Programming Guidelines for Country Strategy Papers

Education
Detailed version – January 2006

The present guidelines proceed in three stages:

1. First, setting the scene by reviewing key issues related to education in the fight against
poverty:
- Rationale for prioritising education
- Countries in which education should be prioritised
- Coordination and harmonisation

2. Second, carrying out an analysis of the education sector in preparation for the EC’s
support through a three-step approach:
- Step 1) Analysis of the education system
- Step 2) Assessment of the education policies
- Step 3) Estimation of the partner’s need for EC support

3. Third, defining the orientations of the EC’s education support based on four key tracks:
- Track 1) Ensuring ownership and participation
- Track 2) Identifying priorities for the EC’s support
- Track 3) Determining the support mechanism
- Track 4) Ensuring coordination and harmonisation

It provides the following annexes:

- Annex 1) State of play of EC education support in ACP countries
- Annex 2) The EFA Fast-Track Initiative (FTI)
- Annex 3) Gender equality in education
- Annex 4) Education and HIV/AIDS
- Annex 5) Essential resources and references.

1
1. Education in the fight against poverty:
1.1. Rationale for prioritising education:
Education is about giving all children, as well as women and men of all ages, the knowledge
and skills they need to be active citizens, participate successfully in the economy and fulfil
themselves as individuals. An educated population and workforce is a prerequisite for
building a democratic society and a well functioning economy offering opportunities to all.
To achieve this vision, the world community embraced the Education for All (EFA)
Framework and the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs), which prioritises the EFA goals
of universal primary completion and gender equality at all levels of education by 2015.

Today, over 100 million children are still out of school, including 59 million girls. Yet as
developing countries start making important strides towards universal primary completion, it
becomes increasingly important to address the resulting bottleneck in secondary education.
Growing attention must also be paid to vocational education and training, which is key to
ensuring employability, and capacity in higher education, which is essential to meet the
MDGs (e.g. by training education and health practitioners in sufficient numbers).

Against this background, the EC will focus on the following priorities identified by the
“European Consensus on Development1”:

− To achieve quality universal primary education and vocational training.

− To address inequalities, particularly by promoting girls’ education and safety at school

(this includes orphans, children in conflict/post-conflict areas, hard to reach children, etc.).

− To ensure a holistic and coherent approach encompassing all levels and types of education
(e.g. pre-school education, secondary education, vocational education and training, higher
education, adult literacy, life-long learning, etc.) allowing for a differentiated EC response
to the specific priorities, needs, capacity and state of development of each partner country.

− To pay special attention to the impact of HIV/AIDS on education and how education can
contribute to responding to the pandemic.

− To support the development and implementation of nationally-anchored sector plans.

1.2. Countries in which education should be prioritised:

Consideration will be given to prioritising education in the programming of the EC’s bilateral
aid in the following countries:

− Where progress towards the education MDGs is off-track. This particularly concerns Sub-
Saharan Africa, some Arab countries, as well as South and West Asia.

− Where the EC is already active in education under the current programming2. This will
ensure continuity of aid and allow to build on the EC’s accumulated experience.

1
Joint Statement by the Council and the Representatives of the Governments of the Member States meeting
within the Council, the European Parliament and the Commission of 22 November 2005.

2
− Where the EC provides general budget support (GBS). Given the similarities between
general and sector budget support (SBS), this will allow to draw on the EC’s experience to
move towards a SBS operation in education3.

− In countries eligible for support under the EFA Fast-Track Initiative (FTI)4 as well as
those that have a functioning education SWAP.

− Where there are not enough donors in education, particularly in fragile states and
countries in post-conflict situations, where the Commission has a particular responsibility
to support to the provision of basic social services. Conversely, the EC should considered
not stepping into education in countries that have secured sufficient financing from other
donors over the considered programming period to implement their sector policy.

1.3. Coordination and complementarity:

Coordination, harmonisation and complementarity amongst donors and partner countries is
essential to increase the coherence and efficiency of development aid, reduce transaction
costs, avoid redundancies and duplications, and improve the capacities of partner countries.

The European Consensus on Development puts particular emphasis on this dimension in Part
I, Section 5.3 “Coordination and complementarity”, which emphasises that:

− The EU will promote better coordination and complementarity by working towards joint
multi-annual programming, based on partner countries’ poverty reduction (or equivalent)
strategies and own budget processes, common implementation mechanisms, including
shared analysis, joint donor-wide missions and the use of co-financing arrangements.”

− The EU will take a lead role in implementing the Paris Declaration commitments on
improving aid delivery and has made four additional commitments: (i) to provide all
capacity building assistance through coordinated programmes with an increasing use of
multi-donors arrangements; (ii) to channel 50% of government-to-government assistance
through country systems, including by increasing the percentage of assistance provided
through budget support or sector-wide approaches; (iii) to avoid the establishment of new
project implementation units; (iv) to cut the number of uncoordinated missions by 50%.”

− The EU will undertake to carry out this agenda in close cooperation with partner
countries, other bilateral development partners and multilateral players to prevent the
duplication of efforts and to maximise the impact and effectiveness of global aid.

Education is particularly well suited to greater EC/EU coordination and harmonisation given
the large consensus that exists between the EC and Member States. Attention must also be
drawn to the fact that the FTI has done a lot of work on this issue, and that a lot of emphasis is
being placed on coordination and harmonisation in FTI countries.

2
Annex 1 provides an overview of the EC’s current support to education in ACP countries.
3
See programming guidelines on sector and general budget support.
4
For additional information about the FTI, see Annex 2.

3
2. Sector analysis in preparation for the EC’s support:
A thorough analysis of the education and training sector will be carried out through a three-
step approach. It will be essential in determining whether there is a good foundation for an EC
support to the sector and to determine the orientations of this support. In countries where the
EC is already active in education, this will mainly consist in an update.

