52010SA0012

EUR-Lex

Access to European Union law

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

EUROPA
EUR-Lex home
EUR-Lex - 52010SA0012 - EN

Help

Search tips

Need more search options? Use the Advanced search

Document 52010SA0012

Special Report No 12/2010 ‘EU Development Assistance for Basic Education in Sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia’

HTML

PDF

52010SA0012

Special Report No 12/2010 ‘EU Development Assistance for Basic Education in Sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia’

ABBREVIATIONS

ACP : African, Caribbean and Pacific States party to the Lomé Convention

Confemen : Conférence des ministres de l’éducation des pays ayant le français en partage (Conference of national education ministers of French-speaking countries)

CSP : country strategy paper

DCI : Development Cooperation Instrument

DG : Directorate-General of the European Commission

ECSEL : European Community support to education in Liberia

EDF : European Development Fund

EFA : Education for All

ESP : education sector programme (Namibia)

EU : European Union

EuropeAid : EuropeAid Co-operation Office (European Commission)

FTI : Fast Track Initiative

GBS : general budget support

HQ : headquarters

IAC : Internal Audit Capability

MDG : millennium development goal

MTR : mid-term review

NER : net enrolment rate (see Glossary)

NGO : non-governmental organisation

OJ : Official Journal

PASEC : Programme d’analyse des systèmes éducatifs de la Confemen (Programme for the analysis of educational systems of the Confemen countries)

PETS : public expenditure tracking survey

PEFA : public expenditure and financial accountability

PDDE : Plan décennal de développement de l’éducation (Niger — Ten-year education development plan)

PFM : public financial management

Sacmeq : Southern and Eastern Africa Consortium for Monitoring Educational Quality

SBS : sector budget support

SMART : specific, measurable, attainable, relevant, time-bound

SPSP : sector policy support programme

TVET : technical and vocational education and training

Unesco : United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation

GLOSSARY

Basic education : in Unesco’s International Standard Classification of Education, primary education together with the first three years of secondary education.

Gender parity index (GPI) : ratio of female to male values of a given indicator: a GPI of 1 indicates parity between genders; a GPI below 1 indicates a disparity in favour of males.

Gross enrolment rate (GER) : number of pupils enrolled in a given level of education, regardless of age, expressed as a percentage of the population in the relevant official age group. GER can be higher than 100 % as a result of grade repetition and enrolment of children younger and older than the normal age for the grade concerned (early or late entry).

Gross intake rate to last grade of primary education : number of new entrants to the last grade of primary, regardless of age, expressed as a percentage of the total population of the theoretical entrance age to the last grade of primary. It is the most widely used "proxy" indicator to measure the completion rate.

Impact indicators : they relate to the overall goal of the programme. They measure long-term and aggregated results or changes at the level of beneficiaries (e.g. overall literacy rate, graduate unemployment, relation between education level and income, poverty rate, etc.).

Input indicators : they relate to resources. They measure the human, financial, physical and other (administrative and regulatory) resources provided for implementing the programme (e.g. budget devoted to education, cost per student, decree on school boards, etc.).

Net enrolment rate (NER) : pupil enrolment of the official age group for a given level of education, expressed as a percentage of the population of that age group.

Outcome indicators : they relate to the purpose of the programme. They measure the results or consequences of outputs at the level of beneficiaries (e.g. net or gross enrolment rate, school retention rate, completion rate, learner achievement, etc.).

Output indicators (also called process indicators) : they relate to the direct results of activities. They measure the immediate and concrete results of the different activities (processes) implemented and inputs used (e.g. number of schools built, number of teachers trained, learner/textbook ratio, etc.).

Result : for sector programmes, this report uses "result" in relation to the Commission’s "input–output–outcome–impact" terminology. A "result" corresponds to an "outcome" such as primary school enrolment, and outcome/results indicators measure the results at the level of the beneficiaries (e.g. NER).

Survival rate to last grade of primary education : percentage of the number of pupils enrolled in the first grade that is expected to reach the last grade. The ideal value should be 100 %.

Sustainability : in relation to development projects, the degree of assurance that the project or its results will continue as long as required (i.e. will be sufficiently well established, self-sufficient and/or funded to do so).

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

I. Improving the availability and quality of education is a major factor in the global fight against poverty, reflected in the United Nations millennium development goals (MDGs) and by the Education for All movement (EFA). The European Consensus on Development presents the EU’s priorities in this field as quality primary education, vocational training and addressing inequalities.

II. This audit assesses whether EU development assistance in sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia has helped effectively to improve the accessibility and quality of basic education provision. For eight selected countries it compares outcomes with the targets set out in financing agreements, and examines in detail how the Commission programmed and monitored its spending.

III. Overall, significant progress has been made, although only 45 % of the targets in the audited financing agreements were fully achieved. For the goal of ensuring primary education for all children (MDG 2) only some of the intended improvements were achieved and progress has in general been too slow to ensure that targets for 2015 will be met. As regards eliminating gender disparity in education (part of MDG 3) there was more success, although the overall figures mask significant persisting inequalities in particular regional and social groups. For the third priority goal, improving education quality, few of the intended improvements were achieved.

IV. The choice of aid delivery method is significant, since it determines the mechanisms for monitoring results. Where sector budget support was the aid delivery method this choice generally conformed with the Commission guidelines. In sub-Saharan Africa the increasing use of general budget support has much reduced the extent to which detailed targets and indicators are set for basic education, and sector dialogue is less intensive. The Commission did not fully consider the advantages of the measures for mitigating fiduciary risks such as those used in pooled funding.

V. Generally the indicators used by the Commission have an appropriate focus on the MDGs, although insufficient attention is paid to indicators for education quality. However, the national education management information systems that the Commission relies on do not consistently provide sufficient, reliable and timely information.

VI. Coordination with other donors has generally improved although it entails compromises which sometimes affected the Commission’s own management or priorities. Education expertise is not optimally assigned and developed in Delegations, which reduces the Commission’s ability to maintain sector dialogue in education. The EU provided capacity development support but in most cases it did not work as intended.

VII. On the basis of the above observations, the Court makes a set of recommendations with the aim of improving the Commission’s management of EU development assistance to education.

INTRODUCTION

GLOBAL DONOR COMMITMENTS

1. The European Union (EU) has recognised education as a major factor in the global fight against poverty [1]. Through the Education for All movement (EFA) [2] and the United Nations millennium development goals (MDGs) [3] the EU and the international donor community at large have committed themselves to support developing countries to achieve a multitude of objectives, including ensuring primary education for all children, eliminating gender inequalities and improving education quality.

2. Although considerable progress has been made since 2000 the Unesco Education for All (EFA) EFA global monitoring report 2010 estimates that 72 million children still do not have access to basic education (see Glossary). Following a significant increase in external aid for basic education from 1999 to 2004, the global trend has reversed. Global aid commitments for basic education were 25 % lower in 2007 compared with 2004. The EFA global monitoring report 2010 estimates that the global gap between aid commitments made by donors and the actual spending is some 20 billion US dollars. It also estimates that the global annual funding gap for enabling developing countries to reach the EFA goals is some 16 billion US dollars with sub-Saharan Africa accounting for around two thirds of the shortfall.

3. With the Paris Declaration of 2005 and the Accra Agenda for Action of 2008, the EU and the global donor community in general has agreed to a set of principles for more effective aid (including in particular for the MDGs), by improving harmonisation and alignment of aid delivery methods and procedures through enhanced cooperation and greater reliance on country systems.

EU POLICY COMMITMENTS

4. A Commission communication of 2002 [4] noted that the strategy to be pursued would involve support for basic education as the first priority.

5. The 2005 development policy [5] placed a greater emphasis on contributing to the MDGs and identified "human development", including education, as one of nine areas where the Commission would be primarily active. It noted that the Community aimed to contribute to EFA, and stated that priorities in education were quality primary education, vocational training and addressing inequalities. Particular attention would be devoted to promoting girls’ education and safety at schools, and support would be provided to the development and implementation of nationally anchored sector plans as well as participation in regional and global thematic initiatives on education.

6. The EU’s development assistance to education is mainly funded by the Development Cooperation Instrument [6] (DCI) and the European Development Fund [7] (EDF). Funding from the DCI is also made available to non state actors/ civil society organisations of which some are active as advocates or service providers in the education sector. The Commission’s contributions to the EFA Fast Track Initiative (FTI) [8] are funded from the EDF and DCI. The allocations to direct support to education in south Asia in the current programming period (2007–13) totalled 452,0 million euro or 17,7 % of the total development assistance programmed. In sub-Saharan Africa the total of the allocations to directly support education was 344,6 million or 2,8 % of total programming. In sub-Saharan Africa, general budget support, which can benefit education indirectly, amounted to a total of 3388,8 million euro or 27,6 % of total programmed development assistance for 2008–13 (see Table 1 and Annex I).

7. The Commission provides assistance to the education sector through budget support, pooled funding and projects. In the Commission’s definition there are two main types of budget support: (i) general budget support (GBS), representing a transfer to the national treasury in support of a national development or reform policy and strategy; (ii) sector budget support (SBS), representing a transfer to the national treasury in support of a sector programme. Both types of budget support consist of a transfer to the national treasury of a partner country. Therefore, there is no procedural distinction between GBS and SBS. They are, however, distinct to the extent that they have different objectives. GBS aims to support a national development policy and strategy and also provide variable tranches, usually linked to health and education indicators, to give additional incentives to achieving performance in these critical areas, while SBS seeks to accelerate progress towards the partner country’s sector goals. The difference in objectives is reflected in the conditions and dialogue. A pool fund is a fund that receives contributions from different external agencies, and in certain cases from governments, to finance a set of budget lines or activities agreed as eligible in support of a sector programme. Finally, the Commission can decide to apply the relevant procurement and grant award procedures when financing earmarked activities (projects).

8. Table 1 shows the direct allocations to education and general budget support in south Asia and sub-Saharan Africa. It shows that in sub-Saharan Africa EU development assistance directly allocated to education (through projects, pool funds and sector budget support) decreased, although GBS has increased. Education is in general a significant component of the social sector progress that is expected to result from GBS. Progress in education is then reflected in the performance indicators and related monitoring, including policy dialogue.

TABLE 1

DIRECT ALLOCATIONS TO EDUCATION AND GENERAL BUDGET SUPPORT IN SOUTH ASIA AND SUB-SAHARAN AFRICA [9]

Source: European Commission, 2010.

Total programming | Direct allocation to education [1001] | General budget support (GBS) |

South Asia | 2002–06 | 2 of 8 | 1824,1 | 184,0 | 0 | 10,1 % | 0 % |

2007–13 | 4 of 8 | 2555,0 | 452,0 | 0 | 17,7 % | 0 % |

Sub-Saharan Africa | 2003–07 | 10 of 50 | 8804,8 | 396,2 | 2314,3 | 4,5 % | 26,3 % |

2008–13 | 10 of 50 | 12294,0 | 344,6 | 3388,8 | 2,8 % | 27,6 % |

AUDIT SCOPE AND APPROACH

9. The audit assessed whether the EU’s development assistance made an effective contribution to its policy priorities for education in sub-Saharan Africa and south Asia. It focused on the following two questions:

(a) Have the EU’s interventions effectively contributed to achieving their intended improvements in basic education?

(b) Does the Commission manage its interventions in education well?

10. The audit scope was limited to basic education in sub-Saharan Africa and south Asia [11]. These are the sub-regions most likely not to meet education goals by 2015 (see Map).

MAP

SUB-SAHARAN AFRICA AND SOUTH ASIA

+++++ TIFF +++++

Source: Global Administrative Unit Layers (GAUL), UN–FAO.

11. The audit work done included reviews of documentation and interviews with Commission staff at headquarters and in delegations, and detailed examinations of the Commission actions in eight beneficiary countries, four by mission and four by desk review [12]. The criteria for the selection of countries were geographical spread across sub-Saharan Africa and south Asia, and the inclusion of fragile states. The audit criteria used were derived directly from Commission policy or guidance documents. The audit covered four out of the eight countries where sector budget support programmes are implemented in the two sub-regions. Annex II gives a complete list of projects and programmes audited.

12. Despite some recognised weaknesses in education statistics, in order to report on the achievement of targets set out in financing agreements the Court has used the national statistics specified in those agreements, since no others were generally available. To analyse the evolution of figures over time Unesco statistics, which are prepared so as to allow comparisons, have been used. As regards the reliability of all such data see paragraphs 58 to 60, from which it will be evident that the figures should be viewed with some caution.

13. For both GBS and SBS, the development partners give both ownership and responsibility for the management of inputs and activities to the governments and focus their own attention on results. Close cooperation between donors is also required as they support the same national strategy or programme and use the same system. Accordingly, the Commission must try to ensure that its contributions are coordinated with the contributions of other donors, which can also help reduce the transaction costs for partner countries. This implies a loss of visible connection between the Commission aid inputs and the development results.

14. The Court recognises that the relationship between aid inputs and results (outcomes) in the audited financing agreements is a complex one. This is discussed in further detail in Annex III. Nevertheless, while following the principles of partnership, alignment with national strategies and donor coordination, the Commission continues to have sole responsibility for taking financing decisions and is accountable to the discharge authority for the use of EU funds. In its audit of the EU interventions in education implemented by means of sector budget support the Court assumes, as the Commission does, that there is an association between the EU’s support and the achievement of the education goals although the Commission is not exclusively responsible for the results.

