|
|
|
6. Targeting |
|
|
"International co-operation should give priority to the
countries currently least able to meet the basic learning
needs of their populations. It should also help countries
redress their internal disparities in educational opportunity.
Because two-thirds of illiterate adults and out-of-school
children are female, wherever such inequalities exist, a most
urgent priority is to improve access to education for girls
and women, and to remove every obstacle that hampers their
active participation" (Framework:5) |
|
6.1
Introduction |
|
The
Jomtien Declaration clearly calls for the targeting of
countries most in need of assistance to meet basic learning
needs. It also emphasises the need to target contributions
within countries in order to redress imbalances in educational
opportunity. The assumption is that agencies will focus their
development co-operation on the basis of need, particularly
with regard to basic education. However, implementing this in
practice is far from straightforward, and the precise
approaches favoured at the country level by agencies are often
not explicitly stated. The agency documentation received is
also not necessarily exhaustive. It is also difficult for
agencies to disaggregate statistical data to the level of
detail necessary.
The
authors recognise that the issue of targeting is complex and
sensitive. The aim is not to construct a hierarchy of agencies
in terms of targeting particular sub-sectors or groups. We
have attempted to illustrate the variety, similarity and
richness of agency approaches. We also recognise the
difficulty of reconciling the need to target as promoted at
Jomtien and subsequent international agreements and the
current way in which the notion of partnerships is being
implemented. Targeting may be more a part of policy
discussions with partner governments as preparation for a
sector wide approach with non-earmarked funding than something
which agencies aim to illustrate in their statistical
reporting.
In this
chapter, we examine which factors influence agencies in their
targeting of ODA contributions in general, their criteria for
selection of partner countries, as well as the implications
this has for a focus on basic education. We then consider how
agencies target their contributions within the basic education
sub-sector, including their policies on targeting within
countries (rural / urban areas), marginalised groups and in
particular equitable access for girls and women. In relation
to this last issue the question of whether agencies are
mainstreaming gender throughout their education policies is
also considered. We then highlight other issues such as
targeting via contributions to multilaterals.
|
|
Section B
presents and analyses the statistical data received and also
draws upon the OECD's Development Assistance Committee (DAC)
data. |
|
|
6.2
Reasons for Targeting |
|
Whether,
or how an agency focuses on basic education is partly the
result of certain beliefs about the development process. For
example, basic education is largely perceived as contributing
to poverty reduction, therefore an agency with poverty
alleviation as its overriding concern may choose to target
basic education, rather than other sub-sectors of education.
However, it may also choose to target other areas which have
an impact on poverty reduction, such as health, the
environment etc. The choice of partner countries for a basic
education programme is then often made initially on the basis
of poverty concerns. Similarly the degree of focus on basic
education, as opposed to other sectors, will depend partly on
what the agency perceives are the most effective and efficient
interventions for achieving the goal of poverty reduction.
As
targeting is linked to overall development objectives it can
also take the form of conditionality. Agencies may choose to
work with those countries which fulfil certain criteria
related to development co-operation in general, such as the
promotion of human rights or the capacity to reform, and not
always specifically because they are most in need of basic
education.
Targeting
is also a practical necessity, with many of the smaller
agencies concentrating their development assistance in fewer
countries and sectors in response, either to a decline in
budgets, or a general concern to be more effective by being
more focused, and therefore not stretching resources too
thinly. Finland, for example, mentions that membership of the
EU and other global political changes result in new financial
pressures and therefore they have to decide which forms of
action to take. There are potential implications for those
countries not selected which also demonstrate great need.
Targeting
can also foster continued targeting on the basis of
specialisation, especially for smaller agencies. Examples
include Switzerland and Germany (emphasis on vocational
education and training). |
|
|
6.3
Overall Development Policies |
|
|
There are
two main general objectives agencies cite as guiding their
overseas development co-operation; poverty alleviation /
reduction and the promotion of human rights (and democracy).
An associated objective is the promotion of peace and
security. These objectives influence the selection of partner
countries and also the sectors and sub-sectors within which
the agencies work. |
|
6.3.1
Poverty Reduction |
|
|
Most
agencies mention poverty reduction specifically as a main
objective. Although not all have articulated the perceived
relationship to basic education provision, it is possible that
for some the link is taken as read, given the international
consensus at Jomtien for a focus on basic education as part of
attempts to combat poverty. For those who have specified the
link, there are wide variations in agency statements. Austria
discusses basic education's role in addressing structural
causes of poverty, whereas Canada puts it in terms of offering
opportunities to the poor. For some basic education is key
(e.g. Netherlands, EU,UNICEF, World Bank); others see it as
part of a range of issues (e.g. Finland, New Zealand).
