|
|
 |
| Education for All > Background Documents > Mid-Decade Meeting 1996 > | |
|
 |
| Funding: Counting the cost of Education for All | |
|
 |
The commitment to basic education made at the World Conference on
Education for All in 1990 had hard cash implications for all parties
involved. Governments pledged to shift additional resources into
basic education. Funding agencies were called upon to increase their
financial and technical assistance. Underpinning this position was a
growing awareness that basic education is a cost-effective investment
and that economic development depends on the development of human
resources.
"The World Bank's financing of education has grown rapidly. The Bank
is now the single largest external source of finance for education in
low and middle-income countries," said World Bank vice-president
Armeane M. Choksi.
The bill for basic education
While the world spends approximately US$800 billion a year on
weapons, only an additional US$6 billion per year is needed to put
every child in school by the year 2000, according to some estimates.
A mere 1 per cent decrease in global military expenditure would be
sufficient to release the needed funds. At mid-decade, lack of
reliable figures makes it hard to measure just how much more funding
basic education has received globally since 1990.
"Funding cannot be altered overnight. Existing programmes have to be
phased out, new programmes and measures need to be phased in and
national parliaments and agency executive boards have to be
consulted," explained Michael Lakin, executive secretary of the
Education for All Forum.
Country spending
"The commitment to EFA must be expressed in dollars and cents,"
argues Fay Chung, head of UNICEF's Education Cluster. Bangladesh has
done just that, increasing the share of gross domestic product (GDP)
spent on education by nearly 3 per cent from 1994 to 1995. China has
earmarked funds which will increase by US$110 million per annum for
the next three years to universalize primary education in
poverty-stricken areas, and India's allocations for education have
doubled from US$286 million in 1991/92 to US$534 million in 1995/96.
|
|
In Upper Egypt, the Egyptian Government of
Egypt, UNICEF
and local non-governmental organizations have launched an
unique movement
to start community schools with a flexible daily schedule to
give children,
and especially girls, a chance to attend classes.
(UNICEF/Egypt)
|
However, many countries -- especially some of the least developed
-- are squeezed by debt servicing and structural adjustment. "We are
trapped," said Albert Mberio, minister of education in the Central
African Republic, "On the one hand, the government borrows money to
get our education system to work in order to obtain social and
economic development, but on the other hand, the same donors expect
the government to pay back borrowed money long before the country has
achieved a certain level of development."
Doing more for basic education, often with the same or less
funding, requires new partnerships and new initiatives. "The World
Conference on Education for All really triggered fresh thinking. Most
countries have done more to involve local communities," said Dieter
Berstecher of UNESCO's Basic Education Division."Since 1990,
involvement of non-governmental organizations has increased, bringing
projects directly to learners at local level."
The role of donors
There is growing recognition that the worst-off countries,
especially those emerging from long periods of war, cannot make it
without major assistance. Sub-Saharan Africa pays more than US$20
billion each year in debt service charges, yet it has been estimated
that the price tag for providing a place in school for all the
continent's children is only US$2.5 billion.
"The international community and the developing world can and must
invest in education, particularly in primary education, to achieve
economic growth and poverty reduction," said the heads of UNESCO,
UNICEF, the World Bank, the United Nations Population Fund and the
United Nations Development Programme in a joint statement.
While governments are first and foremost responsible for financing
their education systems, most bilateral and multilateral funding
agencies have increased spending on EFA since 1990. Some recent rises
in spending by bilateral donors are impressive. Germany's funding in
this field went from US$41 million in 1992 to over US$243 million in
1994, while the Netherlands' expenditure went from US$11.4 million in
1992 to over US$18.6 million in 1993. Some donors have diversified
their support to basic education, helping to fund early childhood
services, vocational programmes, adult education, teacher training,
development of learning materials, as well as primary schooling.
Overcoming obstacles
Faced with new commitments such as peacekeeping, protecting the
environment and caring for refugees, and with declining total
resources for development aid, some agencies have begun to treat
basic education as a cross-sectoral theme, permeating rather than
competing with other development concerns. This means that
channelling increased aid into basic education requires more
co-ordination. Leo Schellekens of the Royal Netherlands Embassy in
Burkina Faso co-ordinates the activities of twelve donors involved in
education there. "This allows forward planning, ultimately leading to
self-sufficiency. Before donors had no co-ordination and the
education ministry did not have the capacity to deal with them all,"
he said. A country's absorptive capacity affects the rate at which
EFA projects can be implemented and those needing assistance the most
may be the least able to handle it.
Obstacles also emerge when donors' aid policies do not match host
government priorities. For example, some countries continue to favour
the production of a well-educated elite rather than promote mass
education.
"For donors, it is easier to put funds into compact institutions of
higher education whereas aid can seem like a tiny drop in the ocean
of huge primary school systems," noted Lakin. "At best, the donor
community provides 1 or 2 per cent of the total effort." When
policies differ, donor preferences can become conditionalities, which
may then be seen as undue external influence. "Whatever the
obstacles, with political will and good technical management,
universal primary enrolment can be achieved in five years. At the
mid-decade, we must learn from those who have done it!" insists
Chung.
|
|
 |