NN40, May 2008
Education for Sustainable Development? Or The Sustainability of Education Investment? A Special Issue
Donor Community Development Initiatives & The MDGs:Past Imperfect ? Future Conditional
By Chris Smith, University of Bolton
Email: C.J.Smith@bolton.ac.ukKeywords
Aid projects; donor community policies; OECD; e-learning; donor recipient needs
Summary
Ongoing publicity and hype surround the claimed increases in aid spending and measures aimed at addressing the Millennium Development Goals by the countries of the OECD. With reference to the often negative evaluation of past projects, the author questions what the reality is behind the rhetoric. More importantly, this note examines what conditions are likely to influence whether current and future initiatives in the area of sustainable education development will be any more successful.
Not for one minute can anyone doubt the sentiment or rationale behind the MDG declaration. However when 2015 comes around, realistically, how will we know whether the goals have been achieved? Of course there will be a flurry of positive pronouncements by the leaders of the ?big hitters? countries of the OECD about the increased volume of aid given or pledged. But the inevitable reality is that a further target, likely to be 2025 (DI, 2007), will be adopted to continue the fight. Despite political posturing about the volume of aid, in real terms and as a percentage of the economies as a whole in countries such as the USA, France and the UK, in 2002 it was less than it was during the 1970s (German & Randel, 2002). In fact the decline in aid throughout the 1990s was so significant that as recently as 2005 it had only just reached the level that it was at a decade earlier (Hirvonen, 2005), so one should treat such pronouncements with caution. The hype surrounding the Gleneagles? summit of G8 countries of that same year, made all the more visible by the laudable Geldof and Bono inspired ?Live 8? series of simultaneous international musical events, inevitably spawned a new wave of pledges and donor community initiatives. The history of events following such summits tells a less than positive story however. In 1992, the year of the ?Earth Summit? in Rio de Janiero, not surprisingly, the level of donor aid peaked, thereafter it declined by 12% (German & Randel, 2002).
One should not of course discount the donor activity that is taking place, particularly in the area of education, one of the cornerstones of sustainable development. But how effective have actual donor projects themselves been? Over recent years a particular target for aid projects has been in the area of ICT. Despite some successes, findings from a World Bank report on 17 such projects (2003), highlighted significant weaknesses. Although many of these were of a technical nature, some of which were also identified by Smith (2006), the underlying pattern of problems relating to many aid programmes and projects is more fundamental (OECD, 2003). As a result of a comprehensive review of recipients of aid through various projects in a range of countries, they found the most significant ?burdens? associated with the projects to be:
? donor driven priorities and systems
? difficulties with donor procedures
? uncoordinated donor practices
Of more concern overall was the main finding which stated there was a ?significant lack of national ownership? (Ibid). The independent development and aid watchdog, ActionAid, is even more scathing. In its assessment of technical aid projects, which it claims account for between a quarter and a half of all aid it suggests: ??it has largely been ineffective, overpriced and based on an outdated model of development.? (ActionAid 2006: 40). For anyone who has had experience of working on aid projects such criticisms are depressingly familiar, if not always warranted. So what does the future hold? Has the donor community acted upon such reports, listened to the recipients? views and adjusted their policies?
In the wake of Gleneagles, the OECD?s Paris Declaration (2005), and the launch of the UN?s Decade of Education for Sustainable Development (2005), it is reasonable to assume a more recipient-centred approach would have been adopted. Certainly some changes in approach have been detected. In the UK, DFID, principally through agencies such as The British Council and The Commonwealth Scholarship Commission (CSC), launched a series of initiatives focusing on funding sustainable educational development projects. The Council?s ?Developing Partnerships in Higher Education? (DelPHE), and ?England Africa Partnerships? (EAP) are two such initiatives in which at least there appears to be a more substantive role in terms of recipients identifying and directing the focus of the project. The CSC, as part of their ongoing scholarship programmes, launched a new Distance Learning initiative which, rather than targeting individual scholars, aimed at funding ?professional communities of learning? in other words, cohorts of scholars who could develop as change agents. Other recent initiatives, co-ordinated by the UK?s Higher Education Academy (HEA) centre on providing ?grants? for research into sustainability issues and e-learning, amongst other things. Whilst the latter are primarily related to UK industry / education links, they are also open to international initiatives. Whilst the above initiatives appear positive in principle, after initial project funding there is little in the way of guarantees for further top-up funding. Although strategies for sustainability should be build into these projects, there will inevitably be a cost element if one wants to ensure effective and realistic sustainability or localisation.
So where does this leave the state of educational development projects? Is this current range of initiatives going to be any more effective in meeting the needs of the donor recipient countries? Until detailed evaluations of them have been carried out, it is difficult to say with any certainty. What is ominous is that despite previous declarations, independent aid monitoring organisations are still witnessing the same project weaknesses and demanding the same reforms in relation to: real consultation and ownership; untying of aid; demand-driven assistance; harmonising of aid; and, openness and transparency (ActionAid, 2007). It is clear that the need for aid for education for development is now more important than it has ever been before. The consequences of not meeting that need are dire. The question is: with the key international development decision makers scheduled to meet again in 2008, in Geneva and Accra, can they afford to ignore such demands yet again?
References
ActionAid International (2007) Making Aid Accountable and Effective, Johannesburg, ActionAid.
Action Aid International (2006) Real Aid 2 ? Making Technical Assistance Work, Johannesburg, Action Aid.
Development Initiatives (DI) (2007) Global Humanitarian Assistance, UK, DI.
German, T & Randel, J (2002) Never Richer, Never Meaner; Development Initiatives.
Hirvonen, P (2005) Stingy Samaritans; NY, Global Policy Forum.
OECD (2003) Harmonising Donor Practices For Effective Aid Delivery, Paris, OECD
OECD (2005) The Paris Declaration, Paris, OECD
Smith, C.J. (2006) Capacity Development and Widening Participation. Is e-learning the answer? Berlin, ICWE GmbH
World Bank (2003) ICT for Development: Contributing to the Millennium Development Goals; Washington / World Bank
Back to full contents of NORRAG NEWS 40.
Download the full issue of NORRAG NEWS 40 in pdf.