|
|
 |
| World Education Forum > Strategy sessions > | |
|
|
|
|
|
World
Education Forum
Dakar, Senegal 26-28 April 2000 |
|
Building
effective partnerships
with funding agencies |
|
Issues
Paper
|
|
Original
: English
|
| The
evolution of international aid during recent years has not been
encouraging. The data provided by the OECD Development Assistance
Committee (DAC) show that Official Development Assistance (ODA)
has been steadily declining during the 1990s . At current prices
and exchange rate, total net ODA between 1992 and 1997 shows
a drop in absolute terms from US$60,8 million to US$48,3 million.
In relative terms, this represents a fall from 0.33 per cent
of the donor countries' combined GNP to 0.22 per cent. It is
the lowest percentage ever reached in development co-operation
and far below the 0.7 per cent target set by the international
community. Detailed statistics indicate that the fall is mainly
due to cuts in the aid budgets of the G7 countries, while aid
flowing from other countries has remained more or less stable.
|
|
| According
to the latest information made available by the DAC earlier
this year, there has been a modest reversal of the downward
trend in 1998, which reflects special measures taken in relation
to the Asian financial crisis but also "explicit policies on
behalf of certain donor countries to stabilise or rebuild aid
programmes". In 1998, the total net ODA thus stood at US$51,9
million which represents 0.25 per cent of the total DAC members'
GDP. Yet in 1998, only Denmark, Norway, the Netherlands and
Sweden managed to exceed the official UN target of 0.7 per cent.
|
|
|
Aid to education represents roughly 10 per cent of the total
bilateral ODA, and 7 per cent of total multilateral ODA. These
proportions have remained more or less stable over time. Much
of this aid still goes to higher education, including funding
of students and trainees from the developing world. The proportion
of bilateral education aid devoted to basic education is estimated
at about 12 per cent, which for 1995-1996 was in the order of
some US$600 million per year. Furthermore, the actual amounts
of bilateral aid for education have not varied much during the
first half of the decade. In 1990, some US$5.604 million went
to education, compared with US$6.037 million in 1995 and US$5.084
million in 1996. More preoccupying is the fact that over half
of the bilateral ODA for education goes to countries which already
have the vast majority of their children in primary school.
The 1998 DAC Development Report states that still in 1995-1996
just six countries - China, Indonesia, Israel, Korea, Thailand
and Turkey- received 40 per cent of the total bilateral aid
for education while only about 30 per cent went to countries
with less than half of their children in primary school. |
|
|
Obviously, the renewed commitment to basic education inspired
by the Jomtien Conference has not been matched with a corresponding
increase of development aid.
|
|
| Emergence
of a new development co-operation paradigm |
|
|
However, the volume of aid is only one aspect to be considered.
As important, if not more so, is the way in which the aid is
being administered and used. It so happens that during the 1990s,
there was a serious re-examination of the classical development
assistance approaches, including those in the area of education.
Criticism of the structural adjustment prescriptions, so popular
in the 1980s, and of their negative effects on social development,
has been growing. The collapse of the socio-economic systems
in the Soviet Union, Eastern Europe and Central Asia, the increasing
marginalization of low-income countries within the overall globalization
process, and the growing gap between the rich and the poor,
particularly in the developing world, have pushed the international
community to look for more efficient, more sustainable and more
equitable co-operation patterns. |
|
|
In terms of the orientation of development assistance, the emphasis
has been shifted back from structural adjustment to poverty
reduction. Today, there is a widely-held belief that unless
poverty reduction becomes an explicit development objective,
the problem of growing marginalization - if not exclusion -
of low-income countries and population segments cannot be reversed.
Consequently, most agencies - bilateral as well as multilateral
- have made poverty reduction the explicit or implicit priority
of their aid policies. This has put basic education, together
with other basic services, such as basic health, population
and water supply, high on the international development agenda.
Basic education is generally recognized as an essential precondition
to reduce poverty and to build sustainable and equitable development. |
|
|
In relation to the assistance modalities, the traditional project
approach has equally come under severe criticism. It is considered
that projects with separate management units, separate financial
arrangements and separate monitoring and evaluation procedures,
not only lead to overlaps and inefficient use of resources,
but also undermine the capacity of national governments to control
their own development and build their local capacities. The
principles that emerged from this critical examination have
led to the definition of the new sector-wide approach which
claims that, in order to be efficient, development co-operation
has to be integrated into a broad, commonly agreed-upon policy
framework, based on local leadership and responsibility, planned
through participatory processes, and implemented through existing
national structures. As indicated in the 1997 DAC report this
approach calls for a new partnership strategy: between donors;
between donors and recipient governments; and between governments
and civilian society. |
|
| Selected
issues for discussion |
|
|
This new development co-operation paradigm involves action to
be taken at different levels: at international level to agree
on general rules and principles; at regional level to analyze
common problems, exchange experiences and identify promising
strategies; and at national level to put the new paradigm into
practice. |
|
|
During the strategy session concrete examples of recent initiatives
taken at each of these levels will be discussed: the case
of the informal code of conduct for education developed by
a group of agencies, under the auspices of the European Union,
as implemented in Mozambique through sector-wide approach;
the case of the partnerships between ministries of education
and financing agencies in the Association for the Development
of Education in Africa (ADEA) and the case of government co-ordination
of donor assistance to basic education in India.
|
|
|
While examining these three examples, presenters and participants
are invited to concentrate on practical issues and challenges
involved in implementing the new partnership approach, some
of which are briefly indicated below: |
|
|
|
1) Co-ordination between donor agencies - Dialogue between donors
is regularly taking place at top level within the framework
of several international and regional organizations such as
the UN agencies, the OECD, the European Commission, etc. As
for the education sector, several special consultation and exchange
mechanisms also exist, such as the International Working Group
on Education (IWGE) or the Association for the Development of
Education in Africa (ADEA), which also includes African Ministers
of Education. At policy level therefore, consensus building
seems to have become a regular and relatively smooth process,
which has led to several interesting initiatives such as the
preparation of checklists for strengthening partnership (DAC/OECD)
or of a code of conduct for education aid agencies (IWGE/The
Horizon 2000 Group of the European Union), etc. |
|
|
However, practical problems occur when it comes to putting top
level agreements into practice. Some have to do with visibility.
