lastinschool2009 by designannexe

Last in Line, Last in School 2009

Last in Line, Last in School 2009 Donor trends in meeting education needs in countries affected by conflict and emergencies

This third edition of Last in Line, Last in School demonstrates where and how donors must act to ensure that children in countries affected by conflict and emergencies do not miss out on their education, particularly in the midst of a global financial crisis. Since the first report was published in 2007, donors have made some progress. But big gaps still remain. This report finds there has been an increase in education aid to conflict-affected fragile states (CAFS). But CAFS still only receive a quarter

“Yet again Save the Children’s annual Last in Line, Last in School report highlights the urgent need for increased donor action and support for education in emergencies and countries by conflict. The 2009 report shows that, while there are encouraging signs of change, donors still need to do more. This is an excellent example of research and advocacy that has the potential to change the lives of the millions of children caught up in emergencies and conflict.” Allison Anderson, Inter-agency Network for Education in Emergencies

of basic education aid, even though they are home to more than half – 40 million – of the world’s 75 million out-of-school children. Based on current trends, the required levels of basic education aid to CAFS will not be reached until 2034. The role of education in emergency contexts now has greater recognition in the international community, and funding for education in emergencies has increased. However, this funding is still not enough to meet the urgent needs of children in countries affected by conflict and emergencies. And too few donors have a policy commitment to education in emergencies.

Last in Line, Last in School 2009

Children have a right to education regardless of their circumstances. Yet millions continue to be denied this right in situations of conflict and fragility. Education is one of the most important investments a country can make to escape the long-term cycle of poverty and conflict. Yet it remains underfunded.

Donor trends in meeting education needs in countries affected by conflict and emergencies

Education donors must act immediately to accelerate progress if they are to fulfil their promise of good-quality education for all children by 2015.

International Save the Children Alliance Cambridge House Cambridge Grove London W6 0LE UK

www.savethechildren.net/rewritethefuture Save the Children is a member of the

Rewrite the Future

Last in Line, Last in School 2009 Donor trends in meeting education needs in countries affected by conflict and emergencies

The International Save the Children Alliance is the world’s leading independent children’s rights organisation, with members in 28 countries and operational programmes in more than 100.We fight for children’s rights and deliver lasting improvements to children’s lives worldwide.

This report was written by Victoria Turrent. Management and oversight of the report was led by Janice Dolan. Research and analysis were supported by Gowri Vijayakumar and Joe Collenette. Special thanks for their comments, guidance and inputs are due to Allison Anderson, Kitty Arrie, Elena Avenati, Saïd Belkachla, Laura Brannelly, Peter Buckland, Tanya Cox, Christa Dammermann, Emily Echessa, Olga Gormalova, Joe Hall, Sharyn Hanly, Malin Hansson, Bo Tovby Jørgensen, Kim Kerr, Edilberto Loaiza, Lucia Losoviz, Anne Haaranen, Birgit Lundbak, Daniel Meienberger, Rachel Maranto, Dina Morad, Kate Moriarty, Albert Motivans, Fosca Nomis, Kjersti Okkelmo, Koarai Rie, Marinke Ros, Andrea Sharrock, Trond Sæbø Skarpeteig, David Skinner, Marianne Victor and Ravi Wickremasinghe. Save the Children is a member of the Global Campaign for Education.

Published by International Save the Children Alliance Cambridge House Cambridge Grove London W6 0LE UK First published 2009 © International Save the Children Alliance 2009 Registered Charity No. 10768220 This publication is copyright, but may be reproduced by any method without fee or prior permission for teaching purposes, but not for resale. For copying in any other circumstances, prior written permission must be obtained from the publisher, and a fee may be payable.

Cover picture: Children sit in what remains of a classroom in Muza Harabad, Pakistan, after their school was hit by an earthquake. (Photo: Tom Pietrasik)

Edited by Frances Ellery Typeset by Grasshopper Design Company Printed by Page Bros (Norwich) Ltd Printed on recycled paper

Contents

Abbreviations and acronyms

Executive summary

1 Introduction

2 Aid, education and conflict-affected fragile states (CAFS)

Education aid: CAFS continue to miss out

Education aid falls short of requirements

Education still not a priority for donor investment in CAFS

Towards a new aid architecture for CAFS

3 Education in emergencies

Humanitarian funding for education falls short of need

Donors still give education a low priority in emergencies

4 Conclusion

5 Recommendations

Bibliography

Endnotes

Appendix 1: Methodology

Appendix 2: Donor profiles

Appendix 3: Comparative table assessing donor performance and progress

Abbreviations and acronyms

CAFS

Conflict-affected fragile states

CAP

Consolidated Appeals Process

CERF

Central Emergency Response Fund

CHF

Common Humanitarian Fund

CRS

Creditor Reporting System

DAC

Development Assistance Committee

DFID

Department for International Development (of the UK)

European Commission

ECHO

European Community Humanitarian Office

EFA

Education for All

ERF

Emergency Response Fund

FTI

Fast Track Initiative

Group of Eight

GFE

Global Fund for Education

GNI

Gross National Income

IASC

Inter-Agency Standing Committee

INEE

Inter-agency Network for Education in Emergencies

LICs

Low-income countries

MDG

Millennium Development Goal

MICs

Middle-income countries

OCHA

Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs

ODA

Official development assistance

OECD

Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development

United Nations

UNESCO

United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation

UNICEF

United Nations Childrenâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Fund

UPE

Universal primary education

ANNA KARI/SAVE THE CHILDREN

Mary, 12, lost her father and uncle during the war in Liberia. Now she’s a student at Zeah Town School, which Save the Children UK supports. “During the war, the fighters burned our houses and killed my father and my uncle. My mother and I ran away to the Ivory Coast.We got lost on the way and walked in the bush for 15 days.We only had leaves to eat. It is still hard for me to think about that. “My mother lives in Monrovia now, so I’m staying with my auntie. She sells pepper soup to earn money. I help her in the evenings so she can make more money. I started school in 2004 [at the age of eight]. “I still think about my father and my uncle and I feel sad. But when I’m at school, I feel very happy about learning new things and I enjoy playing with my friends. I hope that school will help me to forget the hard times I’ve had. I am thinking a lot about my future nowadays – I want to become a doctor.”

Executive summary

This third annual Last in Line, Last in School report examines recent trends in donor support for education for children living in conflict-affected fragile states (CAFS) and those caught up in emergencies. Its broad conclusion is that, although donors have increased their focus on meeting the education needs of children in these countries and situations, there is still a long way to go. If trends continue, CAFS will not receive the levels of basic education aid needed to achieve the education Millennium Development Goal (MDG) of universal primary education (UPE) until 2034, well beyond the 2015 deadline. Education is recognised as one of the most vital investments a government can make. As well as being every child’s right, it has a crucial role to play in safeguarding children, empowering women, promoting democracy and protecting the environment. It is essential for the recovery and development of CAFS. Regardless of this critical role, on average between 2005 and 2007, CAFS received just over a quarter of basic education aid, despite being home to more than half – 40 million – of the world’s 75 million out-of-school children. Basic education aid commitments to CAFS increased marginally from $0.9 billion in 2005 to $1.2bn in 2007 – well below the estimated $5.2bn required annually to achieve UPE in these countries. It is staggering that such a small proportion of global education aid continues to be directed to those countries most at risk of failing to achieve the goal. Furthermore, of total aid allocated to CAFS, on average just 5% went to education, compared to 10% in other low-income countries (LICs). This suggests that education is not seen by donors as a priority for investment in CAFS. While the demand for investment in governance and infrastructure is

inevitably higher in CAFS, and this is critical for enabling wider education reforms to reach remote schools, it is clear that not enough attention is being paid to addressing the immediate educational needs of conflict-affected populations, where one in three primary-aged children is out of school. Education is now more widely recognised as a component of humanitarian aid. Financing of education in emergencies rose from $147 million in 2007 to $235m in 2008. However, less than half – 48% – of requests for education funding in humanitarian crises in the Consolidated Appeals Process (CAP), through which the majority of humanitarian aid is allocated, were met in 2008. Too few donors have committed themselves at a policy and budgetary level to providing education in situations where there is a lack of will and/or capacity to respond to education needs, or as a component of humanitarian response. Only half of the Development Assistance Committee (DAC) donors have policy commitments to providing education in countries affected by conflict and fragility, and only five have included education in their emergency strategies. A far greater commitment to meeting the educational needs of children in CAFS is needed if UPE is to be achieved by 2015. This will require: • greater recognition of the important role education can play in establishing strong state structures in CAFS • a coordinated effort by all donors to deliver aid to education in these countries • a commitment to initiate and restore education services as part of humanitarian response • support for aid mechanisms that are appropriate to the complex development environments of CAFS.

E X E C U T I V E S U M M A RY ●

Finally, it will require an abrupt increase in the amount of education aid directed to CAFS and those countries affected by emergencies. This aid needs to address short-term education needs, and be sustained over the long term, for rebuilding institutions and systems. Reaffirming commitment to the MDGs and maintaining aid flows that are consistent with them is vital in the current climate of global financial instability, especially in those CAFS less able to withstand economic shocks. The future of children living in CAFS and emergencies must not be jeopardised by the failure of the international community to keep its promise to provide primary education for every child, no matter where they live. Save the Children, therefore, calls on all donors to act now to: 1. Increase long-term predictable aid for education in CAFS

This requires donors to: • ensure funding is equitable, based on need, with at least 50% of new basic education aid commitments going to CAFS

• increase basic education aid to meet the $9bn annual external financing requirement for achieving good quality UPE • prioritise education in CAFS, ensuring that at least 10% of ODA in CAFS is allocated to education • meet the Education for All-Fast Track Initiative (EFA-FTI) financing gaps and ensure adequate funding of the FTI’s Education Transition Fund. 2. Ensure that education needs in emergency situations are met

This requires donors to: • establish policies on education in emergencies that ensure education is an integral part of humanitarian response • allocate a minimum of 4.2% of humanitarian aid to education to meet education funding requirements in emergency situations • support coordination for education in humanitarian response through the Inter-Agency Standing Committee (IASC) Education Cluster.

vii

213,000

375,000

Cambodia

Central African Republic

16,000

702,000

8,097,000

6,821,000

Myanmar (Burma)

Nepal

Nigeria

Pakistan

281,000

1,168,000

57,000

2,798,000

51,000

1,280,000

39,562,000

Source: UNESCO, 2008; UNICEF Child Info1

TOTAL

Zimbabwe

Uganda

Timor Leste

Sudan

Sri Lanka

Somalia

285,000

356,000

Liberia

Sierra Leone

508,000

Iraq

303,000

706,000

Haiti

Rwanda

389,000

Guinea

243,000

3,721,000

Ethiopia

Republic of Congo

308,000

5,203,000

Democratic Republic of Congo

Eritrea

1,164,000

367,000

Côte d’Ivoire

Colombia

1,186,000

324,000

Burundi

Chad

824,000

1,816,000

Number of primary-aged children out of school

Angola

Afghanistan

Country

Conflict-affected fragile states

1 Introduction

Remarkable gains towards universal primary education (UPE) have been made in many of the world’s poorest countries since the UN General Assembly adopted the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) in 2000. However, conflict-affected fragile states (CAFS)2 remain the biggest threat to achieving UPE by 2015. Currently, more than half – some 40 million3 – of the world’s 75 million4 out-of-school children live in CAFS – countries scarred by current or recent conflict, many with governments unwilling or unable to deliver basic services, or which are struggling to cope in the aftermath of emergencies. Access to good quality education in such situations is critical to the wellbeing of children and young people. Children’s right to education, and the need for continuity of education, do not lapse during crises or displacement (United Nations, 2007). Indeed, in these circumstances education is a lifeline. Research has shown that in emergency situations, safe, good quality education is central to providing a protective environment for children affected by traumatic events (Aguilar and Retamal, 2009). In post-conflict situations, reconstruction and reformation of the education system are increasingly viewed as essential strategic elements in reducing the risk of a country relapsing into conflict (Buckland, 2005). Getting children back to school is widely viewed as a ‘quick win’ that yields tangible benefits – enhancing peace and signalling prospects for the future – as well as contributing to longer-term economic growth and political stability. However, government resources are often too stretched between competing sectors to meet education demands. International assistance therefore plays a pivotal role in improving performance and progress towards providing UPE.

