National Action Plans forEducation for All will become a valuable tool forcountries to develop or improve those action planswhich are fundamental to ensuring coordinationof national and international efforts in EFA.

(v) Strengthening sector-wide approaches

42. Education sector coordination is currentlyadvocated by many international agencies andnational governments through sector-wideapproaches. While current practices indicatemany difficulties and uncertainties in the designand implementation of such approaches, they aregenerally considered to be a potentially importanttool in the pursuit of coherence and effective useof international assistance in support of nationaldevelopment efforts and as the best alternative, orsupplementary, mode to the kind of fragmentedinternational project support that characterizedinternational development cooperation in earlierdecades. The approaches must be understood as aprocess, not as a blueprint. Their design must bebased on careful analysis of country conditions,and lessons learnt and best practices need toinform both design and implementationprocesses.43. Sector-wide approaches can be looked uponin three different ways: as a new way of workingtogether based on partnerships and policydialogue; as a new framework for developmentassistance enabling consistency in purposes andmeans among all partners; and as a newinstrument for development assistance promotingreforms through agreed operational commitmentsand devolving greater authority to nationalgovernments concerning resource decisions(Ratcliffe and Macrae, 1999). The approachesprovide an opportunity for national authoritiesand development partners to be aligned withshared priorities and permit the agencies toprovide longer term support against well-definedsocial policy objectives. The approaches intend toreduce the transaction costs of aid while at thesame time building a sense of ownership by

providing broad budget support for a clearnational strategy, as the pooled funds from thedevelopment partners are channelled throughnational and sectoral budgets for a commonprogramme of work at each level. In those caseswhere agencies are not ready to provide supportfor the national budget, they are expected to workwithin the framework of national priorities andtargets in order to contribute to overall sectordevelopment. The approaches also rely ondevelopment partners working according to acommon set of procedures for procurement,reporting, joint appraisals and evaluations,preferably as defined by the national government(Forster et al., 2000; Buchert and Epskamp,2000).44. Understood as a new instrument, sector-wideapproaches often translate into an agreedframework for medium-term financing andbudgeting with international support provided forthe national budget. This is done in an effort toachieve better correlation between budget andperformance targets for individual sectors and toprovide longer-term assurances of internationalsupport, including for the recurrent budget.Within medium-term expenditure frameworks,annual budgets for specific sectors can be rolledforward and spending patterns monitored inrelation to allocations within the macro-economicreform programme (Ratcliffe and Macrae, 1999).Currently, sector-wide approaches tend to servemore as a framework for new ways of workingbetween governments and agencies, including infinancing education, than of ensuring widespreadparticipation in design and implementation.45. Among the pre-conditions to success are, onthe country side, the existence of a supportivenational policy and institutional environmentcharacterized by longer term macro-economicplanning, government leadership andparticipation of civil society. On the agency side,important pre-conditions are their ability to poolfunding, work within common frameworks andadopt common procedures across the participatingagencies. On both sides, institutionalre-arrangements and development of new processand other skills in addition to skills in technicalareas are equally important.46. In many or most aid-receiving countries,policy and institutional environments need to bestrengthened in order to support these new kindsof integrated and holistic approaches. Capacityand institution building must, therefore, continueto form a central part of introducing the


16

approaches and must remain a core area forinternational technical assistance in accordancewith carefully identified government needs andtargeted at all relevant actors at the national level.Understanding and information of theimplications of sector-wide approaches must beshared by all partners at the country level beforetheir design and during their implementation. Allrelevant experiences, lessons and best practicesmust, therefore, be carefully and regularlyanalysed and shared through research, seminars,and other information and communicationactivities, particularly at the country levels.47. Of particular importance in the adoption ofsector-wide approaches is an evaluation of thenecessary pre-conditions in the country. Suchconditions have tended to be related to themacro-economic and political environmentwhereas the readiness of the education sector toabsorb increased funding and activities has beenless in focus. The readiness criteria must,therefore, be expanded and the pace ofhome-grown versus induced change in theinnovation and reform at the country level must becarefully considered. This also means consideringalternatives, including well-functioning projectsand programmes, for countries that qualify forinternational assistance, but are not yet ready toapply the sector-wide approaches as a specific aidmodality.