Of those
with a clear poverty focus Sweden presents an interesting
example. Sweden has a 'two-pronged' approach with an explicit
focus both on the poorest countries and also on poor regions
within countries. They also target countries on the basis of
their ability to implement anti-poverty policies.
It is
clear from some general policy documents we received that
agencies often target the poorest countries and then, having
selected partner countries on this basis, concentrate on
addressing basic education / basic human needs. Examples
include Canada, Ireland, Japan, Norway, Sweden, Switzerland.
Canada
state that in 1995-97 they invested generally in 34 of 60
lowest ranking countries, yet emphasise that they have no
policy for targeting based on the UNDP HDI index. They stress
that they only made substantial contributions to basic human
needs in 13 of these. It is not clear if they are saying they
can only afford to work in some, i.e. concentration of
resources, or that they also work elsewhere and therefore have
a broader approach rather than a strict focus on 'poor'
countries. For other agencies it is not clear whether they are
using the DAC, World Bank or the UNDP categorisations of
countries as a guide to targeting the poorest.
If the
focus of the above agencies is on the poorest countries and
within that on basic education this should be reflected in
their contributions to the sector. However, it is not possible
to draw any conclusions from the data except in the cases of
Sweden and Switzerland.
Sweden :
Of the 18 countries listed for basic education funding all
but 4 are classified LLDC or 'other LIC' in the 1997 DAC
statistics.
Switzerland : Of the 12 African countries receiving
basic education ODA all but 1 are classified LLDC or 'other
LIC'. The Latin American countries as a whole are LMIC or
UMIC with the exception of one or two, so a focus on the
poorest countries world-wide would tend to exclude this
region. Within their contributions to this region
Switzerland mostly work with the former. Their concentration
in Asia is also with LLDCs or 'other LICs'.
Austria
also mention that the majority of their partner countries are
categorised as LLDCs or LICs.
In terms
of an overall development objective the aim of reducing
poverty has one of the clearest links to basic education in
many agency documents. Given that this link is made by the
majority of agencies basic education should be a priority for
contributions, possibly alongside other sectors such as
health. |
|
|
6.3.2
Human Rights and Democracy |
|
|
Some
agencies provided general policy documents and it is clear
that for many the promotion of human rights and democracy is a
key objective. Examples include Finland, Japan, Norway,
Portugal, Switzerland, United States. Others emphasise this
key objective both in general and education specific
documents. Table 6.1 below shows agencies in this latter
category and also those promoting education as a human right
or as contributing to achieving the furthering of human rights
and democracy. |
|
|
Table
6.1 Agencies Promoting Human Rights and Democracy in Relation
to Education (not available) |
|
|
The table
shows that some agencies have the promotion of human rights
and democracy as a stated development priority within their
education documents. The Development Banks as a group make no
reference to the promotion of human rights in the policy
documents we received, although some refer to the UN
Declaration on Human Rights, which includes the right to
education.
Some
agencies are not uniform in their prioritising of this
objective. Canada mentions the promotion of human rights and
democracy with respect to most regions, but not across all.
Democracy is not mentioned specifically in the Africa and
Middle East sections of their co-operation, although security
and peace are seen as key issues.
Of the
large number of agencies promoting human rights and democracy
as a key development objective very few explicitly explore any
link with basic education. On the evidence available to us it
is perceived as a means of achieving this for 6. For some
agencies education is seen both as a human right in itself and
as contributing to human rights and democracy. If a link
between the promotion of human rights and democracy and basic
education is not perceived to exist then those agencies
prioritising this development objective may not choose to
focus to such a large extent on basic education.
The two
development objectives of poverty reduction and promotion of
human rights work together to influence how agencies intervene
in development co-operation in general and also in particular
sectors. The poverty reduction aim seems to have a clearer
link to basic education than the focus on human rights and
democracy. For some however, the Human Rights perspective is
clearly prior to work on poverty and is an important condition
for aid. Norway states that priority will be given to partner
countries which demonstrate a concern with
"development-oriented policy which respects human rights and
international agreements thereby laying the foundation for
general co-operation in development and poverty reduction"
(Royal Norwegian Ministry of Foreign Affairs 1996:42). Norway
also alludes to a willingness to break off development
co-operation if partner countries do not match Norway's
requirements.