Support for education in CAFS has been galvanised through an increased academic and policy focus, including through Save the Children’s Rewrite the Future campaign, and: • the Inter-agency Network for Education in Emergencies (INEE)5 • the designation of education as a UN ‘cluster’ in humanitarian response • the Education for All-Fast Track Initiative (EFA-FTI) plans for an Education Transition Fund (ETF) to support education in fragile contexts • the UN General Assembly Debate on Education in Emergencies, raising awareness among Member States that education in emergencies is a crucial lifesaving intervention with implications for the peace and prosperity of societies. However, this increased attention has not been reflected adequately in funding levels. Despite recent increases, aid for education in CAFS remains pitifully inadequate and far from the levels required to meet the educational rights and needs of children who live in CAFS. Too few donors have committed themselves at a policy and budgetary level to education in these countries, or as a component of humanitarian response. Meeting the educational needs of children in CAFS is ultimately dependent on overall funding levels – as well as on more innovative ways of delivering aid. Most donors continue to fall short of their commitment to increase official development assistance (ODA) flows6 to 0.7% of Gross National Income (GNI), and must make unprecedented increases to meet the targets they set themselves for achieving annual aid commitments of $130bn7 by 2010 (UNESCO, 2008).

●

LAST IN LINE, LAST IN SCHOOL 2009

In the current global financial crisis, there is increased pressure on aid budgets. Many low-income countries, including CAFS – which are highly dependent on external assistance – are facing an even more uncertain future. Already the crisis is hitting export revenues and flows of private investment, remittances and other income to developing countries (OECD, 2008). Millions of people are facing steep oil and food price rises. By the end of 2010, it is estimated that 90 million more people will be living in extreme poverty as a result of the financial crisis.8 It is much harder for CAFS to withstand external shocks such as the current financial crisis. Governments are even less likely to invest in services, including education, and families are forced to make tough choices. As parents lose jobs, even those children already receiving an education are being pulled out of school to earn money for the family.9 Reaffirming commitment to the MDGs and maintaining aid flows is, therefore, vital in the current climate of global financial instability.

Some progress, but still last in line In 2007, Save the Children began to monitor education aid flows to CAFS, and as part of humanitarian response. This 2009 Last in Line, Last in School report reflects on progress made so far, drawing comparisons with previous years and determining recent trends in the allocation of education aid. Education aid flows are analysed within a needs-based framework, exploring the funding situation for CAFS and emergencies in particular.

The report demonstrates that education aid continues to fall short of what is required to achieve UPE by 2015, and that while funding for CAFS has improved in recent years, it is not enough to meet pressing educational needs in those countries. Significantly, there needs to be greater recognition of the important role education can play in establishing strong state structures in CAFS. Donors must make an urgent coordinated effort to deliver aid to meet education needs in these countries, and to establish an aid architecture that is geared towards quick and flexible disbursement and building administrative capacity. The report also highlights recent shifts in support for education during emergencies. Gradually, education’s key role as an integral part of humanitarian response is being accepted, as reflected in increased funding. However, many donors still do not have policies in place to ensure that education is a central component of their emergency aid. As a result, education funding during humanitarian crises continues to fall far short of what is needed. All children have the right to education, regardless of their circumstances. With one in three children in CAFS still out of school, and in light of the current financial crisis, donors must make a coordinated and committed effort to ensure that what gains have been made are not lost, and that millions more children are not denied an education. Save the Children calls on all donors to increase long-term predictable aid to meet the education financing requirements of CAFS, and to ensure that all education needs in emergency situations are fulfilled.

2 Aid, education and conflict-affected fragile states

This chapter looks at recent trends in education funding, and at what progress has been made since the first Last in Line, Last in School report (Save the Children, 2007). It makes comparisons between the volumes of education aid that are committed to conflict-affected fragile states (CAFS) and other low-income countries (LICs), and highlights where donors need to do more to achieve universal primary education (UPE) by 2015.10

Education aid: CAFS continue to miss out Recent trends: While education aid commitments to CAFS have risen, their share of the global education aid envelope remains low at 21%. Based on current trends, basic education aid commitments to CAFS will not reach the US$5.2 billion11 required annually to achieve UPE until 2034. Action required: Increase significantly volumes of education aid directed to CAFS, as well as increasing their share of the global education aid envelope. Education aid to low-income countries should be distributed equitably, according to need, between CAFS and other LICs. A minimum of 50% of all new basic education funding should be allocated to CAFS.

Full details of the data sources, limitations and methodology can be found in Appendix 1. Individual donor analysis and profiles, with a summary of key recommendations by donor, are in Appendix 2. A table illustrating individual donor performance and progress since the 2007 report can be found in Appendix 3.

Between 1999 and 2007, annual allocations to education increased from US$0.7 billion to $2.6bn in CAFS, and from $1.9bn to $2.7bn in other

Figure 1: Education and basic education aid commitments to CAFS and other LICs Education aid commitments

Basic education aid commitments

4,500

4,500 4,129

4,000

3,500 3,089 2,916

3,000 2,437

2,500 2,000

2,724

2,368 2,127

2,462

1,943

1,912

2,001

1,678

1,617 1,404

1,500 1,000

2,574

1,157

1,147

742

500

US$ millions (constant 2006)

4,000

3,500 3,000

2,000

1,714 1,393

1,500 1,000 500

2,677

2,500

1,501 1,243 964

964 388

1,125

488

1,180

1,180 1,026

708

596

865

2001

2002

1,047 879

0 1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

Key

1999

2000

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

Key CAFS Other LICs

CAFS Other LICs

Source: OECD Creditor Reporting System (CRS) database

●

LAST IN LINE, LAST IN SCHOOL 2009

LICs (Figure 1). However, the amount actually made available and disbursed is much lower – in 2007 it was just $1.4bn in CAFS and $1.9bn in other LICs.12 CAFS are continuing to falter in their progress towards meeting the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) – most notably in their progress towards achieving UPE. Of the 15 CAFS for which projections are available, only two – Cambodia and Myanmar (Burma) – are expected to achieve UPE by 2015.13 The remaining countries are either moving away from the goal or making progress too slowly.14 Significant increases in funding levels are needed if the educational needs of children in CAFS are to be met by 2015. Despite an increase on previous years, 2007 commitments to basic education in CAFS ($1.2bn) were less than a quarter of what is needed to achieve UPE in these countries. It is estimated that 58% – $5.2bn – of the $9bn annual external financing requirement should be directed to CAFS.

Figure 2: Distribution of education and basic education aid commitments in developing countries (average 2005–07) Education aid Unallocated 13%

CAFS 21%

MICs 38%

Other LICs 28%

Basic education aid Unallocated 14% CAFS 27%

MICs 25%

Other LICs 34% Source: OECD CRS

As a result of large basic education aid commitments by the Netherlands, Japan and the UK, basic education commitments to CAFS increased by an average of $150 million per year between 2005 and 2007. While this is an encouraging trend and reflects growing political support for education in CAFS, it is not enough. Based on additional annual increases of this size, the $5.2bn of basic education aid required annually would not be reached until 2034, well beyond the 2015 deadline for achieving UPE. There has been considerable discussion – and donorstated commitment – on the importance of targeting aid towards low-income countries. However, since publication of the first Last in Line, Last in School report in 2007 (Save the Children, 2007), the average share of education aid apportioned to all low-income countries between 2005 and 2007 dropped to less than half – from 51% to 49%. The average share of education aid to CAFS has increased only marginally from 18% to 21%, as the result of increases in the levels of education aid allocated to these countries in 2006 and 2007 (Figure 2). More than half of all education aid is now allocated to middle-income countries (MICs), or recorded as ‘unallocated’.15 On average between 2005 and 2007, 10% of all education aid went to just two MICs – China and Indonesia. Given their Dakar and G8 commitments,16 donors need to ask themselves whether this allocation is consistent with distributional equity, and achievement of international education goals (UNESCO, 2008). Over the same period, the share of basic education aid allocated to CAFS increased from 23% to 27%. While this is a positive trend, it remains well below what is needed, given that CAFS are home to more than half the world’s out-of-school population. The low share of basic education aid allocated to CAFS is of major concern when considered in light of the lack of progress these countries are making towards achieving UPE. Education has been shown to contribute to other goals such as increased economic growth, improved health, and better environmental management. Failure to achieve UPE will hinder progress to all other MDGs.

A I D , E D U C A T I O N A N D C O N F L I C T- A F F E C T E D F R A G I L E S T A T E S ●

Basic education aid per child The number of out-of-school children is a useful approximation for need, indicating how much basic education aid should be allocated per child (UNESCO, 2008). Given the exceptionally high proportion of out-of-school children in CAFS, an out-of-school child in a conflict-affected fragile state is currently allocated less than half ($26) that of an out-of-school child in another low-income country ($67), and less than a quarter of an out-of-school child in a middle-income

country ($109) (Figure 3).This is despite one in three primary-aged children being out of school in CAFS, compared to one in 11 in other LICs and one in 33 in middle-income countries. On average, based on the number of primary-aged children in each country, a primary-aged child in a conflict-affected fragile state receives more basic education aid than a primary-aged child in another low-income or middle-income country.

Figure 3: Basic education aid commitments per child (average 2005–07) 120 $109 100

US$

$67 60

40 $26 Key

20 $8

Per out-of-school child $6

Per school-aged child

0 CAFS

Other LICs

MICs

Source: OECD CRS, UNESCO (2008)/UNICEF Child Info

Education aid falls short of requirements Recent trends: While total education aid rose marginally in 2007, commitments to basic education declined.The average proportion of education aid allocated to basic education has fallen from 41% to 37% since the 2007 Last in Line, Last in School report. Basic education aid continues to fall short of the $9bn level of external financing required to achieve UPE each year. Only five donors are meeting 80% or more of their fair share, compared to eight last year.

The level of aid for education and basic education directed to CAFS is, of course, dependent on the overall level of education aid. With the exception of a large drop in 2005,17 education aid has increased consistently

Action required: Individual donors – including Australia, Austria, Belgium, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Italy, Japan, Portugal, Spain, Switzerland and the United States – need to significantly increase their basic education commitments to meet their ‘fair share’ of the external financing required to achieve UPE.

from $6.3bn in 1999 to its 2007 peak of $11bn (see Figure 4 overleaf ). Despite this increase, education aid levels continue to fall far short of the $16bn that is required annually to achieve Education for All (EFA).18

●

LAST IN LINE, LAST IN SCHOOL 2009

Figure 4: Education and basic education aid commitments and disbursements for all developing countries Education

Basic education

12,000

US$ millions (constant 2006)

10,000

11,036

9,411 8,808 8,070

8,000

8,091 6,295

6,590

6,601

6,227

6,249

7,939

7,026

6,000 4,175

4,000

2,000

US$ millions (constant 2006)

10,955

10,824

10,000

Amount needed

8,000

6,000 4,791 3,774

4,000 2,403

2,780

2,876

3,519

2,812 3,232

2,000 1,446

4,520 3,223

1,856

2,089

2,304

2004

2005

2,795

0 1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2006

2007

Key

Key Commitments Disbursements

Commitments Disbursements

Source: OECD CRS

Basic education represents a 37% average share19 of education aid, a drop from 41% since the 2007 Last in Line, Last in School report – well below the recommended figure of 50% (FTI Secretariat, 2006). While aid to education rose marginally in 2007, there was a significant drop – of almost one-third – in the level of commitments to basic education from $4.5bn in 2006 to $3.5bn in 2007. This was the result of large basic education commitments being made by the Netherlands and the UK in 2006. There is a risk that the downturn in the growth in basic education commitments will lead to a stagnation, or even decline, in disbursements. This is worrying as it has been estimated that $9bn in external assistance will need to be disbursed annually in order to achieve UPE by 2015. Moreover, estimations of the external financing required to meet international education goals are likely to be under-estimates (UNESCO, 2008). They are based on the costs of educating children already in

school, and do not take into account the additional costs of reaching those who are currently outside the education system. This is particularly important for the financing of CAFS, because they are home to the highest numbers of out-of-school primary-aged children. The cost of getting these children into school will be significantly greater. Meeting the challenge to provide out-of-school primary-aged children with education will require a greater concentration of additional funding to be directed towards the most marginalised, those children currently outside the reach of the education system. These children are more expensive to reach, so an intensified and sustained political and financial effort on the part of donors is needed. The cost of inaction, however, will be higher, as education is one of the best investments a country can make – contributing to increased individual incomes, economic growth, improved child and maternal health, and social cohesion.