(vi) Monitoring of progress towards thegoals and targets of Education for All

48. Monitoring of progress towards Educationfor All goals must be made the responsibility of allpartners nationally, regionally and internationally.Global progress will be monitored by theUNESCO Institute for Statistics in cooperationwith the development partners. Monitoring mustbe an integral part of national, regional andinternational plans and a regular activity in theEducation for All efforts in order to permitnecessary adjustments during the process.Monitoring must be based on common output andoutcomes indicators that cover all aspects of themulti-faceted Education for All concept, whileallowing for adaptation to the particularcircumstances in individual countries.49. There is a particular need for the internationalcommunity and national governments to agree onindicators to measure progress towards the goalsand targets of Education for All. It is also criticallyimportant to ensure that appropriate education

management and information systems exist at thecountry level, that countries can undertakebase-line surveys in order to enhance the quality,accuracy and validity of the data used at countrylevel to monitor progress, and that countries havethe necessary national capacities for evaluationand monitoring.

Targeting of international assistance toEducation for All

50. The climate of scarce aid resources hasreinforced attention to overall aid effectivenessand to issues of accountability for andtransparency of its use. It has also toughenedconditions for its provision. Reinforced supportfor government leadership, coherence andcoordination of efforts among all developmentactors have, furthermore, led to a concentration ona more limited group of countries and areasselected for support by development partners,necessarily crowding out support for othercountries, sectors, areas or target groups. This hashappened as the collapse of communism andexpanded globalization have further marginalizedregions, countries and population groups, andestablished new, or reinforced existing, povertypockets within countries in the North and theSouth. Civil war, natural disasters and theHIV/AIDS pandemic have also reinforced theneed for additional and innovative internationalassistance. Recent economic developments, suchas the East Asian financial crisis and the effects ofthe oil shock, highlight the likelihood of furtherdependence on international assistance, whileinformation technology represents anothermechanism to potentially either develop or divideregions, countries and population groups evenfurther.51. The existence of “good” national policies,based on macro-economic reform and politicalcharacteristics associated with democracy, hasbecome an important criterion on efficiencygrounds for aid allocations. Not only the WorldBank, but countries such as the Netherlands andthe United Kingdom have indicated that they planto pursue this approach (OECD/DAC, 2000a).The core thinking, which has been based onextensive research on the impact of aid, is thateconomies lag more because of policy gaps andinstitutional failures in recipient countries thanbecause of financing (Dollar and Pritchett, 1998).Therefore, it is argued, aid must be provided tosupport the policy and institutional environment


17

so that services, such as education, can beeffectively delivered.52. Aid is understood to have two importantingredients: finance and knowledge. Theparticular mix of an aid package would differ indifferent contexts, depending particularly on thequality of the national policy environment and thecapacity for service delivery. Under certaincircumstances, aid may be more efficient ifdelivered as knowledge rather than financing.This understanding led to the following proposed,general principles for aid provision (Dollar andPritchett, 1998):• That more aid be provided for poor countries

with good management because aid couldmake a critical difference in the developmentprocess.

• That aid be reduced or withdrawn inmiddle-income countries with goodmanagement because these countries werereaching self-sufficiency and because thiswould free up scarce aid resources.

• That aid be provided for middle-incomecountries with poor management in order toimprove service delivery.

• That other forms than financial aid, inparticular ideas, be provided for poor countrieswith poor management because financial aidwould make little or no difference.

Supporting Education for All

53. The current aid scenario and the classificationbased on aid efficiency raise several concerns forthe move towards Education for All. As arights-based education concept, Education for Alladdresses itself particularly to the poor andexcluded. The importance of linking Educationfor All with education sector plans and widerpoverty and development strategies implies theimportance of supporting full education sectordevelopment seen in relation to education’s corefunctions in national development processes.Therefore, while considerations must be madeabout the best use of scarce external financing inthe support of Education for All, and whilenational governments must show commitment tothe goals of Education for All, no country can perse be excluded beforehand as non-eligible foreducational assistance since all countries wouldqualify either based on the right to education, orbased on the need for full integration of theeducation sector in national development.

