FIJI

Concept Note
Australian Government Support to Fiji Education Post-2009

1. Program Objectives

Australia proposes to support Fiji’s education sector by working with the Ministry of
Education to assist in:

(i) mitigating the effects of political instability and the global recession on the most
vulnerable through reducing financial barriers to accessing education;
(ii) investing in school infrastructure in the poorest communities to ensure that facilities
are adequate and safe, and contribute to improved learning outcomes; and
(iii) conducting targeted research and analysis on the systemic challenges to achieving
improved education outcomes in Fiji.

2. Country Context

Economic Situation Fiji’s economy continues to experience difficulties. The Reserve Bank
of Fiji (RBF) has forecast a decline of 0.3 per cent in 2009, following very low growth of 0.2
per cent in 2008. Following the 2006 coup, Fiji’s economy contracted by 6.6 per cent in 2007.
In March 2009, Standard and Poors downgraded Fiji’s credit rating from stable to negative
based on weak economic growth. In an attempt to slow the pace of falling foreign reserves
the RBF devalued the Fiji dollar by 20 per cent in April this year. The 2007 Census indicates
high unemployment levels (over 8 per cent), more than double the rates for earlier estimates
in 1996 and 2004. Inflation accelerated to a 20-year high of 9.8 per cent in September 2008
year on year, driven by rising food and fuel prices coupled with second-round effects of
higher oil prices, such as on transport. While inflation dropped to 6.6 per cent by the end of
2008 as global oil and commodity prices declined, it still averaged a high 7.7 per cent for the
year.1

Development Environment Fiji has fallen from 81st (2003) to 92nd (2008) on the UN
Human Development Index. It is off track in achieving a number of the MDGs, with
deterioration in poverty reduction and maternal health2. Approximately 34.4 per cent of the
population have an income below the basic needs poverty line, an increase from 25.5 per
cent in 1990/913. This is likely to increase further given the deteriorating economic situation.
Pockets of deep poverty are found in town squatter settlements around Suva, the Suva-
Nausori corridor, Ba, Lautoka, Labasa and Savusavu, with more widespread poverty
apparent in rural areas (estimated to be as high as 55 per cent in the rural Northern
Division).4 Many of Fiji’s poorer communities typically have low quality housing, limited
utilities, and poor access to education and health services.5 The 2002-03 Household Income
and Expenditure Survey reports that 19 per cent of students from the poorest 20 per cent of
households in Fiji dropped out of school compared to only 4 per cent of students from the
wealthiest 20 per cent of households.6

1
ADB (2009), Asian Development Outlook 2009, http://www.adb.org/documents/books/ado/2009/FIJ.pdf
2
AusAID (2009), Tracking Development and Governance in the Pacific
3
2002/03 Household Income and Expenditure Survey
4
Collingwood, Ian et al (2008), Situational Analysis: Fiji Education (unpublished). Census data shows the
total squatter population at just over 60,000 people for 2007, however, squatter advocates report that for
2007 there were over 100,000 squatters in Fiji (12.5% of the population)
5
ADB (2009), Asian Development Outlook 2009, http://www.adb.org/documents/books/ado/2009/FIJ.pdf
6
Collingwood, Ian et al (2008), Situational Analysis: Fiji Education (unpublished)

1
Operating Environment Fiji’s current political situation has constrained Australia’s capacity
to engage on development priorities, in particular the ability to implement principles outlined
in the Paris Declaration and Accra Agenda regarding use and strengthening of Partner
Government systems. Civil service pay cuts and mandatory reductions in operating budgets,
a lowering of the compulsory retirement age to 55 years, reduction in staffing numbers
through voluntary redundancy, personnel changes and the potential for decreased civil
service staff morale also contribute to a situation that is not conducive for longer term
strategic planning and public sector reform.

Australian Government Policy Australia's aid program in Fiji continues to adhere to the
Australian Government’s original response to the 2006 coup: Australia will support the
ordinary people of Fiji by maintaining programs that improve their livelihoods, but suspend
assistance where the actions of the interim government render Australian Government
funded programs ineffective or compromised. Consistent with Australian whole of
government engagement in Fiji, the aid program has been recalibrated to focus on mitigating
the social and economic impacts on the vulnerable of political instability and the global
recession. This includes an emphasis on maintaining essential services in health and
education, promoting rural enterprise development and financial inclusion, exploring social
protection measures, partnering with civil society on advocacy, income generation and
service delivery programs, and provision of scholarships and volunteers.