A I D , E D U C A T I O N A N D C O N F L I C T- A F F E C T E D F R A G I L E S T A T E S ●

Donors fail to meet their ‘fair share’ of financing requirements Using Gross National Income (GNI) to compare wealth across the Development Assistance Committee (DAC) countries, it is possible to identify how much each country should be contributing to the external financing requirement for UPE (its ‘fair share’), and how close it is to achieving this target. Together, DAC donors committed less than a third – 31% – of the $9bn external financing requirement on average between 2005 and 2007.20 Only three donors commit their fair share – the Netherlands and Norway continue to lead the way, as in previous years, along with New Zealand, which has significantly increased its contribution from just 30% in the 2007 Last in Line, Last in School report to 120% this year (Figure 5). Since last year’s report, there has been a drop in the number of donors meeting more than 80% of their fair share, from eight to five, with Denmark (52%), Sweden (71%) and the UK (64%) now committing less.21 Thirteen of the 22 DAC donors – Australia,

Austria, Belgium, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Italy, Japan, Portugal, Spain, Switzerland and the United States – contribute less than 50% of their fair share.22 Of the G8 members, only the UK and Canada contribute more than 50% of their fair share. France (25%), Germany (20%), Italy (3%), Japan (18%), and the United States (15%) all contribute significantly less.23 This is despite strong commitments to work with other donors and recipient governments to fund long-term plans to ensure that every child gets to school; and to pay particular attention to those low-income countries and fragile states furthest away from achieving UPE by 2015 (G8, 2007). Italy, which committed an average of just 3% of its fair share between 2005 and 2007, will need to make a demonstrable effort to reverse its current standing, to set an example for other G8 leaders in advance of this year’s summit in La Maddalena, Italy.

Figure 5: Fair share contributions of donors to the $9 billion annual external financing requirement for UPE (based on average commitments from 2005–07) 315

200 180

% fair share committed

160 140 120 100% fair share

100 80 60 40 20

Ita ly

U SA Sw itz er lan d Au st ria G re ec e

Jap an Po rt ug al

Sp ain Fr an ce G er m an y

U K C an ad a D en m ar k Fin lan d Au st ra lia Be lgi um

N et he rla nd s N or N w ew ay Ze ala Lu nd xe m bo ur g Ire lan d Sw ed en

Source: OECD CRS/World Bank GNI (2006), Atlas Method

●

LAST IN LINE, LAST IN SCHOOL 2009

Education still not a priority for donor investment in CAFS Recent trends: There has been a slight increase in the priority given to education in CAFS (from 4% to 5% of ODA allocated to education) since the 2007 Last in Line, Last in School report. However, this remains well below that of other LICs (10%). Action required: Greater priority to be given to education in CAFS in recognition of the right to education and role of education in establishing strong state structures. Nineteen of the 22 DAC donors need to increase the proportion of aid they give to education in CAFS to a minimum of 10%.

our first report – compared with 20%25 in other LICs (Figure 6). In part this is because, where the capacity and/or will of the state are weak, donors have opted to support governance and civil society programmes (40% in CAFS compared with 18% in other LICs). While establishing strong state structures is a priority in many fragile states, the part education can play – both in terms of its role in development, and as one of the most visible state services, with an important symbolic value in establishing the legitimacy of the state – needs to be more systematically acknowledged (Rose and Greeley, 2006).

Many governments in CAFS have made strong policy commitments to education, but limited national budgets and competing demands often lead to a shortfall in the amount they can spend on the education sector (Brannelly and Ndaruhutse, 2008). In countries for which data is available, CAFS spend on average 13% of total government expenditure on education, whereas other LICs spend 18%.24 External assistance therefore plays a pivotal role in supporting national efforts to meet children’s right to education.

One of the biggest challenges to education service delivery in many CAFS is a lack of basic infrastructure. Investment in reconstructing infrastructure is therefore critical if education reforms are to reach remote schools. Nonetheless, there is clearly a difference in the degree to which education in CAFS and other LICs is funded in comparison to other sectors. Of total aid allocated to CAFS, an average of just 5% was allocated to education, compared with 10% of aid in other LICs. Eighteen donors allocated more than 10% of their aid to education in other LICs, but only four – Greece, Ireland, Portugal and the World Bank – allocated more than 10% of their aid to the education sector in CAFS.26

However, education in CAFS is not a priority sector for donor investment. Just 13% of aid to social infrastructure and services is allocated to the education sector in CAFS – a rise of 1 percentage point since

Despite its important role in creating a protective environment for children in situations of emergency and conflict, as well as its recognised benefits in kickstarting reconstruction in the aftermath of conflict,

Figure 6: Distribution of sector-allocable aid to social infrastructure and services in CAFS and other LICs (average 2005–07) CAFS

Other 13%

Other LICs Education 13%

Other 5%

Health 13%

Government and civil society 40%

Population programmes 11% Water supply and sanitation 10%

Source: OECD CRS

Education 20%

Government and civil society 18%

Health 19%

Water supply and sanitation 19% Population programmes 19%

education in CAFS is not a priority investment sector for many donors. Just 11 of the 22 DAC donors – Australia, Canada, Denmark, the EC, Ireland, the Netherlands, Norway, Spain, the UK, the USA, and the World Bank – have policy commitments for supporting the provision of education in CAFS.

Towards a new aid architecture for CAFS Recent trends: Over the past year, the Education for All-Fast Track Initiative (EFA-FTI) has worked to address the lack of financing available for CAFS through the FTI by establishing the Education Transition Fund (ETF). Action required: Genuine progress towards a new aid architecture for CAFS is dependent on endorsement of the ETF proposal at the FTI Partnership Meetings in April 2009, and on the fund becoming fully operational and adequately resourced by a wide range of donors.

The 2005 Paris Declaration on Aid Effectiveness27 is based on the assumption that aid will be more effective if donors and recipients apply the principles of ownership, alignment, harmonisation, managing for results and mutual accountability in their development cooperation. However, as acknowledged by the 2008 Accra Agenda for Action,28 these principles need to be adapted to environments where there is weak ownership or capacity. As a result, a new aid architecture is emerging that addresses the need for financing mechanisms that provide flexible, rapid and long-term funding for CAFS.

The Education for All-Fast Track Initiative Since it was established in 2002, the FTI has focused on accelerating progress towards UPE by 2015, based on a compact linking increased donor support for education to recipient countries’ policy performance and accountability for results. However, in recent years the FTI has come under criticism for failing to generate and disburse sufficient funds. In some cases, even countries that have been endorsed as meeting FTI criteria have not been allocated funds.

A I D , E D U C A T I O N A N D C O N F L I C T- A F F E C T E D F R A G I L E S T A T E S ●

To date, 18 donors29 have contributed to the Catalytic Fund, the main funding mechanism of the FTI,30 and the Netherlands and the UK have been the primary financers, collectively contributing 68% of all funds. The FTI Secretariat projects that the Catalytic Fund will face a deficit of $900m by spring 2009 (FTI Secretariat, 2008a). The FTI Secretariat estimates that the total long-term external financing gap for the 56 countries expected to join the FTI by 2010 will be around $2bn per year (FTI Secretariat, 2008b). Only nine of the 28 CAFS have been able to meet the requirements for FTI endorsement. Of these, only Cambodia, Rwanda and Timor Leste have received disbursements through the Catalytic Fund. Central African Republic, Ethiopia, Guinea and Sierra Leone have been allocated Catalytic Fund grants, but these are in process. Sierra Leone’s grant has been in process for almost two years – illustrating the disbursement problems the fund has faced. Slow disbursement continues to plague the Catalytic Fund, causing difficulties for countries heavily reliant on external assistance to fund national plans. However, recent changes in the FTI governance structure and procedures are expected to address this problem. Seven CAFS are scheduled for FTI endorsement in 2009. At the time of writing the 2007 Last in Line, Last in School report, nine CAFS had not been scheduled for endorsement. Two years on, these same nine – Afghanistan, Côte d’Ivoire, Myanmar (Burma), Nepal, Pakistan, Somalia, Sri Lanka, Sudan, and Zimbabwe – are still not included in the FTI timetable for endorsement, denying 15 million children access to education, and millions more a good quality education. This fact alone is a compelling reason for finding alternative ways of financing education in CAFS through the Education Transition Fund.

The Education Transition Fund The Education Transition Fund (ETF) has been established by the FTI to finance education plans in countries that do not meet the eligibility criteria for financing through the Catalytic Fund.31 As a multi-donor trust fund managed by UNICEF, it will

●

LAST IN LINE, LAST IN SCHOOL 2009

operate in tandem with the Catalytic Fund. It is intended to offer more flexible and less risk-averse financing, tailored to the immediate education needs of CAFS, at the same time as strengthening technical and administrative capacity, and addressing the fiduciary concerns of donors. The success of the ETF will depend on a wide range of donors adequately resourcing the fund, and on addressing issues of governments’ weak absorptive capacity. It will need to be quick in its decisionmaking and disbursal of predictable aid, and be flexible in responding to the diverse and changing contexts of CAFS. It is important that the ETF proposal is endorsed at the FTI Partnership Meetings in Copenhagen in April 2009, and that the fund becomes fully operational shortly afterwards in order to accelerate progress towards UPE in CAFS.

Global Fund for Education A Global Fund for Education (GFE) has recently been proposed,32 to address slow progress towards achieving the EFA goals, to mobilise increased resources for education, and to improve donor accountability in delivering additional aid for education. It is intended to operate as a multilateral fund encompassing a wide range of aid modalities, building on the key strengths and experience of the FTI. The GFE represents a unique opportunity for galvanising increased focus on, and support for, CAFS. Commitment to meeting the educational needs of children in low-income countries – and CAFS in particular – will need to be clearly stated as part of the fund’s mandate, in order to ensure progress towards UPE. It will need to be backed up with appropriate channels for delivering aid, in order to build capacity and increase aid predictability.

3 Education in emergencies

Humanitarian funding for education falls short of need

Many children around the world living through emergencies and chronic crises are dependent on humanitarian aid to provide access to education. Conflict-affected fragile states (CAFS) in particular rely heavily on humanitarian aid. On average between 2005 and 2007, 12% of aid to CAFS was in the form of emergency assistance and reconstruction funding, compared with less than 3% in other low-income countries (LICs).

Recent trends: Greater recognition of the need to fund education as part of humanitarian response has resulted in the amount of humanitarian aid allocated to education more than doubling from US$112 million in 2006 to $235m in 2008. However, coverage of education in the Consolidated Appeals Process (CAP) continues to remain low – with just 48% of requirements met in 2008.

Education has positive long-term effects that contribute to the rebuilding of systems in the aftermath of an emergency or crisis. It provides protection for children, and promotes justice and respect for human rights – enhancing peace and stability (Aguilar and Retamal, 2009).