15. The audit follows on from the Court’s Special Report No 10/2008 on EC development assistance to health services in sub-Saharan Africa. To complement that report, which dealt with general budget support (GBS) as a main aid delivery method, the audit work on education has focused mainly on the support provided to sector policy support programmes (SPSP), typically provided through sector budget support (SBS) or pooled funding. At the same time the Court has carried out an audit of the Commission’s management of GBS in ACP, Latin American and Asian countries [13].

OBSERVATIONS

HAVE THE EU’S INTERVENTIONS EFFECTIVELY CONTRIBUTED TO ACHIEVING THE INTENDED IMPROVEMENTS IN BASIC EDUCATION?

16. The Court assessed whether EU assistance led to all the intended results specified in financial agreements covering budget support, pool funds and projects. It made a more detailed examination, including an analysis of progress over time, of the results most directly relevant to the three following internationally agreed priority goals on education:

(a) ensuring primary education for all children;

(b) eliminating gender inequalities in education;

17. The Court audited both support to national education programmes and specific projects. Programme support was provided through sector budget support and pooled funding mechanisms, while the more traditional projects were funded directly. The Commission’s support to the FTI was also examined in the light of the recent evaluation of this initiative [14].

OVERALL, SIGNIFICANT PROGRESS HAS BEEN MADE, ALTHOUGH ONLY 45 % OF THE TARGETS IN THE AUDITED FINANCING AGREEMENTS WERE FULLY ACHIEVED

18. Assessing the audited EU-funded education support programmes (both SBS and pooled funding) the Court concludes that 45 % of the results indicators contained in the financing agreements fully achieved their targets [15], whilst a further 30 % of the indicators were making progress.

19. As regards the projects audited it was found that in most cases they delivered most of the activities and results foreseen [16]. However, their impact was inherently limited due to their smaller scale compared to the sector programmes. Furthermore, in half of the audited projects the sustainability was not ensured, either because of lack of funding after the end of the projects or due to inadequate institutional arrangements [17]. An example is provided in Box 1.

20. Annex IV provides a list of the programmes and projects audited with a summary rating of their results. Annex V provides an overview of the detailed results achieved by programme. The findings for the results achieved specifically related to each of the three priority objectives are presented below.

BOX 1

BURKINA FASO: EXAMPLE OF PROJECT WITH PROBLEMS OF SUSTAINABILITY

The support to basic education project contributed mainly to the construction and maintenance of schools and houses for teachers. However, the EU-funded school canteens visited during the audit were either not functioning at all or not able to provide food to the pupils on a daily basis. The audit also found that one EU-funded literacy centre was converted into a primary school because of its failure to attract people. In addition, one EU-funded workshop of teaching material was converted into a vocational training centre because the activity did not receive financial and institutional support.

ENSURING PRIMARY EDUCATION FOR ALL CHILDREN: SOME OF THE INTENDED IMPROVEMENTS ACHIEVED BUT PROGRESS HAS GENERALLY BEEN TOO SLOW

21. Ensuring primary education for all children corresponds to the MDG 2 and EFA 2 goals. It is an ambitious goal as it involves not only providing access to school for all children but ensuring that, once in the school, they complete a full cycle of primary education. There are many indicators used to measure its progress. Among them, the most widely used are the net enrolment rate, the gross intake rate to the last grade (a proxy for the completion rate — see Glossary), and the literacy rate of 15- to 24-year-olds, women and men.

22. Table 2 shows by country the achievement of the goal of ensuring primary education through a comparison of the intended and the actual results for relevant indicators as set out in the audited financing agreements. The indicators used in the financing agreements vary considerably reflecting different country circumstances and priorities. Overall, less than half (44 %) of the result targets in the agreements have been fully met to date, and progress was made in a further 37 %.

23. The expected results for net enrolment rates (NER) were achieved for the financing agreements audited in Bangladesh, Namibia and Tanzania but not achieved in the case of Nepal. NERs were not among the expected results in the agreements audited in Burkina Faso and Niger. While the expected results for gross enrolment rates (GER) have been achieved in Bangladesh and Burkina Faso this has not been the case in Nepal and Niger.

24. The measurement of primary school completion has mainly been done through one of two indicators: primary completion rate or survival rate to grade 5 [18]. Out of the five countries in which the audited financing agreements included targets for these indicators, only Burkina Faso achieved it.

25. Since literacy rates require a long timeframe to register changes the Commission did not generally use the literacy rate of 15- to 24-year-olds to monitor progress. For the programmes examined, only in Namibia and Nepal were such indicators established, although in Namibia data was not yet available.

TABLE 2

INDICATORS RELATED TO THE GOAL OF ENSURING PRIMARY EDUCATION AS CONTAINED IN THE FINANCING AGREEMENTS — COMPARISON BETWEEN EXPECTED AND ACHIEVED RESULTS [19]

Not available: Target set but data not available.

Sources: European Commission and European Court of Auditors.

Ensuring primary education (related to MDG 2) | Country, status of the programme, data and targets |

26. As a basis for assessing the overall progress towards ensuring universal primary education in the period 2000–08 for the audited financing agreements [20], the table in Annex VI shows, by country examined, the progress using net enrolment rate and the completion rate [21]. As can be seen from the table, most of the countries examined have registered progress in enrolment since 2000 but the completion of a full cycle of primary education remains an issue for all of them. Graph 1 for Burkina Faso illustrates the gap: whereas about 60 % of children are in school, only 38 % complete the primary education cycle. The gap between the enrolment and completion rates illustrates the challenge of keeping the children in school once they enrol. This gap is related to both factors outside the education system (such as the poverty situation of the families, children’s health or malnutrition) and inside factors such as barriers to gender parity and poor quality and efficiency in the education system, resulting in high repetition and dropout rates.

GRAPH 1

PROGRESSION TOWARDS ACHIEVING UNIVERSAL PRIMARY COMPLETION IN BURKINA FASO

+++++ TIFF +++++

Dashed lines show possible continuation of current trend.

Source: Unesco Institute for Statistics.

27. As the targets for enrolment and completion in the audited financing agreements typically take their point of departure in the MDGs or the EFA goals, the realism of these goals has a direct impact on the likelihood of achieving the expected results. This is also reflected in the findings of this audit where most result targets related to the MDGs are not met. Requiring all countries to have 100 % primary school completion rates by 2015 means that all countries should have admitted all 6-year-olds in 2009 or 2010. This is far from being the case in any of the countries in sub-Saharan Africa and south Asia. In brief, the MDGs and the EFA goals are not realistic for many of the world’s poorest countries.

28. The Court also noted cases where the population growth ratio puts at risk the positive trend for enrolment rates as for example in Burkina Faso, Niger and Tanzania. Despite the challenges that demographic growth poses to development and to education in particular, little evidence was found that the Commission was addressing this issue.

GRAPH 2

EVOLUTION OF THE NER IN NAMIBIA (2000–08)

+++++ TIFF +++++

Dashed lines show possible continuation of current trend.

Source: Unesco Institute for Statistics.

29. It is an explicit policy that the EU should focus its support on the poorest part of the population. This is often a big challenge in the case of support to education programmes, encompassing broad reforms and many priorities, whereas projects on the other hand can be exclusively targeted to reach the poorest. The necessity but also the challenge of extending opportunities to populations that are hard to reach is more apparent in countries with high NER rates (Bangladesh, Namibia and Tanzania). Graph 2 and Box 2 illustrate the case of Namibia where the NER has been stagnating below 90 % since 2000 because of insufficient pro-poor focus in its education policies and programmes. The box also shows a good example of the potential of projects to provide education for hard-to-reach children at local level (Bangladesh).

30. The Commission also contributes to the FTI to help developing countries with credible education programmes but insufficient resources, to achieve primary education for all children (see also footnote 8). However, the recent evaluation of the FTI found that its overall added value at the global level has been considerably less than expected. Among a number of critical issues the report refers to the limited contribution of the FTI to increasing access for all children to primary school and that there is an inherent tension between the FTI’s focus on primary education and the broader EFA goals [22].

GENDER DISPARITIES: SOME OF THE INTENDED IMPROVEMENTS ACHIEVED, BUT SIGNIFICANT INEQUALITIES PERSIST

31. Achieving universal primary education implies that all girls and boys should be able to attend school and complete a full cycle of primary education. Eliminating gender disparities by 2005 and achieving gender equality in education by 2015 correspond to the fifth EFA goal and to the education part of the MDG 3, and cover the whole education system. Although gender disparities tend to increase at higher levels of education [23], for this audit the Court has limited its assessment to primary education on which most of the EU interventions have been focused.

BOX 2

NAMIBIA: THE EDUCATION SECTOR PROGRAMME DOES NOT SUFFICIENTLY FOCUS ON THE POOREST

The MDG 2 target for 2015 will be difficult to reach. Whilst Namibia’s score, with enrolment rates approaching 90 %, is good compared with most other African countries, it has not increased in the last eight years. The difficulty is linked to the socioeconomic inequalities, and to education policies and programmes, including the EU education sector programme (ESP), that are insufficiently pro-poor to reach the most disadvantaged children (namely orphans and vulnerable children, children from the San minority and children living in remote areas). The current financing model under which schools depend on parental contributions to the School Development Funds for such basic provisions as textbooks, materials, renovation and even teachers perpetuates inequalities and the issue has not been addressed adequately in the ESP. The ESP has given low priority to the Education Development Fund which is meant to compensate schools for enrolling children exempted from the School Development Fund. The coverage of the feeding programme still remains to be extended to all schools in need. In addition to this, students have to pay for uniforms and examinations. All this affects heavily the poor areas where the number of students whose parents cannot afford to contribute to the School Development Fund is high. The main ESP achievement in this respect has been the approval of the orphans and vulnerable children policy, although it was not yet implemented at the date of the audit.

BABANGLADESH: THE SUPPORT TO NON-FORMAL PRIMARY EDUCATION PROJECT GIVES QUALITY PRIMARY EDUCATION TO HARD-TO-REACH CHILDREN

Despite net enrolment rates approaching 90 %, it is unlikely that Bangladesh will reach the overall MDG 2 goal of full completion of primary education by 2015. There are still big regional variations and access to education for poor children is still significantly lower than for rich children. This EU-funded project supports non-formal primary education for difficult-to-reach children (e.g. those in urban slums and remote rural areas and children belonging to ethnic minorities). The three NGOs implementing the project successfully opened and operated schools and thereby reached 330000 most vulnerable children from poor households and ethnic minorities and provided them with a full cycle of primary education. The project has developed links with the formal primary education system, including partnerships with local education authorities and government primary schools in order to ensure the sustainability of the results achieved.

32. Table 3 shows by country and by education support programme the achievement of results related to the goal of eliminating gender disparities in education comparing related outcome indicators with their intended targets. Few indicators are used by the Commission for this goal. For Bangladesh and Namibia no indicators were used at all, reflecting the fact these countries had already achieved gender parity (see paragraph 33). In three countries the results were not, or mostly not, achieved while only in Burkina Faso were the targets of the financing agreement reached.

TABLE 3

INDICATORS RELATED TO THE GOAL OF ELIMINATING GENDER DISPARITIES IN EDUCATION AS CONTAINED IN THE FINANCING AGREEMENTS – COMPARISON BETWEEN EXPECTED AND ACHIEVED RESULTS (see Table 2, footnote 1)

Sources: European Commission and European Court of Auditors.

Eliminating gender disparity (related to MDG 3) | Country, status of the programme, data and targets |

33. The table in Annex VII shows, by country examined, the progress over the period 2000–08 using the gender parity index for net enrolment rate, and the net enrolment rate and completion rate for girls. There has been a reduction of gender disparities since 2000 in all the countries, with three countries (Bangladesh, Namibia and Tanzania) having reached parity [24]. Progress has been slow in the rest especially in Burkina Faso, Niger and Pakistan.

34. These averages, however, hide important inequalities between girls from rural and urban areas, from poor and rich households, and from marginalised and advantaged groups. In the 20 poorest provinces of Burkina Faso, which are especially targeted by the EU interventions, the differences in enrolment between girls and boys have, however, increased since 2001. Also the female dropout rate in rural areas is higher than for boys. In Nepal, the final evaluation of the basic and primary education programme in 2005 observed that the issue of lack of parity in private schools was a concern [25]. At the beginning of 2010, the Court’s audit of the EU-funded Education for All programme found that this problem remained largely unsolved.

35. The most common actions supported by the EU interventions included financial incentives to enable girls to go to school, recruitment of female teachers, and separate latrines. In Nepal the number of women teachers in public primary schools was found to be low (34,5 %) which is rather modest when compared to the ratio in private schools (55,7 %), which have not benefited from the EU-funded Education for All programme. Box 3 illustrates the challenges faced by EU development assistance in countries where gender equality is not sufficiently addressed in the national education programmes. It also shows the potential of projects to promote gender equality at local level.

BOX 3

NIGER: INSUFFICIENT PROMOTION OF GENDER EQUALITY IN EDUCATION

Niger is off track for achieving universal primary education by 2015, among other reasons due to the persistence of deep gender disparities in access to primary school. The EU has supported the implementation of the PDDE (Plan décennal de développement de l’éducation) by way of general (2003–08) and sector budget support (2006–08). However, the period was characterised by slow progress in reducing the gap between girls’ and boys’ access to school. For the academic year 2007/08 there was still a difference of 12 percentage points between the net enrolment rate of boys and girls. In addition, the indicators of access are not sufficiently disaggregated to reflect the disparities between girls and boys in rural areas, where 83 % of the population lives. Furthermore, the institutional and socio-cultural constraints that jeopardise girls’ access to education are not explicitly addressed in the PDDE. The persistence of barriers to gender equality results for example in a higher opportunity cost of their education where girls’ work is needed in the home, or in a poor and hostile school environment that does not guarantee their safety. Moreover, even if some problems are correctly identified in the PDDE, a comprehensive gender approach with appropriate financing is lacking and the remedial action plans are considerably underfinanced: only 0,34 % of the PDDE "Access" component for the period 2003–07 was dedicated to the promotion of girls’ schooling.