Sources of information and expertise:

This three-step approach will draw extensively on existing resources and expertise, whether in
the delegation, the partner government or other donors active in education:

− Poverty Reduction Strategy (PRS) (or equivalent document) and PRS reviews;

− Education sector plan and sector reviews;

− Government resources (education ministry, national institute of statistics, etc.);

− Resources in the framework of the education coordination between donors and partner
countries (analyses, studies, audits, etc.), including FTI in-country sector assessments;

− Expertise of particular donors (whether or not EU Member States) and relevant sector
actors (NGOs, teacher union, parent organisations, etc.);

− Joint annual reports, mid-term reviews and end-of-term reviews of EC cooperation with
partner countries.

Step 1 – Analysis of the education system:

The first step will consist in carrying out a review of the state of play of the education system.
The aim will be to get a good overall picture of the performance of the education system, both
in terms of quality and quantitative output. This will be based on the analysis of a number of
key indicators using statistical data, with due attention being paid to the reliability of data.

This analytical work will serve two other important purposes: first, they will lay the
foundation for step 2, i.e. the assessment of the education policies; second, it will allow to
identify indicators for which reliable data is available on a regular basis, and which may
therefore be used to monitor performance in the context of a sector budget support operation.

A list of most commonly used indicators is provided below, together with an explanation of
each indicator. This list is indicative as there may be other or additional indicators used in the
national PRS (or equivalent document) and the national sector plan. It is complemented by a
“Education indicator matrix” that provides a snapshot of the education system for a given year
(Table 1) and gives an overview of key trends over five years (Table 2).

There is no ideal value for these indicators, though the FTI Indicative Framework provides
indicative reference values for some of them. They only concern primary education as this is
the FTI’s focus. Relevant values are included in the indicator matrix. The comparison
between the available statistical data and the indicative value will provide an initial overview
of the key achievements of the partner country as well as the main challenges still facing its
education system. The complete FTI Indicative Framework is provided in Annex 2.

4
The indicator matrix is quite comprehensive, and contains key indicators relating to all levels
and types of education. It can be used for all countries, whether low-income or middle-income
countries. It can also be easily adapted to the specific situation of each country.

Statistical data feeding the indicators can be obtained from a variety of sources. Priority
should be given to in-country sources, in particular from the Ministry of Education or the
country’s national statistical office. However, international databases can be a useful
complementary source of information (see Annex 5).

Input indicators:

Input indicators measure the different financial, administrative and regulatory resources
provided by government and donors to the sector.

Financial indicators measure the financial input into the education system, and should be
broken down by level and type of education (primary, secondary, vocation education and
training, higher education, etc.):

− Government spending on education as a percentage of total public expenditure.

− Public expenditure on the different levels and types of education as a percentage of total
public expenditure on education.

− Part of salaries (teachers, administrative staff) compared to non-salary costs (buildings,

furniture, learning materials, etc.) in total public expenditure on education.

Regarding administrative and regulatory investments, these are more qualitative indicators to
which the answer is ‘yes’ or ‘no’ inside a timeframe. These can for instance include:

− Existence of a sector policy in education.

− Existence of a Medium-Term Expenditure Framework (MTEF) for education.

− Regulatory measures that have a multiplying effect on school attendance, e.g. abolition of
primary school fees.

− Other measures that have a multiplying effect on school attendance (e.g. school meals,
separate latrines for girls).

Output indicators

Output indicators measure the immediate realisations of financial, administrative and

regulatory measures in quantitative terms. This includes infrastructure, human resources and
the availability of pedagogic materials. They give an indication of the education system’s
capacity, which has a direct impact on the quality of the education provided (e.g. pupil/teacher
ratio, book/pupil ratio, teacher/class ratio) and the sustainability of the school system (e.g.
level of teacher salaries, importance of private schools, etc.). These indicators should be
broken down by regions (rural, urban, metropolitan) to pinpoint discrepancies, thus giving a
good indication of the geographical equity of the school system.The distinction between urban
and metropolitan areas is justified in that schools in capitals have often access to better
resources than other urban centres:

5
− Pupil/teacher ratio: average number of pupils per teacher.

− Pupil/classroom ratio: average number of pupils per classroom (it should be the same as
the number of pupils per teacher).

− Pupil/book ratio: average number of pupils per book.

− Pupil/table or chair ratio: average number of pupils per table or chair.

− Teacher salary as a percentage of GDP per capita, where necessary making a distinction
between civil servants and contractual teachers.

− Enrolment in privately-financed schools. This gives a good indication of the capacity of

the public school system and the universality of the education dispensed.

− Number of teachers trained.

− Number of schools constructed.

Outcome indicators

Outcome indicators measure results at the level of beneficiaries. This particularly concerns
access to education (i.e. enrolment rate) and efficiency (e.g. completion rate) of the education
system. These indicators should be broken down by gender and regions (rural, urban,
metropolitan) to give a good indication of both the gender and geographical equity of the
school system:

− Net enrolment rate (NER): number of pupils in the official age group for a given level of
education enrolled in that level, expressed as a percentage of the total population of that
group. It is used as the core indicator in the EFA context.

− 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. The GER can be higher than 100% as a result of grade repetition and entry at
younger and older age than the normal age for the considered grade.

− Primary completion rate: total number of students successfully completing (or graduating
from) the last year of primary school in a given year, divided by the total number of
children of official graduation age in the population. This indicator corresponds to MDG3.
The completion rate can also be used for other levels or types of education – secondary,
vocational education and training (VET) and higher (or tertiary) education – or for the
whole school cycle (from primary to end of secondary).

In low-income countries, the main focus is usually on the primary enrolment rate (whether
NER or GER) and the primary completion rates. This emphasis on primary is consistent with
the MDGs, but may not give a comprehensive picture. It may also be inappropriate in middle-
income countries where participation in primary education is usually higher. Hence the
necessity to adapt these three indicators to evaluate the participation in other levels and types
and education (secondary, VET, tertiary).

