Amsterdam, 10 April 2002

Opening speech on Education for All

Ladies and Gentleman,

Investing in basic education is one of the best ways of reducing poverty. The evidence is
overwhelming. In Uganda, farmers who have had four years of primary education produce seven
percent more than those who have had no education. If a Zambian mother completes her primary
education, her children have a 25 percent better chance of surviving. In Bangladesh, women with a
secondary education attend political meetings three times as often as women with no education. Girls
who have completed their schooling are far less likely to contract HIV. Many other findings could be
added to the list.

But I do not want to waste time preaching to the converted. We all know the facts. The challenge is to
translate our knowledge into results. How can we make sure that we meet the Millennium
Development Goal for education? That, by 2015, boys and girls everywhere will get a full primary
education? I am choosing my words carefully here. Because it is not just access to education that
matters. Children need at least five years' schooling. They need to complete their primary education.
Otherwise, what they've learned won't take root. We have to focus on completion, not just enrollment.

Two years ago at our meeting in Dakar we all basically agreed that no countries seriously committed
to Education for All would be thwarted in their achievement of this goal for lack of resources. Not
much has been done to meet this commitment. But the subject is still a political priority. And
education will be high on the agenda at upcoming meetings like the Development Committee, the G8
meeting and the UN Children's Summit.

What's more, we should be happy with the outcome of Monterrey. Though most of the rich countries
remain far behind the 0.7 target, the downward spiral in ODA has been reversed. Billions of extra
dollars will be available within a period of a few years. Some of this money must be invested in
education. Now is the moment to focus very specifically on the most effective ways of doing that.

For Dutch development cooperation, this is a very hot issue. The Netherlands is a major donor, and
we have been trying to play a pioneering role in education. But we aim to step up our efforts. With 0.8
percent of its GNP going to ODA, the Netherlands ranks among the world's top three donors in
relative terms. In absolute terms we rank among the top six, with a budget of nearly four billion euros
this year. The budget for basic education was only 60 million euro, when I started my term of office
as minister in 1998. I almost quadruppled it to 226 million euro this year. Parliament has now asked
the government to double the figure once again in the next three years. It is a tremendous challenge,
but one that I am glad to take on.

Effective expenditure of funds calls for know-how and thorough analysis. With that in mind, the
Netherlands asked the World Bank to carry out an in-depth study of problems in education and the
funding needed to achieve the Millennium Development Goal. That study has now been done. It
shows that the challenge we are facing is daunting. Of the 155 countries investigated, 88 risk falling
short of the goal. The bottom 47 countries will need at least 2.8 – 5 billion euros a year in additional
aid to reach the target, assuming that sound policies are followed. This study can form the basis of a
normative framework to link policy issues with internal and external financial flows. We will take
plenty of time in the next couple of days to discuss its findings.
Without jumping the gun, I want now to examine a number of elements that contribute to effective
policy, the ones that stand out in my mind.

Let me start by congratulating Speciosa Wandira-Kazibwe on one of the greatest successes achieved
in education in the past few years. I very clearly remember visiting Uganda and seeing schools being
built all over the country. Now more than ninety percent of Ugandan children go to school, and
Uganda is one of the few African countries on track to meet the 2015 goal. I also remember Speciosa
speaking during one of the meetings we both attended in New York. This is what she said. "It is
ridiculous that donors have to pay for even the most basic facilities, like schools and sanitation.
Surely we can pay for them ourselves."

Her attitude struck a chord with me. It is a fact that overseas aid is most effective when it supports
recipient governments that have the political will to improve education. In that case, it's no disgrace –
nor does it strike me as odd - if additional money is needed. So many schools, so many teachers, so
many teaching aids. They cost countries enormous sums of money. We would like to be part of a
partnership providing that money.

I'm glad the World Bank study concluded that we have to stop charging user fees for primary
education. This has been a debate for a long time. They used to be a common feature of the programs
the Bank supported.

The current study argues that these fees can seriously impede poor children's access to education. The
proof is the exponential increase in enrolment that followed the abolition of user fees in Uganda,
Malawi and Tanzania. It is to the World Bank's credit that it is prepared to admit its mistakes. Now
the international community must help these countries make up their financial shortfalls.

It is in these same southern African countries that Aids has dealt such a devastating blow. In the next
ten years, ten percent of Africa's teachers are expected to die of Aids. It is a drama for the teachers
themselves. And for Africa's schools. Huge investments in education are at risk of being lost. It is no
easy matter for a country to improve education in the face of such catastrophe. This study is the first
of its kind to take serious account of the impact of Aids on education.

The impact of the Aids epidemic shows that education can't be dealt with in isolation. That is another
important conclusion, and a lesson we can learn from the past. How is the economy shaping up? What
are job prospects like for young people? How is education connected to other social sectors? How can
we link the overall macroeconomic context to what is happening at sector level? And what about
gender equality? Eliminate gender disparity at all levels of education no later than 2015 – that is one
of the Millennium Development Goals. The study rightly concludes that mainstreaming gender is not
enough. Extra efforts are needed. But they cost money, and that is something we have to take into
account.

These are all elements countries have to incorporate into their Poverty Reduction Strategy Papers, of
which education is a part. A PRSP is an individual country's strategy, drafted with the participation of
all parties concerned, making clear and transparent choices that will bring about pro-poor growth. The
Netherlands supports countries that give high priority to education within their PRSPs. Of the 22
countries with which the Netherlands has entered into partnerships – all of which pursue reasonably
good policies and have reasonable governance – fourteen have opted for support in the education
sector. And it has yielded results in Mali, Bolivia, India, Tanzania and elsewhere.

But this isn’t about giving ourselves a pat on the back for our bilateral successes. That's not what
matters. What counts are the results we achieve together. Donors have to channel their funds in a
coherent and coordinated way.
Silent partnerships are an excellent way to do that. In Mali, Sweden is our silent partner. Our embassy
in Bamako manages the aid money Sweden earmarks for education. In Malawi, we are Britain's silent
partner. It is a working method I'd like to see expanded to more countries and more donors. Because
it's important not only to pump more money into education, but also to spend it efficiently and
effectively.

Donors say too often that recipient countries have too little absorption capacity. In other words, that
there's nowhere to put their money. This study shows once again that aid is still fragmented, poorly
coordinated and supply-driven. We ourselves, donors, hamper the absorptive capacity.

We need to translate the conclusions of this study into a financing framework addressing policy and
institutional and financial gaps in national budgets and plans. For many countries, the extra foreign
support they need can run through existing channels. But some countries risk missing the boat. They
lack sufficient bilateral donors, while having education plans and poverty reduction strategies.

I hope that we can come to some kind of arrangement to look at the gaps for this particular group of
countries. It would be a good idea to set up a financial partnership facility for this group. Not a new
fund, but an element of the financing framework alongside existing channels. This facility could be
financed by bilateral donors who already have dedicated funds to primary education but who do not
have bilateral development cooperation with this group of countries. International NGOs and
multilateral agencies could also participate.

This two-day meeting in Amsterdam is an opportunity to speak openly about this and the many other
ideas that this thought-provoking study brings to mind. Yesterday I had a nice public event where I
was teaching a class of young people. These kids asked the right question. Why Education for All in
2015, why not now, they wanted to know. I think they are right. We have to be very serious about
getting all children in school. The sooner the better.