PAKISTAN: GOOD PRACTICE IN PROMOTING GENDER EQUALITY IN EDUCATION — THE NORTHERN PAKISTAN EDUCATION PROGRAMME

The main reason why Pakistan is off track for achieving universal primary education by 2015 is the persistence of deep gender disparities. The EU has financed a programme with the objective of contributing to the improvement of access, quality and sustainability of education, with a strong focus on increased gender equality in the northern areas and Chitral. By the end of 2007 enrolment at partner schools had increased by 30 % in comparison with 2003 and girls represented 64 % of the total enrolment in 2007. In comparison with the enrolment in 2003 this was an increase of 19 %. Another key outcome was that 3785 students (94 % girls) were enabled to access secondary school in areas where there was no access for female education before this EU programme. The programme addressed the problems of disadvantaged female teachers by ensuring that 52 % of the trained teachers were female. They were also supported to pursue leadership roles in the schools ensuring a 35 % quota for women in management roles.

EDUCATION QUALITY: FEW OF THE INTENDED IMPROVEMENTS ACHIEVED

36. The purpose of ensuring universal primary education is not only to have all children in school and to help them to complete a full cycle of primary and entry into secondary school, but to give them the basic knowledge and skills they will need in life.

37. Unlike for enrolment and completion, there is no internationally agreed set of indicators to monitor results in improving quality. It is widely recognised that monitoring quality should focus on learning achievements, i.e. what pupils have learned on reading, mathematics and science (see also paragraph 57). However, this depends on the availability of national learning assessments, which are not regularly carried out as they are costly [26].

38. In the absence of systematic learning assessments, the indicators most used relate to the exam pass rates and to the inputs and outputs necessary for quality: e.g. well-prepared teachers (number and proportion of teachers trained and qualified), a good school environment (schools with toilets, drinking water, electricity, canteens, libraries, books, computer rooms), reasonable class sizes (pupil:teacher ratios), texbook provision (texbooks per pupil ratio), etc.

39. Table 4 shows by country and by education support programme the achievement of results related to the improvement of quality in education comparing related outcome indicators with their intended targets. In this case also only a few of them fully achieved the targets specified in the financing agreements. The target for pupil:textbooks ratio was reached in Burkina Faso but not in Tanzania. For one of the two most commonly applied proxy indicators for quality, pupil:teacher ratio, two countries achieved the expected results (Bangladesh and Namibia), while two did not (Burkina Faso and Nepal). In Bangladesh and Nepal, the respective result targets for absenteeism of pupils and percentage of qualified teachers respectively were met. The only quality result target set for Niger was not met.

40. Assessing quality through the available national learning assessments the Court has found little evidence that EU interventions led to improvements in the quality of education. Only in Bangladesh had learning achievements improved and were regarded as satisfactory. In most of the countries where learning assessments were available (Burkina Faso, Namibia, Nepal and Niger) the scores were low.

TABLE 4

INDICATORS RELATED TO THE GOAL OF IMPROVING QUALITY IN EDUCATION AS CONTAINED IN THE FINANCING AGREEMENTS — COMPARISON BETWEEN EXPECTED AND ACHIEVED RESULTS (see Table 2, footnote 1)

Sources: European Commission and European Court of Auditors.

Improving quality education | Country, status of the programme, data and targets |

41. When assessing quality through the input and output indicators the Court also found little evidence of steady improvements. In particular, shortage of teachers and insufficiently qualified teachers were common in all the countries audited despite the support provided to the national policies for teacher supply and training by most of the EU interventions examined. For example, in Bangladesh substantial progress was being made in achieving quantitative targets in training activities in the second primary education development programme. However, the institutions supported by the programme continue to have a limited capacity (limited budget, lack of staff with relevant experience, inappropriate structure) and the impact of the training appears to be limited since there is little follow-up to support teachers in the development of new techniques. There has also been little progress in the provision of training incentives to teachers in terms of career promotion or pay scale.

42. The provision of a good-quality education remained a matter of great concern among all the stakeholders in the countries visited. Moreover, it is a common perception that due to the priority given to the MDGs, governments and development partners have been more focused on increasing enrolment than on the improvement of education quality. Box 4 illustrates in practical terms which are the most common issues related to the lack of quality. It takes as an example the case of Tanzania, the country with the most significant increase in enrolment among the countries considered in this audit.

BOX 4

TANZANIA: AN EXAMPLE OF THE QUEST FOR QUALITY

In Tanzania, available indicators do not demonstrate improvements in all measures of the quality of education during the implementation of the support to education sector reform programme. The primary completion rate has decreased during the last two years, while primary dropout rates have remained unchanged during the last decade. There are not enough qualified teachers, teachers’ salaries have not increased in recent years and their work environment is challenging in numerous ways, including with respect to housing, transportation and the physical collection of salaries. There are insufficient books and generally a lack of other learning materials. The primary school pupil:textbook ratio of 3:1 for basic education was in 2008 still the same as of 2003. The capitation grant to be paid per pupil is only 3,6 US dollars per year.

43. The FTI has also recognised the importance of addressing learning outcomes and the quality of education in the current situation where access is expanding and has encouraged partner countries to measure student learning and the quality of teaching. In 2009, it adopted two specific indicators of learning outcomes [27]. Tracking reading progress has been done over 20 FTI countries showing overall modest performance.

DOES THE COMMISSION MANAGE ITS INTERVENTIONS IN EDUCATION WELL?

44. The audit assessed to what extent shortcomings in the Commission’s management can explain the shortcomings in the results observed. It covered both the programming and the implementation phases. For programming, the Court assessed if the Commission in accordance with its own guidelines [28]:

ij focused its interventions on three of the key priorities identified in the European Consensus: primary education, gender and education quality;

ij duly assessed the appropriateness of choosing budget support or alternative aid delivery methods.

For implementation, the Court assessed if the Commission in accordance with its own guidelines:

ij had adequate information for monitoring purposes;

ij was actively monitoring education outcomes, while paying due attention to its international commitments to donor coordination and harmonisation;

ij ensured that delegations had sufficient expertise to ensure effective monitoring and maintain sector dialogue on education;

ij provided adequate support to capacity development.

The audit also considered to what extent non-compliance with guidelines was justified.

WHERE SBS WAS THE AID DELIVERY METHOD THIS CHOICE GENERALLY CONFORMED WITH THE COMMISSION’S GUIDELINES

45. In view of the importance in the programming process of the Commission’s guidelines, the Court examined how well they were followed and whether they were helpful.

46. Where education was a focal sector the choice of SBS as aid delivery method had generally been made in full accordance with the education programming guidelines. This included the eligibility criteria for budget support.

47. For the EU support to education in Pakistan’s North-West Frontier Province, however, the choice of SBS for the current programming period was not in line with the guidelines, since a government-owned education sector policy was not in place at the time the financing agreement was signed and thus the eligibility criteria were not met.

48. For Tanzania, the Court examined the Commission’s assessments of the credibility of the public financial management reform programme that supported the financing decisions for budget support in the previous and current programming period. The limited government ownership and slow progress of the public financial management reform programme highlighted in the 2008 PEFA impact study [29] and the Country strategy paper 2008–13’, call into question the clarity and consistency of the assessment criteria applied by the Commission.

THE COMMISSION DID NOT FULLY CONSIDER THE ADVANTAGES OF THE MEASURES FOR MITIGATING FIDUCIARY RISKS SUCH AS THOSE USED IN POOLED FUNDING

49. The Commission’s programming guidelines indicated certain disadvantages of pooled funding and noted that the Commission would prefer to launch an SBS operation rather than joining a pooled fund [30]. Accordingly, except in Bangladesh, the Commission did not participate in pooled funding arrangements even in those audited countries where other development partners were using it for sector policy support programmes. On this issue, however, the guidelines were too sweeping as the Commission thereby deprived itself in practice of some potential advantages, including measures aimed at mitigating fiduciary risks. This is especially relevant in the education sector and in countries where there is a high risk of misuse of funds [31].

50. Safeguards against misuse of funds are routinely applied when the donors work together using pooled funding procedures. They include prior fiduciary risk assessments of the sector concerned, and disbursements based on audited financial statements. An example of an effective safeguard measure can be found in Niger, where an audit commissioned by the pooled fund partners in 2006 was able to detect a six million euro fraud linked directly to the implementation of the "Plan décennal de développement de l’éducation". As a result of the subsequent investigation and trial a former minister of education was convicted.

EDUCATION TARGETS AND INDICATORS ARE LESS COMPREHENSIVE UNDER GBS

51. The education sector aspects in the GBS programmes are addressed through the inclusion of performance indicators for which targets are set and linked to variable GBS tranches. However, the number of indicators varies considerably and there are typically significantly fewer indicators for education included in the GBS financing agreements (typically three to four indicators) compared to SBS agreements. Moreover, GBS conditions normally address progress on overall national strategies (e.g. poverty strategies) rather than sector policy. Because of this and the limited number of indicators, GBS dialogue on education is less intensive.

52. The Court’s audit also included two ninth EDF GBS programmes in Burkina Faso and Niger which both had a more focused education sector component than in the Commission’s typical GBS programmes. This included the use of more detailed conditions for monitoring and giving incentives for progress in the education sector. However, despite the advantages of this greater sectoral focus, the Commission reverted to its traditional approach to GBS programmes under the 10th EDF.

53. The Court recognises that where partner governments give priority to education spending, and have sound education policies and related PFM systems, GBS has the potential to make a useful contribution to supporting the education sector. However, the Commission has not clearly defined to what extent the use of GBS differs from the role of education sector budget support programmes (see paragraph 51).

THE EFA FAST TRACK INITIATIVE (FTI) HAS NOT MADE THE EXPECTED CONTRIBUTION TO CLOSING THE GLOBAL FUNDING GAP

54. Since one of the objectives of the FTI is to help ensure funding for beneficiary countries committed to EFA goals the Court also reviewed the recent evaluation of the FTI to assess the extent to which it had contributed. While important financial contributions from the FTI were provided to individual countries the evaluation concluded that "global evidence does not suggest that it has had a great positive effect on the level of external aid or domestic financing for education or basic education as envisaged". This assessment is shared by the EFA global monitoring report 2010 [32] (concerning the global funding gap, see also paragraph 2).

55. As regards education’s share of national budgets generally, the FTI sets an indicative target of 20 % of total government expenditure allocated to education. Of the eight countries covered by the audit, only two (Burkina Faso and Namibia) spent 20 % or more of the total budget on education in the last financial year, while in two the government spent less than 12 % (Pakistan and Liberia).

INDICATORS USED BY THE COMMISSION HAVE AN APPROPRIATE FOCUS ON THE MDGS …

56. The Commission’s analysis of the education sectors in preparation of the country strategy papers for 2007/08 and 2012/13 (for the DCI/EDF respectively) was generally comprehensive and duly reflected the Commission’s policy commitments to supporting achievement of the MDGs. The priority objective of universal primary education and gender equality was also largely reflected in the choice of performance indicators used to measure and assess results in the financing agreements audited. Indicators based on MDGs, however, are not equally realistic for all countries – particularly the poorest – the MDGs being both challenging in nature and by definition the same for all.

…, HOWEVER, INSUFFICIENT ATTENTION HAS BEEN PAID TO INDICATORS OF THE QUALITY OF EDUCATION

57. It is difficult to measure education quality in a reliable and consistent way in the two regions covered by the audit (see also paragraphs 37 to 38). Although a number of proxy indicators are available, the financing agreements audited included only a few such indicators as Table 4 shows. Hence they did not help promote the need for education quality to be addressed effectively.

EDUCATION MANAGEMENT INFORMATION SYSTEMS THAT THE COMMISSION HAS DECIDED TO RELY ON DO NOT ALWAYS PROVIDE SUFFICIENT, RELIABLE AND TIMELY INFORMATION

58. The education indicators used by the Commission and other development partners to measure the achievement of the intended results are based on the partner governments’ education statistics systems. It is therefore essential that these systems are able to provide reliable statistics. In addition, the partner governments should also produce periodic reports to allow the Commission and other development partners to measure progress on the supported education programmes, including outcome indicators.

BOX 5

NEPAL: RELIABILITY OF STATISTICS

Although the education management information system is considered by the development partners to be robust, there is concern about the quality and reliability of data underlying the statistics. Some evaluations reported evidence of deficiencies in checking the accuracy of school data, and systemic incentives for the schools to over-report attendance (as the financing of schools is pupil-based). Schools also reported on registered pupils and not on the actual attendance. Furthermore, household surveys reported lower participation of children in the schools. The extent of these problems is not known, and the development partners commissioned three technical reviews of school education, carried out in 2005 and 2006. They included a survey of 1000 randomly selected schools in 20 sampled districts. In general, the figures presented in these reviews were in line with the official ones. However, there were significant differences concerning the gross enrolment rate at primary level (130 instead of 144 officially) and the percentage of girls and Dalits [33] receiving scholarships (respectively 33 % and 65 % instead of 53 % and 81 % officially). The development partners pointed to a need for more cross-checking and triangulation of data and they envisaged the possibility of performing regular sample checks in the districts.

