Get documents about "Education For All – Fast Track Initiative (EFA- FTI) Summary of
Document Sample
Annual FTI meeting
November, 2005
Education For All – Fast Track
Initiative
(EFA- FTI)
Summary of Progress
2005
Rosemary Bellew
FTI Secretariat
November, 2005
Presentation Plan
FTI Compact
Highlights of 2004
Priorities and Highlights of 2005: Country Progress
Resource Mobilization – donor performance
• Regular Channels
• Catalytic Fund Status
• Education Program Development Fund Status
Donor Alignment, Collaboration and Harmonization
Communications
Priority Challenges for 2006-2007
The FTI COMPACT
Partner Countries
Donors
Develop sound education
sector programs through
broad based consultation Increase support in a
Mutual
predictable manner
Demonstrate results on key Accountability
performance indicators, Align with country
including domestic resource development priorities
mobilization
Coordinate support around
Exercise leadership in
one education plan
developing and implementing
the program within broader
country development Harmonize procedures as
priorities (e.g. PRS) much as possible
Coordinate donor support
Highlights of 2004: FTI Framework Document
Adopted
Access by invitation – 18
Support to all low-income
countries, 5 countries for
“analytical fast track” (IDA-eligible) countries
Vertical Program – decisions Country-based, country led,
made at the global level, process of program
supply driven development & endorsement,
demand driven
Resource mobilization at Resource mobilization starts
global level at the country level
Highlights of 2004 (continued)
Greater emphasis on donor alignment, collaboration
and harmonization where possible
Education Program Development Fund concept
developed
Began communication effort
Two new countries develop sector programs, bringing
total to 13 of the initial 18 countries invited in 2002
Established FTI working groups on finance,
harmonization and communications
FTI Partnership Priorities in 2005
Improved resource mobilization
Strengthened focus on alignment, coordination
and harmonization at country level
Launching the EPDF
Exploring other issues – FTI governance,
fragile states and expanded fund
Intensifying communications and country
outreach
Highlights 2005: Country Progress
Five new countries with appraised and endorsed
sector plans (add Timor Leste and Djibouti)
Broader scope and improved quality of country
programs (e.g. Kenya, Madagascar)
2002 2003 2004 2005
B urkina F aso T he G am bia* G hana* M adagascar*
G uinea M ozam bique E thiopia K enya*
G uyana* V ietnam M oldova*
H ondu ras R epublic of Y em en* T ajikistan*
M auritania* L esotho*
N icaragua*
N iger*
* Countries with four or fewer bilateral partners.
Steady upward trend in primary completion in
most countries, but many will not achieve UPC
by 2015 at recent rates of progress …
120.0 First value Last value Predicted value 2015
110.0
100.0
90.0
80.0
70.0
60.0
50.0
40.0
30.0
20.0
10.0
-
)
)
99 )
(0 )
4)
)
)
. ( 4)
00 )
)
3)
(9 )
)
)
(9 )
I. 04)
N 3)
O 03)
4
L. -03
05
J. 04
Z . -04
A. -04
Y. -04
M -04
3
03
H -05
IG -05
-0
AD -0
AM (. -0
VI 9-0
KE -0
AU -0
1-
N . (. -
TA 9-
G 99-
-
99
LS (99
M (00
M (99
G (99
ET (99
M (99
G (99
99
YE (99
.
N
.(
.(
(
.(
.
.
.
E.
.
R.
O
IC
U
O
O
H
H
U
BU
N
M
G
Source: UIS, World Bank and country data
Gender parity -- If recent progress is
maintained, most would achieve gender parity
in enrolment by 2015…
Gender parity Index (Nb of girls enrolled for 100 boys)
120%
First value Last value Predicted value
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
)
5)
3)
)
)
3)
3)
)
)
3)
)
5)
5)
3)
4)
04
03
03
03
02
03
-0
-0
-0
-0
-0
-0
-0
-0
-0
9-
1-
9-
9-
9-
9-
99
99
99
99
99
00
01
99
99
(9
(9
(9
(9
(0
(9
.(
.(
.(
.(
.(
.(
.(
.(
.(
N.