54. This is not to say that macro-economic andpolitical stability is not, potentially, moreconducive to educational development than theopposite scenario, or that some countries cannotbetter than others promote educationaldevelopment provided they have the necessarypolitical will. However, these criteria are not theonly relevant ones. Education has a particularlyimportant role to play as a unifying nationalmechanism in post-conflict countries that aremore often characterized by macro-economicinstability than stability. Education is also of keyimportance in countries characterized by politicalcrisis situations, often associated with the collapseof the state, or in other emergency situationscausing economic and political disruption.Finally, even in attractive macro-economiccircumstances, educational development insupport of Education for All, reduced inequalitiesand poverty reduction needs to be based on clearpolitical will and supportive policies. Educationcan be a lever for economic growth, and economicgrowth a lever for educational development, buteducational development and economic growthonly result in decreased poverty if appropriatenational and sub-national policies, includingdistribution policies, are designed in waysdetermined by the complexity of social factors ina specific context at a specific time (Srinivasan,2000). This explains why apparently similarpolicies and processes have generated differentresults in different contexts over time and whymuch work is still needed to understand the actualmechanisms that determine the relationshipbetween education and societal development.55. Targeting of international support forEducation for All could take its point of departurein country needs and country commitment for theEducation for All process as they are expressed ineffective national EFA action plans and educationsector plans and as they are linked with nationaldevelopment strategies and with CCA/UNDAFand PRSP/CDF. However, most of theinternationally-initiated policy frameworks forspecific countries are in the process of beingdeveloped rather than having been completed. InJuly 2000, of 59 least developed countries inAfrica, very few had the full set of policyframeworks, while a larger number of countrieshad access to a part of them. In some cases,countries with access to some or all of the policyframeworks have undergone a dynamic andmobilizing process of target-setting and creationof plans of action for Education for All, for


18

example Gambia, Guinea, Madagascar,Mozambique, Uganda and the United Republic ofTanzania. In others, for example Mali, little or nodynamics have taken place and substantialimprovement of the formulation of national actionplans is required. Twenty to thirty countries, forexample Mozambique, also have education sectorstrategic plans or have adopted sector-wideapproaches to educational development.56. Thus, while the full set of policy frameworksand plans might provide an ideal basis for ananalysis of the specific countries and areas wheresupport for Education for All might make themost difference, other criteria may have to beadopted for other countries on a short-term basis.Such criteria may have to be based on scarcerinformation than would be ideal concerninggovernment commitment to education asexpressed in budget allocations, concerningintentions for fulfilment of the Education for Alltargets, the general educational situation in thecountry, the level of poverty and the likely flow ofinternational resources to the specific country.57. Besides geographical selection, targeting ofexternal financing relates to content and specialareas and to the relationship between the basiceducation and other levels of education. In mostcountries, Education for All connotes basiceducation. The concept is generally understood torange from formal primary-school and perhaps(junior) secondary-school education, throughnon-formal skills development and literacy, toearly childhood development. Women and girlsare often specifically targeted. Support forEducation for All is, therefore, comprehensiveand needs to be seen in the context of support forintermediary and higher-level technical andprofessional education in order to achieve holistic,educational development.58. In reality, not all countries and not allinternational funding and technical assistance

agencies focus on all areas of Education for All oron all sub-sectors of education. In 1996, the majorproportion of total ODA (74%) was concentratedon formal education, while areas covered by theEducation for All concept (adult, pre-primary andprimary education) constituted about half of totalsupport (48%), primary-school education aloneconstituting 22%.7 Similarly, World Bank lendingto the Africa region during Financial Years1995/99 was allocated to the formal system,pre-primary education constituting only 2% of thetotal and primary education 46%.8 This indicatesrelative preferences among the internationalagencies, often based on what they consider to betheir comparative advantage and on disbursementneeds rather than necessarily on countrypreferences or priorities.59. The current climate of policy dialogue,partnership and sector-wide approaches is aimingat reversing this situation and at altering thepersistent division of funding responsibilities atthe country level among the government (teachersalaries), communities and parents (recurrentexpenditure), and international funding andtechnical assistance agencies (capital anddevelopment expenditure). This issue deservesmore attention. There is a need to explore fullpackages of support for individual countries thatat the same time aim at ensuring holistic nationaldevelopment and optimal use of external andnational funding for self-sustained developmentpurposes without adverse effects on the poor. Thisincludes considerations to alleviate continueddependence on external financing and externalconditionalities and maximum use of innovativeschemes, such as Information Technologies, inorder that these enhance rather than constrainnational development. UNESCO proposes todevelop these ideas further through discussingconcrete scenarios as the next step in this strategywork for the global initiative.