There are no long series of independent statistics provided by the Unesco Institute for Statistics concerning the net enrolment and completion rate, possibly because of lack of reliable population data almost 10 years after the last census took place.

59. The Court found in five out of eight cases that partner governments’ education statistics systems provide data regularly. However, for Bangladesh, Liberia and Pakistan, statistics suffer from unavailability of data, due to low capacity of data collecting and processing institutions [34]. The Court also found that in most of the audited countries, the Commission does not always have sufficient, reliable and timely government reports available to monitor education outcomes.

60. As regards the quality of statistics, the Court noted that in most of the countries examined, the Commission has supported activities to improve the quality of official statistics [35]. The Court found that this support has contributed to strengthening the education management information systems although some common shortcomings persist:

(a) the reliability of census-based statistics (e.g. net enrolment rates (NERs)) is a general concern in sub-Saharan Africa and south Asia [36];

(b) inconsistencies between administrative data that schools reported to the ministries of education and data from household surveys, usually obtained through parental reporting on whether their children attend school [37];

(c) insufficient disaggregated statistics and analysis to capture quality and equity issues (e.g. on access and achievement levels of learners from low-income households and from disadvantaged groups).

DONOR COORDINATION HAS GENERALLY IMPROVED BUT ENTAILS SOME COMPROMISES

61. Delegations’ cooperation and coordination with partner governments and other development partners in the education sector, following the commitments made under the Paris Declaration, was generally deemed appropriate. However, in Burkina Faso in the ninth EDF programme, it proved more difficult because the Commission was the only development partner to use budget support whereas the others contributed to the education sector through a pool fund. Such coordination properly necessitates a degree of compromise, but the Court noted some cases where the Commission’s management or priorities were more seriously affected:

(a) In Namibia, the original EU-funded education sector programme was totally revised. This was as a consequence of a complete review of the sector carried out by the government with the assistance of the World Bank, with only limited input from the Commission and other development partners. The programme now co-finances the first phase of a national education programme that covers the whole education sector and pays limited attention to primary education and to MDG and EFA goals;

(b) In Nepal, the Commission could not fully introduce tranche release based on results indicators as the other development partners do not use this mechanism and were reluctant to introduce changes to the joint financing arrangements with the government;

(c) In Pakistan, the Commission aimed at supporting with a project the education sector in Sindh province. However, it was asked by the government to align its support with that of the World Bank through SBS. As a result, the results matrix of the financing agreement does not follow the guidelines for education in terms of sufficient output and outcome indicators concerning access to primary education. This is due to the fact that the World Bank does not follow the same approach as the EU. A new, revised matrix contains more indicators but the number of outcome indicators is still limited.

62. The monitoring of EU-funded interventions, and SBS in particular, is mainly done through joint reviews, which the development partners collectively rely on for monitoring purposes. The Court found that the focus in these reviews tends to be on processes and financial issues linked to specific disbursement conditions rather than on education outcomes.

COMMISSION STAFF EXPERTISE IN EDUCATION NOT APPROPRIATELY DEVELOPED AND ALLOCATED

63. The Court considers that for each country where education is a focal sector or covered by GBS, the delegation should assign staff with the necessary expertise (or who have the opportunity to develop it) to engage in policy dialogue and monitor the sector, with recourse to expert advice as appropriate. At the time of the audit the overall allocation of staff was suboptimal and did not provide delegations consistently with the expertise needed to allow them to manage the Commission’s portfolio in the sector.

64. At the end of 2009, out of the 44 Delegations worldwide where education was a focal sector, 16 — more than a third — did not have a person assigned to education [38]. In the seven countries with an MDG contract (all in sub-Saharan Africa) [39] a total of only three persons were assigned in two countries to work on education, while two delegations (Tanzania and Rwanda) relied on the expertise of Member States. Box 6 shows an example of delay in assigning staff and the consequences in Liberia.

65. Where general or sector budget support is concerned, the absence of staff with the necessary expertise and seniority weakens both the delegation’s dialogue with the beneficiary country and its participation in joint working groups with other donors that monitor performance. This means that an essential element in ensuring that budget support meets its objectives is impaired and may even be wholly disabled.

66. The Commission’s difficulty in assigning staff with the appropriate profiles to delegations, reflecting problems related to recruitment procedures, staff qualifications and turnover, is a general concern that cannot be compensated for by HQ support or by contract agents [40]. The Court observed that education experts are typically not EU officials and the extent of their training on Commission procedures varies considerably. On the other hand the generalist profiles of staff in delegations did not always have the right mix of thematic expertise, competency and skills for managing SBS and GBS interventions.

67. With respect to staff support from headquarters, the Court found that there are no clear criteria or mechanisms in place to determine the needs or the priorities for the on-demand advice provided by the thematic, specialist units in the Development DG and EuropeAid respectively.

BOX 6

LIBERIA: STAFFING PROBLEMS IN THE COMMISSION’S MONROVIA OFFICE

Between August 2007 and September 2008 the Commission’s office in Monrovia was unable to do follow-up on the programme for EC support to education in Liberia (ECSEL) due to the lack of staff dedicated to the sector. The lack of timely and effective follow-up was one the main reasons for the project’s considerable delay and the fact that many activities and results today are at risk.

Even when the highest political level, including the Commissioner for Development, drew attention to the staffing problems in Monrovia, the Commission’s response was too slow to ensure that the ECSEL project stayed on track.

It took 25 months from the time the Development DG’s top management requested urgent action to resolve the staffing problems in Monrovia (in February 2007) before the long-term technical assistance for ECSEL actually arrived in Monrovia (in March 2009).

THE EU PROVIDED CAPACITY DEVELOPMENT SUPPORT BUT IN MOST CASES IT DID NOT WORK AS INTENDED

68. Sector programmes and budget support give the ownership and responsibility for programme management to the partner governments. It is therefore essential to ensure that the capacity of the relevant institutions and persons to manage and implement these programmes is adequate.

69. The Court found that the Commission intended to provide capacity development support for all the education programmes audited, including the strengthening of the education management information systems (see paragraph 60). However, in most of the audited countries (Burkina Faso, Liberia, Namibia, Nepal, Niger and Tanzania) the EU capacity development support did not work as intended. The main weaknesses identified related to:

(a) not properly planning and placing capacity development initiatives in their strategic context, resulting in provision of technical assistance on an ad hoc basis and failure to transfer knowledge effectively;

(b) the Commission’s failure to mobilise human and technical resources on time, resulting in a considerable delay of the project;

(c) the technical assistance to support planning, monitoring, the budgeting process and financial management in education not being realised due to tendering problems and the government’s reluctance to ask for technical support;

(d) insufficient quality of the underlying studies (see Box 7).

70. In line with the Paris Declaration [41] and the recommendations of the Court of Auditors [42], in July 2008, the Commission adopted a strategy under which it is increasingly working together with government and development partners in technical cooperation for capacity development based on partner governments’ demands [43]. During the course of this audit it was, however, too early to assess the effectiveness of this strategy.

BOX 7

BURKINA FASO: NO CAPACITY DEVELOPMENT SUPPORT COULD BE PROVIDED BY THE COMMISSION UNDER THE 2005–08 BUDGET SUPPORT

The Commission financed an identification study to develop a strategy and a multiannual plan for the capacity development of the financing and planning departments of the Ministry of Education. The recommendations were not implemented by the ministry given their excessive number and complexity. Furthermore, the ministry asked for a second study in order to ensure the coherence between the proposed actions and the incipient decentralisation process. This second study was judged by the delegation as of average quality, voluminous and difficult to use. These recommendations were also not implemented. Meanwhile, a technical committee was set up by the ministry and the World Bank, charged with developing a multiannual planning for the Ministry of Education as a whole. Because of the average quality of these reports and subsequent low level of ownership by the ministry, the funds allocated by the Commission to capacity development of the ministry (1 million euro) could not be committed and ultimately no capacity development assistance could be provided in the 2005–08 budget support.

CONCLCONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

THE EU INTERVENTIONS ACHIEVED SOME OF THE EXPECTED IMPROVEMENTS IN BASIC EDUCATION IN SUB-SAHARAN AFRICA AND SOUTH ASIA, BUT LESS THAN INTENDED

71. Overall, significant progress has been made, although only 45 % of the targets in the audited financing agreements were fully achieved.

72. For the priority goal of ensuring primary education for all children (MDG 2), only some of the intended improvements were achieved and progress has in general been too slow to ensure that targets for 2015 will be met. The results for provision of primary education were in general modest, although better for enrolment than for completion.

73. For the objective of eliminating gender inequalities in education, the EU’s interventions contributed to enabling the beneficiary countries to achieve some of the intended improvements. But significant inequalities persist within particular regions and social groups.

74. For the third and final priority goal considered, improving the quality of education, the audit concludes that few of the intended improvements were achieved. Whilst it is widely accepted that education quality is difficult to measure, it appears that the priority given to MDG 2 (which is largely quantitative) took attention away from assessment of education quality in earlier years.

75. This is only partial success, but the achievement should not be underestimated. However, it demonstrates how necessary good management is to assure that EU funds are well targeted and monitored to ensure they are used to best advantage.

THE COMMISSION’S MANAGEMENT DID NOT CONSISTENTLY ENSURE APPROPRIATE PROGRAMMING AND IMPLEMENTATION OF EU INTERVENTIONS

76. Where sector budget support was the aid delivery method this choice generally conformed with the Commission guidelines. The Commission did not fully consider the advantages of the measures for mitigating fiduciary risks such as those used in pooled funding. Fewer detailed targets and indicators for basic education were set in general budget support and dialogue was less intensive. The Court noted two cases in Niger and Burkina Faso where general budget support had a strong education sector focus but this was later abandoned.

77. The Commission’s focus on the MDGs in the programming and formulation of its assistance to education is generally appropriate. The MDG and EFA goals do not as such automatically represent achievable priorities, in particular for the world’s poorest countries. Insufficient attention is paid to indicators for education quality. There was little evidence that the effect of demographic change — principally population growth — on trends and hence on indicators has been thought through.

78. The beneficiary governments’ education management information systems that the Commission relies on do not always provide sufficient, reliable and timely information.

79. Coordination with other donors has generally improved although it entails some compromises which sometimes affected the Commission’s own management or priorities, including the selection and use of indicators.

80. Education expertise is not optimally assigned and developed in delegations, which reduces the Commission’s ability to maintain the sector dialogue on education and to play a full role in working groups with other donors. This deprives the Commission of a vital monitoring mechanism as well as of the best opportunities for effective influence on implementation.

81. The EU provided capacity development support but in most cases it did not work as intended.

RECOMMENDATIONS

82. In view of the scale and universal nature of the goals, the majority of significant education development takes place in the context of national programmes run by partner governments. In such cases the EU contribution is only one among many and the Commission has no direct power over implementation. Where education is a focal sector or covered through general budget support, two main points are vital for the Commission to discharge its responsibility for the budget, and to ensure that EU assistance is as effective as possible: the establishment of well-chosen and realistic indicators and targets so as to monitor results effectively; and ensuring that delegations assign staff with the expertise and seniority needed to maintain dialogue with partner governments and other donors, in particular to help ensure that programme implementation leads to the intended results as far as EU development assistance is concerned.

83. In detail, the Court recommends that the Commission should:

(a) in view of its more limited focus on the social sectors, review the effect of the increased use of GBS in sub-Saharan Africa on development assistance for education, and consider whether adjustments to future programming are needed;

(b) ensure that future development assistance to education to a greater extent than in the past focuses on the quality of education and the capacity of beneficiary governments to cope with increases in school enrolment;

(c) update and expand the relevant guidelines for education covering all aid delivery methods relevant for the sector, including pooled funding and general budget support, in a comprehensive manner and covering explicitly:

(i) in what situations it is advisable to apply GBS to support education outcomes;

(ii) how to carry out education policy dialogue where GBS is the only aid delivery method concerned with education;

(iii) how to choose and design relevant performance indicators for education in GBS;

(iv) how to perform sector performance review in the SBS context;

d) systematically use a mixture of aid delivery methods, and in particular consider running a number of projects as well as programme support to ensure local knowledge, to get a cross-bearing on monitoring, and to benefit from non-state actors’ ability to innovate and to provide for hard-to-reach children;

e) promote sector-specific public financial management reviews (and the use of PETS) and play a full part in the donor education working group where monitoring can be coordinated, supplemented where appropriate with independent monitoring missions;

f) ensure better alignment of different donors’ requirements concerning the reporting formats and performance criteria to be used for government reporting in the education sector, where education is a focal sector or where general budget support is provided.

This Report was adopted by Chamber III, headed by Mr Jan KINŠT, Member of the Court of Auditors, in Luxembourg at its meeting of 16 November 2010.

For the Court of Auditors

+++++ TIFF +++++

Vítor Manuel da Silva Caldeira

President

[1] Joint statement by the Commission and the Council, 10 November 2000 (Council Document 12929/00).