3. The Education Sector

The Fiji Ministry of Education (MoE) recently finalised its Education Sector Strategic
Development Plan (ESSDP) 2009-2011 which includes a financing framework with cost
projections. The ESSDP, which may require some further work to accurately capture
intended expenditure and financing gaps, provides an understanding of current priorities,
intended outcomes, and government financing.

Education Priority Outcomes The ESSDP 2009-2011 outlines the following priority
outcomes:
 all children, especially those in kindergarten, disadvantaged students and those with
special needs to have access to expanding, improving and inclusive education and care,
and to a relevant, flexible and innovative curriculum;
 all schools to be well resourced to offer responsive learning programs;
 an education workforce that is appropriately qualified, competent and committed to
deliver quality education services with integrity and transparency;
 an increased prominence of TVET and a consolidation of its role in developing a skilled
and productive workforce;
 communities, stakeholders and donors responsive to the education and development
needs of students; and
 improved management through accountability, transparency and good governance.

MoE has projected that the cost (recurrent and development combined) of achieving these
outcome objectives is FJ$246m in 2009, FJ$259m in 2010, and FJ$272m in 2011. They
predict financing shortfalls of: FJ$11m in 2009, FJ$24m in 2010, and FJ$37 in 2011.
However, if Fiji’s economic performance worsens, the predicted shortfall may exceed these
estimates and hamper the implementation of these objectives.

The Education budget The portion of the national budget that has been allocated to
education (excluding commitments to the Fiji Institute of Technology and the University of
the South Pacific) has declined from 20 per cent in 2006 and 2007 to slightly over 16 per
cent in 2009 (its lowest level since the early nineties). Over the same period education’s
share of GDP declined from 6.3 per cent to 4.7 per cent (a fall of 25 per cent). On average

2
40 per cent of the education budget is allocated to primary education. While, as expected,
roughly 80 per cent of the overall commitment to education finances salaries, the salary
share is particularly pronounced at the primary level, where salaries account for 93 per cent
of the recurrent education budget.7 The remainder finances operational costs, teaching and
learning resources and infrastructure maintenance.

As a consequence of budgetary limitations, facility maintenance and upgrading has been

under-resourced: on average less than 5 per cent of the MoE’s recurrent budget finances
capital works, including maintenance. The impact of this is significant, especially as the
costs of building materials increase, and could result in more schools experiencing poor
infrastructure conditions, which in turn may discourage student attendance and retention.

School management and resourcing Over 98 per cent of schools in Fiji are operated and
managed by religious groups, cultural groups and communities. Of the 906 schools and 760
kindergartens in Fiji, the government owns and operates only 15 (13 secondary and 2
primary). Seventeen of the non-government schools cater to children with special needs.
Almost all teachers, with the exception of early childhood teachers, however, are paid by
Government. Government also provides tuition grants,8 building grants and per capita grants
directly to non-government schools. Registered kindergartens are provided a salary grant for
teachers as well as grants for infrastructure upgrades and equipment. Depending on the
availability of funds, other government grants are periodically made available for books and
materials, library resources, salaries for clerical assistance in schools, furniture and transport
(boats for island and coastal schools). Total grant expenditure amounts to 10 – 15 per cent of
the recurrent Education budget. In 2007, the total revenue of primary schools was around
$14 million, of which Government grants made up around 39 per cent ($5.5 million)9.

Reaching MDG 2 While Fiji is progressing towards meeting MDG 2, and has been regarded
as an “early achiever” in terms of universal primary education by 201510 (the primary
enrolment rate is currently 98 per cent), there are indications that gains are being
significantly undermined by high drop-out rates. MoE’s 2007 statistics show that 15 per cent
of children who enrol in primary school do not reach Class 8, and 25 per cent of those who
start secondary school do not reach Form 6.11

Furthermore, as it is the most disadvantaged, marginalised and vulnerable that comprises

the ‘missing’ 2 per cent of enrolments, the combination of existing service provision
arrangements, current political environment, global recession, and the impact of the recent
currency devaluation make it unlikely that these children will ever receive schooling without
some form of support to ensure their access and continued participation.