Action required: Sustain the increase in aid flows to education in emergency situations, and ensure that education programmes are funded as part of humanitarian response.

This chapter analyses trends in the allocation of humanitarian aid to education, examining donor aid commitments and policies for providing education in emergency situations.

Despite greater recognition of the need to fund education in emergencies, and the amount of aid allocated having more than doubled – from $112m in 2006 to $235m in 2008 – education still only receives 2% of humanitarian aid (Table 1).

Table 1: Humanitarian aid allocated to education

Year

Humanitarian aid (US$ millions)

Aid to education (US$ millions)

Education aid as % of humanitarian aid

2006

7,615

112

1.5

2007

7,760

147

1.9

2008

11,494

235

2.0

Source: UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) Financial Tracking Service (FTS)

●

LAST IN LINE, LAST IN SCHOOL 2009

Table 2: CERF contributions to education

Year

Total aid (US$ millions)

Aid to education (US$ millions)

Education aid as % of total aid

2006

257.3

1.1

0.4

2007

351.8

4.9

1.4

2008

425.6

6.8

1.6

Source: OCHA FTS

These increases are the result of sustained advocacy for education in emergencies and several developments in humanitarian funding, including: the expanded Central Emergency Response Fund (CERF); the country-level pooled funding mechanisms that have incorporated education components – Common Humanitarian Funds (CHFs) and Emergency Response Funds (ERFs); and the formation of an Education Cluster. A further development is the Inter-Agency Network for Education in Emergencies (INEE) and Sphere’s33 announcement of a companionship agreement, whereby the INEE (2006) Minimum Standards for Education in Emergencies, Chronic Crises and Early Reconstruction 34 will be mainstreamed throughout the Sphere standards, and vice versa. This is significant, as many humanitarian

donors support Sphere and a number of them mention the standards in their humanitarian policy. Since 2006, CERF contributions to education increased significantly, from $1.1m in 2006 to $6.8m in 2008 (Table 2). This represents an increase in the proportion of CERF humanitarian funding disbursed to education activities from 0.4% in 2006 to 1.6% in 2008. These increases are largely due to a revision of CERF guidelines to systematically include education as a funding sector in emergency response. Despite these positive trends, education in emergencies continues to be underfunded. Figures recorded by the Consolidated Appeals Process (CAP) – the humanitarian sector’s main tool for coordination,

Table 3: Consolidated and flash appeals – global requirements, and funding overall and for education

Year

Overall funding (US$ millions) Funding requirements

Funding received

% of coverage

Funding requirements

Funding received

% of coverage

2006

5,061

3,364

66%

212

26%

2007

5,142

3,720

72%

162

40%

2008

7,232

5,078

70%

334

162

48%

Source: OCHA FTS

Education (US$ millions)

E D U C AT I O N I N E M E R G E N C I E S ●

Coordination for education in emergencies: the education cluster The Inter-Agency Standing Committee (IASC) Education Cluster (co-led by UNICEF and Save the Children) is intended to strengthen preparedness, coordination and technical capacity within the education sector in order to respond to humanitarian emergencies. An Education Cluster approach is currently active in 28 countries, 19 of which are CAFS.35 At a global level, the cluster has a variety of roles, including: broadening understanding of the importance of education in humanitarian response; providing a rapid response to emergencies; coordinating the work of all the different agencies involved in a humanitarian response; supporting emergency preparedness plans;

strategic planning and programming – show that while the trend towards increased aid for education is encouraging, funding is still well below what is needed. Although there has been increased coverage of education requirements, less than half of all funding requests to the CAP – 48% – were met in 200836 (Table 3). Ten out of the 11 countries37 that requested CAP funding included education requirements. However, experience shows that not all education needs/projects are put forward to be part of the CAP. This needs to happen more consistently in the future, to ensure that all education requirements are fully funded. In 2009, education funding requested in the CAP reached its highest levels yet – $383m up to February 2009, compared with a total of $334m for 2008. Twelve out of the 13 countries38 requesting CAP funding included education requirements. The challenge will be to ensure that these funding needs are met over the course of the year.

and enhancing the capacity of emergency response staff (Save the Children, 2008a). At a national level, the cluster works to establish networks of agencies on the ground that can provide a coordinated, high-quality response to emergency situations; and it ensures collaboration with other clusters such as protection, shelter, camp management and early recovery. To date, the key donors to support the education component of the cluster appeal have been Denmark, Ireland, Norway and Sweden. In addition, UNICEF has supported the education cluster using funds from the grant for Education in Emergencies, Post-Crisis Transitions and Fragile States that it received from the Netherlands in late 2006.

Donors still give education a low priority in emergencies Recent trends: Many donors still have not prioritised education as part of their emergency response. Nineteen of the 22 Development Assistance Committee (DAC) donors allocate less than 3% of their humanitarian funding to education, and only five have explicitly stated their commitment to providing education in emergency situations. Action required: Donors must make explicit their intentions to fund education in emergencies in both their policy and budgetary commitments. As one of the largest humanitarian donors, the EC Humanitarian Office (ECHO) in particular must ensure priority for education in emergencies. All donors should allocate a minimum of 4.2% 39 of their humanitarian aid to education.

Bilateral donors’ record of supporting education in emergencies is mixed, with only a core few donors – Australia, Denmark and Japan – having consistently

●

LAST IN LINE, LAST IN SCHOOL 2009

Figure 7: Percentage of humanitarian aid allocated to education by donor (average 2005–08) 5.2

Denmark 3.8

Japan Australia

3.6

Netherlands

2.7

Norway

2.3

1.9

Ireland

1.9

Italy

1.9

New Zealand

1.7

Sweden

1.4

Spain

1.4

Canada

1.3

Belgium

1.2 0.7

Finland USA

0.7

Switzerland

0.7

Germany

0.5

Austria

0.4

ECHO

0.4

France

0.3

Luxembourg

0.05

Portugal

4.2% = target amount needed to match education needs (based on 2006 CAP)

Greece

0 0

% humanitarian aid allocated to education Source: OCHA FTS

allocated more than a 3% share of their humanitarian assistance to education (Figure 7). Just five donors – Canada, Denmark, Japan, Norway, and Sweden – have clear policies on education in emergencies.40 In 2008 only Denmark met the target of allocating 4.2% of its humanitarian aid to education. The EC Humanitarian Office (ECHO) – one of the largest humanitarian donors – allocates an average of just 0.4% of its humanitarian aid to education,

indicating that education has not been one of its priority areas. However, in February 2008, ECHO launched a working document on children in humanitarian crises. One of the three themes of this paper focused on the important role of education in emergencies, and laid down a commitment to develop more operational recommendations for its humanitarian interventions in education. It is hoped that this will translate into greater priority being given to education in ECHO’s emergency response.

4 Conclusion

As we enter the final stretch towards the 2015 deadline for achieving the education Millennium Development Goals (MDGs), 75 million primaryaged children remain out of school. More than half of these â&#x20AC;&#x201C; 40 million â&#x20AC;&#x201C; live in conflict-affected fragile states (CAFS). The benefits of providing access to education for these children have been widely acknowledged, yet funding levels continue to lag far behind what is required. In the wake of the global financial crisis, aid for education in CAFS has never been more vital, as national governments are likely to find it even more difficult to fund education. This report provides evidence of an increased focus on providing education aid for CAFS, as well as those countries experiencing emergencies. However, funding levels need to increase significantly, and support must be given to innovative aid delivery mechanisms, if the goal of universal primary education (UPE) is to be achieved by 2015. Experience shows that some CAFS are unsuited to the partnership requirements embodied by the aid effectiveness agenda. This is often because they lack the capacity to design and/or implement education

programmes, or the ability to raise sufficient domestic funds. Funding mechanisms, therefore, need to be tailored to address the specific needs of CAFS. In particular, they need to focus on building capacity and mitigating fiduciary risk, as well as ensuring that quicker and more predictable aid is delivered to the education sector. In the case of emergencies, what is needed is a commitment to initiate and restore safe, good quality education services as part of humanitarian response, laying a strong foundation upon which more stable and resilient systems and societies can be built in the reconstruction phase for sustainable development. It is essential that adequate resources for education are made available urgently for short-term interventions, and that aid is sustained over the long term for rebuilding education institutions and systems. The international donor community has a pivotal role to play in securing a dramatic expansion in educational opportunities for children in CAFS. Save the Children believes that the right to education should be made a reality for all children, regardless of their circumstances.

5 Recommendations

1. Increase long-term predictable aid for education in CAFS

2. Ensure that education needs in emergency situations are met

This requires donors to: • Ensure funding is equitable based on need, with at least 50% of new basic education aid commitments going to CAFS Urgent action is needed by: Australia, Austria, Canada, Finland, France, Germany, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Spain, Switzerland, and the UK, as well as the European Commission. • Increase basic education aid to meet the US$9 billion annual external financing requirement for achieving good quality UPE Urgent action is needed by: Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Luxembourg, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, the UK, and the USA. • Prioritise education in CAFS, ensuring that at least 10% of ODA in CAFS is allocated to education Urgent action is needed by: Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, the UK, and the USA, as well as the European Commission. • Meet the Education for All-Fast Track Initiative financing gaps, and ensure adequate funding of the FTI’s Education Transition Fund Urgent action is needed by: All donors and UNICEF.

This requires donors to: • Establish policies on education in emergencies that ensure education is an integral part of humanitarian response Urgent action is needed by: Australia, Austria, Belgium, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Portugal, Spain, Switzerland, the UK, and the USA, as well as the European Commission. • Allocate a minimum of 4.2% of humanitarian aid to education, to meet education funding requirements in emergency situations Urgent action is needed by: Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, the UK, and the USA, as well as the European Commission. • Support coordination for education in humanitarian response through the Inter-Agency Standing Committee (IASC) Education Cluster Urgent action is needed by: All donors.

Bibliography

Aguilar, P and Retamal, G (2009) ‘Protective environments and

Nowell, L (2006) CRS Report for Congress on Foreign Aid:

quality education in humanitarian contexts’ International Journal

Understanding data used to compare donors

of Educational Development Vol. 29, No.1, pp.3–16 Bermingham, D (2009) We Don’t Need No Education?: Why the United States should take the lead on Global Education Washington DC: Centre for Global Development Brannelly, L and Ndaruhutse, S (2008) Education Finance in States Affected by Fragility Prepared for INEE Policy Roundtable 27–28 October 2008 Brussels, Belgium Bruns, B, Mingat, A and Rakotomalala, R (2003) Achieving Universal Primary Education by 2015: A chance for every child Washington DC: World Bank Buckland, P (2005) Reshaping the Future: Education and Postconflict Reconstruction Washington DC: World Bank Education Policy and Data Center (2008) 2008 series of education projections to 2015 and 2025 Background paper for Education for All Global Monitoring Report 2009 FTI Secretariat (2006) Analysis of Official Development Assistance Washington DC: Fast Track Initiative FTI Secretariat (2008a) Catalytic Fund: Annual Status Report Washington DC: Fast Track Initiative FTI Secretariat (2008b) The Road to 2015: Reaching the Education Goals Washington DC: Fast Track Initiative G8 (2007) Growth and Responsibility in Africa Summit Declaration G8 Summit, Heiligendamm Global Campaign for Education (2006) A Global Report Card Ranking Governments’ Efforts to Achieve Education for All Johannesburg: GCE International Network for Education in Emergencies (2006)