6
TABLE 1) Education indicator matrix – Year 2005 (to be adapted):

Input Indicators - Financial Indicative value

Spending on education as a % of national budget 20%

Spending on primary as a % of education budget 42-64%

Spending on secondary as a % of education budget -

Spending on VET as a % of education budget -

Spending on tertiary as a % of education budget -

Non-salary part in total education budget 33%

Input Indicators – Administrative, regulatory Yes No Ideal

Existence of education sector policy Yes

Existence of an MTEF for education Yes

Abolition of primary school fees Yes

Abolition of mandatory uniforms Yes

School meals -

Separate latrines Yes

Output Indicators Rural Urban Metropolitan Indicative value

Pupil/teacher ratio 40:1

(or less)
Pupil/classroom ratio

Pupil/book ratio 1:1

Teacher salary as % of GDP 3.5

Private schools enrolment 10% or less

Number of teachers trained Depending on

actual needs and
national objectives
Number of classrooms built

Outcome Indicators Rural Urban Metropolitan Indicati

ve
Boys Girls Boys Girls Boys Girls value

Primary NER or GER (%) 100%

Primary completion rate (%) 100%

Secondary NER of GER (%) 100%

Full-cycle completion rate (%) -

Participation in VET (%) -

Participation in tertiary (%) -

7
TABLE 2) Multi-annual education indicator matrix – 2000-2005 (to be adapted):

Input indicators 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

Spending on education as a % of national

budget

Spending on primary as a % of education

budget

Output indicators 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

Pupil/teacher ratio

Pupil/classroom ratio

Pupil/book ratio

Teacher salary as % of GDP

Private schools enrolment

Number of teachers trained

Number of classrooms built

Outcome indicators 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

Primary completion rate (%)

Primary completion rate – Boys

Primary completion rate – Girls

Primary gross or net enrolment rate (%)

Primary gross or net enrolment rate – Boys

Primary gross or net enrolment rate – Girls

Secondary gross or net enrolment rate (%)

Secondary gross or net enrolment rate – Boys

Secondary gross or net enrolment rate Girls

Participation in VET (%)

Participation in VET – Girls

Participation in VET – Boys

Participation in tertiary (%)

Participation in tertiary - Boys

Participation in tertiary - Girls

8
Step 2 – Assessment of the education policies:
As a second step, an analysis of the partner country’s education and training policies will be
carried out. The analysis will determine whether there is a strong government commitment to
education, based on a comprehensive and credible education sector plan, developed in
association with key stakeholders, including civil society and donors. This will allow to
determine the adequacy of an EC support to education and training, as well as its
configuration in terms of priorities for the policy dialogue and of support mechanisms.

Factors to be assessed:

1. Determine whether there is an adequate level of commitment to education and training:

− Is education and training a priority in the national PRS (or equivalent document)? Is
there a related national education sector plan? Is there a related education METF? To
what extent are they properly executed?

− Have relevant stakeholders (civil society, NGOs, teacher unions, local authorities,
donors, etc.) been adequately involved in the formulation of the education section of
the PRS (or equivalent document) and the national education sector plan?

− Is the budget allocation to the sector sufficient? Is its evolution over time positive? Is
there an adequate balance between salary and non-salary expenditures? Is there a
proper and transparent follow of the budget’s execution?

− Is there sufficient capacity in the education ministries, decentralised administrations

and statistical offices to properly carry out their missions?

2. Check whether the partner country’s education policies respond to the country’s needs:

− Is the prioritisation of the different types and level of education consistent with the
country’s actual needs? Is there an MDG-focus on primary education (particularly in
low-income countries)? Are other levels and types of education properly covered? Is
there an appropriate balance between the different levels and types of education? It
this reflected in terms of budgetary allocations? Is the budget sustainable?

− Is there a focus on communities and groups with the most pressing needs according to
gender (for more information on gender equality in education see Annex 3), areas
(rural/urban/metropolitan), regions (priority regions), ethnic groups (minorities),
vulnerable populations (orphans, disabled, etc.)5

− Have key policy reforms been implemented, undertaken or been planned (taking into
consideration the fact that educational reform is a slow and usually incremental
process), particularly structural/policy reforms (e.g. abolition of primary school fees,
safe schools for girls, school meals, decentralisation, grants schemes for girls and
vulnerable children, community and parental involvement in school development)?

− Have appropriate measures for scaling up been taken or planned, especially in relation
to reforms such as the abolition of school fees, which will result in an instant increase

5
See appropriate programming and orientation guidelines on gender, children, culture, disability, etc.

9
 in enrolment that risks deteriorating the quality of education (e.g. school building
programme, training of teachers in sufficient numbers, supply of equipment and
learning materials, post-primary capacity, geographical distribution of teachers,
sustainability of teacher salaries, etc.)? Is this reflected in budgetary terms?

− Is the quality of education taken into consideration (e.g. ratio of pupils per classroom,
teacher, book, etc.; completion rate; effectiveness of pre- and in-service teacher
training; etc.)?

− Has a proper link between the education system and the domestic job market been
established, particularly as far as VET and higher education are concerned, but also
other aspects such as life-long learning opportunities? Has the country’s integration
into the global knowledge economy taken into consideration?

− Is HIV/AIDS properly taken into consideration, both as regards its impact on the
school system and the quality of education (e.g. supply of teachers to replace the sick,
treatment of sick teachers, support to AIDS orphans to keep attending school, etc.),
and the operationalisation of education to combat the pandemic (e.g. integration of
HIV/AIDS prevention in school curricula, development of HIV/AIDS teaching
materials, promotion of appropriate attitudes and behaviours amongst teachers and
students towards people living with HIV/AIDS, particularly respect and solidarity,
etc.)? For more information on HIV/AIDS and education see Annex 4.

− Is education properly addressed in emergency, post-conflict and rehabilitation

programmes?

Step 3 – Estimation of the partner’s needs for EC support:

Finally, it will be necessary to estimate the partner country’s need for EC support in
education, both in financial terms and as far as capacity/expertise is concerned. This will help
determining the financial level and technical assistance components of the EC’s support.