[2] EFA is a global movement led by Unesco, aiming to meet the learning needs of all children, youth and adults by 2015. The movement was launched in 1990, with the adoption of the Jomtien Declaration (http://www.unesco.org/education/ efa/ed_for_all/background/jomtien_declaration.shtml). The six EFA goals are: 1. Expand early childhood care and education; 2. Provide free and compulsory primary education for all; 3. Promote learning and life skills for young people and adults; 4. Increase adult literacy by 50 %; 5. Achieve gender parity by 2005, gender equality by 2015; 6. Improve the quality of education.

[3] MDG 2, "Achieve universal primary education", has as a target to ensure that, by 2015, children everywhere, boys and girls alike, will be able to complete a full course of primary schooling. MDG 3, "Promote gender equality and empower women", includes the target of eliminating gender disparity in primary and secondary education, preferably by 2005, and at all levels no later than 2015.

[4] COM(2002) 116 on education and training in the context of poverty reduction in developing countries.

[5] European Consensus on Development (OJ C 46, 24.2.2006, p. 1).

[6] Regulation (EC) No 1905/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2006 establishing a financing instrument for development cooperation (OJ L 378, 27.12.2006, p. 41). A total of 16897 million euro is allocated to countries in Latin America, Asia, central Asia, the Middle East and south Africa for the programming period 2007–13.

[7] Commission Decision C(2007) 5223 concerning the indicative allocations for national indicative programmes under the multiannual financial framework for the period 2008–13 of the ACP–EC Partnership Agreement. A total of 13201,7 million euro is allocated to the African, Caribbean and Pacific states.

[8] The Education for All Fast Track Initiative is a global partnership between donor and developing countries to speed the progress towards the millennium development goal of universal primary education by 2015. All lower-income countries which show serious commitment to achieve universal primary completion can receive support from the FTI.

[9] A detailed, country-by-country overview is provided in Annex I. South Africa is included here in the figures for sub-Saharan Africa, although it is not funded from EDF but from the DCI like the countries of south Asia (see paragraph 6).

[1001] Figures include basic education, upper secondary education and TVET as they were not always possible to disaggregate.

[11] The definition of south Asia follows the Commission’s definition and comprises: Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Bhutan, India, Maldives, Nepal, Pakistan and Sri Lanka.

[12] Missions were to Burkina Faso, Namibia, Nepal and Tanzania, while desk reviews covered Bangladesh, Liberia, Niger and Pakistan.

[13] Special Report No 11/2010 on the Commission’s management of general budget support in ACP, Latin American and Asian countries.

[14] Mid-term evaluation of the EFA Fast Track Initiative (Cambridge Education, Mokoro and Oxford Policy Management) November 2009.

[15] The indicators and targets used are in each case those from the last year for which data was available.

[16] In some cases the results could not be clearly measured because the performance indicators applied were not sufficiently SMART (specific, measurable, attainable, relevant and time bound).

[17] The issue of projects’ sustainability has been raised in several European Court of Auditors’ special reports. See for instance the European Court of Auditors Special Report No 4/2009 on the Commission’s management of non-state actors’ involvement in EC development cooperation, in particular paragraphs 63 to 68 (http://eca.europa.eu/portal/pls/portal/docs/1/2722293.PDF).

[18] Survival rate to grade 5 is used as an indication of completion and of education quality (a high completion rate is difficult to maintain for several years without a certain level of quality in education). For this reason, this indicator is also included in Table 4.

[19] The indicators have been selected from the financing agreements for the programmes audited on the basis of their relevance for the priority area. With only 19 % of the planned activities of the EC support to education in Liberia (ECSEL) project having been carried out, it is not yet meaningful to assess the impact of the project. None of the audited interventions in Pakistan were linked to such indicators at the national level. See Annex V for details.

[20] For the programmes still under implementation, 2008 was the last year where data was available.

[21] The proxy indicator to measure the completion rate is the gross intake rate to last grade of primary education (see Glossary).

[22] Many donors have called for broadening the scope of FTI, while maintaining the focus on universal primary education, to the whole of EFA and/or to the entire education sector. However, a decision has not been taken mainly due to the financial implications of adopting a whole sector approach.

[23] Approximately 63 % of countries with available data have achieved gender parity at the primary level of education, compared with 37 % at secondary and less than 3 % at the tertiary level (Unesco Institute for Statistics, "Gender parity in education: not there yet", March 2008).

[24] One interesting feature of Namibia is that gender parity in education has also been achieved in secondary education. There are more girls in secondary education than boys, and girls tend to perform better than boys, with higher survival rates in education. Moreover, young women are generally more literate than young men (except in the Kavango region). In fact, boys are currently the group at risk in terms of gender equality.

[25] Attendance at some private schools was heavily weighted in favour of boys, whereas girls are only allowed by their families to attend public schools (which are perceived to provide lower quality education). This is more common in districts where the pupils have to travel from villages to urban private schools.

[26] In sub-Saharan Africa there are also regional learning assessments (such as programme d’analyse des systèmes éducatifs de la Confemen (PASEC) for French-speaking countries and the Southern and Eastern Africa Consortium for Monitoring Educational Quality (Sacmeq) for English-speaking countries) but their timeliness is also not optimal, results being assessed only every 10 years for some countries.

[27] The proportion of students who, after two years of schooling, demonstrate sufficient reading fluency, and the proportion of students able to read with comprehension by the end of primary school.

[28] These include the programming guidelines for education (January 2006), guidelines to support to sector programmes (July 2007) and "Guidelines on the programming, design and management of general budget support" (January 2007).

[29] PEFA impact study — Final Report, Volume II — Country impact notes, June 2008.

[30] In the programming guidelines for country strategy papers — Education — detailed version — January 2006, the following is said about pooled or basket funding as a possible support mechanism: "Pooled or basket funding is in principle also a possibility for the EC’s support. However, pooled funding is often a very complex and cumbersome process, and Commission procedures may not accommodate it. Furthermore, where pooled funding is possible, the conditions are usually right for SBS. At the end of the day, pooled funding is more adapted to donors that have not yet moved to budget support (often as a transition to full-fledged budget support) than to the EC. Therefore, the EC will prefer to launch an SBS operation rather than joining a pooled or basket fund."

[31] In several of the audited countries the Court noted numerous cases of misuse of government resources. For example, a public expenditure tracking survey (PETS) carried out in Tanzania in 2009 showed that 13 % of primary school teachers on average were not actually working at the school where they were on the official payroll (teacher absenteeism and "ghost" teachers). The problem of teachers’ absenteeism was observed in several other countries, including in Liberia where an audit of the Ministry of Education observed a number of fundamental governance problems, including irregularities in payroll.

[32] It is stated that "the (FTI) results have been disappointing. When assessed against the scale of the financing gap, the FTI has failed to mobilise resources on the scale required. Fundamental reforms are needed" (Summary, p. 35).

[33] The lowest caste in Nepal.

[34] These countries receive support from the Commission and other development partners to improve their statistics.

[35] In Bangladesh the support was provided by the World Bank.

[36] According to the EFA global monitoring report 2010, the number of children from a relevant age group who are out of primary school is an "inexact science". Administrative data that schools report to ministries of education are an important resource and national reporting systems are considered to be increasingly effective. However, uncertainties over demographic profiles (and hence the number of children in each age group) can cloud the issue.

[37] For 29 countries in sub-Saharan Africa and South and West Asia examined in the EFA global monitoring report 2010, household surveys show around 50 % fewer children in school — 22 million in total — than administrative data.

[38] Preliminary results of a Commission survey that provided details on how many countries get direct funding for education or use GBS, including MDG contracts, as aid delivery methods.

[39] The new MDG (millennium development goal) contract is a commitment of funds for the full six years of the 10th EDF whereby at least 70 % of the total commitment will be disbursed unless there is an unambiguous breach in the eligibility conditions for GBS.

[40] EuropeAid’s Internal Audit Capability (IAC) conclusions following an audit on human resources development in delegations in 2009.

[41] The Paris Declaration states that "Capacity development is the responsibility of partner countries with donors playing a support role".

[42] European Court of Auditors’ Special Report No 6/2007 on the effectiveness of technical assistance in the context of capacity development (http://eca.europa.eu/portal/pls/portal/docs/1/673583.PDF).

[43] "Reforming technical cooperation and project implementation units for external aid provided by the European Commission — A backbone strategy".

--------------------------------------------------

ANNEX I

ALLOCATIONS TO EDUCATION AND GENERAL BUDGET SUPPORT IN SOUTH ASIA AND SUB-SAHARAN AFRICA

Based on data from DEV.A.1 and DEV.C.1.

This table does not include data concerning Mayotte and St Helena.

In Burkina Faso and Niger education was not a focal sector but both countries received special education tranches under GBS.

Since no progamming figures for GBS (previous programming period) were available for the ninth EDF, commitment figures were taken instead.

This table inludes also addenda to the CSP of the ongoing programming period.

South Asia | Afghanistan | N | 973,80 | 0,00 | 0,00 | 0,00 | 0,00 | N | 1030,00 | 0,0 | 0,00 | 0,0 | 0,00 |

South Asia | Bangladesh | Y | 363,50 | 125,00 | 34,39 | 0,00 | 0,00 | Y | 403,00 | 124,0 | 30,77 | 0,0 | 0,00 |

South Asia | Bhutan | N | 15,00 | 0,00 | 0,00 | 0,00 | 0,00 | N | 14,00 | 0,0 | 0,00 | 0,0 | 0,00 |

South Asia | India | N | 225,00 | 0,00 | 0,00 | 0,00 | 0,00 | Y [1] | 470,00 | 120,0 | 25,53 | 0,0 | 0,00 |

South Asia | Maldives | N | 2,00 | 0,00 | 0,00 | 0,00 | 0,00 | N | 8,00 | 0,0 | 0,00 | 0,0 | 0,00 |

South Asia | Nepal | N | 70,00 | 0,00 | 0,00 | 0,00 | 0,00 | Y [1] | 120,00 | 74,0 | 61,67 | 0,0 | 0,00 |

South Asia | Pakistan | Y [1] | 145,00 | 59,00 | 40,69 | 0,00 | 0,00 | Y [1] | 398,00 | 134,0 | 33,67 | 0,0 | 0,00 |

South Asia | Sri Lanka | N | 29,80 | 0,00 | 0,00 | 0,00 | 0,00 | N | 112,00 | 0,0 | 0,00 | 0,0 | 0,00 |

| 1824,10 | 184,00 | 10,09 | 0,00 | 0,00 | | 2555,00 | 452,0 | 17,69 | 0,0 | 0,00 |

ACP–SSA | Angola | Y | 148,25 | 26,91 | 18,15 | 0,00 | 0,00 | Y | 214,00 | 17,5 | 8,18 | 0,00 | 0,00 |

ACP–SSA | Benin | N | 288,00 | 0,00 | 0,00 | 92,58 | 32,15 | N | 334,00 | 0,0 | 0,00 | 100,00 | 29,94 |

ACP–SSA | Botswana | Y [1] | 56,54 | 51,00 | 90,20 | 0,00 | 0,00 | Y [1] | 73,00 | 62,0 | 84,93 | 0,00 | 0,00 |

ACP–SSA | Burkina Faso | N | 432,40 | 15,00 | 3,47 | 197,00 | 45,56 | N | 529,00 | 0,0 | 0,00 | 320,00 | 60,49 |

ACP–SSA | Burundi | N | 162,39 | 0,00 | 0,00 | 84,12 | 51,80 | N | 176,00 | 0,0 | 0,00 | 90,00 | 51,14 |

ACP–SSA | Cameroon | N | 126,29 | 0,00 | 0,00 | 0,00 | 0,00 | N | 239,00 | 0,0 | 0,00 | 0,00 | 0,00 |

ACP–SSA | Cape Verde | N | 44,91 | 0,00 | 0,00 | 21,23 | 47,27 | N | 51,00 | 0,0 | 0,00 | 33,00 | 64,71 |

ACP–SSA | Central African Republic | N | 94,06 | 0,00 | 0,00 | 18,53 | 19,70 | N | 137,00 | 0,0 | 0,00 | 34,00 | 24,82 |

ACP–SSA | Chad | N | 209,90 | 0,00 | 0,00 | 23,80 | 11,34 | N | 299,00 | 0,0 | 0,00 | 0,00 | 0,00 |

ACP–SSA | Comoros | Y | 29,75 | 16,00 | 53,78 | 0,00 | 0,00 | Y | 45,00 | 11,3 | 25,11 | 0,00 | 0,00 |

ACP–SSA | Congo (Brazzaville) | N | 109,20 | 0,00 | 0,00 | 30,45 | 27,88 | N | 85,00 | 0,0 | 0,00 | 0,00 | 0,00 |

ACP–SSA | Congo (Kinshasa) — DRC | N | 388,60 | 0,00 | 0,00 | 106,00 | 27,28 | N | 514,00 | 0,0 | 0,00 | 0,00 | 0,00 |

ACP–SSA | Côte d’Ivoire | N | 37,36 | 0,00 | 0,00 | 0,00 | 0,00 | N | 218,00 | 0,0 | 0,00 | 0,00 | 0,00 |

ACP–SSA | Djibouti | N | 38,24 | 0,00 | 0,00 | 0,00 | 0,00 | N | 40,50 | 0,0 | 0,00 | 0,00 | 0,00 |

ACP–SSA | Equatorial Guinea | N | 7,81 | 0,00 | 0,00 | 0,00 | 0,00 | N | 0,00 | 0,0 | 0,00 | 0,00 | 0,00 |

ACP–SSA | Eritrea | Y | 118,50 | 53,00 | 44,73 | 0,00 | 0,00 | N | 122,00 | 0,0 | 0,00 | 0,00 | 0,00 |