Teacher quality Teacher quality is an issue, and there are differences in teacher quality (as
measured by teacher qualification and experience) between rural and urban areas. For
example, rural secondary schools have a lower percentage of degree qualified teachers than
urban schools, 27 per cent compared to 35 per cent. On the whole rural provinces have far
less degree qualified teachers than the national average (32 per cent) – e.g. rural Bua has 14
per cent, and rural Cakaudrove, and Lau, 22 per cent. On average, rural secondary teachers
have 12 per cent less teaching experience than their urban counterparts. This difference is

7
Collingwood, Ian (2007), A Paper to Inform the Draft Policy Framework for Australian Development
Assistance to Education in the Pacific, p 2 (unpublished)
8
Although education is supposed to be fee free (for tuition), most schools continue to charge costs like
building levies, book and library fees
9
Collingwood, Ian et al (2008), Situational Analysis: Fiji Education (unpublished)
10
ESCAP/ADB/UNDP (2007), The Millenium Development Goals: Progress in Asia and the Pacific 2007,
p33
11
http://www.fijitimes.com/story.aspx?id=123207”National Exams on Chopping Block”

3
more pronounced at the primary level, with the average years’ experience in rural primary
schools being 19 per cent less than in urban schools.12

The 2009 interim government directive requiring the retirement of civil servants at age 55
may have a significant impact on the availability of quality teachers. Roughly 1,000 teachers
(750 primary and 250 secondary) have retired under this directive, many of whom have
considerable experience, and many would have been school principals and senior teachers.
While replacement may not be an issue, given the large numbers of university and teacher
college graduates, the impact of their retirement in the classroom may influence student
outcomes, at least over the short-term.

Sector Analysis A 2008 AusAID analysis of the education sector recommended that equity
shortfalls at all levels of the system were an appropriate focus for post-2009 assistance,
arguing that this would target higher order aid objectives such as reducing poverty and social
disadvantage.13 The analysis identified a number of concerns, including: a strong correlation
between poverty and performance; high teacher attrition, low quality of education databases,
the difficulty in attracting qualified teachers to rural areas; and the need to strengthen an
evidence-based approach to policy and planning.

The private costs of schooling are a substantial barrier for poorer families, influencing
enrolment and early drop-out.14 This may be further compounded by the global recession:
Fiji’s MoE expects that reduced incomes may cause a subsequent reduction in school
attendance.

Impact of the global recession While there is currently no collated data that specifically
identifies the impact of the global recession on schooling in Fiji15, a recent study (July 2009)
undertaken by UNICEF identifies, as a potential consequence of the current global
recession, that more Pacific Island children will not enrol or will drop out of school.16 This
outcome is consistent with the impacts of previous financial crises on the education sector.
For example, after the 1997 Asian financial crisis, an analysis of drop-out rates showed that
poor families withdrew their children at a greater rate than their wealthier counterparts17.

The expected impact on schooling is confirmed by anecdotal data and local press coverage
suggesting that economic problems are influencing school attendance: For example: from
the September 10 “The Fiji Times” - “a Tailevu high school has been plagued with
absenteeism and student dropout in the past four years as a result of economic hardships”.

Recent Australian Support to the Sector Australia is the largest donor in the sector and,
from 2010, will most likely be the only significant bilateral education donor once the
European Union (EU) commitment (see below) through EDF9 concludes at the end of 2009.

Australia provided support to Fiji’s education sector during the 1990s through a number of
projects that mainly targeted teacher training and upgrading of physical infrastructure and
library resources in rural schools. The current AUD28m Fiji Education Sector Program
(FESP) which commenced in 2003, shifted the focus of Australian assistance to

12
Collingwood, Ian et al (2008), Situational Analysis: Fiji Education (unpublished)
13
Collingwood, Ian et al (2008), Situational Analysis: Fiji Education (unpublished)
14
Moock, Peter and Collingwood, Ian (2005), Review of Human Development in Pacific Island Countries:
Education Development in Fiji
15
However, UNICEF is currently in the process of developing a matrix that will monitor the impacts of the
global recession in the Pacific, including education in Fiji. This data will inform future assessments of the
appropriateness of Australia’s assistance to the sector.
16
UNICEF (2009) Protecting Pacific Island Children and Women during economic and food crises.
17
Education Resource Facility- AusAID (2009), The Global Recession: the impact on education in
developing countries, p 3.

4
strengthening systems and building the capacity of MoE central office to improve service
delivery.