The
Jomtien declaration implies that a focus on basic education
should result from an assessment of need in particular
countries. It is clear however, that agencies are more likely
to focus on basic education if it is a means of achieving
wider development objectives. In the case of poverty reduction
this would seem to work in favour of increased commitment to
basic education, but is less clearly the case for human rights
and democracy. Countries which are not perceived as
prioritising human rights and democracy are arguably less
likely to be selected as partner countries by some agencies
and therefore also less likely to receive contributions for
basic education. |
|
|
6.4
Selection of Partner Countries |
|
|
Besides
their wider development objectives agencies also have other
reasons for focusing their ODA in particular countries. A
number of influencing factors appear in the documentation.
long
historical connections with certain countries. Examples
include Portugal (colonial relationship with certain African
countries), the UK (connections dating back to the empire
and now the Commonwealth).
longstanding aid relationships : Norway (long
standing development links), the Netherlands ('long term
structural co-operation relationship'),
a focus
on those countries most capable of system reform or those
'committed to development'. Examples include USA, Finland.
Finland makes this point in conjunction with conditionality
for its ODA. This criteria for selection may be partly
related to the move towards sector type approaches.
membership of larger political and economic
groupings. Sweden mentions new involvement in W Africa as a
result of EU membership. Finland, similarly, reports
influence from the EU and the International community.
comparative advantage or area of expertise (Denmark,
Canada, formerly UK with regard to English Language Teaching
(ELT)), or the capacities of the agency in terms of size
(e.g. Ireland discontinuing funding for India).
Of these
factors, the historical connections and membership of larger
political groupings may coincide with a focus on poverty
reduction and therefore lead to increased intervention in
basic education. In terms of comparative advantage it depends
where the area of expertise lies. Judgements on the basis of
agency capacity may still mean a focus on basic education, but
only within certain countries.
Finland
categorises its partners as follows: those in serious crisis
(humanitarian aid), countries recovering from war, countries
in political transition, countries in economic transition,
poor but stable countries. IDB categorises those in their
region according to size of economy with 4 categories from
large to small. USAID has a categorisation specifically for
Africa: countries in civil strife/ economic collapse,
countries not in strife but not showing signs of democratising
their political systems and have regressive or stagnant
economies, those emerging from conflict, countries where there
is 'good news' which is defined as a transition to pluralistic
societies with economic policies leading to growth (USAID
1998). Their work focuses on the last group.
This kind
of categorising reflects the focus on countries ready for
reform or able to implement particular policies. In USAID's
words these are countries "that can help themselves" (USAID
1998: 3).
Unfortunately the statistical data so far received is
not sufficiently disaggregated in the case of Finland and not
available in the case of the USA to determine which countries
are actually in receipt of large funding contributions to
basic education. |
|
|
6.5
Priority Regions or Countries |
|
|
The
selection of partner countries can also take the form of
geographical targeting. Some bilateral agencies choose
priority countries, whilst others have a regional focus.
Austria names 5 key regions for their ODA and specify
which countries within those are a priority. In the 3 year
programme for 1999-2001 each will receive between a minimum
of 4% and a maximum of 8% of ODA.
Norway combines a regional approach with targeting
specific priority countries. In the regional focus potential
partner countries have to compete for funds. Priority
countries will receive more predictable levels of funding.
Ireland has always had priority countries. Originally
they concentrated on 5, dropped 2, and recently 3 more have
been added.
Obviously
the regional development banks have their priority regions
already specified. |
|
|
6.5.1
Focus on Africa |
|
|
In the
education policy documents received some agencies highlight a
focus on Africa, in particular Sub-Saharan Africa. Education
figures for this region are constantly quoted as being
particularly low for ER, illiteracy etc, and certainly some
agencies have specific documents on basic education in Africa
(for example USAID).
Box 6.1
shows agencies which state they focus on Africa in their
assistance to education, or those whose basic education
provision is predominantly in Africa. |
|
|
Box
6.1 Agencies Focusing on (Sub-Saharan) Africa in Basic
Education (not available) |
|
|
Given that
agencies select partner countries initially often on the basis
of poverty criteria and then address the issue of basic
education it is unsurprising that Africa is a particular
region of interest. For some agencies, such as Finland,
Ireland and Portugal, Africa is a focus for general ODA, for
poverty reasons or historical connections, and therefore a
focus on this region for basic education is a logical
consequence. Some agencies, such as Canada, are also clearly
assessing educational need in the region, which is reflected
in their programming.
Unfortunately, for the majority of the agencies listed
above it is not possible to confirm whether this focus on
Africa is reflected in their contributions to basic education.
