Education sector dialogue and joint performance monitoring

2. Education sector dialogue and joint performance monitoring Presentation by EC Delegation DP retreat 24&25 Septembre 2007

3. Introduction: EC’s support to education in Tanzania • 8th EDF: support to Primary EducationDevelopment Plan (PEDP), basket fund mechanism (€25M) • 9th EDF support to education sector reform in Tanzania (See annex 1 for details): €43.5M = €41.5M budget support + €2M CB (EMIS, support to CSO, TA) • Prospects for 10th EDF: stepping out of the sector, move towards general budget support.

4. I Lessons learnt: joint performance monitoring under PEDP • Better donor harmonisation • But sector dialogue structures used for discussion on donors’ disbursement requirements • Policies and strategic issues not discussed • Micro management by donors, “two camps” situation, frustration within GoT => need for a revitalisation of dialogue structures but without a common understanding of the function of sector dialogue

5. II Joint performance monitoring in the context of GBS GBS performance monitoring tools : • Partnership Framework Memorandum • General PAF (3 performance indicators + 1 process indicator: satisfactory sector review) • Poverty Monitoring system/ 12 education indicators • Annual GBS review (Mkukuta implementation report)

6. GBS framework, strengths: A common/joint/harmonised structure / Donors speak one voice Better linkages between sector processes and cross-sector underlying core reforms (public finance management, local government reform, public sector reform, poverty monitoring system) => potential powerful tool to improve budgeting and planning processes

7. Capacity of GBS process to influence public policy design depends heavily on: Government (MoF and line ministries) leadership/ownership The nature and quality of the dialogue between donors, government and other stakeholders at both macro and sector levels The capacity of sector reviews (and other sector monitoring arrangements) to effectively feed into the Mkukuta/GBS assessment process GBS framework: condition for a succesfull joint sector monitoring?

8. Today general feeling that donors are stuck, paralysed. Dialogue has not been “optimal”. True for all sectors. The GoT has become a black hole for donors Quality of dialogue: one of donors’ main concern in the context of the next GBS annual review. PRS process is a MoF/MoPEE led process, weak involvement from education line ministries GBS/PRS fwk failed as an incentive for better planning/budgeting process and for appropriate sector performance assessment However, in terms of identification of key challenges, education sector review outcomes = basis for the PRS assessment => Necessary emphasis on sector performance monitoring tools

9. Towards a sector assessment framework? Major drawbacks of the first education sector review in February 2006 : • No clear national vision on education (Situation analysis= simple report; ESR preparation: more about logistics than expected outcomes and consensus building around key issues) • No clear recommendation regarding institutional arrangements for the education sector dialogue • No clear recommendation on a sector PAF to allow, in the future, an assessment of outcomes against agreed targets Why: • Lack of understanding of the PAF concept within the education MDAs, the absence of tradition for result oriented policy and performance monitoring • The equal lack of understanding and/or shared view regarding the PAF among DPs: different expectations depending on the modalities of intervention in the sector (project, sector budget support, general budget support) and disbursements requirements

10. What added-value for a SBS? • The ineffectiveness of dialogue (macro/sector level) • The unclarity on financing • The unclarity on key issues in the sector/ vision • Rationale behind the EC SBS : focus on sector dialogue and sector financing for better planning and budgeting process • Mechanisms for variable and fixed tranches designed to reflect and accompany to the largest extent possible the current state of the reform process as well as the available performance indicators scattered in different monitoring systems.

11. Some key obstacles for effective implementation: • Absence of a sector PAF • This sector programme not perceived as a common leverage instrument to push for sector performance oriented policies • Role of variable tranches (and its indicators) not necessarily internalised (sanctions of bad performance vs encouraging performance oriented policies, information-based planning) • Dysfunctional education DPG • Difficulties, in a JAS context, to develop informal working relationship with GoT counterparts (no mutual trust)

12. A more effective dialogue for an improved sector performance monitoring in the JAS context The education DPG: a dysfunctional entity Some possible reasons: • Historical dimension and political/diplomatic stakes of the sector • Capacity of education officers to think outside the sector and build linkages • No clear/common understanding of sector dialogue, different perceptions and expectations (focus on dialogue structures rather than content of the dialogue / where -not what and whom to ) • Tendency to analyse problems and propose solutions only from a technical point of view. Think GoT as a monolithic block. Inability to identify the champions of the reform (PMO? PS MoEVT? Both: sector coordination+reform agenda?) • The capacity of donors to turn towards other stakeholders (Parliament, trade unions, local governments, NGO…) very low . Donors prisoners of a bilateral dialogue

13. The JAS/harmonisation process: opportunities Today 17 so called « active » DP in the education sector With JAS process, only 4-5 donors will engage directly in dialogue with GoT Operational implications for each sector DPG not yet clear Already ToRs for the DPG/its lead/its secretariat Participation to joint (GoT/donors/CSO) technical working groups: attempt for competence-based division of labour (EC has volunteered for Finance TWG, Institutional WG, for the moment no M&E TWG) Risk: the dark side of harmonisation Alignement on the smallest common denominator: one voice, but which one? Loosing contact with the ground Harmonisation should not mean uniformisation (see Paris Declaration)

14. GoT’s capacity/will to engage into quality dialogue • Lack of political leadership: where is the national vision? GoT top priority but decisions on a reactive mode (under pressure) • Inefficiency of the Government systems presently in place • Lack of capacity at all levels (coordination, planning, costing, monitoring) • A lack of understanding of the behavioural change needed to appreciate the implications of donors’ shift to SBS/GBS • Insufficient involvement of MoF

15. What role for EC in the education sector dialogue • Influence within the sector dialogue structures (future lead? For which agenda?) • Need to focus on key priorities for EC/DPs • What Technical assistance (short-term TA, flexible contract when need for specific expertise identified within sector dialogue structures); for which education stakeholders: line ministries: MoEVT? MoF? PMO-RALG?; others: TTU, Parliament, CSO, LGAs’ association • To promote opening of the national debate: regular public debates?

16. Internal needs to improve effectiveness of our sector dialogue • Political leadership in the Delegation: commitment by HoD/HoC • Needs for skills/training in public finance management, in management of change, institutional analysis (decentralisation) • Need to take time to understand the political/institutional culture of the country (networking/ go outside the “donors’ ghetto”)