OECD (2008) Aid Targets Slipping Out of Reach? Paris: OECD Rose, P and Greeley, M (2006) Education in Fragile States: Capturing Lessons and Identifying Good Practice Prepared for the DAC Fragile States Group Save the Children (2007) Last in Line, Last in School: How donors are failing children in conflict-affected fragile states London: Save the Children Save the Children (2008a) Delivering Education for Children in Emergencies: A key building block for the future London: Save the Children Save the Children (2008b) Last in Line, Last in School 2008: How donors can support education for children affected by conflict and emergencies London: Save the Children Sperling, G (2008) A Global Education Fund: Toward a True Global Compact on Universal Education New York: Council on Foreign Relations UNESCO (2006) EFA Global Monitoring Report 2007: Strong Foundations – Early childhood care and education Paris: UNESCO UNESCO (2007) EFA Global Monitoring Report 2008: Will we make it? Paris: UNESCO UNESCO (2008) EFA Global Monitoring Report 2009: Overcoming inequality – why governance matters Paris: UNESCO United Nations (2007) Children and Conflict in a Changing World: Machel Study 10-Year Strategic Review New York: United Nations World Education Forum (2000) The Dakar Framework for Action: Meeting our Collective Commitments Dakar: World Education Forum

Minimum Standards for Education in Emergencies, Chronic Crises and Early Reconstruction New York: INEE

Endnotes

1 Introduction

Secretary of State for International Development Douglas

Alexander’s speech at Chatham House on 24 February 2009: 1

http://www.childinfo.org/education_outofschool.php

See Appendix 1: Methodology for details of country classification

http://www.dfid.gov.uk/news/files/speeches/sos-wb-speech.asp 9

Ibid

and the full list of conflict-affected fragile states (CAFS). 3

The number of out-of-school children in CAFS has been

compiled using the 2009 EFA Global Monitoring Report (UNESCO, 2008) as a primary source. Where out-of-school figures were unavailable in the EFA Global Monitoring Report, these have been sourced from UNICEF: http://www.childinfo.org/education_outofschool.php 4

Following the publication of the 2008 EFA Global Monitoring

Report (UNESCO, 2007), the UNESCO Institute for Statistics revised its estimate for out-of-school children upwards from 72 million to 77 million using new population data. The current estimation of out-of-school children worldwide is 75 million (UNESCO, 2008). Taking into account population data revisions, Save the Children calculates that there are 40 million children out-of school in CAFS. 5

In 2008, INEE established the Working Group on Education

2 Aid, education and conflict-affected fragile states 10

As data is not available for primary education, figures for basic

education are used. Basic education according to the OECD comprises early childhood education, primary education and basic life skills training for young people and adults. 11

UNESCO (2006) estimates the annual global external financing

required to achieve UPE in low-income countries to be $9 billion (at 2003 prices). This UNESCO estimate is based on a World Bank simulation exercise run on 47 countries (Bruns et al, 2003). It is extrapolated for the whole low-income group and factors in additional costs related to domestic financing, HIV and AIDS, and conflict (UNESCO, 2006). To estimate the proportion of the $9 billion financing requirement that is needed in CAFS, Save the Children returned to the World Bank study, finding that

and Fragility. The working group is an inter-agency group

58% of the external financing needs belonged to CAFS. Scaling

comprised of 21 institutions that aims to strengthen consensus on

up according to UNESCO’s (2006) recommendations and as a

how best to mitigate state fragility through education; support the

proportion of the $9 billion, the financing requirements of CAFS

development of effective quality education programmes in fragile

is estimated to be $5.2 billion annually.

states; and promote the development of alternative financing mechanisms to support education in fragile states in the period of transition from humanitarian to development assistance. 6

Overall aid commitments peaked in 2006 at $127bn as the result

of major debt relief, and declined in 2007 to $116bn. Overall aid to CAFS dropped by more than a third between 2005 and 2007, explained in part by the tapering-off of debt relief to Nigeria. In CAFS, total ODA dropped from $53bn in 2005 to $34bn in 2007. In other LICs, ODA rose slightly from $26bn to $27bn over the same period.

commitments in 2005. The contraction in commitments signals a shrinkage in future education aid flows. 13

At 2004 prices – the equivalent of $138bn at 2006 prices.

Education Policy and Data Centre: http://www.epdc.org

(accessed 19 February 2009). The situation in other LICs is only slightly better: only 9 of the 24 countries for which projections are possible are on track to achieve UPE (Bangladesh, Tajikistan, Benin, Mongolia, India, Zambia, Sao Tome & Principe, Madagascar, and Tanzania). 14

Disbursements in other LICs have declined due to a drop in

For example, Pakistan’s progress toward UPE has slowed between

2005 and 2006 (Education Policy and Data Centre, 2008). Those

E N D N OT E S ●

countries for which formal projections are not possible are unlikely

to achieve UPE either. For example, conservative estimates suggest

was available for 12 out of 28 CAFS and 19 out of 31 other LICs.

that, by 2015, there will be 1.5 million children out of school in

The FTI Secretariat (2006) recommends that approximately 20%

Sudan (UNESCO, 2008: 66)

of national budgets should be allocated to education.

Where donors have made commitments to regions or where

recipients are unspecified, these have been labelled as ‘unallocated’ by income group. The proportion of aid recorded as unallocated in 2006 and 2007 was significantly higher than in previous years, and is therefore presented as a separate category.

The Dakar Framework for Action sets ambitious targets for

education, agreeing that no country committed to Education for

This has dropped from 30% since publication of the 2007 Last

in Line, Last in School report. 26

For more information on donors’ prioritisation of education in

CAFS and other LICs, refer to Appendix 2: Donor profiles. 27

Calculations based on figures cited in UNESCO (2008). Data

For further information see: http://www1.worldbank.org/

harmonization/Paris/FINALPARISDECLARATION.pdf

All will be thwarted in its achievement of the goal for lack of

resources (World Education Forum, 2000). The G8 reaffirmed this

fileadmin/templates/pdfs/accraseptagendafin.pdf

For further information see: http://www.dgfoundation.org/

at its 2007 summit in Heiligendamm, Germany (G8, 2007). 29 17

Annual variability alone does not explain the drop in education

These are Australia, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, EC, France,

Germany, Ireland, Italy, Japan, the Netherlands, Norway, Romania,

aid in 2005. The drop was concentrated mainly in Bangladesh,

Russia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, and the UK. Canada, Italy,

China and India. The World Bank and the UK Department for

Norway, Sweden, and Denmark have all substantially increased

International Development (DFID), which were the main donors

commitments to the FTI over the course of the past two years.

to the countries, made large commitments in 2004 that

Italy’s and Denmark’s commitments to the FTI more than tripled

contributed to the drop in 2005.

between 2007 and 2008, in a move away from project-based aid.

According to the Global Campaign for Education. See:

The Catalytic Fund was initially designed to provide transitional

http://www.campaignforeducation.org/en/why-education-for-all/

funding for countries until more donors came on board. It has

education-promises/ UNESCO (2008) refers to $11bn being

since been expanded to provide longer-term financing to any

needed annually in low-income countries to achieve three of the

country with a financing gap.

targets set in the Dakar Framework for Action on Education for All: universal primary education, early childhood programmes, and adult literacy.

The ETF proposal builds on the experience of the UNICEF

fund for Education in Emergencies, Post-Crisis Transitions and Fragile states, which was funded by a $201m grant from the

The share of education aid allocated to basic education is 49% in

Netherlands in 2006.

CAFS, 45% in other LICs, and 25% in MICs. 32 20

The fair share analysis is based on bilateral aid only and does not

account for bilateral contributions to multilateral agencies. 21

Ireland, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, New Zealand and

Norway all continue to commit more than 80% of their fair share. 22

It should be noted that Australia’s 2008/09 aid budget includes

More recently the Global Campaign for Education and others,

including US-based NGOs, have also called for the establishment of a GFE. It was initially proposed by President Barack Obama in his election campaign, and the proposal was reiterated by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in her Senate confirmation hearing. Further details on the GFE can be found in Sperling (2008) and Bermingham (2009).

substantial increases in education aid. Approximately US$500m in new funding is scheduled for the next three years to strengthen

3 Education in emergencies

basic education systems, access and quality. 33 23

Russia is also a G8 member but is not accounted for in this

analysis as it is not a DAC donor.

The Sphere project was launched in 1997 by a group of

humanitarian NGOs and the Red Cross and Red Crescent. It has produced the Humanitarian Charter and Minimum Standards in Disaster Response handbook and other tools.

●

LAST IN LINE, LAST IN SCHOOL 2009

The INEE Minimum Standards serve as a useful framework for

developing policies for education in emergencies, fragile states and reconstruction contexts that promote rights-based programming and establish relevant links to child protection. 35

Afghanistan, Burundi, Central African Republic, Chad,

Colombia, Côte d’Ivoire, Democratic Republic of Congo, Ethiopia, Guinea, Haiti, Iraq, Myanmar (Burma), Nepal, Pakistan, Somalia, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Timor Leste and Uganda. 36

Only Agriculture (42%), Economic Recovery and Infrastructure

(37%), Health (46%), Mine Action (20%), and Safety and Security of Staff and Operations (6%) had fewer of their funding requirements met. 37

Central African Republic, Chad, Côte d’Ivoire, Democratic

Republic of Congo, Iraq, occupied Palestinian territory, Somalia,

Sudan, Uganda and Zimbabwe requested education funding. West Africa did not. 38

Afghanistan, Central African Republic, Chad, Democratic

Republic of Congo, Iraq, Kenya, occupied Palestinian territory, Somalia, Sudan, Uganda, West Africa and Zimbabwe requested aid funding. Côte d’Ivoire did not. 39

Recommended by Save the Children (2007; 2008b), based on

the 2006 CAP. In 2006, 4.2% of humanitarian funds requested were for the education sector, and so represent the minimum needs for education in emergencies in that year. 40

It should be noted that Spain’s 2009–2012 development strategy

mentions the need to support basic education in emergencies and post-crisis contexts.

Appendix 1: Methodology

Country classification While there is general agreement over what constitutes a ‘fragile’ or ‘failing’ state – conflict, a lack of political will and/or capacity – there is no international consensus on a definition (UNESCO, 2007). A number of organisations, including the World Bank and Organisation for Economic DevelopmentDevelopment Assistance Committee (OECD-DAC), have therefore developed lists of fragile states based on differing criteria. In order to analyse education issues in those fragile states that are also affected by conflict, Save the Children established a list of 28 ‘conflict-affected fragile states’ (CAFS) in 2007.1 While acknowledging that countries will tend to move in and out of fragility, Save the Children has used the CAFS list of countries in previous Last in Line, Last in School reports (Save the Children, 2007; 2008b) in order to analyse progress over time.

Conflict-affected fragile states (CAFS) Afghanistan, Angola, Burundi, Cambodia, Central African Republic, Chad, Colombia, Republic of the Congo, Côte d’Ivoire, Democratic Republic of Congo, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Guinea, Haiti, Iraq, Liberia, Myanmar (Burma), Nepal, Nigeria, Pakistan, Rwanda, Sierra Leone, Somalia, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Timor Leste, Uganda, Zimbabwe.

For purposes of comparison, the external financing of CAFS is compared with a group of 31 ‘other low-income countries’.2

Other low-income countries (other LICs) Bangladesh, Benin, Bhutan, Burkina Faso, Comoros, Gambia, Ghana, Guinea-Bissau, India, Kenya, Democratic Republic of Korea, Kyrgyz Republic, Lao PDR, Madagascar, Malawi, Mali, Mauritania, Mongolia, Mozambique, Niger, Papua New Guinea, São Tomé and Príncipe, Senegal, Solomon Islands, Tajikistan, Tanzania, Togo, Uzbekistan, Vietnam, Yemen, Zambia.