The data received from most agencies is not presented in terms
of country or regional breakdowns. Analysis is possible for
the following: Luxembourg, The Netherlands, Portugal, Sweden,
UK, UNESCO (see appendix 4).
Luxembourg: From 1996-98 the majority of the
countries receiving education ODA are in Africa. However, in
terms of volume of ODA to basic education disbursements to
Nicaragua in 1993 and 1994 have been the largest to any
single country over the decade. Africa received the largest
share as a region with $4.04mn. in comparison to $2.28mn. to
Latin America and $0.23mn. to the Philippines.
The
Netherlands: Africa received more funding for basic
education in 1995, 1997, 1998. Asia was higher in 1993, 1994
and 1996. Latin America in 1992.
Portugal
: The focus of all their ODA to basic education is in
Africa, primarily Mozambique and Cape Verde.
Sweden:
Africa consistently received more funding to basic education
than either Asia or Latin America and the Caribbean. The
contributions to Africa declined over the decade with a
slight increase in 1999. Disbursements to Asia though lower
are only slightly less in 1997 - 8.
UK: In
the current portfolio commitments to basic education
(primary) are highest to India. 3 South Asian countries are
amongst the top 6 for commitments in this area.
UNESCO:
Disbursements in extra-budgetary spending for Asia and the
Pacific have been consistently higher than those to Africa,
except in 1992. Those to Latin America have also been higher
in 1993 - 1998. The implementation rate is generally lower
to Africa than the other regions.
Data is
also available from a couple of other agencies which did not
state a particular focus. The Netherlands, for example, has
much higher contributions in basic education to Asia than
Africa until 1997, when the trend reverses. However, this is
still insufficient to draw any conclusions about a focus on
any particular region for the whole agency community. There
are commentators who argue that S. Asia has been an area for
particular focus in basic education and this would seem to be
reflected in the case of the UK current portfolio (Shotton
1999). Certainly for the other agencies discussed above the
focus has not been entirely on Africa throughout the decade.
Other
agencies have a local focus most notably those in the Asia /
Pacific region (Australia, Japan, New Zealand). The
multilaterals (e.g. UNDP and UNICEF) also stress their
world-wide brief and the developing banks work in their own
specific regions. |
|
|
6.5.2
Focus on 'Countries in Transition' |
|
|
Besides a
geographical focus on Africa a number of agencies target what
they term 'countries in transition', either economic or
political transition (Finland, Norway, USA, UNESCO and
UNICEF). For most agencies this refers to countries emerging
from war or transforming their economies, such as Mozambique,
Angola etc. This focus is of particular interest to agencies
aiming to promote peace and security, as well as human rights
and democracy. However, it is not possible to comment on
funding contributions to these countries and the implications
for basic education without a clear definition for each agency
of which countries are deemed to be in transition.
The only
other focus mentioned by an agency is a concern for small
island states on the part of UNESCO. |
|
|
6.6
Reduction, Consolidation or Increase in Number of Partner
Countries |
|
|
As was
stated in the introduction targeting is a practical necessity.
Some agencies report a reduction or consolidation in the
number of countries they fund, partly as a result of
decreasing resources (Norway, Denmark) and other factors, such
as the need to be able to have dialogue with the partner
country. Other agencies are increasing the range of countries
(Finland), though this is also in the context of reduced
funds. This has implications again for the number of countries
receiving contributions to basic education. The number may be
reducing to reflect agency capacity and preferred modalities
for ODA, rather than in response to a decline in need in basic
education. |
|
|
Table
6.2 Agencies Reducing, Consolidating or Increasing the Number
of Partner Countries(not available) |
|
|
Again the
influence of these changes in numbers of partner countries on
the basic education sub-sector cannot be explored due to the
lack of disaggregated statistical data provided. It is only
possible to comment on Sweden. The number of countries they
fund has remained fairly stable during the decade. In 1998
Angola and Eritrea received funds for the first time and
Zambia and Sri Lanka had no additional funding. Both
Cambodia's and Zimbabwe's funding has decreased and Ethiopia's
increased substantially. This would seem to reflect what is
stated in the policy documents.
Targeting
of ODA is a complex issue, with many factors playing a role.