7 The distribution was as follows: adult education 19%;pre-primary-school education 7%; primary-schooleducation 22%; secondary-school education 20%;post-secondary-school education 12%; and highereducation 20% (ADEA PRISME, 1998).

8 The distribution was as follows: pre-primary-schooleducation 2%; primary-school education 46%; generalsecondary-school education 17%, vocational education4%; teacher training 5%; higher education 7%; and other19%.


19

III. CONCLUSION

60. Success in achieving the goals of Educationfor All depends on national and internationalresource mobilization, efficiency improvementsand optimal targeting and utilization of thefunding seen in the context of solidly developedEducation for All action plans and widereducation sector plans. Although responsibilitypredominantly rests with national governments,the international community has a critical,catalytic and supportive role to play in fulfilmentof its responsibility to reduce global inequalitiesand poverty. The goals of Education for Allunderline the right to education and the need toestablish inclusive criteria for internationalsupport. Current emphases on coherence andcoordination as expressed in the need to linknational Education for All action plans witheducation sector plans, national poverty anddevelopment strategies, and with other policyframeworks and papers underline that support forEducation for All must go beyond immediatesupport for Education for All goals to full supportfor education in national development processes.61. International financial resources are in shortsupply and high demand. Scarce resources havecontributed to focusing attention on aideffectiveness and to narrowing the range ofcountries and specific sectors and areas selectedfor financial support by the internationalcommunity. At the same time, conditionalitieshave toughened and recent global economic,political and social development point to likelyincreased dependence on international assistance.There is an urgent need, therefore, for theinternational community to think widely andcreatively in terms of resource mobilization and toact with more urgency than in the past. Traditionalforms of international assistance must besupplemented with new ones, and efficiencyimprovements must be achieved through adoptionof new procedures for international cooperation.62. With respect to international financing, it isessential to augment current official developmentassistance provided by the DAC membercountries and to ensure higher predictability in itsflow to countries. Predictability must be based notonly on adherence to detailed and longer-termscheduling of ODA by development partners, butalso on careful analysis of absorption andutilization capacity in the recipient countries.UNESCO proposes that ODA funding foreducation be doubled twice from its current level

of $3.5 billion, to constitute $7 billion by the year2005 and $14 billion by the year 2015. Within thisincreased aid scenario for education, funding forbasic education needs to be drastically increasedfrom its current low level of $700 million. Inaddition to increased ODA from current DACmember countries, additional resources must bemobilized through identification of newaid-providing countries, heavier reliance on theprivate sector, including the financial servicesindustry, softening of aid conditionalities, andintroducing new modalities. Of potentially criticalimportance for the poorer countries is the HIPCdebt relief scheme which must be enacted at anaccelerated pace, at improved conditions to thecountries and with assurance that debt relief isconverted into support for social developmentand, in particular, for Education for All. Countrieswith “good” policies and safe investmentenvironments are likely to continue to benefitfrom private financial flows.63. Coordination, coherence and monitoring ofprogress towards Education for All must be doneat national, regional and international levels incooperation with all development partners withinand outside the United Nations system. UNESCOhas already assumed its leadership role in thecoordination of Education for All through its ownextended system and through specially createdbodies which include external key partners. Alldevelopment partners must seek efficiencyimprovements through better coordination,through strengthening sector-wide approaches,amongst others, through careful analysis ofpre-conditions, and sharing of lessons and bestpractices, and through regular monitoring ofprogress towards Education for All.64. The present time seems to be advantageousfor the international community to fulfil itscommitment towards a more just and equal world.Economies are growing, governments haverepeatedly expressed their political commitment,and the world possesses sufficient knowledge toact and to realize the consequences of not acting.The international community must join effortsand, together with national governments, ensurethat rhetoric does become reality and that, by2015, the achievement made towards the goalsand targets for Education for All and globalpoverty reduction will truly make a difference tothose who need it most, the children, the poor andthe excluded.

20

REFERENCES

ADEA, PRISME (Program and Project InformationSystem on Education). http://prisme.adeanet.org

Bentall, C. et al. 2000. Funding AgencyContributions to Education for All. ThematicStudies. Education for All Assessment. London,ODI.

Berg, R.J. 2000. Working with the BusinessCommunity to Strengthen Basic Education.Summary of Presentation. World EducationForum. For the Strategy Session I.3. 27 April,Dakar, Senegal. (Mimeo.)