ACP–SSA | Ethiopia | N | 446,00 | 20,00 | 4,48 | 58,27 | 13,07 | N | 644,00 | 0,0 | 0,00 | 195,00 | 30,28 |

ACP–SSA | Gabon | Y | 34,60 | 6,00 | 17,34 | 0,00 | 0,00 | Y [1] | 49,00 | 10,0 | 20,41 | 0,00 | 0,00 |

ACP–SSA | Gambia | N | 57,40 | 0,00 | 0,00 | 0,00 | 0,00 | N | 76,00 | 0,0 | 0,00 | 22,00 | 28,95 |

ACP–SSA | Ghana | N | 281,00 | 0,00 | 0,00 | 111,00 | 39,50 | N | 367,00 | 0,0 | 0,00 | 175,00 | 47,68 |

ACP–SSA | Guinea | N | 8,78 | 0,00 | 0,00 | 0,00 | 0,00 | N | 0,00 | 0,0 | 0,00 | 0,00 | 0,00 |

ACP–SSA | Guinea-Bissau | N | 73,30 | 0,00 | 0,00 | 18,10 | 24,69 | N | 100,00 | 0,0 | 0,00 | 32,00 | 32,00 |

ACP–SSA | Kenya | N | 290,00 | 0,00 | 0,00 | 125,00 | 43,10 | N | 383,00 | 0,0 | 0,00 | 126,80 | 33,11 |

ACP–SSA | Lesotho | N | 106,30 | 0,00 | 0,00 | 0,00 | 0,00 | N | 136,00 | 0,0 | 0,00 | 53,80 | 39,56 |

ACP–SSA | Liberia | N | 50,09 | 12,00 | 23,96 | 3,50 | 6,99 | Y | 150,00 | 8,4 | 5,60 | 20,20 | 13,47 |

ACP–SSA | Madagascar | N | 418,49 | 0,00 | 0,00 | 129,50 | 30,94 | N | 577,00 | 0,0 | 0,00 | 170,00 | 29,46 |

ACP–SSA | Malawi | N | 276,67 | 0,00 | 0,00 | 85,50 | 30,90 | N | 436,00 | 0,0 | 0,00 | 175,00 | 40,14 |

ACP–SSA | Mali | N | 395,20 | 0,00 | 0,00 | 156,53 | 39,61 | N | 533,00 | 0,0 | 0,00 | 150,00 | 28,14 |

ACP–SSA | Mauritania | N | 115,40 | 0,00 | 0,00 | 0,00 | 0,00 | N | 156,00 | 0,0 | 0,00 | 38,00 | 24,36 |

ACP–SSA | Mauritius | N | 48,70 | 0,00 | 0,00 | 28,55 | 58,63 | N | 51,00 | 0,0 | 0,00 | 43,50 | 85,29 |

ACP–SSA | Mozambique | N | 502,61 | 0,00 | 0,00 | 149,92 | 29,83 | N | 622,00 | 0,0 | 0,00 | 311,00 | 50,00 |

ACP–SSA | Namibia | Y [1] | 69,43 | 29,00 | 41,77 | 0,00 | 0,00 | Y [1] | 103,00 | 42,2 | 40,97 | 0,00 | 0,00 |

ACP–SSA | Niger | N | 332,80 | 20,00 | 6,01 | 181,00 | 54,39 | N | 458,00 | 0,0 | 0,00 | 150,00 | 32,75 |

ACP–SSA | Nigeria | N | 552,00 | 0,00 | 0,00 | 0,00 | 0,00 | N | 677,00 | 5,0 | 0,00 | 0,00 | 0,00 |

ACP–SSA | Rwanda | N | 176,00 | 0,00 | 0,00 | 101,76 | 57,82 | N | 290,00 | 0,0 | 0,00 | 175,00 | 60,34 |

ACP–SSA | Sao Tome and Principe | N | 10,33 | 0,00 | 0,00 | 0,00 | 0,00 | N | 17,10 | 0,0 | 0,00 | 0,00 | 0,00 |

ACP–SSA | Senegal | N | 282,50 | 0,00 | 0,00 | 53,00 | 18,76 | N | 288,00 | 0,0 | 0,00 | 133,00 | 46,18 |

ACP–SSA | Seychelles | N | 4,41 | 0,00 | 0,00 | 0,00 | 0,00 | N | 8,40 | 0,0 | 0,00 | 7,50 | 89,29 |

ACP–SSA | Sierra Leone | N | 164,70 | 0,00 | 0,00 | 62,00 | 37,64 | N | 242,00 | 0,0 | 0,00 | 90,00 | 37,19 |

ACP–SSA | Somalia | N | 153,81 | 0,00 | 0,00 | 0,00 | 0,00 | Y | 212,00 | 55,0 | 25,94 | 0,00 | 0,00 |

DCI–SSA | South Africa | Y | 515,00 | 22,00 | 4,27 | 0,00 | 0,00 | Y [1] | 980,00 | 122,7 | 12,52 | 0,00 | 0,00 |

ACP–SSA | Sudan | Y | 83,72 | 52,00 | 62,11 | 0,00 | 0,00 | Y | 0,00 | 0,0 | 0,00 | 0,00 | 0,00 |

ACP–SSA | Swaziland | Y | 33,07 | 20,00 | 60,48 | 0,00 | 0,00 | Y | 63,00 | 3,5 | 5,56 | 0,00 | 0,00 |

ACP–SSA | Tanzania, United Republic of | Y [1] | 393,85 | 43,32 | 11,00 | 201,00 | 51,03 | N | 555,00 | 0,0 | 0,00 | 305,00 | 54,95 |

ACP–SSA | Togo | N | 16,23 | 0,00 | 0,00 | 5,00 | 30,81 | N | 123,00 | 0,0 | 0,00 | 32,00 | 26,02 |

ACP–SSA | Uganda | N | 256,60 | 0,00 | 0,00 | 92,00 | 35,85 | N | 439,00 | 0,0 | 0,00 | 175,00 | 39,86 |

ACP–SSA | Zambia | N | 351,50 | 10,00 | 2,84 | 179,00 | 50,92 | N | 475,00 | 0,0 | 0,00 | 232,00 | 48,84 |

ACP–SSA | Zimbabwe | N | 12,15 | 0,00 | 0,00 | 0,00 | 0,00 | N | 7,00 | 7,0 | 0,00 | 0,00 | 0,00 |

| 8804,8 | 396,2 | 4,50 | 2314,3 | 26,28 | | 12294,0 | 344,6 | 2,80 | 3388,8 | 27,56 |

[*] Education supported through sector budget support (SBS). In Pakistan SBS was provided at regional and not federal level.

--------------------------------------------------

ANNEX II

LIST OF INTERVENTIONS AUDITED

Interventions in blue were also examined for their results (see Annex IV).

Country | Instrument/aid modality | Intervention | Total amount (million euro) |

Bangladesh | Sector policy support programme – Pool funding (Dec. 2003 to Dec. 2009) | Second primary education development programme (PEDP II) | 105,0 |

Project (Dec. 2006 to Dec. 2010) | Support for non-formal primary education (NFPE) | 28,3 |

Project (Dec. 2007 to Dec. 2012) | Technical and vocational education and training (TVET) | 14,0 |

Burkina Faso | Project (1999–2004) | Programme d’appui au secteur de l’éducation de base (PASEB) | 9,9 |

General budget support with education sector tranches (2005–08) | General budget support to poverty reduction (2005–08) thereof: variable tranche — Educationsector allocation "Education for All" | 192,4 22,5 15,0 |

MDG contract (2009–14) | Budget support to growth and poverty reduction, thereof: variable tranche — Education (2013–14) | 320,1 28,8 |

Liberia | Project (Oct. 2006 to Dec. 2010) | EC support to education in Liberia (ECSEL) | 12,0 |

General budget support (Financing Agreement not yet signed) | Budget support for macroeconomic stabilisation (BSMS) (2009–11) | 20,2 |

Namibia | Sector budget support (2003–09) | Namibia education sector programme (ESP) | 24,0 |

Sector budget support (at formulation stage — not yet approved) | Proposal for a 10th EDF education sector policy support programme (SPSP) | 42,1 |

Nepal | Project/pool funding (1999–2004) | Basic and primary education programme II (BPEP II) | 19,0 |

Sector budget support (2008–13) | Education sector policy support programme (ESPSP) | 25,0 |

Sector budget support (2010–13) (at formulation stage — not yet approved) | Proposal for a school sector reform programme (SSRP) | 26,0 |

Niger | General budget support with education sector allocations (PPARP 2006–08) | Multiannual programme support to poverty reduction, thereof: variable tranche — Educationsector allocation "Education for All" | 91,0 12,0 21,0 |

General budget support (PPARP 2009–11) | Multiannual programme support to poverty reduction, thereof: variable tranche — Education | 93,0 15,0 |

Project (March 2002 to May 2009) | Programme soutien à l’éducation de base dans deux zones éducatives innovantes — Souteba | 8,7 |

Project (phase 2005–07) | Programme d’appui à la formation professionnelle continue et l’apprentissage | 5,6 |

Project (phase 2008–10) | Programme d’appui à la formation professionnelle continue et à l’apprentissage | 2,0 |

Pakistan | Programme (May 2003 to May 2008) | The northern Pakistan education programme 2003–08 | 19,3 |

Sector budget support (Dec. 2006 to Dec. 2011) | Sindh education plan support programme | 39,0 |

Sector budget support (Dec. 2008 to June 2013) | NWFP education sector reforms programme | 20,0 |

Programme (Aug. 2009 to Aug. 2014) | Support to the technical and vocational education and training (TVET) | 20,0 |

Programme (not yet signed) | Supporting TVET reform in Pakistan (TVET II) | 26,0 |

Tanzania | General budget support (May 2006 to Dec. 2010) | Poverty reduction budget support programme (PRBS03) Variable tranche | 101,8 |

Sector budget support (Dec. 2006 to Dec. 2010) | Support to education sector reform programme | 43,5 |

MDG contract (Dec. 2009 to May 2015) | Millennium development goals contract 2009–15 | 305,0 |

Project with Oxfam UK (Dec. 2005 to Oct. 2009) | Education quality improvement through pedagogy (EQUIP) | 0,69 |

Project with Fida International (Dec. 2005 to Jan. 2011) | Youth with disabilities community programme (Work area 7: Functioning framework available for primary schools to mainstream children and youth with disabilities) | 0,75 |

Project with Camfed (Oct. 2008 to Oct. 2010) | Civil society action for girls’ education in Tanzania | 0,88 |

Project with Sense International (Nov. 2008 to Nov. 2013) | Promoting access to education for deaf, blind and multiply disabled children in Tanzania | 0,24 |

Multi-country | Contribution to a trust fund | Contribution to the FTI — Catalytic Trust Fund (EDF intra-ACP allocation) | 63,0 |

Contribution to a trust fund | Contribution to the FTI — Catalytic Trust Fund ("Investing in people" thematic programme) | 31,1 |

Contribution to a trust fund | Contribution to the FTI — Catalytic Trust Fund (contribution to the Secretariat — "Investing in people" thematic programme) | 1,0 |

--------------------------------------------------

ANNEX III

THE ATTRIBUTION ISSUE IN BUDGET SUPPORT PROGRAMMES

It is recognised that it is difficult to attribute changes in outcome indicators to any particular project or programmes. There are three important reasons for this:

Time lag: It takes time before an activity is implemented and bears fruit. It is therefore difficult to draw conclusions shortly after a programme has been completed. This is specifically the case when it comes to measures of education quality. For instance, it takes time to train teachers, prepare a new curriculum, prepare textbooks, print them and distribute them before it significantly changes the situation on the ground and have a measurable impact on completion rates or learning achievements. Evidently, some interventions are more easily implemented than others and some are more visible or more strategic than others (e.g. building teacher training colleges or building schools). They are, however, all needed. There is no point in building schools if there are not enough trained teachers or if those who are trained are not allocated to the schools where they are most needed.

Causality: The donor can never be entirely sure about which measure can really create change. Also, in most cases one set of outcomes does not depend on only one factor or one intervention.

Contribution: EU-funded interventions often provide a limited share of all the resources for education. This is true even in a small and highly aid dependent country but even more so in a big country with considerable resources of its own and many other development partners.

--------------------------------------------------

ANNEX IV

AUDITED PROGRAMMES AND PROJECTS WITH SUMMARY RESULTS

Funding modality: sector budget support

Funding modality: general budget support (GBS) with specific education sector allocations

Burkina Faso | General budget support to poverty reduction (2005–08) thereof: variable tranche — Educationsector tranche "Education for All" | | 192,4 22,5 15,0 | Results mostly achieved |

Niger | Multiannual programme support to poverty reduction (2006–08) thereof: variable tranche — Educationsector tranche "Education for All" | | 91,0 12,0 21,0 | Results not achieved |

Funding modality: general budget support (GBS) with social sector performance indicators linked to variable tranches

Funding modality: pooled funding

Funding modality: programme/project

Funding modality: contribution to a trust fund

[1] The policy matrix does not include sufficient output and outcome indicators to assess results. Results in terms of financial input indicators and quantitative indicators regarding administrative and regulatory investments are being achieved to date.

[2] The results achieved refer to the only year for which targets were defined, 2006/07. While three out of four targets were achieved for 2006/07, for two out the four performance indicators targets and data were not available for the last two years of implementation (2007/08 and 2008/09).