H.
C.
L.
N.
Z.
UI
G
R
M
AM
AU
AD
O
HA
O
KE
NI
NI
HO
ET
BU
O
LS
YE
G
M
M
M
M
G
G
Source: UIS, World Bank and country data
Domestic Resource mobilization
25% 5%
Public Education expenditure as %
global budget (left scale)
20% Public Education expenditure as % 4%
Indicative framework GDP (right scale)
benchmarck
15% 3%
10% 2%
5% 1%
0
0%
LD A
ET N
KI R
AG THO
YE M
A
A
KE S
RA E
U A
A
G A
EN
A
ND A
SO
RI R
LE YA
A
I
CA QU
PI
E
TA GE
RA
U
ZA OV
N
AN
BI
M AN
NA
AU CA
ST
IN
G
HO YA
M
N
O
FA
AM
AD SO
U
NI
BI
H
T
AS
HI
U
M
G
NA
G
ET
VI
O
JI
G
I
RK
NI
O
M
M
BU
M
Challenges for Country Partners
Completion of education
Quality of education
Improve efficiency of resource use,
particularly cost of construction in some cases
Increased and sustained domestic resource
mobilization in some cases
Finding the fiscal space to do this
Country leadership in donor coordination
How well are donors living up to
their commitments?
Overall financing needs for basic education
and current levels of ODA
Recent trends in ODA and how it is allocated
Progress towards meeting commitments to
reach 0.7% of GNI by 2015, 0.5% by 2010
Progress in countries with endorsed sector
programs
ODA to Basic Education finance 43% of
minimum annual estimated needs & will need
to grow faster than overall increases in ODA…
Total Per capita
(US$ billion) (US$)
ODA required annually
Low estimate 3.7 1.5
High estimate 10.0 4.0
2002-2003 Baseline 1.6 0.62
S
Gap with Low estimate 2.1
ODA as % of low estimate 43%
Source: Gershberg , Gurria, “Costing the Education MDGs: A Review of the Leading Methodologies,
FTI Finance Working Group Working Paper, 2004.
Good news: Steady upward trend in total ODA
and especially to low-income countries.
ODA disbursements
increased from US$ 50 Total Net ODA Disbursements to Developing and
to US$ 64 billion, (8.7% 70
Low-Income Countries, 1992-2003
real annual growth) 60.2
64.3
All
60 54.5 Developing
54.6
Constant 2002 US $ millions
Donors are giving 50
50.1 Countries
increased priority to 33.9
31.2 (53%)
Low -Income
Countries
40
low-income countries 26.4
28.8
(53%)
(52%)
24.4
(11.5% annual growth 30 (48%)
(49%)
21.3
Low -Income
rate) 20 16.2 14.5
15.8
18.0 Bilateral
BUT, if donors are to 10 10.0
9.6
12.6 12.3 12.3
Low -Income
Multilateral
meet the goal of 0
increasing ODA by US$ 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003
50 billion by 2010,
faster growth is needed
(12.2% annually)
Slight upward trend in ODA as a share
of DAC countries’ GNIs
ODA From DAC Countries to All Developing Countries and
ODA increased from TOTAL DAC
Multilateral Organizations as % GNI
.22 to .25 percent of Norw ay
GNI Denmark
Luxembourg
Netherlands
Norway, Denmark, Sw eden
Belgium
Luxembourg, the France
Netherlands and Ireland
Sw itzerland
Sweden reached or Finland
exceed the target United Kingdom
Germany
Australia
Notable sustained Canada
Spain
increases in Belgium, New Zealand
France and Ireland Portugal
Greece
Japan 2000 2003
Japan only country Austria
Italy
reducing its efforts United States
- 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 1.20
Donors are giving greater priority to
low-income countries ..