Such estimate will usually be based on the country’s own demand for EC support. This
demand will naturally be based on the country’s evaluation of its own needs for external
support, taking into account its own financing capacity as well as the contributions of other
donors. The existence of a MTEF for education facilitates of course this process.

The country’s evaluation should be reviewed carefully. This should be done by drawing on
existing resources and competencies available at local level, in particular other donors active
in education. It is likely that donors are involved in this evaluation through existing
coordination structures between donors and the partner government. In FTI countries, the
needs for external financing to reach the MDG of universal primary completion is evaluated
systematically over several years, jointly by the partner governments and donors.

10
3. Defining the orientations of the EC’s education support:
The present section proposes a four-track approach aimed at facilitating the design of EC
programming in education based on the EC’s policy orientations (see Section 1 above) and
the analysis of the partner country’s education system and policies (see Section 2 above). The
choice of an approach based on parallel tracks rather than a step-by-step approach is dictated
by the fact that, for the most part, there is no chronological order in their implementation.

Track 1 – Ensuring ownership and participation:

The EC’s support will be undertaken in the framework of the country’s Poverty Reduction
Strategies (PRS) or equivalent document, which plays an essential role in the formulation of
country-owned strategies aimed at reducing poverty based on macro-economic stability,
sound budget processes, and where appropriate MDG-centred policies, as well as participation
of all stakeholders. The rationale, principles and priorities of EC aid will be enshrined in the
Country Strategy Paper (CSP).

The priorities of the EC’s support to education will come in support to the country’s own
priorities, as outlined in the PRS and the education sector policy. Genuine ownership implies
that the PRS and sector policy have been developed in close collaboration between the partner
country’s government and all relevant stakeholders, including institutional actors (national
parliament and local authorities), civil society (teacher unions, parent organisations, NGOs,
etc.) and donors. Where there is no such sector policy, the EC will support its emergence with
the involvement of all relevant stakeholders. To this end, the EC may support both the partner
government’s capacity and the strengthening of civil society organisations.

The EC’s support will focus on a limited number of priorities based on the country’s most
urgent needs, as identified through the analysis carried out under Section 2. These priorities
will determine, either the focus of the policy dialogue in the case of a sector budget support
operation or the scope of a project, if the latter is the chosen support modality.

The identification of the EC’s priorities will be based on an in-depth policy dialogue with the
partner government and all relevant stakeholders. This policy dialogue will ensure that the
needs of the local population, particularly its poorest and most vulnerable segments, are
properly taken into account. This dialogue will result in a real partnership, by which the EC
aligns its aid on the partner country’s national strategies and procedures, and shares
responsibility with the partner country for the joint efforts and the results.

The EC’s priorities and aid modalities will be unique to each partner country, reflecting its
specific situation, particularly its state of development (low-income/middle-income
countries), its administrative capacity (e.g. regarding budget management, policy making,
implementation of reforms, gathering of statistical date, etc.), its particular assets and
difficulties, as well as its specific socio-economic and cultural context.

Track 2 – Identifying priorities for the EC’s support:

Below is a non-exhaustive list of possible objectives on which the EC could focus, regardless
of the chosen aid modality:

11
− Accelerate progress towards universal primary completion in countries that are off-track
to reach the education MDG of universal primary completion by 2015.

− Accelerate progress towards gender equality, possibly in relation to one or more specific
levels or types of education, in countries that are off-track to reach the MDG of gender
equality at all levels of education by 2015. For more information on gender equality in
education see Annex 3.

− Address the bottleneck in post-primary education, i.e. insufficient capacity in secondary

education and VET to welcome all the pupils that have completed primary education.

− Strengthen the link between the education system and the national job market, as well as
the requirements of the country’s integration into the global knowledge economy,
particularly as far as VET and higher education are concerned.

− Address the challenge of HIV/AIDS impact on the school system and the quality of
education as a result of illness and death of HIV-infected teachers. In addition, strengthen
the contribution of education to responding to HIV/AIDS. For more information on
HIV/AIDS and education see Annex 4.

− Address scaling up problems, particularly in relation to human resources (e.g. training

teachers in sufficient number, geographical distribution of teachers particularly in outlying
areas), financial sustainability (e.g. in relation to the level of teacher salaries) and
infrastructures (e.g. school construction).

− Address capacity problems, for instance in the education ministry and decentralised
administrations to carry out specific tasks or reforms (e.g. elaboration of a sector policy,
decentralisation, etc.), as well as in the national statistical office (to ensure
comprehensive, reliable and timely education data collection and processing).

− Elaborate a sectoral Medium-Term Expenditure Framework (MTEF) for education on

which to base a coherent multi-annual vision for the sector in budgetary terms.

Track 3 – Determining the support mechanism:

The EC prioritises sector budget support (SBS) as the preferred mechanism to channel funds
in support of education. The SBS approach is the most favourable to ownership, particularly
compared to a project, and has the advantage over other forms of aid (pooled funding, project)
to cover recurrent costs and not only capital. The latter is essential to scaling up in a labour-
intensive sector such as education, where salaries represent the bulk of the budget. However,
the possibility to launch an education SBS operation is conditioned by a number of factors.
Some are generic, and concern all budget support operations, for instance a stable and
coherent macro-economic environment, and sound and transparent budgetary management.
Other factors are specific to education. They are listed below:

− Existence of a coherent and credible education sector plan. This plan can in some cases
(particularly in low-income countries) be limited to primary education, in which case the
EC’s support will focus on primary education. This doesn’t rule out supporting the
elaboration of a more comprehensive plan covering other levels and types of education.

12
− Existence in the Education Ministry of a sufficient level of capacity to implement the
education sector plan and monitor its proper implementation (capacity in the statistical
office will also be taken into consideration in relation to monitoring). In many cases, this
will require the provision of technical assistance. Where technical assistance doesn’t allow
to reach an acceptable level of capacity, SBS will not be an appropriate means of
channelling funds.