It is obvious that although the Jomtien declaration is
important for discussions related directly to basic education,
it is not the only guiding principle by which agencies target
countries or even sectors for development co-operation. Some
of the factors discussed above coincide with thinking on the
importance of basic education and others do not. It is
therefore not surprising if agency focus on basic education
varies. |
|
|
6.7
Focus within Basic Education |
|
|
Having
looked at factors influencing general targeting policies and
the implications for basic education we turn to agency
targeting within this sub-sector. The Jomtien and
International Development Targets for UPE, adult literacy and
gender disparities influence the type and level of
intervention agencies make. The desire to meet such targets
may influence decisions as to whether to fund particular
sub-sectors, such as primary, or particular modes of
education, such as non-formal. It is therefore important to
look at agency targeting at this level. Another important
point to bear in mind is raised by the EU detailing the fact
that agencies work with developing countries to produce
country strategy papers where the focal sectors for funding
are decided. As was pointed out in Chapter 3 agency policy and
practice is also influenced by declarations and conferences
post-Jomtien, as well as those relating to other sectors. Part
of the problem in examining agency contributions within the
sub-sector relates to definitions, which vary across agencies
(see Chapter 4). All include formal primary education both in
their definitions and in their policy statements, but there is
more variation with the other sub-sectors. The following
tables show agencies which state they work in secondary, early
childhood, and special needs education as part of basic
education (adult education/literacy is dealt with in Chapter
8). Again it is only possible to see whether these policy
statements translate into funding contributions for a few
agencies, due to the lack of disaggregated data supplied. The
agencies for which we have data on primary contributions are
the following (see appendix 5):
Canada :
Canada committed money to primary education every year
except 1995. The amounts vary greatly, ranging from
$0.201mn. in 1990 to $14.967mn. in 1994. The amounts
committed in the second half of the decade are more than in
the first half. The total of $41.569mn. represents 60% of
their basic education commitments over the decade at current
prices.
Netherlands : The Netherlands have data for
disbursements to primary from 1992 onwards. The levels
increased up to 1995 and then dropped back slightly until
1996, when it increased again. The total of $255mn.
represents 90 % of the total disbursements to basic
education over the decade in current prices.
Sweden :
Disbursements to primary were made from 1993 to 1998, except
for 1996. Levels varied with 1995 being the highest point.
The total of $175.91mn. represents 55% of their total
disbursements to basic education over the decade at current
prices.
The
largest percentage of Germany's contributions is to formal
primary education in comparison to other sub-sectors such as
non-formal education
Looking at
these agencies it is clear that primary has a high priority as
a sub-sector. It could be that expenditure is high as projects
and sector programmes are larger than for more specialist
sectors. However, the trend in the above 4 agencies does
reflect a general view that primary has received the most and
increasing attention since Jomtien. |
|
|
Those
agencies involved in secondary education are indicated in Box
6.2. |
|
|
Box 6.2
Agencies Involved in (lower) Secondary Education as Part of
Basic Education
Australia
Denmark
Japan:
intermediate education in 1992 report
Luxembourg
New
Zealand
Norway
United Kingdom
ADB
CDB: lower
secondary
IDB
UNICEF
The United
Kingdom has no current definition of basic education and works
with country definitions. They also work in secondary
education, which could therefore on occasion be included under
basic education. |
|
Note also
that some agencies (e.g. WB) include (lower) secondary in
their definitions of basic education but do not highlight it
as an area to which they contribute. Such discrepancies
between definition and practice possibly apply to other areas
of basic education.
The only
agency for which there is data related to secondary education
contributions is for IDB (see appendix 5). IDB : Data is
disaggregated into the sub-sectors but also with some
combination funding. Commitments solely to secondary were made
in 1996 and 1997 of a total of $561mn., which represents 65.5%
of their total contributions to basic education over the
decade (excluding 1999) at current prices. |
|
|
Table
6.3 Agencies Involved in Early Childhood Development /
Pre-school Education as Part of Basic Education (not
available) |
|
|
Disaggregated data on ECD is available for the
following agencies (see appendix 5): § Canada : Canada
committed $0.10mn. to ECD in 1992. § Netherlands :
Disbursements were made to ECD throughout the decade. The
levels rose steadily until 1995, dropping for a year and
rising between 1997-8. The total of $3.08mn. represents 1% of
their contributions to basic education over the decade at
current prices. § IDB have statistics on pre-school in
combination with other sub-sectors so it is impossible to give
totals purely for this sub-sector. Looking at these agencies
ECD does not seem to have a high priority, but there is not
sufficient evidence to make a claim for all. |
|
|
Box 6.3
Agencies Contributing to Special Needs Education as Part of
Basic Education
Denmark:
new area of interest
Finland
New
Zealand
Norway
Sweden
USA
UNICEF:
working towards mainstreaming the disabled
CDB
|
|
There is
no data available on contributions to special needs education.