Percent ODA Disbursed to Low-Income Countries by Donor 2000-2003
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Some countries increased Portugal
both share of GNI and Italy
share allocated to LICs –
Ireland
Belgium
Belgium, France, Norway, United Kingdom
Japan
Sweden, Italy Australia
Germany
France 2003
Some re-allocated within Denmark 2000
existing budgets –
Norw ay
Netherlands
Germany and Canada EC
Sw eden
New Zealand
However, only half of Finland
Sw itzerland
DAC countries disbursed United States
Canada
at least half of ODA to Spain
low-income countries ALL Donors,Total
DAC Countries,Total
Multilateral ,Total
Additional resource mobilization will
depend importantly on large
economies..
1: Australia
Amount of ODA to LIC, 2003
2: Luxembourg
90%
3: New Zealand
Portugal
80%
Italy
Ireland Belgium
70%
Japan 1 United Kingdom
60%
France 2
Denmark
Aid to LIC as % of aid to all developping
50%
Germany
Netherlands
countries
3 Finland
Norway
40%
United Switzerland Sweden
Austria
30%
States
Canada
Spain
20%
10%
Greece
0%
0.0% 0.2% 0.4% 0.6%
0.8% 1.0%
Aid to developping countries and multilaterals as % of GNI
Basic Education ODA in LICS more than
doubled -- US$ 0.9 to US$ 1.9 billion
4.0 ODA to Basic Education in Low-Income
Constant 2002 US $ billions
3.5 Countries 3.6
3.0
2.7
2.5
2.1 2.2 2.1
2.0 1.9 1.9
1.6 1.5
1.5 1.4 1.4
1.3
1.1 1.2 1.2
1.0 0.9 0.9 1.0
0.7 0.6
0.5
0.0
1999 2000 2001 2002 2003
Total Education
Basic Education
Basic Education, including unspecified
Basic Education ODA, including unspecified & budget support
Resource Mobilization in Countries (18) with
endorsed sector plans, 2004 - 2005
Financing Composition of 18 Countries with
Endorsed Sector Plans, US $ billion
0.37 (9%)
0.08 (2%)
0.43 (10%
0.34 (13%)
3.29 (79%)
0.04 (2%)
0.33 (13%)
1.89 (73%)
2004 2005
Government funding Direct donor funding Catalytic fund Financing gap
The devil is in the details: Resource
Mobilization through regular channels
Resource mobilization has been effective in
countries with many donors
Mozambique, Ethiopia, Vietnam and Burkina
Faso – donors have increased and new donors
have joined at country level
Absorptive capacity issues in many cases
RM through regular channels has not been
effective in countries with few bilateral donors
– CF is an important source of financing
Resource Mobilization through the
Catalytic Fund
12 of the 18 countries
with endorsed programs
are financed (or eligible
for consideration) through
the Catalytic Fund.
Contributions doubled in
2005 (6 donors), and are
projected to increase
further in 2006/2007 with
addition of EC, Ireland,
UK
CF Country Allocations
9 countries receive financing
2005 commitments only now being accessed
With few exceptions (the Netherlands) donors are not stepping
in to transit CF countries to more sustainable financing
Predictability of CF resources is an issue
2 0 0 3 /4 2005 2006
A llo ca te d D isb u rse d P e n d in g A llo ca te d D isb u rse d P e n d in g A llo c a te d
G h an a - - - 8 .0 4 4 .0 1 1 .0
G u yan a 4 .0 4 .0 - 4 .0 - 4 .0 -
K en y a - - - 2 4 .2 - 2 4 .2 -
M ad ag ascar - - - 1 0 .0 6 .0 4 .0 2 5 .0
M au ritan ia 7 .0 7 .0 - 2 .0 - 2 .0 -
N icarag u a 7 .0 7 .0 - 7 .0 - 7 .0 -
N ig er 1 3 .0 9 .0 4 .0 8 .0 - 8 .0 -
T h e G a m b ia 4 .0 4 .0 - 4 .0 - 4 .0 -
Y e m en 1 0 .0 1 0 .0 - 1 0 .0 - 1 0 .0 -
T o tal 3 6 .0
4 5 .0 4 1 .0 4 .0 7 7 .2 1 0 .0 6 7 .2
N o te : O n ly N ig e r h a d a n a llo c a tio n in 2 0 0 3 , in th e a m o u n t o f U S $ 9 m illio n . T h e 2 0 0 4 a llo c a tio n w a s U S $ m illio n
Challenges to predictable, sustainable long
term financing through regular channels
Bilaterals are unequally distributed, tend to congregate in same
countries.