− Existence or development of a coherent and credible MTEF for education. This is

essential to verify that the government has a coherent multi-annual vision for the sector
also in budgetary terms. However, while the existence of an MTEF is an advantage, it is
not mandatory to launch an SBS operation. Where an MTEF doesn’t exist, its elaboration
can be a priority in the policy dialogue.

− Existence or establishment of a proper sector dialogue with the partner country, including
government and all relevant stakeholders. This dialogue is essential in the preparatory
phase to launch the operation, but also during the implementation and monitoring phase,
to accompany the government in properly carrying the planned policies, measures and
reforms. The development of this dialogue could require support to the development of
capacity in the government and to the strengthening of civil society organisations.

The monitoring of the EC’s support to the partner country through SBS will be based on
selected input, output and outcome indicators linked to the EC’s priorities. These indicators
will be a subset of the Education indicator matrix, as adapted to the particular situation of
each country. As a reminder, the indicators identified above are the most commonly used,
though others or additional indicators may be used in the national PRS (or equivalent
document) and the national education sector policy.

The above conditions are unlikely to be met or to be within reach in fragile or failing states,
and in conflict or post-conflict situations, where government doesn’t have the capacity to
assume its key missions, in particular the delivery of essential social services. There, the
preferred aid modality will be a project. The following elements will be taken into account
when programming a project:

− The aim of the project will be to directly contribute to the delivery of basic services and to
addressing particular needs. This will encompass human resources (e.g. training teachers),
infrastructures (e.g. building schools and classrooms, and related facilities such as latrines
for girls), and materials (e.g. classroom equipment, learning materials, etc.).

− The project will entail a longer-term vision, and thus address the reasons why SBS is not
an option. Thus, dialogue with government and relevant stakeholders will be a necessity,
even if they are weak. In addition, due consideration will be given to providing help to
create the right conditions for a future SBS operation, for instance through government
capacity building, support to civil society organisations, etc.

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

13
joining a pooled or basked fund. This doesn’t exclude cooperation with other donors
contributing to the pooled or basket fund, on the contrary.

Track 4 – Ensuring coordination and harmonisation:

The EC will devote particular attention to stepping up coordination and harmonisation with
the partner country and other donors, particularly EU Member States. Harmonisation in
education is covered by the “Paris Declaration on Aid Effectiveness – Ownership,
Harmonisation, Alignment, Results and Mutual Accountability
(http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/11/41/34428351.pdf) and the additional EU commitments.

The kind and degree of coordination and harmonisation will depend on the specific situation
in each country, both regarding the country’s capacity, the challenges facing its education
system, the number of donors active in education, the instruments they use to support
education, etc. This will be based on the implementation of some or all of the practical steps
below.

− Dialogue: Coordination and harmonisation must be open to all donors, regardless of the
instruments they use and the amount of financing they provide. The most basic level of
coordination and harmonisation is an open exchange of information about each donor’s
activities in the country. Ideally, NGOs should also participate, as they often carry out
activities which are unaccounted for. This is the first step in progressively avoiding
redundancies and duplications, and to build the confidence that will allow to take
increasingly ambitious steps in coordination and harmonisation.

− Coordination structure: Moving beyond the initial open dialogue will require the creation
of a cooperation structure that will institutionalise the dialogue. This will typically take
the form of an “education donor group”, ideally led by the partner country, and that meets
on a regular basis. This structure should be opened to other relevant stakeholders. A
smooth operation of the donor coordination requires that one of the donors will act as the
“in-country lead donor” in education, typically on a yearly rotating basis, to ensure the
planning of and follow-up to the group’s meetings and activities. If required, donors will
meet separately to harmonise their position, though they should be careful not to appear as
a united front that undermines country ownership. The EC/EU can act as a driving force in
these structures based on a reinforced coordination between the EC and Member States.

− Financial transparency: Fund mobilisation is the fundamental element that determines the
success of development cooperation. This must be take place in a transparent way and a
multi-annual perspective in order to boost the predictability of aid for the partner country.
Thus, this will facilitate scaling-up based on the insurance that external financing needs in
education will be met over several years. This will also help donors decide on their
priorities, based on the knowledge of other donors’ commitments over several years (i.e.
prioritise education if the partner country’s needs are not met over the considered period,
or chose to support another sector if they are met).

− Joint analytical work: Much analytical work is being done by donors at country level,
whether as part of their reporting procedures (preparation, implementation, assessment),
or to investigate particular issues in education (appraisals, audits, evaluations, studies,
aide-mémoires, etc.). The latter is often related to in-country processes, such as joint PRS
and sector reviews. Much of this work has the potential to meet the needs of several other
donors, or at least be of interest to them. The idea is not to collectively fund joint works

14
 but rather to share the results of one’s work. A further step consists in jointly discussing
terms of reference in order to meet the needs of as many donors as possible. The partner
country should be fully involved in this process.

− Pooling of technical assistance: Many donors have the possibility to support capacity
building, usually through the provision of technical assistance (TA). It is important that
TA be provided in an open and transparent way. This will avoid redundancies,
duplications and gaps in the TA received by the partner country. It will also allow donors
to have a more coherent and complementary distribution of TA. As with analytical work,
the idea is not to collectively fund TA, but to maximise the benefits of TA for the partner
country and the entire donor community.

− Common procedures: Donors must work towards aligning their education support with the
policies, procedures (for reporting, financing, etc.) and timetables (notably the budget
cycle) of the partner country. Budget support is the most elaborate approach in this
respect, while pooled funding allows to move in this direction. Projects are the least
favourable to this approach. Nonetheless, all donors active in education should be
associated to this work, regardless of their aid instruments. For instance, donors providing
budget support could share their expertise with others. As for donors in project mode, this
could facilitate their transition to new aid modalities.

− Common indicators: Indicators are essential to monitor performance and progress in

education. They are used by government for policy purposes, by donors to monitor the
efficiency of their support (particularly in SBS or pooled funding mode), by both
governments and donors for analytical purposes and accountability. A sound choice of
indicators is therefore essential. An indicative list of the most commonly used indicators is
provided in Section 1 above. However, other or additional indicators may be used in the
PRS (or equivalent document) and the national education sector plan. Thus, it is important
that the choice of indicators reflects ownership by the partner country.