It is
difficult to conclude where the focus has been over the decade
within basic education in terms of actual contributions due to
the lack of relevant data. In terms of policy statements there
is a clear bias in favour of primary education. Early
childhood development, with special emphasis on disabled
children is highlighted in the declaration as a proposed
target, but does not seem to have overwhelming policy support
amongst agencies. |
|
|
6.8
Targeting of Rural and Urban Areas |
|
|
The
declaration makes clear that 'rural and remote areas' should
receive special attention in the context of reducing education
disparities within countries. Most of the agencies have taken
this on board in their policy statements. |
|
|
Table
6.4 Agencies' Stated Policies on Rural and Urban Targeting
(not available) |
|
|
No agency
has a sole focus on urban areas, which reflects the Jomtien
declaration and the general perception that rural areas, and
groups within them, are the most marginalised. Rural areas
have traditionally been perceived as the areas most neglected
in terms of formal education provision and are therefore the
obvious target for basic education intervention. However, a
broad definition of basic education with a focus on all those
under served by education should lead to the inclusion of
urban areas, with particular emphasis on people outside the
formal sector. No data is available which reflects agency
targeting of areas within countries, so it is not possible to
comment on the proportions of basic education contributions
going to rural or urban areas. |
|
|
6.9
Equity Issues : Marginalised Groups |
|
|
"An active
commitment must be made to removing educational disparities.
Under served groups - the poor; street and working children,
rural and remote populations, nomads and migrant workers;
indigenous peoples, ethnic, racial, and linguistic minorities;
refugees; those displaced by war; and people under occupation
- should not suffer any discrimination in access to learning
opportunities" (Declaration: 5).
"The
learning needs of the disabled demand special attention. Steps
need to be taken to provide equal access to education to every
category of disabled persons as an integral part of the
education system" (Declaration: 5)
There is a
strong thread through the Jomtien declaration emphasising the
needs of those underserved by basic education. Some of the
groups referred to are numerical minorities, some are large
majorities within countries. Most of the agencies state a
focus on marginalised groups in general and some specify
particular groups for targeting. |
|
|
Table
6.5 Targeting of Marginalised Groups in Basic Education (not
available) |
|
|
A number
of comments can be made about this table. 2 agencies state
that they focus also on youth. Germany argues that previous
targeting of women and families has not had the expected
knock-on effects for youth. This group therefore needs special
attention.
The
Jomtien declaration highlights certain groups for special
attention; refugees, the disabled. 2 agencies make reference
to those affected by conflict, but several agencies do have
projects on education for refugees (e.g. Austria, UNICEF). 5
mention targeting children with special needs, or the
disabled. Box 6.3 highlighted those agencies working in this
area.
Linguistic
or ethnic minorities receive attention from 8 agencies. Of
these ADB and Norway do not make explicit any involvement in
bilingual education. There is a general lack of discussion on
language issues in agency documents (see Chapter
9).
It is not
possible to comment on this type of targeting in relation to
actual amounts or proportions of funding. The data received is
not disaggregated in this way and would be arguably very
difficult to provide. |
|
|
6.10
Equity Issues : Gender Relations |
|
|
"The most
urgent priority is to ensure access to, and improve the
quality of, education for girls and women, and to remove every
obstacle that hampers their active participation. All gender
stereotyping in education should be eliminated." (Declaration:
5)
The
declaration also says the following on education programmes
for women and girls. "These programmes should be designed to
eliminate the social and cultural barriers which have
discouraged or even excluded women and girls from benefits or
regular education programmes, as well as to promote equal
opportunities in all aspects of their lives" (Framework : 18)
Targets
were suggested at Jomtien to deal with gender disparities.
However, this is the area of the declaration in which there
was the least progress mid-decade (EFA Forum Secretariat
1996). Targets have since been reinforced, with commitments to
reducing gender disparities by 2015 (OECD 1996).
|
|
|
6.10.1
Approaches to Gender Issues: |
|
|
Agencies
all highlight the importance of gender relations either in
overall policy and / or specifically for basic education. As
the declaration implies, this translates mainly as a concern
of inequitable access to quality education for women and
girls. The agencies' most frequently stated reason for
investing in women and girls' education, apart from the human
rights perspective, seems to be a focus on reduced fertility
rates and improved health.