10 (of 78) countries have 8 or more bilateral donors
Over 70% of countries (56) have four or fewer bilateral
partners.
Delegated cooperation is not easily, or quickly, established
16
Number of countries with ...
14
bilateral donors
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Number of bilateral donors (incl. silent partners)
Future Demands
ID A -Eligible C ountries 81
A chieved U PC 17
Target group
T arget G roup 64
64
13
C ountries w ith endorsed sector plans 18
Planning endorsem ent 2006 11
Planning endorsem ent 2007 8
Planning endorsem ent 2008 7
Sub-total
Sub- T otal 44
44
Other
O ther 24
24
T otal 68
Future Financing Requirements
ODA required more Over 75% of ODA is
than doubles from US needed for “donor
$ 1.3 to US$ 2.7 orphans”
billion annually
3.0 Total financing gaps in other countries
Total financing gaps in donor orphan countries 2.7
2.5 Estimated annual ODA flow s
0.5
US$ billions
2.0 Total ODA required annually
0.5
1.5 0.5 1.1
1.3 0.7
0.3 0.4
1.0
0.2
0.5 0.8 1.0 1.0
0.9
0.0
Countries w ith Potential Potential Potential
endorsed programs endorsements in endorsements in endorsements in
2006 2007 2008
Additional contributions to the Catalytic Fund
will be needed
Estimated ODA requirements among “donor
orphans” may reach US $135 million in 2006 and
$400 million in 2007
1200 Additional required if countries
are not transited to regular
bilateral and multilateral channels
1000 +100
Additional commitments needed
991
+141
800
CF Pledges
770 +421
600 +39
413 490
400
+14
200 134
140 140
0 0 0 0
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
Education Program Development
Fund Highlights
Launched in South Asia,
East Asia and Pacific, Latin Donors to the EPDF
America, Middle East and
North Africa regions
2005 2006 2007
Support program Ireland - 0.3 -
development, analytical
work, knowledge sharing Norway 4.9 17.0 -
across countries where gaps Sweden - 2.4 -
Executed by the World UK 0.9 2.1 2.1
Bank
Total 5.8 21.8 2.1
Estimated demand in 2006 –
US$ 25.5 million
Donor Alignment & Collaboration are
improving …
Education is among the most advanced sectors in
taking a Sector Wide Approach
FTI has had a positive impact on cohesiveness of
sector dialogue and alignment to country program
Scope and quality of programs have improved
Donor collaboration and use of common procedures
has improved
BUT, far less progress in utilizing Government
procedures and still many projects
Communications in 2005:
Achievements
Secretariat and a few donors made broad outreach
efforts
Information is available in all countries
Ministers of Education or Technical staff of at least
26 countries have been briefed
At least one donor in most countries have been
reached
Higher degree of international awareness and support
(G8, Millennium Summit, etc.)
But, much more needs to be done,
particularly at country level…
Agency partners need to make a more
concerted effort to bring on board their own
staff and provide incentives
Facilitate cross-country exchange of
experience
FTI meetings can be better aligned with
international finance meetings
Priority Challenges for 2006-2007
Strengthen Resource Mobilization and
predictability
• Regular channels
• Catalytic Fund/Expansion Fund
• Support country level dialogue with IMF on fiscal
space issues
Intensify support to country level donors in
alignment and harmonization
• All agencies -- staff, budget and INCENTIVES
• Facilitate sharing experience across countries
• Harmonize procedures across agencies at the
global level (e.g. pooled funding)
Priority Challenges for 2006-2007
Improve Monitoring and Results Reporting
Financing information from country level donors and
HQ level
Provide results of annual reviews (local donors)
Ministries of Education better systems and make
information publicly available
Support UIS to monitor and report on key indicators
in a more timely manner
THE END
THANK YOU FOR YOUR ATTENTION
Related docs