Specific agencies may request visibility, not so much for publicity
purposes but rather for accountability reasons. Indeed, public
opinions in donor countries and their political representatives
in parliaments are expressing more and more interest in how
development assistance budgets is being spent. Donors, therefore,
may often wish to maintain separate projects within an overall
sector development plan rather than making untied contributions
to a common fund. What does this mean in terms of the concept
and the application of a genuine sector-wide approach? |
|
|
Other problems relate to differences in procedures and modalities
of operation, including procurement procedures, appraisal methods,
monitoring and evaluation practices, etc. If the sector approach
is to succeed, procedures will have to be simplified and harmonized.
In principle, donors should adjust to the local procedures of
the recipient country, which in turn may involve bringing these
procedures up to international standards and strengthening the
local management capacity to guarantee their proper application.
One particularly delicate issue is that of tied aid still practised
by many agencies but not easily compatible with national ownership
of the recipient country nor with effective partnership between
agencies. Competitive international bidding and local procurement
are generally seen as the two main devices for untying aid.
But do they indeed make for efficient aid? |
|
|
2) Government leadership - National government leadership in
the design and implementation of sector development plans and
programmes is generally seen as a condition for efficient and
sustainable development co-operation. Central governments should
have a strong co-ordination mechanism by which different aid
programmes could be negotiated and integrated within the national
development priorities. |
|
|
The point is, however, that many countries are not in a position
to set up such a mechanism in the short term. Indeed, poor countries,
which are most in need of development assistance also, struggle
most with problems of political stability, weak institutional
capacity and low technical competence. Under such circumstances,
it is difficult to organize equal partnership between donors
and recipients. The donors tend to dominate, conditionalities
to play a major role and agencies' priorities to prevail over
the national policy objectives. In certain cases, aid agencies
simply fill the vacuum by asking one of them to assume the co-ordination
role instead of the government. In others, where national authorities
have little orno commitment to the well being of their population,
some donors may even ignore or bypass the government and work
directly with NGOs and representatives of the civilian society.
But how efficient are these solutions in the long term? And
is there another way out for donors than to invest more seriously
in strengthening national policy-making and management capacities,
that is to say, in institutional reform and technical training,
in order to make efficient partnerships possible? |
|
| 3) Beyond
Government/Agencies partnership |
|
|
The role of NGOs - During the last two decades, a diversified
range of NGOs emerged, which have had a profound impact on development
approaches and practices. Some of them are specialized in advocacy
while others are fully action-oriented. Some are small and heavily
depend on resources from bilateral or multilateral government
agencies, while others are big and mobilize their own funds.
The relationships between NGOs and governmental agencies have
for a long time been distant, if not sometimes conflictual.
Today however, NGOs are recognized as full partners within the
donor community as well as by the recipient countries. |
|
|
It is generally considered that NGOs have a comparative advantage
in meeting the basic needs of the poor and in operating at lower
cost, while their major problem is going on scale. Some also
argue that because of their belief in promoting specific values,
NGOs sometimes lack openness to work effectively with other
organizations who do not share the same culture. In any case,
and in order to be able to maximize the contribution of the
NGO sector, the following questions may need further discussion:
What are the specificities of different types of NGOs? What
are their comparative advantages and disadvantages? What are
the roles which they can best play in the delivery of basic
education services and how? |
|
|
Involving civil society - The most difficult challenge within
the new co-operation paradigm is to build partnerships with
the civilian society. It is commonly accepted that achievements
in social development, including the development of basic education
depend on people's ability to express their demands and to engage
in collective action. An essential prerequisite for universalizing
basic education is therefore to mobilize the poor segments of
society and to empower them so that they can defend their own
rights and get involved in decision-making concerning development
programmes which are supposed to respond to their specific needs. |
|
|
At the same time, the partnership building has to extend beyond
the poor themselves and involve all social organizations such
as trade unions, mass media, research institutions, professional
associations, etc. As clearly stated in the Jomtien Declaration,
genuine partnership of all segments of society in planning and
implementing basic education programmes is at the heart of the
expanded vision and renewed commitment to EFA. |
|
|
|
Obviously, building such partnership has a political dimension
and is in the first instance a national challenge. However,
donors cannot stand totally aloof from this process, since
it directly affects the nature and relevance of their interaction
with national governments. What precisely then is the position
and role of international donors in this respect? What about
conditionalities? How pro-active can (or should) donors be?
|
|
|
Moderator
- Ms Françoise
Caillods, Co-ordinator of Decentralized Programmes UNESCO
International Institute for Educational Planning, Paris, France
Panellists
- Ms
Agneta Lind, Adviser, Sida, Stockholm, Sweden
- Mr M.
Bireme Abderahim Hamid, Minister of National Education, Chad
Chair, Bureau of Ministers, Association for the Development
of Education in Africa
- Mr Shri
Abhimanyu Singh, Joint Secretary, Department of Education,
Ministry of Human Resource Development, Government of India
- Mr
Adrian Verspoor, Lead Specialist, Education. World Bank, Washington
D.C., USA
Rapporteur
- Mr.
Roy Carr-Hill, Centre for Health Economics, University of
York, U.K.
|
|
|
|