Pasted
below is a GCE paper on the potential impact
of the FfD conference on achieving the Millennium
Development Goals on Education. It sets out
a number of suggestions for improving on Escanero
II so that the chance is greater of the FfD
process actually making a difference.
Realising
peoples' rights through the Financing for development
conference: the case of education
It
would cost around 30 US cents per child per
day to meet the Millennium Development Goals
(MDGs) on education. Even these goals fall short
of the goals established by the World Education
Forum in Dakar in April 2000.
Key
Dakar Goals
The
Dakar Framework for Action set out a comprehensive
vision of education, that acknowledged "that
every child, youth and adult has the human right
to benefit from an education that will meet
their basic learning needs in the best and fullest
sense of the term. It is an education geared
to tapping each person's talents and potential
so that they can improve their lives and transform
their societies."
The
draft outcome document sadly falls far short
of this vision. Its vision is of education merely
as a means to an end rather than as a right
and an end in itself. That we all have the right
to quality relevant education should be clearly
stated in the opening paragraph in the section
on "Increasing international financial
cooperation for development" (p.5). However,
the draft outcome document should go one step
further and should be more explicit overall
about the role of all governments in supporting
the achievement of the MDGs. They embody a series
of rights that are currently denied to millions.
It is the explicit acknowledgement of the MDGs
as rights in themselves that makes the case
for financing development and for a campaign
in support of the MDGs so compelling. As such,
financing the MDGs should provide the rationale
for all the leading actions and not just that
of a single section on ODA.
The
right to free and compulsory education has been
recognised as a fundamental right since the
adoption of the Declaration on Human Rights
in 1948. The MDGs are aiming for the less ambitious
target of universal primary education by 2015
and the elimination of gender disparity in primary
and secondary education "preferably"
by 2005. The Zedillo panel report estimated
that achieving these two goals would cost $12
billion per year. This is less than double the
amount spent annually on ice cream in the US.
Education
is widely recognised as the key to poverty eradication
and the driver for sustained growth. It is inadmissible
therefore that in 2002 113 million primary age
children - two thirds of them girls- remain
out of school. Millions more receive an education
of insufficient quality or duration to acquire
any meaningful skills.
Although
the revised draft outcome document addresses
the need to revitalise ODA it fails to make
a sufficiently strong link to the importance
of ODA for achieving the MDGs, especially in
those countries that are furthest from achieving
them.
Having
clearly acknowledged that the ultimate aim of
financing for development is poverty eradication,
the text must also recognise that to do this
effectively aid must be focused on where it
will have the greatest impact which is in those
countries that are furthest from achieving the
millennium and other development goals.
Mobilising
support for the education for all goals through
the FfD process is vital. The World Bank has
estimated that 32 countries will miss the Dakar
goals under the business as usual scenario.
These countries urgently need extra attention
and support if another generation of children
is not to suffer systematic disempowerment and
underdevelopment that will be the inevitable
outcome of under investment in basic social
services.
Education
for all is not a utopian goal. At Dakar the
world's governments agreed a Global Initiative
(GI) through which donors will respond to countries'
education development needs thereby guaranteeing
that no country will fail in their efforts to
achieve education for all through a lack of
resources. The GI is not a new fund. Its starting
point is the recognition that individual countries'
efforts are central to achieving basic education
for all. Currently donor support to education
tends to be inadequate, fragmented, unpredictable
and contradictory. These combined factors undermine
ownership, limit sustainability, and distort
national policy development and budget processes.
The GI is intended to end this situation. It
will provide a framework for governments and
donors to work in genuine partnerships, establishing
incentives and ongoing dialogue in place of
excessive conditionality. Progress towards shared
goals will be monitored and evaluated, in-country
and transparently.
At
the heart of the GI is a national EFA plan of
action, owned by the government, and prepared
in active collaboration with donors and civil
society. This would establish a time-bound strategy
for implementing free and compulsory basic education,
linked to broader poverty reduction objectives.
It will address both demand and supply-side
constraints to education development, including
quality, cost-benefit and access issues. In
Dakar, countries agreed to produce these plans
by the end of this year.
A
second component of the GI is a financing framework.
Once a country's financing needs are highlighted,
bilateral and multilateral donors working in-country
would agree collectively with the government
to commit financial and technical resources
to the plan, either in the form of project aid,
support to sub-sectors, or direct budget support.
In some cases, donor-government coordination
at the country level would mobilise sufficient
resources. However, where a financing gap remains,
additional resources would need to be mobilised
through wider international action, coordinated
by a GI task force, comprised of representatives
from participating agencies and developing country
governments.
The
GI would be completed by an annual international
EFA report which would pull together and summarise
the national ledgers in an accessible format,
and track the development of national plans,
national financing needs, and the extent and
nature of government and donor support.
This
conference needs to prove that it is capable
of rising to the challenge of poverty eradication
by placing it at the heart of the outcome document
and by making specific commitments on ODA that
will increase its volume and see an increasing
proportion of this volume going to those countries
that need it most for investment in meeting
basic human rights such as education.
Anything
less will be a failure.
Louise
Hilditch
EU Policy Adviser,
ActionAid,
70-72 rue du Commerce
B-1040
Brussels
Tel +32 2 502 55 01
Fax +32 2 502 62 03
E-mail: hilditch@actionaid.org.uk
Action
Aid's vision is a world without poverty in which
every person can exercise their right to a life
of dignity.
Registered Charity No. 274467
http://www.actionaid.org
Disclaimer
This
email is intended for the recipient(s) only.
ActionAid will not accept legal responsibility
for its content. Any views or opinions expressed
herein are those of the author and do not necessarily
represent those of ActionAid, unless otherwise
stated. Any unauthorised disclosure of information
contained in this communication is strictly
prohibited.