Data sources This report relies on secondary data compiled by the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). The data were accessed from the OECD Creditor Reporter System (CRS),3 an online database that gives detailed information on aid activities, including aid flows to education from the 22 DAC 4 countries, the World Bank, the European Commission, the African and Asian Development Funds, the Inter-American Development Bank Special Fund, and UNICEF. The CRS does not allow for an analysis of humanitarian aid by sector. In order to analyse humanitarian aid to education – which in some CAFS is a major source of education financing – this study refers to the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) Financial Tracking Service.5

●

LAST IN LINE, LAST IN SCHOOL 2009

Methods To obtain an accurate profile of official development assistance (ODA) flows supporting the education sector, the analysis takes into account reported education ODA and general budget support, which is crucial for the development of education systems. The FTI Secretariat (2006) suggests that between 15% and 25% of general budget support benefits the education sector. This report accounts for 20% of general budget support as being allocated to the education sector. Basic education aid6 in this report includes reported basic education ODA and 10% of budget support and one-third of ‘Education – Level Unspecified’. Assuming that 50% of the budget to education is allocated to primary education (in line with the FTI benchmark), it would represent around 7.5% to 12.5% of total general budget support. Therefore, an average of 10% general budget support is included in basic education aid. One-third of the category ‘Education – Level Unspecified’ (which accounts for education sector budget support) is also included, in line with the Global Campaign for Education (2006) recommendations.

As amounts committed to education aid are likely to fluctuate over time, they are analysed here over several years in order to examine trends in donor behaviour. Where average commitment figures are used these are based on commitment data for the period 2005–07. Aid data are presented based on the calendar year and all ODA figures adjusted for inflation – expressed in 2006 US dollars. Humanitarian aid flows to education are stated as averages over the period 2005 to 2008, and recorded in current US dollars.

Limitations The OECD database constitutes the most comprehensive internationally comparable data source on aid flows. However, it does not account for all international aid. Aid flows reported to the OECD CRS can differ from those reported by donors in-country. This can be due to differences in reporting criteria and reporting years, exchange rate fluctuations, or differences in what is recorded as aid.7 Moreover, the CRS does not take into account recent expansions in South–South cooperation and private aid flows.

Calculating ODA flows to education Total education aid = Education ODA + 20% General Budget Support Basic education aid = Basic Education ODA + 10% General Budget Support + one-third ‘Education – Level Unspecified’

Where bilateral donors channel aid through multilateral organisations, a proportion is often used for education and reported as multilateral, rather than bilateral aid. Individual donor profiles therefore do not reflect all funds committed to education. These funds are, however, captured in the total education aid figures recorded in the main body of the report and All Donors profile in Appendix 2.

Data presentation The OECD states that the database is virtually complete since 1999, so this report examines commitment trends from 1999 onwards. Disbursement data is referred to from 2002, at which point the OECD estimates coverage to be more than 90%.

Notes Countries categorised as conflict-affected are those included on the Project Ploughshare list of states that experienced at least one armed conflict in the 1995-2004 period, or those classed as ‘critical’ on the 2006 Failed States Index, which assesses violent internal conflicts. Countries categorised as fragile are those

APPENDIX 1: METHODOLOGY ●

classified as either ‘Core’ or ‘Severe’ on the 2006 Low Income Countries Under Stress list, which categorises countries according to their Country Policy and Institutional Assessment rating. As data is only provided for nation-states, this list does not include countries experiencing only regional conflict. The majority of the CAFS are low-income countries. However, some are lower middle-income countries according to the World Bank Atlas method, which classifies economies by income group according to gross national income (GNI) per capita. Removal of these countries from the analysis does not alter the broad conclusions of this report. 2

Accessed 2 March 2009 at: http://stats.oecd.org/WBOS/ Index.aspx?DatasetCode=CRSNEW

The DAC is the principal body through which the OECD cooperates financially with developing countries. 4

http://ocha.unog.ch/fts/pageloader.aspx

The CRS records funding to basic rather than primary education. The CRS definition of basic comprises early childhood education, primary education and basic life skills for young people and adults. As primary education data is not available, basic education is used as a proxy in discussions of commitments and progress toward universal primary education. 6

See, for example, Nowell (2006), which highlights methodological differences in US appropriations figures and those reported by DAC. 7

Appendix 2: Donor profiles

Note: Official development assistance (ODA) figures are stated as averages 2005 to 2007, and humanitarian aid as an average 2005 to 2008.

8% ODA to education 37% education aid to basic education

Prioritisation of education (% ODA to education): 5% in CAFS 10% in other LICs Humanitarian aid to education: 1.8%

Education aid commitments

Distribution of education aid

4,500 4,129 4,000 3,500 3,089 2,916 2,724 3,000 2,437 2,368 2,500 2,127 1,943 2,574 2,462 2,000 1,617 2,001 1,404 1,912 1,500 1,157 1,147 1,678 1,000 742 500 0 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

Unallocated 13%

3,000

Distribution of basic education aid

2,677

Unallocated 14% 1,714 1,393

1,500 1,000 500 0

1,125

964

964 388

1,180

1,243

488

596

708 865

879

Other LICs 28%

CAFS Other LICs

2,500 2,000

CAFS 21%

MICs 38%

Key

Basic education aid commitments US$ millions (constant 2006)

Top 3 recipients education aid (US$ millions): China 609 Indonesia 373 Pakistan 286

In 2007, education aid commitments to developing countries reached their highest-ever level at US$11bn. However, only a small proportion of this – $3.5bn – went to basic education. While the share of education aid allocated to CAFS has increased slightly, the share to other LICs has fallen. The share allocated to middle-income countries remains very high. Donors must step up their commitments by: • increasing aid to basic education from $3.5bn to reach the required $9bn a year to achieve UPE • increasing allocations of education and basic education aid to CAFS in line with need • giving increased priority to education in CAFS • including education as part of humanitarian policy and response.

US$ millions (constant 2006)

All donors

CAFS 27%

1,501 1,180 1,026 1,047

MICs 25%

Key CAFS Other LICs

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 Other LICs 34%

A P P E N D I X 2 : D O N O R P RO F I L E S ●

Prioritisation of education (% ODA to education): 2% in CAFS 12% in other LICs Humanitarian aid to education: 3.6% Top 3 recipients education aid (US$ millions): Philippines 39 Papua New Guinea 22 Indonesia 22

Austria 9% ODA to education 4% education aid to basic education

Fair share contribution to UPE financing requirement: 5% Prioritisation of education (% ODA to education): 1% in CAFS 11% in other LICs Humanitarian aid to education: 0.4% Top 3 recipients education aid (US$ millions): Turkey 21 Bosnia-Herzegovina 15 Serbia 10

Education aid commitments 160

Distribution of education aid

151

140 US$ millions (constant 2006)

Fair share contribution to UPE financing requirement: 32%

CAFS 3%

120 100

24 5

Other LICs 23%

Unallocated 36%

10 3

23 9

Key 15

CAFS Other LICs

14 2

0.3

MICs 38%

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

Basic education aid commitments US$ millions (constant 2006)

30% education aid to basic education

90 82 74 80 70 60 48 50 43 40 30 30 19 20 13 7 6 10 4 4 2 2 1 0.7 1 0.02 5 0 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

Distribution of basic education aid Unallocated 9%

CAFS 4%

Other LICs 36% Key CAFS Other LICs

MICs 51%

A rise in Austria’s education aid commitments has not led to an increase in support for basic education. More than three-quarters of education and basic education aid goes to middleincome countries, while the share for CAFS remains extremely low. Austria needs to: • drastically increase basic education aid to meet its fair share of the financing requirement • significantly increase allocations of education and basic education aid to CAFS and other LICs • give increased priority to education in CAFS • include education as part of humanitarian policy and response. Education aid commitments

Distribution of education aid

14 US$ millions (constant 2006)

13% ODA to education

Australia’s total education aid commitments have continued to rise since 2005. However, despite slight increases in the share of education aid allocated to CAFS and other LICs, almost three-quarters of education aid is focused on middle-income countries or classed as ‘unallocated’. To improve its performance, Australia needs to: • significantly increase basic education aid to meet its fair share of the financing requirement • drastically increase allocations of education and basic education aid to CAFS • increase the priority of education in CAFS • include education in humanitarian policy.

Unallocated 11%

12 10 8 6

5 3

4 4

Key

CAFS Other LICs

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

Basic education aid commitments 1.8 1.6 1.4 1.2 1.0 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0

CAFS 5% Other LICs 7%

US$ millions (constant 2006)

Australia

MICs 77%

Distribution of basic education aid Unallocated CAFS 9% 9%

1.7

Other LICs 5%

1.2 0.8

0.7

0.1

0.4 0.1 0.1 0.1

0.1

0.7 0.3

0.1

0.2

0.3 0.2

0.2

Key CAFS Other LICs

MICs 77%

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

LAST IN LINE, LAST IN SCHOOL 2009

Fair share contribution to UPE financing requirement: 31% Prioritisation of education (% ODA to education): 7% in CAFS 16% in other LICs Humanitarian aid to education: 1.2% Top 3 recipients education aid (US$ millions): Democratic Republic of Congo 14 Rwanda 11 Vietnam 7

Canada 10% ODA to education 70% education aid to basic education

Fair share contribution to UPE financing requirement: 59% Prioritisation of education (% ODA to education): 7% in CAFS 36% in other LICs Humanitarian aid to education: 1.3% Top 3 recipients education aid (US$ millions): Mali 44 Afghanistan 40 Mozambique 31

Education aid commitments

Distribution of education aid

60 US$ millions (constant 2006)

20% education aid to basic education

50 37

40 32

26 22

20 10

29 14

Key CAFS Other LICs

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

Distribution of basic education aid Unallocated

25 20

20 15

4 2

MICs 9%

CAFS 49%

11 6

Key

CAFS Other LICs

10 6

Other LICs 22%

MICs 15%

Basic education aid commitments

CAFS 28%

Unallocated 35%

US$ millions (constant 2006)

11% ODA to education

Basic education aid commitments dropped in 2007 for the first time since 2003, leaving the proportion of education aid allocated to basic education at just 20%. CAFS’ share of education and basic education aid continues to increase, but Belgium still needs to: • significantly increase basic education aid to meet its fair share of the financing requirement • give increased priority to education in CAFS • include education as part of humanitarian policy and response.

Other LICs 37%

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

Canada continues to be a strong supporter of education, especially basic education, and its aid allocations to education and basic education in CAFS have increased since last year. Canada can improve its performance further by: • increasing basic education aid to meet its fair share of the financing requirement • continuing to increase allocations of education and basic education aid to CAFS • giving increased priority to education in CAFS • increasing funding for education in humanitarian response. Education aid commitments

Distribution of education aid

250 211

US$ millions (constant 2006)

Belgium

Unallocated 12%

200 164

169

MICs 13%

150 102

100 67

60 39

31 35

CAFS 23%

112 55

37 8

Key CAFS Other LICs

Other LICs 52%

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

Basic education aid commitments US$ millions (constant 2006)

●

180 158 160 146 140 123 120 100 79 100 80 61 60 48 38 40 26 24 44 20 20 20 19 9 20 3 2 0 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

Distribution of basic education aid Unallocated 11%

CAFS 16%

MICs 13%

Key CAFS Other LICs

Other LICs 60%

A P P E N D I X 2 : D O N O R P RO F I L E S ●

49% education aid to basic education

Fair share contribution to UPE financing requirement: 52% Prioritisation of education (% ODA to education): 6% in CAFS 7% in other LICs Humanitarian aid to education: 5.2% Top 3 recipients education aid (US$ millions): Benin 13 Bolivia 10 Afghanistan 8

Education aid commitments US$ millions (constant 2006)

6% ODA to education

Denmark is the leading supporter of education in humanitarian contexts. Its aid commitments to education in CAFS and other LICs increased slightly in 2007 after two years of decline. Although CAFS and other LICs continue to receive over 75% of Denmark’s basic education aid, CAFS’ share of this decreased this year. Denmark still needs to: • increase basic education aid to meet its fair share of the financing requirement • increase allocations of education aid to CAFS • give increased priority to education in CAFS and other LICs.