[3] The amount available for the variable tranche comprised 9 million euro for the financial year 2008/09 and 6,3 million euro of undisbursed tranches from the financial year 2007/08. Of this variable tranche a maximum of 50 % could be disbursed on the basis of the performance on education indicators, while the remaining 50 % would be determined by the performance indicators on health.

[4] This particular project has had a very positive and measurable impact in the municipality where it was implemented. This includes significantly improved enrolment rates and pass rates in primary schools and the commitment of local authorities to maintain and fund the established infrastructure for teacher training centres. However, the Court’s assessment of the results achieved strictly refer to the expected results as they are formulated in the revised log-frame used in the final evaluation report (EQUIP — Final evaluation report — December 2008, Annex E).

--------------------------------------------------

ANNEX V

OVERVIEW OF SUMMARY RESULTS ACHIEVED PER COUNTRY AND PROGRAMME AUDITED/REVIEWED

Note on colours used in the tables:

black — indicator used in the report to measure progress in general and towards ensuring primary education, and/or gender equality and quality of education (includes cases where the target was almost but not fully achieved (see for instance gross enrolment rate in Bangladesh));

blue — indicator used to measure only progress in general;

orange — target not achieved.

BANGLADESH

Second primary education development programme (PEDP II) 2003–09

1. The PEDP II includes specific key performance indicators (KPIs) for measuring improvements. The table below summarises the progress achieved on 14 KPI as given in the "PEDP II primary education annual sector performance report 2009". The table shows that six out of the 14 key performance indicators are below target and three of these even have a negative trend. The critical KPIs targets that are unlikely to be achieved relate to: (i) cycle completion rate, (ii) pupil learning achievement, and (iii) share of education expenditure in GNP.

Comparison between expected and achieved results

Gross enrolment rate | 93,70 % | 97,60 % | 98 % | Nearly on target | Achieved |

Net enrolment rate | 87,20 % | 90,80 % | 90 % | On target | Achieved |

Completion rate | 52,10 % | 50,70 % | 55 % | Below target Negative trend | Not achieved |

Stipend recipients (in millions) | 4,3 | 4,8 | 4,3 | Above target | Achieved |

Transition rate from grade 5 to 6 | 92,40 % | 95,6 | 96 % | Nearly on target | Achieved |

Education expenditure as % of GNP | 1,93 | 2,14 | 2,80 | Below target | Not achieved |

Primary education expenditure in % of total education expenditure | 37,10 | 40–41 | 45 | Below target | Not achieved |

Pupil absenteeism | 23 % | 19 % | 18 % | Nearly on target | Achieved |

Pupils per teacher ratio | 54 | 50 | 46 | Positive trend | Achieved |

Efficiency coefficient in years of input | 8,1 | 8,6 | 7,5 | Negative trend | Not achieved |

11,0 % (Gr3) | 9,0 % (Gr3) |

12,5 % (Gr4) | 16,7 % (Gr4) |

Learning competences skills grade 5 | 51,4 % | 65,90 % | Not fixed | Not comparable | N/A |

2. Progress towards access targets is on track. Furthermore, the targeted gender parity in primary school enrolment was achieved. However, these access indicators mask considerable variations among districts and specific poor groups. The data produced by the current monitoring and evaluation system do not allow an analysis of these variations. Pupil absenteeism was very near to the target of 18 % for 2009, although it was still too high.

3. As regards quality, the pupil:teacher ratio achieved half of the expected reduction to 46 for 2009, and the pupil:classroom ratio (not included in these KPI) was still high (62:1 versus target of 46:1).

4. The biggest unsolved problem appears to be the very high dropout and failure rates, with over half of the children not even completing primary education. The 2009 joint annual review mission of the programme complained that the overall dropout rate of 49,3 % in 2008 remained unacceptably high (target for 2009: 45 %), and that public spending on education of 2,14 % GNP in 2008 was still far short of the target of 2,8 % for 2009.

BURKINA FASO

Poverty reduction budget support programme with specific education allocations (PRBS) 2005–08

5. The support to education under this programme was intended to increase access, to improve the efficiency of the primary school system, to reduce gender gap, to improve teaching conditions, and to assure sufficient financial resources for education. As can be seen from the information provided in the table below, although the five indicators related to ensuring primary education and gender parity used in the poverty reduction budget support programme 2005–08 have achieved their target, only two of those related to quality education used in the specific allocation to education achieved their intended result.

Comparison between expected and achieved results

Indicators | Baseline 2003 | 2006 | Target achieved/ not achieved |

Target | Result |

Budget support — education indicators

Gross intake rate at grade 1 (girls) | 61,50 % | 69,50 % | 73,20 % | Achieved |

GER (primary) | 52,20 % | 60,30 % | 66,60 % | Achieved |

GER in the 20 priority provinces | 37,60 % | 49,10 % | 52,30 % | Achieved |

GER girls | 46,30 % | 55,40 % | 61,20 % | Achieved |

Completion rate (primary) | 31,30 % | 35,00 % | 36,40 % | Achieved |

Execution rate of Ministry of Education (MEBA) budget | > 90 % | 90,00 % | 88,60 % | Not Achieved |

Sector budget support education [1001]

Pupil:teacher ratio | 52 | | 54 | Not achieved |

Book:pupil ratio (Arithmetic) | 0,22 | | 0,73 | Achieved |

Book:pupil ratio (Language) | 0,32 | | 0,58 | Achieved |

Percentage of pupils without seats | 15,4 | | 21,4 | Not achieved |

6. In primary schools, the increase in the number of teachers, classrooms and seats did not meet the number of enrolled children, which was higher than expected. As regards efficiency, the number of children dropping out of school was still high and the completion rate low. Although progress was achieved in the monitoring of the national programme (Plan décennal de développement de l’éducation de base) the financing of the programme and of basic education did not increase in terms of allocations or in terms of budget execution.

LIBERIA

EC support to education in Liberia (ECSEL) 2006–10

7. Few of the observed changes in the education outcomes in Liberia can be attributed (even partially) to ECSEL. The considerable delays in ECSEL implementation do not yet allow for a general assessment of the results of the project. Still, the "empirical" improvement in the textbook-to-pupil ratio to 1:2 and progress in the development of the education management information systems had been achieved with contributions from ECSEL. With 80 % of the operational implementation period passed, only 19 % of the planned project activities have been completed, and 37 % of the planned activities cannot be completed before the end of this period and will require a rider to the financing conditions.

NAMIBIA

Education sector programme (ESP) 2003–09

8. The focus of ESP has been on secondary level access and completion with limited attention paid to primary education, to MDGs and EFA goals. Although ESP started already in September 2003, it was not possible to fully assess the programme contribution to planned improvements in education outcomes due to its initial low implementation, the subsequent change in the programme strategy and shortcomings in the monitoring system. However, where overall indicators are available, they continue to show mixed results (see the table below). The overall progress on education outcomes was assessed by the Government of Namibia and the delegation as mixed, with poor performance in terms of quality and addressing inequalities.

Comparison between expected and achieved results

Target | Result |

Access

Primary | Net enrolment rate for grades 1 to 7 | 93,6 % | 96,0 % | 97,4 % | Achieved |

Secondary | Net enrolment rate for grades 8 to 12 | 49,5 % | 54,0 % | 54,5 % | Achieved |

Annual increase in the number of students in senior secondary level | 28500 | 34500 | 33401 | Not achieved |

Grade 11 intake (new students) | 14777 | 18137 | 17376 | Not achieved |

Tertiary | General enrolment in University of Namibia | 8864 | 9773 | 8361 | Not achieved |

General enrolment at the Polytechnic of Namibia | 6079 | 7200 | 9410 | Achieved |

Vocational education and training | Enrolment in Cosdec (community skills development centres) | 495 | 1650 | 1149 | Not achieved |

Enrolment in Levels 1, 2 and 3 in existing vocational training centres (VTC) | 1160; 892; 681 | 1850; 1250; 900 | 1652; 1018; 620 | Not achieved |

Information, adult and lifelong learning | Number of schools per region that have family literacy in place | 1 | 7 | 10 | Achieved |

Quality

Primary | Survival rates in grade 5 | 88,0 % | 94,5 % | 89 % | Not achieved |

Secondary | Survival rates in grade 8 | 69,0 % | 77 % | 72 % | Not achieved |

Survival rates in grade 11 | 31,0 % | 36 % | 38 % | Achieved |

Vocational education and training | VTC completion rate for all 3 levels | 0,56 | 70 % | 77 % | Achieved |

Information, adult and lifelong learning | Adult literacy (15 years +) | 84 % | 87 % | No data | N/A |

Equity

Education radio programme broadcast by Namibian College of Opena Learning (Namcol) | N/A | 90 | 108 | Achieved |

Efficiency

Primary | Repetition rate in grade 1 | 19,6 % | 14,4 % | Data not yet available | N/A |

Repetition rate in grade 5 | 22,1 % | 16,1 % | Data not yet available | N/A |

Learner:teacher ratio [1002] | 30,7 % | 33,70 % | 29,40 % | Achieved |

Secondary | Repetition rate in grade 8 | 23,1 % | 16,1 % | Data not yet available | N/A |

Learner:teacher ratio | 24,9 % | 26,4 % | 24,4 % | Achieved |

Percentage of school managers on performance contracts | N/A | 30 | Data not yet available | N/A |

HIV/AIDS

9. Available indicators demonstrate decreasing trends in enrolment and survival rates since 2005. The unusual improvement in the 2008 enrolment rate is questionable due to a change in the calculation method of the ratio. Significant achievements in the reduction of gender disparities in education have been achieved. Available indicators do not demonstrate improvements in the quality of the education during ESP implementation (except the introduction of life skills in the curriculum) while a lack of indicators does not allow for assessing improvements in addressing inequalities (e.g. social, ethnic or regional disparities) with the exception of orphans and vulnerable children having access to feeding programmes.

NEPAL

Education sector policy support programme (ESPSP) 2008–13

10. The ESPSP financed only the last two fiscal years (2007/08 and 2008/09) of the five-year national "Education for All" programme (EFA) [1]. In addition, the financing agreement was not signed until mid-2008 when the EFA programme was reaching its last year, and the payments were made quickly, in the space of one year. The ESPSP contribution to achieving EFA goals was therefore limited.

11. Only four of the 18 indicators selected for EFA have fully reached their target: the gross enrolment rate (GER) for early childhood development (66,2 % as against 51 %), the percentage of teachers with the required certification (100 % as against 99 %), the literacy rate (target of 82 % reached in 2008) and the gender parity index for grades 1 to 5 (0,98 as against 0,9). One indicator has partially met its target, i.e. learning achievement at grade 5 (only for social studies) (see the table below).

Comparison between expected and achieved results

Indicators | Baseline 2001 | 2009 | Target achieved/not achieved |

Target | Results 2009 (unless otherwise specified) |

Expanding early childhood development (ECD) and pre-primary childhood (PPC) services to poor and disadvantaged children

GER for ECD/PPC | 13 % | 51 % | 66,20 % | Achieved |

New entrants in grade 1 with ECD | 8 % | 60 % | 49,90 % | Not achieved |

Ensuring access to education for all children

NER for grades 1 to 5 | 81 % | 96 % | 93,70 % | Not achieved |

Gross intake rate at grade 1 [1003] | 141 % | 110 % | 144 % | Not achieved |

Net intake rate at grade 1 | 54 % | 95 % | 86,40 % | Not achieved |

GER primary | 123 % | 104 % | 141,40 % | Not achieved |

Meeting the learning needs of all children

Repetition rate at grade 1 | 39 % | 10 % | 26,50 % | Not achieved |

Reducing adult illiteracy

Literacy rate 15+ | 48 % | 66 % | 55,6 % (2008) | Not achieved |

19–24: 69,8 % (2008) |

Males 15–19: 91,9 % (2008) | Achieved |

20–24: 89,5 % (2008) | Achieved |

Literacy rate 6+ | 54 % | 76 % | 63,2 % (2006) | Not achieved |

Males: 75 | Achieved |

Females: 53 | Not achieved |

Literacy gender parity index 15+ | 0,6 | 0,9 | 0,71 (2008) | Not achieved |

Eliminating gender disparity

Gender parity for grades 1 to 5 | 0,6 | 0,9 | 0,98 | Achieved |

Improving all aspects of quality education

Pupil:teacher ratio at primary | 39 | 37 | 41,7 | Not achieved |

Percentage of teachers with required qualification and training | 15 | 99 | 91,70 | Not achieved |

Percentage of teachers with required certification | 16,6 | 99 | 100 | Achieved |

English 40 (2008) | Not achieved |

Maths 48 (2008) | Not achieved |

Science and env. 46 (2008) | Not achieved |

Social studies 65 (2008) | Achieved |

12. Even though targets were not met for most of the indicators, and some of them are difficult to interpret because of the fragility of the population data, they generally showed progress on most aspects. However, there are vast disparities between districts for most of the indicators, and many of the issues identified during the BPEP II and hindering progress towards EFA goals remain (see below). Progress has been less significant in reducing adult illiteracy and in improving the quality of education. Despite progress, there is still much inefficiency in the school system. Strong commitment towards education ensures institutional sustainability, although Nepal remains highly dependent on donor support.

Basic and primary education programme II 1999–2004 (BPEP II)

13. There are no performance indicators in the financing agreement and the audit has been limited by inconsistency in the use of the key performance indicators through the programme [2]. Evaluations of the programme made little use of indicators. Therefore, it was not possible to compare the results achieved with any particular benchmarks and targets.