FESP made progress in a number of areas, including providing leadership/management

training to over 93 per cent of school principals and 86 per cent of school managers (this has
resulted in a clearer understanding of roles/responsibilities; increased community
involvement in schools e.g. through regular PTA meetings; and improved relationships
between school administration and management committees); developing the first
kindergarten curriculum guidelines for Fiji; increasing stakeholder participation in MoE
planning and policy development; increasing enrolments in FESP supported vocational
courses by up to 75 per cent; introduction of the Fiji Education Staffing Appointments (FESA)
database; and strengthened early childhood education and primary teacher training courses
at Lautoka Teachers College.

While FESP is scheduled for completion by end 2009, Australia will continue to provide
substantial support to Fiji’s education sector, in line with priorities of both Fiji and Australia.
However, as outlined in this document, this support will need to be prudently
designed/managed in light of Fiji’s current political and economic situation and complex
operating environment; progress towards Millennium Development Goals (MDG) and
Education for All (EFA) targets; likely impacts of the global recession; and the Accra Agenda
for Action and Paris Declaration principles on aid effectiveness and aid harmonisation.

Lessons Learnt Previous independent technical reviews and Fiji program performance
reviews generally agreed that FESP had been effective in delivering outputs (mainly at
Education central office level). While there is now evidence of improvements in the delivery
and quality of education services, there is limited empirical evidence of significantly improved
educational outcomes for students. A key consideration for future support must be the
appropriate balance and links between national and sub-national level interventions and
direct support at the point of service delivery. If a goal of Australia’s assistance is to improve
learning outcomes with a view to creating more productive individuals then a shift in the
targeting of aid may well be necessary.

The EU-financed Fiji Education Sector Program provided around F$43million between
2005 and 2009. The overall objective of the EU FESP is to achieve equitable access,
participation and achievement in life-long education for disadvantaged communities in Fiji
and improve educational quality and outcomes. The program focussed on infrastructure
development (classrooms, teachers’ quarters, libraries and laboratories, water, sanitation,
electricity and communications); resources and materials (teaching materials, books,
computers, laboratory equipment); and non-formal education and community awareness
programs (e.g. carpentry, farming, small/micro enterprise, handicrafts, law and security).

4. Paris, Accra and Cairns

The political and diplomatic environment in Fiji renders working through partner government
systems difficult for Australia and other development partners. It is likely that parallel aid
mechanisms will remain the norm for the foreseeable future, with limited scope for investing
in strengthened public expenditure management, procurement and monitoring systems at
present.

In respect of the Cairns Compact, there are significant political, diplomatic and capacity
constraints with progressing this agenda in Fiji. However, incremental steps may be possible,
notwithstanding that Australia will most likely be the only significant bilateral partner in the
education sector. This includes the possibility of collaborating with the MoE and other
development partners to undertake analytical work in the education sector which would
support longer term evidence based planning and resource decision making for the Ministry.

5
Despite significant emphasis placed on donor harmonisation across the Fiji program, AusAID
has experienced only limited success in the education sector due to donors having different
planning cycles, implementation timelines, and reporting/acquittal requirements. The
previous absence of a costed sector plan has also tended to restrict collaboration.

5. Education and Training for the Pacific: Australia’s Forward Agenda

To guide its growing commitment to education in the region, Australia is developing a Pacific
Education Framework. The Framework will explicitly link basic education to further education
and training outcomes (vocational, technical and professional). It will articulate the intent of
Australian assistance to be guided by and be in line with the priority outcomes agreed with
Pacific Island Countries in the Pacific Partnerships for Development.

In the case of Fiji where there is, as yet, no Pacific Partnership Agreement in place, Australia
will ensure that its education investments are guided by a few key principles: MoE’s priority
outcomes articulated in the ESSDP 2009-2011; meeting MDG and EFA targets (including
addressing barriers to education associated with gender, poverty, disability and distance);
investing in results through school quality improvement and, where appropriate, workforce
development; and, importantly, by selectively targeting resources at those areas where
Australian aid can significantly impact development outcomes at the local level.

6. Principal Features of the Proposed Education Program

Within the context outlined above, and drawing on the 2008 situational analysis, Australia
proposes to support Fiji’s education sector by working with the MoE to provide assistance to
(i) mitigate the economic and social impacts of political instability and the global recession on
the most vulnerable through reducing financial barriers to accessing education, and (ii)
invest in school infrastructure in the poorest communities. 18 Taking into account the lessons
of FESP, the proposed intervention will reflect a desire to ensure that Australian resources
are more deliberately targeted at school level beneficiaries and that efforts focus on
measuring results at that level. In addition, in preparation for the provision of broader
assistance, Australia (in consultation with the MoE) will begin the process of gaining a
comprehensive understanding of the systemic challenges that face Fiji’s education sector
through an analytical research component.