− Memorandum of Understanding: MoUs are frequently used by donors to clarify and

organise their cooperation and harmonisation at country level. This formalisation can be a
way to facilitate cooperation and harmonisation by clearly defining procedures,
mechanisms and creating certain obligations for donors. This can, for instance, concern
the creation of a donor group and the way it operates, or technical issues such as the
setting up of pooled fund and its operational aspects, silent partnerships, etc. There are
several examples of MoUs developed by donors in FTI countries.

− Silent partnerships: Silent partnerships or similar arrangements offer a possibility for

donors who don’t have the capacity to carry-out a full-fledged operation to nonetheless
support education by relying on another partner. In a full silent partnership, another donor
manages the whole operation including the funds. A lighter alternative is, for instance in
the case of SBS, for a silent partner to transfer funds to the government’s budget and to
rely on another donor’s analytical work for reporting, monitoring and assessment.

15
ANNEX 1) State of play of EC’s support to education in ACP countries:

More than 40 developing countries have presently included education and training in their
cooperation with the EC. Regarding ACP countries, some €464 million have been
programmed for education in 21 ACP countries under the 9th European Development Fund
(EDF) (2002-2007). This represents 5.5% of the total allocation for all sectors. Projects
remain by far the dominant instrument to provide education support: there are 13 education
projects compared to only five sector budget support operations (SBS), the inclusion of a
specific education tranche in two global budget support operation and one contribution to a
pooled fund. This situation will clearly have to evolve towards a more systematic recourse to
SBS in the 10th EDF.
Overview of education support in ACP countries under the 9th EDF:
Country Funding Status of education in Aid
(million euro) NIP modality

Angola 26.91 Focal sector Project

Antigua 2.2 Focal sector Project
Botswana 46.1 Focal sector SBS
Burkina Faso 15 Post-MTR FTI support specific allocation in GBS
Comoros 16 Focal sector Project
Dominican Rep. 54 Focal sector SBS
Eritrea 53 Focal sector Project
Ethiopia 20 Non-focal sector Project
Fiji 17.33 Focal sector Project
Gabon 6 Post-MTR focal sector Project
Marshall Isl. 0.7 Focal sector Project
Niger 20 Post-MTR FTI support specific allocation in GBS
Namibia 29 Focal sector SBS
PNG 39 Focal sector Project
St. Kitts 6.26 Focal sector Project
St. Vincent 14.4 Focal sector Project
Swaziland 20 Focal sector Project
Tanzania 43.32 Focal sector SBS
Trinidad & Tob. 31.26 Focal sector SBS
Vanuatu 13.22 Focal sector Project
Zambia 10 Non-focal sector Pooled fund
Total 483.69
GBS = global budget support; SBS = sector budget support; FTI=Fast-Track Initiative (see below)

16
ANNEX 2) The Education for All Fast-Track Initiative:

The FTI is an international initiative which was launched in April 2002 to help low-income
countries with sound policies but insufficient resources reach the MDG of universal primary
completion. Unlike many other international initiatives, the FTI is not centralised at
international level. Instead, the FTI is implemented at country level through existing
mechanisms and increased harmonisation between partner countries and donors. It has,
however, created two interesting mechanisms:

− The Education Programme Development Fund (EPDF), which helps low-income

countries become eligible for FTI support by providing technical assistance for the
development of credible education sector policies. It is managed by the World Bank.

− The FTI Catalytic Fund, which provides temporary financial support (2-3 years) to FTI
countries that cannot mobilise enough resources through donors present at local level and
using existing aid mechanisms. It is managed by the FTI Secretariat.

Some 20 partner countries are currently eligible for FTI support: Burkina Faso, Djibouti,
Ethiopia, the Gambia, Ghana, Guinea, Guyana, Honduras, Kenya, Lesotho, Madagascar,
Mauritania, Moldova, Mozambique, Nicaragua, Niger, Tajikistan, Timor Leste, Vietnam and
Yemen. Yet participation in the FTI is an open and continuous process, and another additional
countries could be fulfilling the eligibility criteria within the next two to three years.
The EC has specifically allocated €15 million to Burkina Faso and €20 million to Niger as
additional FTI support. This support is channelled through the addition of a specific FTI
tranche in the existing global budget support operation. In addition, the EC contributes €63
million to the FTI Catalytic Fund.

FTI Indicative Framework

Service Delivery Indicators:

Avg. annual teacher salary 3.5 times per capita GNP
Pupil-teacher ratio 40:1
Non Salary spending 33% of recurrent education spending
Average repetition rate 10% or lower
Annual hours of instruction 850 or more
Enrolment in privately-financed schools 10% or less

System Expansion Indicator:

Unit construction and equipment cost $10,000 or less

System Financing Indicators:

Government revenues 14 to 18% of GDP
Education spending 20% of government revenues, incl. grants
Primary education spending 42 to 64% of total education recurrent spending

Student Flow Indicators:

Intake into first grade
Girls 100%
Boys 100%

17
ANNEX 3) Promoting gender equality in education
Study after study tells us that there is no tool for development more effective than the
education of girls and women. No other policy is as likely to raise economic productivity,
lower infant and maternal mortality, improve nutrition, promote health — including the
prevention of HIV/AIDS — and increase the chances of education for the next generation.
Still gender inequalities in education persist. At the end of the day, education is a must if girls
and women should be able to participate fully in society.

Gender inequality in education has many facets. To tackle these will require an integrated,
cross-sectoral and coherent approach. The starting point is that the PRS and the national
education sector plan be formulated with gender equality concerns clearly articulated in order
to remove gender disparities in education. A proper analysis of the factors affecting
participation of girls and women in education is essential.

An analysis of constraints and barriers to girls’ attendance and performance in schools is

needed in order to identify practical policy options and actions for support. Such barriers may
include some or all of the following:

− Economic reasons: Poverty is the single most important barrier. The costs of education
(school fees, transport, uniforms, school materials) and the opportunity costs (lost
earnings and household duties) are the most important factors.