14. The BPEP II contributed to bringing children into the primary school system and to decreasing the gender gap. However, boys enrolled at much higher rates than girls, there was a lack of female teachers, and lack of parity in private schools remained a concern. Improvements in reducing repetition and dropout rates remained modest, and the programme had little impact on bringing marginalised and disadvantaged children into the schools. Improvements in access might be overstated. Improvements in quality were difficult to demonstrate, and there was little evidence of gains in this area. BPEP II helped to develop capacities at all levels but many shortcomings were identified.

15. The "Appraising EC support to EFA" report concluded that there is little evidence of the impact of BPEP II. The perception is that of an absence of impact in relation to the funding provided, and too much focus on ensuring access to the detriment of improving quality. However, the programme helped to strengthen ownership and partnership and paved the way for key policy development and implementation issues in many areas of basic and primary education.

NIGER

Poverty reduction budget support programme with specific education allocations (PPARP) 2006–08

16. As can be seen from the table below, the programme did not achieve its intended results except for the execution rate of the Ministry of Education budget.

Comparison between expected and achieved results

Indicator | Baseline data 2005 | 2006 | Target achieved/ not achieved |

Target | Result |

Pupil:table ratio in rural areas | 4 | 3,7 | 3,8 | Not achieved |

GER (primary) | 45,4 % | 57 % | 54 % | Not achieved |

GER girls | 36,5 % | 49 % | 44 % | Not achieved |

GER in rural areas | 42,6 % | 54 % | 52 % | Not achieved |

Completion rate (primary) | 24,7 % | 43 % | 40 % | Not achieved |

Utilisation rate of MOE budget | | > 90 % | 95,60 % | Achieved |

17. Enrolment rates improved quite significantly (10 points percentage increase in the GER in three years in rural areas) over this time, although retention is still problematic and few pupils complete a full cycle of primary education. Learning achievements are also low. Gender issues, and to some extent the high proportion (83 %) of the population living in rural areas and the expansion of bilingual education, were not fully taken into consideration in the programme and consequently insufficient funding was allocated to these aspects.

PAKISTAN

Sindh education plan support programme (2006–11)

18. The programme has had a slow start up: although the financing agreement was signed at the end of 2006, the first payment was made only in October 2008. Furthermore, the results matrix of the financing agreement does not follow the programming guidelines for education in terms of output and outcome indicators. This is due to the fact that the EU contributes together with the World Bank to the education sector in Sindh province and the World Bank does not follow the same approach as the EU. The matrix does not include sufficient output indicators to give an indication of the education system’s capacity, which has a direct impact on the quality of education provided (e.g. pupil:teacher ratio, book:pupil ratio, teacher:classroom ratio). Outcome indicators measuring results concerning access to education (i.e. enrolment rates) and efficiency (e.g. completion rate) are also missing in this matrix. Therefore, it was not possible to compare results with specific benchmarks and targets. A new, revised matrix, introduced in 2010, contains more indicators but the number of outcome indicators is still limited.

TANZANIA

Poverty reduction budget support programme (2006–08) and support to education sector reform programme (2006–10)

19. As can be seen from the information provided in the tables below, although three out of the four indicators used in the poverty reduction budget support programme 2006–08 have achieved their target, the support to education sector reform programme has not yet achieved the planned results and indicators do not show the planned improvements. For eight out of the ten indicators the target was not achieved in 2008/09. The number of indicator targets not achieved or partly achieved increased from six to eight between 2007/08 and 2008/09, demonstrating a negative trend. The draft mid-term review (MTR) came to the conclusion that "SBS is mostly off track, i.e. only a minority of SBS indicators have been globally achieved, many of which are behind schedule, and only in a minority of cases are adequate measures taken when (they are threatening to go) off track".

Comparison between expected and achieved results

Poverty reduction indicators for PRBS03 — Education (indicators used for the December 2008 disbursement only)

Net primary school enrolment rate | 96,1a | 97,5b | 97,3 | Achieved |

Girl:boy ratio in secondary education | 88,7a | 90 b | 87,8 | Not achieved |

Percentage of students passing primary school leavers’ exam | 61,8 | 62,5 | 70,5 | Achieved |

Transition from standard 7 to form 1 | 49,3 | 54 | 60,3 | Achieved |

Support to education sector reform programme (2006–10)

Indicator | Baseline data 2005 | 2008/09 | Target achieved/ not achieved |

Targets | Result |

Reduction of cross-district disparities in the net enrolment ratio in primary education | 8,8 % | 7 % (2007) | 3,98 % | Achieved |

Pupils:grade A or diploma teachers in primary education | 88 | 50 (2007) | 63 | Not achieved |

Reduction of cross-district disparities in pupils:teacher ratio in primary education | 12,9 % | 8,6 % (2007) | 13,3 % | Not achieved |

Pupils:textbook in primary schools | 3:1 | 1:1 (2007) | 3:1 | Not achieved |

Percentage of girls passing primary school leavers’ exam | 54,6 | 65 (2007) | 45 | Not achieved |

Gross enrolment ratio (GER) in secondary | GER in form 1 to form 4 | 15,90 % | 30 % (2007) | 36,2 % | Achieved |

GER in form 5 to form 6 | 2,40 % | 6,5 % (2007) | 4,0 % | Not achieved |

Gross enrolment ratio of girls in forms 5 and 6 | 0,9 % | 2 % (2007) | 2,9 % | Achieved |

Percentage of students passing the form 4 examination | 89,2 | 93 (2007) | 90,3 | Not achieved |

Public expenditure on education as a percentage of total public expenditure | 18,7 (FY 2005–06) | 25,0 (FY 2007–08) | 19,8 | Not achieved |

Percentage of local government administrations awarded clean audits by the National Audit Office | 53 (FY 2005–06) | 75 (FY 2006–07) | 54 (FY 2007–08) | Not achieved |

20. The net primary enrolment rate increased from 59 % in 2000 to 97,3 % in 2006 and then decreased slightly to 95,9 % in 2008. The high enrolment rates also have to be seen in the context of increasing dropout rates, which have now nearly returned to the level of 2003. The number of students increased by 12 % per year from 2000 to 2003 and since then has increased by some 4 % per year. Equal access for girls and boys has almost been achieved, while the proportion of children with disabilities in primary school declined from 2007 to 2008 and has generally only made slow progress.

21. MDG 2 gave the Government of Tanzania (GoT) an incentive to pay more attention to enrolment than to the quality of education. Quality indicators show either a downwards trend or are at risk. The ratio between the number of students starting school with those passing Standard VII (cohort completing Standard VII) decreased from 70 % in 2000 to 62,4 % in 2008. This evolution has to be seen in the context of the implementation of the free primary school policy in 2002, which increased the number of students dramatically but with a decline in education quality. The primary completion rate (Standard VII exam pass rate) increased from 22 % in 2000 to 54,2 % in 2006 and then decreased to 52,7 % in 2007. The primary school pupils:textbook ratio of 3:1 for basic education was in 2008 still the same as agreed between the EC and the GoT in the CSP 2001–07 of March 2002. The ratio between primary school pupils and classrooms had improved in 2007 (77:1) compared with 2006 (92:1). However, in 2008 (109:1) it was again significantly above the level of 2006.

[] Only positive trend was required.

[] The learner:teacher ratio has not been taken as an indicator of quality because the target was to increase the ratio for cost and efficiency reasons instead of decreasing it (which would indicate quality concerns).

[1] The ESPSP also provides sector budget support for capacity development.

[] Gross intake rate at grade 1 above 100 % is difficult to interpret. It may reflect unreliable population data and/or significant late enrolment, re-enrolment of dropouts, repetition counted as new enrolment or even migration from neighbouring populations. For this reason, this indicator is not taken as a measure of enrolment in this report.

[2] The programme implementation plan had a set of indicators which are not the same as those of the policy framework. After the mid-term review of the programme, the indicators were changed to the EFA indicators to be used for the new EFA programme.

--------------------------------------------------

ANNEX VI

PROGRESS TOWARDS ENSURING PRIMARY EDUCATION IN THE COUNTRIES EXAMINED

Source: Unesco.

Lack of data for Liberia partly due to the recovering from 14 years of civil war.

Number in italics: data from another year.

Completion rate as measured by gross intake ratio to the last grade of primary.

Country | Indicator | Year |

2000 | 2005 | 2008 |

Bangladesh | Net enrolment rate, total | N/A | 87,2 | 85,5 |

Completion rate, total | 59,5 | 61,1 | 54,5 |

Burkina Faso | Net enrolment rate, total | 36,0 | 45,3 | 60,1 |

Completion rate, total | 25,1 | 31,1 | 38,0 |

Liberia | Net enrolment rate, total | 42,0 | N/A | 31,0 |

Completion rate, total | N/A | N/A | 54,7 |

Namibia | Net enrolment rate, total | 88,8 | 89,6 | 89,0 |

Completion rate, total | 91,6 | 86,2 | 80,8 |

Nepal | Net enrolment rate, total | 65,0 | 79,2 | 80,0 |

Completion rate, total | 63,2 | 76,0 | 78,2 |

Niger | Net enrolment rate, total | 26,7 | 42,2 | 49,5 |

Completion rate, total | 17,9 | 29,3 | 37,9 |

Pakistan | Net enrolment rate, total | 54,0 | 64,7 | 66,1 |

Completion rate, total | N/A | 60,8 | 60,3 |

Tanzania | Net enrolment rate, total | 52,9 | 90,2 | 99,3 |

Completion rate, total | 57,2 | 55,0 | 82,6 |

--------------------------------------------------

ANNEX VII

PROGRESS TOWARDS GENDER PARITY IN THE COUNTRIES EXAMINED

Source: Unesco.

Lack of data for Liberia partly due to the recovering from 14 years of civil war.

Number in italics: data from another year.

Completion rate as measured by gross intake ratio to the last grade of primary.

Country | Indicator | Year |

2000 | 2005 | 2008 |

Bangladesh | Gender parity index for net enrolment rate. Primary | N/A | 1,05 | 1,02 |

Net enrolment rate. Primary. Female | N/A | 89,5 | 86,3 |

Net enrolment rate. Primary. Male | N/A | 85,0 | 84,7 |

Completion rate. Primary. Female | 61,4 | 63,3 | 57,1 |

Completion rate. Primary. Male | 57,5 | 59,0 | 51,9 |

Burkina Faso | Gender parity index for net enrolment rate. Primary | 0,71 | 0,80 | 0,86 |

Net enrolment rate. Primary. Female | 29,8 | 40,1 | 55,7 |

Net enrolment rate. Primary. Male | 42,0 | 50,4 | 64,4 |

Completion rate. Primary. Female | 20,6 | 26,9 | 33,5 |

Completion rate. Primary. Male | 29,4 | 35,1 | 42,3 |

Liberia | Gender parity index for net enrolment rate. Primary | 0,77 | N/A | 0,93 |

Net enrolment rate. Primary. Female | 37,0 | N/A | 30,0 |

Net enrolment rate. Primary. Male | 48,0 | N/A | 32,0 |

Completion rate. Primary. Female | N/A | N/A | 49,8 |

Completion rate. Primary. Male | N/A | N/A | 59,7 |

Namibia | Gender parity index for net enrolment rate. Primary | 1,06 | 1,06 | 1,05 |

Net enrolment rate. Primary. Female | 91,3 | 92,2 | 91,1 |

Net enrolment rate. Primary. Male | 86,3 | 86,9 | 86,9 |

Completion rate. Primary. Female | 97,4 | 90,1 | 85,8 |

Completion rate. Primary. Male | 85,8 | 82,3 | 75,9 |

Nepal | Gender parity index for net enrolment rate. Primary | 0,79 | 0,87 | 0,97 |

Net enrolment rate. Primary. Female | 57,0 | 73,8 | 78,0 |

Net enrolment rate. Primary. Male | 72,0 | 84,4 | 81,0 |

Completion rate. Primary. Female | 54,6 | 72,3 | 77,5 |

Completion rate. Primary. Male | 71,3 | 79,6 | 78,8 |

Niger | Gender parity index for net enrolment rate. Primary | 0,70 | 0,72 | 0,78 |

Net enrolment rate. Primary. Female | 21,9 | 35,2 | 43,2 |

Net enrolment rate. Primary. Male | 31,2 | 48,8 | 55,4 |

Completion rate. Primary. Female | 14,4 | 23,1 | 31,5 |

Completion rate. Primary. Male | 21,3 | 35,1 | 43,9 |

Pakistan | Gender parity index for net enrolment rate. Primary | N/A | 0,76 | 0,83 |

Net enrolment rate. Primary. Female | N/A | 55,7 | 59,7 |

Net enrolment rate. Primary. Male | N/A | 73,3 | 72,2 |

Completion rate. Primary. Female | N/A | 50,4 | 53,4 |

Completion rate. Primary. Male | N/A | 70,6 | 66,9 |

Tanzania | Gender parity index for net enrolment rate. Primary | 1,03 | 0,98 | 1,00 |

Net enrolment rate. Primary. Female | 53,6 | 89,4 | 99,1 |

Net enrolment rate. Primary. Male | 52,3 | 91,0 | 99,6 |

Completion rate. Primary. Female | 56,0 | 53,9 | 80,8 |

Completion rate. Primary. Male | 53,9 | 56,1 | 84,5 |

--------------------------------------------------

Top

Choose the experimental features you want to try

52010SA0012