A two part strategy is proposed:

1) Over an initial two - three year period, focusing on the most vulnerable
communities19, Australian aid will strengthen the services that schools provide their
communities and ensure that all students in the targeted communities have access to
quality schooling by reducing financial barriers.

The proposed Program will work with a selection of vulnerable communities and the
managers of their schools to facilitate school level improvements and to promote better
quality schooling and stronger student outcomes. The Program will help ensure that the
costs of schooling are lowered for the most economically disadvantaged and that their school
facilities are adequate and safe. It is anticipated that the Program, through a range of
activities, will explore methods of improving service delivery at the community/school level,

18
This approach is consistent with the Fiji bilateral aid program’s overarching objective of “mitigating the
economic and social impacts on vulnerable groups of political instability, and the global recession”
19
Vulnerable communities For the purposes of this program, vulnerable communities are considered those that
are most economically disadvantaged or most disadvantaged by their remoteness, and/or those communities
whose schools are performing well below average in terms of student learning outcomes and/or have school
facilities that are in exceptionally poor condition.

6
and that these will be evaluated against set success criteria at regular intervals. Activities are
expected to include community/school grants, school levy relief, materials provision, and
continuing or expanding school construction and maintenance programs/grants. The
Program will also explore opportunities for piloting additional support to enhance learning
outcomes at classroom level e.g. in-school teacher support and assistance in school-based
management. These could complement wider planned research (refer below).

2) Over the short- to medium term Australia (in consultation with the MoE) will
undertake a series of studies that will collectively provide the knowledge base for a
concerted effort to address systemic weaknesses in the education sector.

To inform and facilitate the planning of longer-term support to Fiji’s education sector, AusAID
will commission, in consultation with MoE and other development partners, a series of
sector-specific research papers. Topics may include, but not be limited to: designing a
medium term expenditure framework; sector expenditure tracking; inclusiveness: assessing
gender and disability profiles and services; assessing school-based management and
resourcing needs, conducting early grade reading assessments; reviewing teacher
professional development options; and assessing sector policy and management shortfalls.

While the involvement of donors such as the EU and New Zealand is currently restricted,
Australia will continually explore opportunities for collaboration with other development
partners and the NGO sector on these or complementary activities.

Alignment with existing GoF policy Preliminary discussions with the MoE indicate general
support for the proposed two part strategy, and confirmation that the goals of reducing
financial barriers to education, mitigating the social and economic effects of the global
recession, and strengthening school systems were all closely aligned to its policies.20

Targeting community-based interventions Relatively straightforward targeting

mechanisms will be essential to begin this work, though they may be refined over the course
of the program as more information becomes available. Recently, the EU relied on the MoE’s
Disadvantaged Schools Index (DSI) to identify schools most in need of facilities
rehabilitation. MoE also has information on which schools do not have a reliable source of
electricity or water and their databases can provide information on ‘socially disadvantaged’
schools, as well as ‘poor performing’ schools. An obvious and simple starting point may be
to compare the ranking of socially disadvantaged schools compared with the ranking of poor
performing students, and then correspond this information with the DSI to identify potential
communities to target.

Funds flow In response to the floods in early 2009, AusAID provided direct funding to assist
in the payment of school levies and to finance the rehabilitation of flood affected schools
through MoE financing channels. An assessment of this process and its adequacy in terms
of implementation and reporting/acquittal requirements will inform useful options for passing
funds to communities and their schools. This will be essential to ensure AusAID
accountability needs are met.

Monitoring and evaluation In order to demonstrate program achievements/benefits over

time, a comprehensive monitoring program that draws on existing baseline data (from
sources such as MoE’s Corporate Information Systems and Schools Information
Management Systems databases; the 2008 Education Situational Analysis; and the
Department of Social Welfare database) will be required. Clear, achievable outcomes
(matched with targeted, relevant indicators and realistic timeframes) will need to be

20
In particular, those policies relevant to reducing the numbers of drop-outs and increasing the years of
compulsory education from 8 to 12

7
established. To achieve these objectives an innovative and informative M&E system will
need to be developed that will feed into, as well as draw on, the existing MoE information
system.