Gender is
a particularly difficult area because of cultural factors, as
alluded to in the Jomtien declaration. The USAID mention the
need for a national consensus in partner countries on gender
because of the cultural issues involved. |
|
|
6.10.2
'Mainstreaming' Gender |
|
|
'Mainstreaming' of gender issues is a strategy from the
Beijing conference. Lexow and Ror (1996) point to difficulties
in defining 'mainstreaming' and what this means in practice.
They state that some agencies see it (inaccurately) in terms
of 'gender neutrality' or the non-inclusion of specific
interventions for women. Most agencies seem to have
'mainstreaming' as a strategy or approach, although the number
of agencies which use this term specifically is quite small
(Australia, Austria, Netherlands and Sweden UK). Some refer to
integrating gender throughout policy and practice (e.g.
Canada, Germany, New Zealand, UNICEF) or making it a cross
cutting issue (Australia, Denmark, EU). Lexow and Ror (1996)
question the degree to which it actually happens in practice,
pointing to agencies still using enrolment rates as the main
indicator, not looking at appropriateness of curriculum, for
instance, and not having sufficient baseline data on gender
issues.
Thinking
on gender over the decade has moved from a focus specifically
on women and girls (WID) to an understanding that the
relationships between women / girls and men/ boys are
important (GAD). A number of agencies make reference to the
former, especially in connection with the DAC WID guidelines
for monitoring development co-operation (Austria, Japan (from
1995), Netherlands, Norway, EU). ADB, Australia and New
Zealand talk specifically in terms of GAD, with others also
emphasising the need to look both at men and women (for
example, Sweden).
Views on
gender, like other approaches to development, can reflect
national concerns of agencies. Norway points to their progress
nationally on gender issues and its importance for their
approach in development co-operation.
In terms
of targeting the World Bank states that it has focused on the
31 countries with the greatest gender disparities, with a
particular emphasis on 15 of them (mostly in
Africa).
Gender is
also an issue in conditionality for some agencies for example,
USAID. |
|
|
6.10.3
Gender and Access |
|
|
For most
agencies the main concern seems to be access for girls. The
following are some examples of the types of interventions
agencies cite (note the list is not exhaustive): improving
facilities in schools (WB), safe and convenient schools and
dormitory facilities (Australia), information for parents
(Netherlands, WB), providing alternative schooling for girls
who cannot attend for cultural reasons (UNDP), getting
parental agreement that girls do not get married (ADB in
Bangladesh), locating schools nearer homes (Norway), stipends
to female students (Norway), multiple delivery systems for
education (Sweden), legislation for equal opportunities
(Switzerland), waiving fees (USAID), policies on pregnant
girls staying on at school (USAID, UNICEF), transport for
female teachers (ADB) and priorities within teacher training,
including rectifying imbalances in numbers of female teachers
(EU). Few, if any, of these interventions address access to
basic education for women. This has implications for
contributions to adult education, particularly non-formal (see
Chapter 8). |
|
|
6.10.4
Gender and Quality |
|
|
Quality is
also an issue. The types of interventions cited include;
removing gender bias from curriculum and materials and
increasing relevance (Australia, Canada, Ireland, Netherlands,
Norway, Sweden, UNICEF), educating male and female teachers on
equitable approaches in the classroom (Germany, Ireland),
programmes on gender relations aimed at boys
(UNICEF).
Focusing
on early childhood education is also perceived as improving
quality and access in primary and contributing
cross-sectorally in both education and health (e.g. Austria,
UNICEF, ADB). UNICEF stresses the importance of gender in
peace education and the role of advocacy work.
Other
issues raised by agencies:
Addressing gender issues by working with NGOs
(Australia, Switzerland).
System
reform, with a call for gender aware planning, policy
formulation and monitoring of education (UK, USAID, UNICEF).
|
|
6.10.5
Cross-Cutting Issues In Marginalisation |
|
Women and
girls are often referred to as a marginalised group. Boys are
a stated focus amongst agencies working in the Caribbean and
Polynesia (CDB, UK, Australia). Gender is an issue that
intersects with geographical, ethnic, rural marginalisation.
IDB promotes gender equality in all projects and refers to the
substantial progress in Latin America in access for girls.
They also point to the situation of older women, who missed
out as a result of past bias within the system, and within
that group the relative lack of progress for urban, rural and
indigenous women, with the last group being the most
marginalised. |
|
6.11
Multilateral ODA |
|
|
Most of
the agencies address the issue of targeting related to their
bilateral ODA. Although much of the multilateral ODA to basic
education is not earmarked, agencies may specify that their
contributions be used to encourage intervention in specific
areas. For example:
Denmark
tries to ensure that the World Bank concentrates on
vulnerable groups. In their contributions to UNESCO they
emphasise major themes they consider important; special
needs, basic learning materials development and NFE for
adults.