Bonbright, D.; Azfar, A. 1999. EnhancingIndigenous Philanthropy for Social Investment.A Report of the Initiative on IndigenousPhilanthropy. Aga Khan Foundation.

Buchert, L. 1995. Recent Trends in Education Aid:Towards a Classification of Policies. Paris,UNESCO/International Institute for EducationalPlanning.

Buchert, L.; Epskamp, K. (eds). (In Press). OpenFile: Rethinking Educational Aid. ProspectsVol. 30, No. 4 (due December 2000).

Cornia, G.A.; Jolly, R.; Stewart, F. (eds). 1987.Adjustment with a Human Face. Protecting theVulnerable and Promoting Growth. Oxford,Oxford University Press.

Dollar, D.; Pritchett, L. 1998. Assessing Aid. WhatWorks. What Doesn’t, and Why. New York,Oxford University Press. (A World Bank PolicyResearch Report).

Findakly, H.; Berg, R. J. 1997. PromotingFinancial Partnerships for Social Development.Presentation to the UNDP Seminar on A NewParadigm of Financing Development andDevelopment Cooperation. Stockholm,23-24 March.

Forster, M.; Brown, B; Norton, A.; Naschold, F.2000. The Status of Sector Wide Approaches.London, ODI. (For Ireland Aid, Dublin).

Forster, J.; Stokke, O. (eds). 1999. Policycoherence in Development Cooperation.London, Frank Cass. (EADI Book Series 22).

King, K.; Buchert, L. (eds). 1999. ChangingInternational Aid to Education. Global Patternsand National Contexts. Paris, UNESCOPublishing/NORRAG.

K hler, H.; Wolfensohn, J. 2000. The IMF and theWorld Bank Group: An Enhanced Partnershipfor Sustainable Growth and Poverty Reduction.5 September. (Mimeo.)

Mundy, K. 1999. Educational Multilateralism at acrossroads. In: King, K.; Buchert, L. (eds.)Changing International Aid to Education:

Global Patterns and National Contexts,pp. 93-118. Paris, UNESCO Publishing.

OECD/DAC. 1996. Shaping the 21st Century: TheContribution of Development Cooperation.Paris, OECD/DAC.

_______. 1998. Development Cooperation 1997.Paris, OECD.

_______. 1999. Development Cooperation 1998.Paris, OECD.

_______. 2000a. The DAC Journal DevelopmentCooperation 1999 Report. InternationalDevelopment. Vol. 1, No. 1.

_______. 2000b. Measuring Aid to Basic SocialServices. (Mimeo.)

Oxfam. 1999a. From Unsustainable Debt toPoverty Reduction: Reforming the HeavilyIndebted Poor Countries Initiative. Prepared byOxfam GB Policy Department for UNICEF.(Mimeo.)

Oxfam. 1999b. Debt Relief and Poverty Reduction:Meeting the Challenge. (Mimeo.)

Ratcliffe, M.; Macrae, M. 1999. Sector WideApproaches to Education. A Strategic Analysis.London, Department for InternationalDevelopment. (Serial No. 32.)

Sack, R. 1995. Donor Coordination at the CountryLevel: Experience from an “Upstream”Education Policy Analysis Project andconceptual Explorations. Paris, UNESCO.(BER95/WS/3.)

Saravanamuttoo, N.; Shaw, C. 1995. Making DebtWork for Education. How Debt Swaps CanContribute to African Education. Paris, ADEA.

Srinivasan, T.N. 2000. Growth, Poverty Reductionand Inequality. (Mimeo.)

UNESCO. 2000a. Debt Relief for Science andTechnology. Proposal and Guidelines forStakeholders. Paris, SC/PAO.

UNESCO. 2000b. World Education Report. TheRight to Education. Towards Education for AllThroughout Life. Paris, UNESCO Publishing.

United Nations. 2000. Resolution adopted by theGeneral Assembly 55/2. United NationsMillennium Declaration. 18 September.

Watkins, K. n.d. Education Now. Break the Cycleof Poverty. London, Oxfam International.

World Bank. 1998. Annual Report. WashingtonD.C., World Bank.

World Bank. 2000. World Development Report.Washington D.C., World Bank.

World Education Forum Dakar, 26-28 April 2000.2000. The Dakar Framework for Action.Education for All: Meeting our CollectiveCommitments. Paris, UNESCO.

http://prisme.adeanet.org

development partner cooperation in support of...

Documents