Inclusiveness and Gender The Program will pay particular attention to ensuring that as
many avenues as possible are open to ensure that schools are able to attract and retain all
school-aged girls and boys in the targeted communities. This will require that communities
identify those young people that are not in school and that the Program and the community
determine how best they can be brought in. Ideally, the community will be supported in
providing a means that ensures access to all, perhaps through school levy relief, or
additional financial support. Where more than financial support is required, and communities
cannot provide the necessary schooling, in cases of disability, for example, the program will
seek to identify ways that families can gain access to appropriate services and support.

7. Implementation Arrangements

Critical to the success of the Program will be the means by which Australia and the MoE are
able to ensure that the participating (vulnerable) communities and their schools are included
in implementation. It will be necessary to ensure that in exchange for resources (which may
include grants to communities and schools, teaching/learning materials, and technical
support) schools/communities complete a number of agreed complementary actions (e.g.
community wide efforts to ensure full enrolment, community involvement in school
rehabilitation, facilitating early grade reading assessments and other learning outcome
assessments, facilitating schools and community based teacher and school management
training, and supporting in-school teacher development).

Taking into account the pressing contextual concerns, it is proposed that the design team
explore three options for managing these agreements. 1) contracting a respected
international/national NGO with a track record of successfully working on school level
improvement; 2) placing a Program management team within MoE; and 3) engaging a
traditional managing contractor.

It will also be necessary for the design team to outline preferred targeting and fund flow
mechanisms following the finalisation of appropriate fiduciary risk and procurement
assessments.

In respect to research activities proposed, it is expected that these would not begin until
perhaps the second year of the activity, although they could be brought forward if
circumstances suggested some urgency in the completion. It is anticipated that the first step
would be to create a research agenda that could be managed through a consultancy
(perhaps by a member of the AusAID Education Resource Facility’s core team of specialists)
that would define information needs and a schedule of activities.

8. Sustainability

International experience suggests that, over time, as systems and technical capacities21
develop, school-based managements use funds more efficiently, and increase their focus on
results and accountability to host communities. School-based managements also facilitate
strengthened community ownership and, in many cases, this results in higher enrolment and

21
These refer to systems and capacities that develop and become institutionalised as grant systems
mature. At the program level these include grant program guidance (usually in the form of manuals that are
improved as school grant systems develop over time), fund flow mechanisms, monitoring and oversight,
refining targeting and standard setting for service delivery at the school/national level. At the school level
these include school-based planning, grant book-keeping/reporting, community awareness and eventual
ownership of the program, and the school to community accountability relationship.

8
participation rates. The community/school-based component of the Program is intended to
be designed and implemented in a way that builds on this international experience. It is
expected to focus on developing and establishing a sustainable means, via school based
grants and teaching and management support, of supporting school-level services and the
associated accountability for results (better facilities, better teaching and higher learning
outcomes). Key to success will be demonstrating to stakeholders that the community/school-
based interventions are producing quantifiable gains over time at reasonable cost. Robust
M&E activities throughout the Program will be designed to provide and present this
information.

9. Risk Management

Although additional risks may be determined during the Program’s design phase, some of
the more obvious risks to the Program’s success are discussed below:

Political Risk
Given Fiji’s uncertain political environment, the Program is envisaged to broaden the support
base for Australia’s interventions in the sector by increasing engagement with school
controlling authorities, non-government organisations and other community groups while
continuing to work with MoE.

Implementation Risk
Changes in the Fiji government’s policy settings (for example, reduction of compulsory civil
service retirement age from 60 to 55 years) adds considerably to the challenges faced by the
aid program. These issues will require careful consideration in progressing towards using
government systems and supporting implementation of national education sector plans in the
medium to longer term.

Further downward shifts in the economy may render levels of assistance provided by the
Program ineffective. The Program intends that funding and support levels to schools and
communities be indexed to ensure that purchasing power and intended resourcing levels
remain constant. Continuous monitoring of the economy and the inflation rate will be an
integral part of the Program.

Fiduciary Risk

While the Program will explore, wherever practical and feasible, use of some government
systems, it will only do so after necessary fiduciary risk assessments and after suitable
accountability mechanisms have been agreed to.

Next steps:

 Concept Note Peer Review.

 Program design to be conducted in country early 2010
 Appraisal Peer Review of the design