Finland
also mentions earmarking support channelled through the UN
agencies.
This is
possibly a reflection of agency concerns to show their
commitment to particular national policies for development.
Earmarking of funds via multilaterals does not necessarily
work in practice. Previously trust funds were used to earmark
contributions to the World Bank, but problems occurred as
monies were not disbursed. Some agencies, such as DFID, avoid
this type of earmarking. Generally targeting via multilaterals
probably takes the form of advocacy in policy discussions.
|
|
|
6.12
Conclusions |
|
|
Targeting
is dependent on a number of factors of which the Jomtien
declaration is only one. Poverty reduction and human rights
objectives, combined with issues such as the ability to
implement reform, past loyalties, particular interests, as
well as capacity of agencies, influence the selection of
partner countries. There is then a focus on basic education
and within basic education there seems to have been a clear
focus on primary education (in some cases both formal and non)
for the agencies for which we have data. Other areas are
receiving increasing attention, such as special needs
education, in policy statements.
Much of
the discussion implies a geographical focus on Africa, but
this is only possible to quantify in terms of funding for some
agencies, and is not necessarily supported by the
contributions to the sector.
In general
agencies seem to have taken on board the Jomtien declaration
emphasis on particular groups, although with some, such as
linguistic minorities and refugees, are under represented.
There is a clear integration into policy of gender issues
within basic education as well as the focus on both access and
quality. How much is actually translated into practice is
difficult to tell from a solely agency perspective.
It is
worth asking also what the effects of targeting are. Do the
new international targets reinforce a focus on primary
education for example? It is also important to see which
countries showing great basic needs are negatively affected by
policies on targeting and whether particular groups or
sub-sectors of basic education continue to receive less
attention than others. Targeting is also a difficult issue to
reconcile with Jomtien's other concern that agencies respond
to partner countries' agendas. This is possibly even more
difficult in the light of new modalities. Agencies will
continue to target based on their overall development agendas,
which are not necessarily limited to concerns related to EFA,
and aim to support developing countries' policies and agendas.
|
|
|
6.13
Outstanding Issues |
|
|
6.13.1
Issues |
|
|
Targeting
takes many forms and is both implicit and explicit. It is also
an integral part of the way in which both agencies and
countries prioritise. The Jomtien declaration suggested ways
in which targets for basic education could be developed. In
addition to these a number of specific International
Development Targets have been agreed. In order to achieve
these targets agencies make decisions as to the most
appropriate type of intervention and level of funding
required.
The issue
of targeting is however problematic. Tracking agency and
country efforts to achieve broad targets is difficult, as
demonstrated by the type of data received for this report.
Tracking contributions to small sub-sectors of basic education
and any focus on marginalised populations within countries is
even more so. If such detail is required then ways of
disaggregating data are also necessary. However, given the
developments over the decade, especially in terms of how
partnerships are currently being shaped, it may be the case
that there is little value in attempting to demonstrate
targeting at the micro level for any future assessment
exercise.
Assessing
agencies in terms of targeting can inadvertently lead to
comparisons between agencies suggesting a hierarchy of good
practice. This report aims instead to demonstrate the variety
of approaches. Assessments of progress towards particular
targets may reinforce a feeling amongst agencies, especially
those with a slightly different focus, that there is an
obligation to demonstrate, at least in policy terms, a
commitment to exactly the same ideas. This commitment may not
be a true reflection of agencies' relative expertise and
experience and may also run counter to attempts to facilitate
good practice, respond to country priorities and fund
meaningful interventions.
Targeting
sometimes takes the form of conditionality, which has
implications for agency aims to respond to partner countries'
priorities and development agendas.
The
process of selecting countries described above and the
consolidation or reduction of the number of partner
governments agencies will work with has potential implications
for basic education, especially if it results in the same
countries being deemed suitable for partnership by the various
agencies. Targeting of populations within those countries not
chosen as key partners is also an issue.
The notion
of targeting is further complicated with the introduction of
new modalities, such as sector wide approaches, particularly
those involving non-earmarked budgetary support. There would
seem to be a contradiction between providing general
non-earmarked funds and attempting to target particular
sub-sectors, groups and regions. Targeting may form part of
policy discussions with governments in future or gradually
diminish in importance as the new modalities are more fully
developed. This has implications for international and
national reporting mechanisms. |
|
|
============= |
|
Return
to contents |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Return
to contents |
|
| |