90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0

Distribution of education aid

Unallocated 1%

MICs 20%

41 31 24

13 2 0.3

Key

CAFS Other LICs

Basic education aid commitments 60

MICs 11%

40 30

25 11

Key

0.5

CAFS 38%

27 24

20 10

CAFS Other LICs

Prioritisation of education (% ODA to education): 5% in CAFS 14% in other LICs Humanitarian aid to education: 0.7% Top 3 recipients education aid (US$ millions): Mozambique 13 Tanzania 8 Zambia 4

Education aid commitments 40

Distribution of education aid 36

35 US$ millions (constant 2006)

Fair share contribution to UPE financing requirement: 35%

Other LICs 51%

Finland is a good supporter of education in other LICs. However, education aid as a percentage of ODA has decreased this year. Support to education in CAFS has decreased, and humanitarian aid to education is very low. Finland needs to: • significantly increase basic education aid to meet its fair share of the financing requirement • significantly increase the allocation of education and basic education aid to CAFS • increase the priority of education in CAFS • include education as part of humanitarian policy and response.

CAFS 16%

Unallocated 18%

30 24

20 15 10

8 6

MICs 9%

16 10

Key

CAFS Other LICs

0.5

Other LICs 57%

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

Basic education aid commitments

Distribution of basic education aid Unallocated

US$ millions (constant 2006)

43% education aid to basic education

Unallocated 0%

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

7% ODA to education

Other LICs 54%

Distribution of basic education aid

Finland

CAFS 25%

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

US$ millions (constant 2006)

Denmark

MICs 12%

19 16

10 5 0

8 3 0.4

4 2

CAFS 20%

0.1

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

Key CAFS Other LICs

Other LICs 61%

LAST IN LINE, LAST IN SCHOOL 2009

France 18% ODA to education 10% education aid to basic education

Fair share contribution to UPE financing requirement: 25% Prioritisation of education (% ODA to education): 5% in CAFS 19% in other LICs

Education aid commitments

Distribution of education aid

400

366

350 250

224

200 158 150 100

131

Unallocated 2%

294

290

300

CAFS 10%

243 210 124

190 188

236 123

142

174

Other LICs 20%

163

128

Key

105

CAFS Other LICs

50 0

MICs 68%

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

Basic education aid commitments 90 81 85 80 78 80 70 60 49 46 50 41 39 39 40 35 30 18 20 28 14 12 16 19 7 10 8 0 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

Distribution of basic education aid Unallocated 7%

CAFS 9%

Top 3 recipients education aid (US$ millions): Morocco 199 Algeria 153 China 122

US$ millions (constant 2006)

Humanitarian aid to education: 0.3%

France allocates a substantial amount of its aid to education. However, the proportion of this that goes to basic education is very low. The majority of France’s education aid continues to go to middle-income countries. France can improve its performance by: • drastically increasing basic education aid to meet its fair share of the financing requirement • significantly increasing allocations of education and basic education aid to CAFS • giving increased priority to education in CAFS • including education as part of humanitarian policy and response.

US$ millions (constant 2006)

●

Germany

Germany’s support for basic education in other LICs more than tripled in 2007. Germany’s support of CAFS for both education and basic education remains low. Germany can improve its performance by: • drastically increasing basic education aid to meet its fair share of the financing requirement • significantly increasing allocations of education and basic education aid to CAFS • increasing priority for education in CAFS • including education as part of humanitarian policy and response.

Fair share contribution to UPE financing requirement: 20% Prioritisation of education (% ODA to education): 3% in CAFS 12% in other LICs Humanitarian aid to education: 0.5% Top 3 recipients education aid (US$ millions): China 155 Indonesia 41 Turkey 40

CAFS Other LICs

273

Unallocated 16%

250 191

200 150

MICs 53%

Distribution of education aid

300

183

166 120

105

115

100 108

114

105

119

CAFS 9% Other LICs 17%

131 103

110

Key

CAFS Other LICs

0 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

Basic education aid commitments

MICs 58%

Distribution of basic education aid

140

Unallocated 10%

116

120

CAFS 16%

100 80 60 40

10 12

35 25

18 24

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

Key

Education aid commitments US$ millions (constant 2006)

15% education aid to basic education

US$ millions (constant 2006)

11% ODA to education

Other LICs 31%

MICs 34%

Key CAFS Other LICs

Other LICs 40%

A P P E N D I X 2 : D O N O R P RO F I L E S ●

6% education aid to basic education Fair share contribution to UPE financing requirement: 3% Prioritisation of education (% ODA to education): 25% in CAFS 33% in other LICs Humanitarian aid to education: 0% Top 3 recipients education aid (US$ millions): Albania 13 Afghanistan 3 Turkey 3

Education aid commitments

Distribution of education aid

Unallocated 0%

12 US$ millions (constant 2006)

19% ODA to education

Greece is a strong supporter of education as a share of its total aid. However, more than three-quarters of this is allocated to middle-income countries, and just 6% is directed to basic education. Greece commits none of its humanitarian aid to education. Greece needs to: • drastically increase basic education aid to meet its fair share of the financing requirement • significantly increase education aid allocations to CAFS and other LICs • include education as part of humanitarian policy and response.

Other LICs 2%

6 4

3 0.8 0.3

0.2 0.4

0.5

Key 1.7

CAFS Other LICs

0.2

Basic education aid commitments 3.5

Distribution of basic education aid

3.3

Unallocated 2%

3.0 2.5 2.0

MICs 41%

1.5 1.0 0.5

0.5 0.05

0.4

0.1

0.1 0.1

0.02 0.03

CAFS Other LICs

0.3

Prioritisation of education (% ODA to education): 10% in CAFS 17% in other LICs Humanitarian aid to education: 1.9% Top 3 recipients education aid (US$ millions): Uganda 12 Zambia 11 Mozambique 10

Education aid commitments

Distribution of education aid

35 US$ millions (constant 2006)

Fair share contribution to UPE financing requirement: 80%

Other LICs 2%

Ireland remains a strong education supporter that gives priority to basic education. It is committed to supporting education and basic education in low-income countries. However, the share of education and basic education aid allocated to CAFS and other LICs has decreased in recent years. Ireland needs to: • meet its fair share of the basic education financing requirement • increase allocations of education and basic education aid to CAFS • include education as part of humanitarian policy and response.

25 20

MICs 12%

15 10

Key CAFS Other LICs

Other LICs 41%

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

Basic education aid commitments 20 18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0

CAFS 31%

Unallocated 16%

US$ millions (constant 2006)

56% education aid to basic education

CAFS 55%

Key

0.6

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

12% ODA to education

MICs 79%

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

Ireland

CAFS 19%

US$ millions (constant 2006)

Greece

19 19 13 12

Unallocated 17%

CAFS 29%

10 11

Distribution of basic education aid

MICs 13%

Key 5

CAFS Other LICs

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 Other LICs 41%

LAST IN LINE, LAST IN SCHOOL 2009

3% ODA to education 25% education aid to basic education

Fair share contribution to UPE financing requirement: 3% Prioritisation of education (% ODA to education): 1% in CAFS 3% in other LICs Humanitarian aid to education: 1.9% Top 3 recipients education aid (US$ millions): Palestinian Adm. Areas 3 Afghanistan 3 Mozambique 3

The proportion of total aid allocated to education and basic education remains significantly low. Italy needs to: • drastically increase basic education aid to meet its fair share of the financing requirement • increase allocations of education and basic education aid to CAFS and other LICs • give increased priority to education in CAFS and other LICs • include education in humanitarian policy and response • maintain commitment to ensure timely reporting of education aid data to the OECD-DAC. Education aid commitments US$ millions (constant 2006)

Italy

50 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0

Distribution of education aid

CAFS 18% 33

14 6

Unallocated 42%

17 11

6 2

CAFS Other LICs MICs 31%

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

Distribution of basic education aid

14 11

12 7

8 6

5 4

4 2

2 0.3

0.1

0.8

0.7

Key CAFS Other LICs

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

Fair share contribution to UPE financing requirement: 18% Prioritisation of education (% ODA to education): 2% in CAFS 4% in other LICs Humanitarian aid to education: 3.8% Top 3 recipients education aid (US$ millions): China 267 Indonesia 90 Vietnam 37

Education aid commitments

Distribution of education aid

215

Unallocated 5%

200 150

167 163

121

100

69 31

Other LICs 21%

115 72

Key

CAFS Other LICs

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

Basic education aid commitments 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0

CAFS 10%

184 164

81 70

47 35

CAFS 17%

MICs 45%

38 39

MICs 64%

Distribution of basic education aid Unallocated

Key 9

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

MICs 38%

250 US$ millions (constant 2006)

26% education aid to basic education

Other LICs 8%

Though Japan’s basic education aid to other LICs increased in 2007, basic education aid to CAFS has been in decline since 2005. Nearly two-thirds of all education aid is allocated to middle-income countries. Japan needs to: • drastically increase support to basic education to meet its fair share of the financing requirement • significantly increase allocations of education and basic education aid to CAFS • give increased priority to education in CAFS and other LICs.

US$ millions (constant 2006)

6% ODA to education

CAFS 25%

Unallocated 29%

Japan

Other LICs 9%

Key

Basic education aid commitments US$ millions (constant 2006)

●

CAFS Other LICs

Other LICs 36%

A P P E N D I X 2 : D O N O R P RO F I L E S ●

32% education aid to basic education Fair share contribution to UPE financing requirement: 97% Prioritisation of education (% ODA to education): 5% in CAFS 16% in other LICs Humanitarian aid to education: 0.05% Top 3 recipients education aid (US$ millions): Senegal 5 Cape Verde 5 El Salvador 3

Education aid commitments US$ millions (constant 2006)

13% ODA to education

The share of basic education aid allocated to CAFS has increased slightly this year, but remains low. Humanitarian aid to education is also extremely low. Luxembourg needs to: • significantly increase allocations of education and basic education aid to CAFS • give increased priority to education in CAFS • include education in humanitarian policy and response.

18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0

Distribution of education aid

Unallocated 3%

CAFS 4%

11 9

MICs 49%

Other LICs 44%

Key 2 0.4

0.9

CAFS Other LICs

0.7

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

Basic education aid commitments

Distribution of basic education aid

7 US$ millions (constant 2006)

Luxembourg

Unallocated 7%

CAFS 10%

4 3

MICs 39%

2 2

Key

0.6

0.5

0.1

Other LICs 44%

CAFS Other LICs

0.4

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

14% ODA to education 68% education aid to basic education Fair share contribution to UPE financing requirement: 315% Prioritisation of education (% ODA to education): 10% in CAFS 25% in other LICs

The Netherlands continues to exceed its fair share of the financing requirement; however, total bilateral aid to education has decreased substantially from a high point in 2006, and CAFS receive a small share of bilateral education aid. The Netherlands has, however, been contributing significantly to supporting CAFS through a US$200m contribution to UNICEF in late 2006. The Netherlands can still improve its performance by: • increasing the share of education and basic education aid allocated to CAFS • giving priority to education in CAFS • including education as part of humanitarian policy. Education aid commitments US$ millions (constant 2006)

Netherlands

Humanitarian aid to education: 2.7%

402

CAFS 9% 286

117

152

86 21

Unallocated 42%

175

172

44 15

155

CAFS Other LICs

10 28

MICs 22%

Basic education aid commitments 350

Distribution of basic education aid CAFS 9%

327

300

270

250 200 140 86

84 59

50 0

Unallocated 43%

165

150 100

Other LICs 27%

Key

125

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

US$ millions (constant 2006)

Top 3 recipients education aid (US$ millions): Indonesia 92 Mozambique 43 South Africa 42

450 400 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0

Distribution of education aid

40 7

Other LICs 30%

133 53

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

Key CAFS Other LICs MICs 18%

LAST IN LINE, LAST IN SCHOOL 2009

New Zealand 23% ODA to education 57% education aid to basic education

Fair share contribution to UPE financing requirement: 120% Prioritisation of education (% ODA to education): 8% in CAFS 37% in other LICs Humanitarian aid to education: 1.7%

This year, New Zealand has exceeded its fair share of the basic education financing requirement, following a large increase in basic education aid commitments. However, education aid is still not reaching CAFS. New Zealand can further improve its performance by: • significantly increasing allocations of education and basic education aid to CAFS • giving increased priority to education in CAFS • including education as part of humanitarian policy and response. Education aid commitments

Distribution of education aid

30 US$ millions (constant 2006)

●

Unallocated 8%

Other LICs 39%

15 10 5

4 0.3

Key CAFS Other LICs

MICs 49%

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

Basic education aid commitments

Distribution of basic education aid

30 US$ millions (constant 2006)

Unallocated 7%

Top 3 recipients education aid (US$ millions): Solomon Islands 17 Samoa 6 Tonga 5

CAFS 4%

CAFS 1%

20 15 10

3 0.2

0.6

0.7

MICs 41%

Key 0.1 0.4 2

Other LICs 51%

CAFS Other LICs

0.8

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

50% education aid to basic education

Fair share contribution to UPE financing requirement: 136% Prioritisation of education (% ODA to education): 7% in CAFS 13% in other LICs Humanitarian aid to education: 2.3% Top 3 recipients education aid (US$ millions): Tanzania 15 Madagascar 14 Zambia 13

Education aid commitments US$ millions (constant 2006)

10% ODA to education

Norway continues to be a strong education supporter, exceeding its fair share; however, there is a worrying overall decline in education aid. Further, the share of education aid committed to CAFS has decreased this year, and an increased proportion of education aid is listed as unallocated. Norway needs to: • increase allocations of education and basic education aid to CAFS • give increased priority to education in CAFS • continue to prioritise allocations to education in its development and humanitarian aid.