− Cultural reasons: Local beliefs, cultural practices and attitudes to gender roles – many
parents do not see the value of sending or keeping girls in school.

− Safety concerns: Many parents are concerned about the lack of safety for their daughters,
especially in relation to sexual abuse and the risk of becoming infected with transmitted
diseases, including HIV/AIDS.

− Lack of gender sensitive infrastructure: The lack of latrines and/or the lack of separate
latrines for girls and boys, pupils and teachers contribute significantly to girls’ absence
from school.

− Teaching staff issues: Lack of women teachers (strategies to increase the number of
women teachers should always be a component of upgrading teachers’ education) and
lack of female role models for young girls mean that many girls, especially in rural
schools, have nobody to help them raise their expectations and improve their self-esteem.

− Teaching practices may cause girls to suffer exclusion within the classroom.

− Even if girls get to school their performance will be affected by family chores and other
household responsibilities. It is also the girls/daughters that are the first to be taken out of
school to look after parents and siblings if they get ill.

− Girls are often excluded from school if they become pregnant and/or are not allowed to
return after having the baby.

Addressing gender equality in education will require a holistic cross sectoral approach which
looks beyond access and participation rates to examining aspects such as what is taught,

18
teacher training, curricula and range of programmes offered, and to elimination of gender
stereotypes and promotion of more positive attitudes to women.

Particular actions and policy priorities to be promoted and supported in the dialogue with the
government include:

− Elimination of school fees.

− Systematic focus on gender-disaggregated statistics.

− Advocating for clear targets for achieving gender equality, and dialoguing with
government on how to achieve these targets in a reasonable time frame.

− Increasing the number of female teachers and gender-aware teacher training.

− Making the classroom more gender-sensitive through ensuring use of teaching methods
that involve both girls and boys.

− Eliminating gender bias from textbooks and learning materials

− Special measures to enable girls to attend school (e.g. grant schemes).

− Removing gender stereotyping from textbooks.

− Making school environments safe for girls, e.g. through community involvement in
schools, reducing the distance between home and school.

− Improving infrastructure (e.g. water and latrines)

− Strengthening gender awareness at the community level.

− Awareness raising on the importance of gender equality in education.

It should be stressed that precise information is often rather difficult to find. Local donors
(active in education or other sectors), or international initiatives as UN special initiative on
girls education UNGEI (www.ungei.ord) can provide useful information.

19
ANNEX 4) Relations entre le VIH/SIDA et l’éducation:
Le poids du VIH/SIDA

Selon le dernier rapport publié par l’ONUSIDA et l’OMS, « Le point sur l’épidémie de
SIDA », à la fin 2005 il y avait 40,3 millions d’hommes, femmes et enfants vivant avec le
VIH/SIDA. Au cours de l’année 2005, il y a eu 4,9 millions de nouveaux cas d’infection au
VIH et 3,1 millions de décès dus au SIDA. Chaque minute qui passe, un enfant meurt d’une
maladie liée au SIDA, un autre contracte le VIH et quatre jeunes de 15 à 24 ans sont infectés
par le VIH. Au total, ce sont approximativement 14,000 personnes qui sont infectés par le
VIH chaque jour dans le monde. La plupart de ces nouvelles infections concerne le groupe
d’âge de 15 à 24 ans, et de plus en plus l’épidémie affecte les femmes.

Lors de prochaines années et en dépit du développement de thérapies qui reculent le passage

au SIDA et allongent la vie des malades, surtout dans les pays riches, les décès parmi les
personnes infectées ne cesseront d’augmenter. Même si les programmes de prévention
arrivaient à réduire le nombre de nouvelles infections à zéro, les décès continueront à
accroître au fur et à mesure que les personnes infectées il y a cinq ou dix ans tomberont
malades car, il ne faut pas l’oublier, pour l’instant le SIDA est une maladie pour laquelle il n’a
pas ni de cure ni de vaccin. Avec un nombre de personnes infectées par le VIH croissant, il
faut s’attendre à ce que le nombre annuel de décès dus au SIDA continuera à augmenter
pendant plusieurs années avant d’arriver au sommet de la courbe épidémiologique.

De même, pendant que la plupart des maladies infectieuses touchent les groupes de
population les plus faibles – enfants ou personnes âgées – le VIH s’attaque à la fleur de la
jeunesse, c’est-à-dire à ceux qui sont au début de leur vie productive.

L’éducation, otage du VIH/SIDA

Le SIDA est bien plus qu’une épidémie : il est une véritable catastrophe pour le
développement de beaucoup de pays. A ce sujet, l’un des secteurs clé pour assurer un
développement durable des pays et bénéfique pour les populations, l’éducation, est
particulièrement vulnérable au VIH et est déjà gravement frappée par l’épidémie.

Le VIH/SIDA a un impact sur l’éducation à plusieurs niveaux. Tout d’abord, sur son
personnel, soit des enseignants soit des administrateurs. En Afrique, tout particulièrement, les
systèmes scolaires et la qualité de l’enseignement se voient gravement affectés par la maladie
et la mort du personnel suite à l'infection par le VIH. D’après un rapport de l’UNESCO, en
Afrique australe, les décès dus au SIDA parmi les enseignants ont augmenté de plus de 40%
en 2000-2001. Une étude de la Banque mondiale en Tanzanie indique que le SIDA allait tuer
presque 15,000 maîtres en 2010 et 27,000 en 2020. Au Swaziland, 7,000 enseignants du
primaire supplémentaires devront être formés à l'horizon 2020 pour compenser les décès dus
au SIDA. En Côte d'Ivoire, environ un enseignant meurt du SIDA chaque jour de classe.

La qualité de l'éducation souffre également du fait qu’un personnel moins qualifié ou moins
expérimenté est appelé à remplacer les personnes victime de l’épidémie.

