May 3, 2011 – Federal Parliament

Hans De Greve Advocacy Officer Plan Belgium

Basic Education in Belgian Development Cooperation

© Plan

What do we mean by ‘Basic Education’

•Different definitions exist

•OECD-DAC and standard aid classifications use a definition that includes: • early childhood education • primary education• basic life skills for youth and adults, including literacy.

© Plan

Belgian Investment in Education Aid (1)

•Total ODA• Total ODA (2009): 1.874 mil.• Total Education ODA (2009): 194 mil. (10,35%)

•DGD ODA• DGD ODA (2009): 1.252 mil. • DGD Total Education ODA: 154 mil. (12.33%)

•Flanders• Total ODA (2009): 49.5 mil.• Total Education ODA (2009): 7,9 mil. (16%)

•French Community/Walloon Region• Total ODA (2009): 23.5 mil.• Total Education ODA (2007): 3.1 Mil. (13%)

© Plan

Aid to Basic Education - Federal Government

•Unesco analysis only until 2008 but:• Comparability• Independent and objective• Trends remain the same in 2009 and 2010

•Education in general rising slightly

•Basic Education dropping since 2006

© Unesco EFA Global Monitoring Report

© Plan

Aid to Basic Education - Federal Government (2)

•Traditional strong focus on Higher Education – 64%

•Imputed Student Cost – 16%

•Basic Education 18% but declining since 2004

•Average donor share to basic education 41%

•Strong focus on LIC

•Pre-school 0.2% in 2008

© Plan

Aid to Basic Education – Flemish Community

•No Unesco analysis for Regions – Most recent data

•Almost all Aid to Education comes from Departement of Education (vs. Development Cooperation)

•Aid to Basic Education stable around 39% (2.8 mil. in 2010)

•2.3 mil./year attributed to 3 year Unicef project (2008-2010)

•Rest of Education Aid mostly attributed to Higher Education

Flanders Aid to Education

© Plan

Aid to Basic Education – French Community

•No analysis of education aid possible for 2008/2009

•2007 aid figures show:•24.3 mil. Total ODA•3.1 mil. Total Aid to Education (13%)•1.1 mil. Aid to ‘non–Higher Education Aid’•± 1 mil. Of ‘Non-Higher Education Aid’ is contribution

to APEFE

© Plan

Federal Governement - Sector Evaluation 2005

•In preparation of new education policy sector note

•Discrepancy between MDG policy discours and practice of low investment in Basic Education

•Hardly any investment in preschool education

•Limited multilateral investments and silent partnerships in education

© Plan

Federal Government - Situation in 2011

•After 6(!) years still no new education sector policy note

•Discrepancy MDG discours and practice remains

•Disbursement channels (DGD 2009):

© Plan

Federal Government - Multilateral•Multilateral investment stayed low until 2009 – since 2009 different way of reporting core-funding

•Primary Education predominantly through Fast Track Initiative

•Strong scaling up of FTI funding: 1 mil. in 2009 to 6 mil. in 2010. Pledges 2011?

•FTI should be additional funding

•Questions on effectiveness of FTI – Evaluation in 2010

•FTI does not always reach countries ‘most in need’

© Plan

Federal Governement – Bilateral

•Bilateral: new Indicative Development Cooperation Programmes (PIC/ISP) in 13 countries:

• Education remains priority sector in only 4 countries: Burundi, DR Congo, Palestine O.T., Uganda

• Phasing-out important basic education programme in Cambodja, … Bleak picture for strong programmes on basic education in Rwanda, Vietnam, …

• Bilateral Education Aid in 4 remaining countries predominantly TVET• Primary education in:

• Burundi: Teacher training (primary and secondary and TVET) and sector budget support*

• Palestina O.T.: School Construction and Curriculum development

•NGO: mostly in ‘TVET’, followed by ‘life skills education’

•Preschool: still hardly any investment

© Plan

What about quality of basic education?

•Quality focus is in discours – but difficult to say without sector note

•Low investment = low investment in quality

•Belgium has a track record of working on quality basic education (Cambodja, Vietnam, DR Congo, etc) – But what about the future?

•Need to continue leveraging for quality in bilateral or multilateral fora.

•No focus on quality of the learners - ECCE

© Plan

Conclusions

•Low investement in Basic Education

•Hardly no efforts towards ECCE

•Trend: Scaling down bilateral – scaling up FTI

•FTI as compensation for scaling down in bi-lateral aid?• Complete compensation?• FTI as additional education funding?

•Quality focus exists but questions remain regarding• the impact: since investments in general are low • The future: since bilateral aid is beign scaled down with the risk of a

loss of capacity

© Plan

Recommendations (1)

•Increase investment in basic education levels• FTI• Bilateral

•Focus on quality and equity not only on increasing access

•Focus on pre-primary and primary education•Align bi-lateral Aid with FTI

• Bilateral aid for FTI endorsed Education Sector Plan’s • Support for Education Sector Plan Development for partner

countries ‘on-route’ to FTI-funding (Uganda, DR Congo, Burundi*, Tanzania …)

•Advocate ‘Quality’ and ‘ECCE’ in FTI donor groups

© Plan

Recommendations (2)

•Use strong Belgian position in LICs and some conflict ridden countries to promote education where it is most needed

•Focus on effective Education Aid (vs. imputed student costs?)

•Push internationally for more global support for education and a Global Fund for Education

•Moscow Framework for Action on ECCE