Les élèves aussi subissent de plein fouet le VIH/SIDA. Les familles affectées par le VIH sont
tentées de, voire même forcées à ne pas envoyer les enfants à l'école afin qu'ils puissent
s'occuper des membres de la famille infectés par le VIH. Une étude réalisée dans trois
provinces d'Afrique du Sud montre que presque 10% des familles font abandonner l'école à

20
leurs filles tandis que 5% obligent leurs garçons à faire de même. L'une de conséquences les
plus graves de l'épidémie est donc la limitation de l'accès à l'école. Dans certaines parties de la
province sud-africaine de KwaZulu-Natal, le taux d'inscription à l'école primaire en 2001 était
de 20% de moins qu'en 1998.

Particulièrement affectés sont les orphelins du VIH, qui se voient empêchés d'aller à l'école
car ils doivent s'occuper du foyer, donner des soins aux sœurs et frères cadets ou ils n'ont pas
de moyens financiers pour payer les frais scolaires.

L'impact du SIDA sur l'éducation déborde largement le secteur et devient un véritable choc
pour l'économie des pays en voie de développement qui ont déjà le plus grand mal à répondre
au défi de l'amélioration des conditions de vie des populations. En effet, il est estimé que le
SIDA entraînera un supplément de coûts y compris les coûts dus à l'absentéisme des
enseignants, et pour garder les orphelins et les enfants vulnérables à l'école, d’environ 850
millions d'Euros par an afin d’atteindre l'objectif de l'éducation pour tous en 2015.

Le « vaccin social », une fenêtre d'espoir

Selon un rapport de la Banque mondiale, il y aurait une fenêtre d'espoir par le biais de
l'éducation. L’efficacité de ce "vaccin social" dépend néanmoins de la capacité des systèmes
éducatifs à tous les niveaux d’offrir aux enfants et aux jeunes une éducation de qualité.

Des études, en particulier une étude récente de l'UNICEF, ont bien montré que des jeunes
avec un niveau plus élevé d'éducation ont de meilleures connaissances sur le VIH/SIDA,
savent mieux comment éviter de s'infecter et sont mieux à même de changer les
comportements les mettant au risque d'être infectés par le VIH. Au Pérou, par exemple, plus
de 70% de filles avec un bon niveau d'éducation savent où elles peuvent avoir accès au test de
dépistage du VIH contre seules 5% parmi celles n’ayant pas eu accès à l’éducation.

Tenant compte que l’ajournement de l'âge du premier rapport sexuel est essentiel pour réduire
l'infection par le VIH, les données d’une étude réalisée dans huit pays d’Afrique sub-
saharienne sont très significatives. D’après cette étude, les femmes avec huit années de
scolarité étaient 87% moins portées à avoir des relations sexuelles avant l’âgde de 18 ans que
celles n’ayant pas été scolarisées. Il est donc nécessaire de donner une chance au "vaccin
social" afin qu'il puisse bien protéger les enfants et la jeunesse. A ce sujet, il est impératif que:

− l'éducation sur la prévention du VIH soit incorporée dans les programmes scolaires ;

− les enseignants aient le niveau approprié des connaissances sur le VIH et puissent
bénéficier de matériels pédagogiques appropriés à l’âge, le sexe et l’origine culturelle
des élèves ;

− la méthodologie soit orientée vers le développement de capacités interpersonnelles et

de pratiques saines plutôt que vers l'apprentissage de faits ;

− l'enseignement sur la prévention du VIH intégre une composante substantielle sur les
questions relatives à l’égalité des sexes et soit basé sur une approche des droits de
l'homme et, tout particulièrement, des droits des personnes vivant avec le VHI/SIDA ;

− des partenariats avec les associations de la société civile, en particulier des parents
d’élèves et des associations religieuses, soient solidement établis.

21
ANNEX 5) Essential resources and references:
EC Policy documents:

- European Consensus on Development of November 2005.

http://europa.eu.int/comm/development/body/development_policy_statement/docs/eu_dps
_en.pdf#zoom=100

- Communication on an EU strategy for Africa: Towards a Euro-African pact to accelerate

Africa’s development” – COM(2005)489
http://europa.eu.int/comm/development/body/communications/docs/eu_strategy_for_afric
a_12_10_2005_en.pdf#zoom=100

- Communication on "Education and training in the context of the fight against poverty in
developing countries" – COM(2002)116
http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/en/com/cnc/2002/com2002_0116en01.pdf#zoom=100

Programming and monitoring tools:

− Indicators in education: "Tool for monitoring progress in the Education sector" in English
http://europa.eu.int/comm/development/body/theme/human_social/docs/education/03-
02_education_monitoring_tools_en.pdf#zoom=100
or in French
http://europa.eu.int/comm/development/body/theme/human_social/docs/education/03-
02_education_monitoring_tools_fr.pdf#zoom=100

− Methodology to assess partner countries’ performance in education and health for the
purposes of the 2004 Mid-Term Review and the 2006 End of Term Review of the 9th
European Development Fund (EDF)
http://europa.eu.int/comm/development/body/theme/human_social/docs/education/04-
02_methodology_MTR_education.pdf#zoom=100

− Toolkit on mainstreaming gender equality in EC development cooperation

http://www.cc.cec/EUROPEAID/ThematicNetworks/qsg/Networks/newGender/document
s/tk_section2_priority_areas.pdf

Reference Web sites:

- DG DEV “Education and training” Web page

http://europa.eu.int/comm/development/body/theme/human_social/pol_education1_en.ht
m

- Millennium Development Goals

www.un.org/millenniumgoals/

- EFA-FTI Web page

http://www1.worldbank.org/education/efafti/

- EFA Framework
www.unesco.org/education/efa/index.shtml

22
International databases on education indicators:

- UN Millennium Development Goal Indicators Database

http://unstats.un.org/unsd/mi/mi_goals.asp

- UNESCO Institute of Statistics

http://www.uis.unesco.org/ev_en.php?ID=2867_201&ID2=DO_TOPIC

- World Bank
http://ddp-ext.worldbank.org/ext/MDG/homePages.do

23