200 180 160 140 120 100 80 60 40 20 0

Distribution of education aid

195

CAFS 17% Unallocated 43%

71 58

32 23

Key Other LICs 29%

CAFS Other LICs

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

MICs 11%

Basic education aid commitments 140

Distribution of basic education aid CAFS

130

120 US$ millions (constant 2006)

Norway

18%

100 Unallocated 49%

80 60

44 33

40 47 20 0

13 8

21 8

Key 17

23 13

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

Other LICs 25%

CAFS Other LICs MICs 8%

A P P E N D I X 2 : D O N O R P RO F I L E S ●

13% education aid to basic education Fair share contribution to UPE financing requirement: 17% Prioritisation of education (% ODA to education): 29% in CAFS 37% in other LICs Humanitarian aid to education: 0% Top 3 recipients education aid (US$ millions): Cape Verde 25 Timor Leste 11 Angola 10

Education aid commitments 25 21

US$ millions (constant 2006)

20% ODA to education

Portugal commits a good proportion of its aid to education, and an increasing proportion of that education aid goes to CAFS. However, Portugal continues to under-fund basic education. None of its humanitarian aid goes to education. Portugal needs to: • drastically increase basic education aid to meet its fair share of the financing requirement • include education as part of humanitarian policy and response.

21 16

22 16

Distribution of education aid 20

Unallocated 2% CAFS 32%

MICs 39%

Key

CAFS Other LICs

0 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

Other LICs 27%

Basic education aid commitments US$ millions (constant 2006)

Portugal

8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0

Distribution of basic education aid 7

MICs 2%

Unallocated 0%

Other LICs 23%

2 3 0.8

Key CAFS Other LICs

CAFS 76%

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

39% education aid to basic education

Fair share contribution to UPE financing requirement: 31% Prioritisation of education (% ODA to education): 6% in CAFS 12% in other LICs Humanitarian aid to education: 1.4% Top 3 recipients education aid (US$ millions): Peru 14 Honduras 14 Morocco 12

Education aid commitments

Distribution of education aid

60 US$ millions (constant 2006)

10% ODA to education

In 2007, Spain has shown large increases in education and basic education aid commitments, particularly to other LICs. However, the majority of education aid continues to be focused on middle-income countries. Spain can improve its performance by: • significantly increasing basic education aid to meet its fair share of the financing requirement • increasing allocations of education and basic education aid to CAFS and other LICs • giving greater priority to education in CAFS • including education as part of humanitarian policy and response.

Unallocated 19%

50 40

18 17

Other LICs 12%

Key

CAFS Other LICs

CAFS 10%

20 10 0

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

Basic education aid commitments

MICs 59%

Distribution of basic education aid

60 US$ millions (constant 2006)

Spain

Unallocated 16%

CAFS 12%

40 Other LICs 21%

30 20

18 14

10 3

6 3

5 4

7 5

8 8

11 9

Key CAFS Other LICs

MICs 51%

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

LAST IN LINE, LAST IN SCHOOL 2009

6% ODA to education 50% education aid to basic education Fair share contribution to UPE financing requirement: 71% Prioritisation of education (% ODA to education): 9% in CAFS 12% in other LICs Humanitarian aid to education: 1.4% Top 3 recipients education aid (US$ millions): Afghanistan 19 Mali 16 Tanzania 14

Sweden has moved further and further from meeting its fair share of the financing requirement in recent years. In 2007, education and basic education aid commitments dropped. Sweden needs to: • increase basic education aid to meet its fair share of the financing requirement • give increased priority to education in CAFS • increase humanitarian funding to education. Education aid commitments

Distribution of education aid

120 101

US$ millions (constant 2006)

Sweden

100 69 42

MICs 13%

Key CAFS Other LICs

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

Other LICs 39%

Basic education aid commitments 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0

CAFS 31%

Unallocated 17%

US$ millions (constant 2006)

●

Distribution of basic education aid Unallocated 12%

MICs 9% 43 34 26 9

24 5

CAFS 47%

0.7

Key CAFS Other LICs

Other LICs 32%

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

28% education aid to basic education Fair share contribution to UPE financing requirement: 12% Prioritisation of education (% ODA to education): 1% in CAFS 8% in other LICs Humanitarian aid to education: 0.7% Top 3 recipients education aid (US$ millions): Burkina Faso 4 Bangladesh 3 Serbia 3

Education aid commitments 35 US$ millions (constant 2006)

4% ODA to education

Switzerland continues to prioritise support to education in other LICs, while CAFS receive much less support. Overall support for education, both as a proportion of ODA and in humanitarian aid, remains very low. Switzerland needs to: • drastically increase basic education aid to meet its fair share of the financing requirement • significantly increase allocations of education and basic education aid to CAFS • increase priority of education in CAFS • include education as part of humanitarian policy and response. Distribution of education aid

30 20

Other LICs 34%

10 5

5 0.8

Key 3

CAFS Other LICs

0.7

0 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

MICs 28%

Basic education aid commitments 25

Distribution of basic education aid

Unallocated 18%

CAFS 10%

5 0

3 0.6 0.6

6 0.1

0.1

0.7

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

Unallocated 32%

CAFS 6%

US$ millions (constant 2006)

Switzerland

MICs 22%

Key CAFS Other LICs

Other LICs 50%

A P P E N D I X 2 : D O N O R P RO F I L E S ●

8% ODA to education 59% education aid to basic education

Fair share contribution to UPE financing requirement: 64% Prioritisation of education (% ODA to education): 4% in CAFS 13% in other LICs Humanitarian aid to education: 0.3%

A drop in education aid commitments in 2007 has particularly affected basic education, and the UK has fallen behind on meeting its fair share of the basic education financing requirement. CAFS’ share of education aid has increased over the last two years, but humanitarian aid to education is very low. The UK still needs to: • increase basic education aid to meet its fair share of the financing requirement • increase allocations of education and basic education aid to CAFS in line with their needs • increase priority of education in CAFS • include education in humanitarian policy and response. Education aid commitments

Distribution of education aid

800 734

700 US$ millions (constant 2006)

Unallocated 18%

600

CAFS 26%

511

500 400

340

300 222 200 100

183

MICs 6%

304 255 196 182

183

228

304

225

Key CAFS Other LICs

0 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

Other LICs 50%

Basic education aid commitments

Distribution of basic education aid

700 688

600 US$ millions (constant 2006)

Top 3 recipients education aid (US$ millions): Ghana 100 Nigeria 63 Ethiopia 62

Unallocated 22%

500 400 300 200 100

212

250

248 189

181 92

137

223

MICs 7% Key

206

CAFS Other LICs

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

71% education aid to basic education Fair share contribution to UPE financing requirement: 15% Prioritisation of education (% ODA to education): 2% in CAFS 3% in other LICs Humanitarian aid to education: 0.7% Top 3 recipients education aid (US$ millions): Pakistan 97 Egypt 95 Iraq 93

Education aid commitments

Distribution of education aid

400

375

348

350 US$ millions (constant 2006)

3% ODA to education

Other LICs 42%

The proportion of education aid the USA allocates to CAFS remains significant, and education aid to CAFS increased in 2007. However, education comprises a very small proportion of overall aid and humanitarian assistance. The USA can increase its support to education by: • drastically increasing basic education aid to meet its fair share of the financing requirement • increasing the priority given to education in CAFS and other LICs • including education as part of humanitarian policy and response.

370

Unallocated 8%

300 250 182

200 100 0

MICs 40%

188

150 50

50 43

89 27

CAFS Other LICs

CAFS 42%

Key

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

Other LICs 10%

Basic education aid commitments

Distribution of basic education aid Unallocated

350 340

300 US$ millions (constant 2006)

USA

CAFS 29%

306

250

252

200

MICs 39%

150 114

100 50 0

39 28

56 28

118

84 42

52 71

CAFS 43%

Key 73

CAFS Other LICs

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 Other LICs 13%

LAST IN LINE, LAST IN SCHOOL 2009

7% ODA to education 41% education aid to basic education Prioritisation of education (% ODA to education): 5% in CAFS 9% in other LICs Humanitarian aid to education: 0.4% (ECHO) 1.9% (EC) Top 3 recipients education aid (US$ millions): Egypt 49 Tunisia 35 Jordan 29

The EC increased education and basic education aid commitments to CAFS in 2007. However, a large proportion of education aid still goes to middle-income countries. In addition, only a small proportion of humanitarian aid is allocated to education. The EC could further improve its performance by: • increasing the share of aid allocated to education and basic education • increasing allocations of education and basic education aid to CAFS • increasing priority for education in CAFS • including education as part of humanitarian policy and response. Education aid commitments US$ millions (constant 2006)

European Commission

Distribution of education aid

500 450 450 400 330 325 350 300 250 203 200 176 159 147 160 150 111 128 123 100 118 98 31 84 50 75 58 41 0 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

Unallocated 16%

CAFS Other LICs

367

Unallocated 2%

300

249

250

174 122

120

100 50

CAFS 27%

MICs 38%

191

200 150

MICs 46%

Distribution of basic education aid

400 350

70 92

84 40

70 67

71 16

Key CAFS Other LICs

Other LICs 33%

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

12% ODA to education 41% education aid to basic education Prioritisation of education (% ODA to education): 15% in CAFS 11% in other LICs Top 3 recipients education aid (US$ millions): India 118 Pakistan 89 Nigeria 79

The World Bank’s increase in education aid between 2005 and 2007 has particularly benefited CAFS: CAFS now receive nearly half of education aid. However, there has been a drop in the proportion of education aid allocated to basic education. The Bank now needs to: • ensure basic education remains a priority in CAFS and other LICs • maintain allocations of education and basic education aid to CAFS. Education aid commitments 1,600

Distribution of education aid 1,514

1,400 US$ millions (constant 2006)

World Bank IDA

949

1,000 800 600

594

691

704

525

502 274

458 275

393

147

CAFS 47%

785

533

612

400 200

Key 405

CAFS Other LICs

262

Other LICs 41%

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

Distribution of basic education aid

1,200

MICs 13%

1,036

US$ millions (constant 2006)

Unallocated 0%

MICs 12%

1,200

Basic education aid commitments 1,000

Unallocated 0%

800 600 414

400

271 39

281

240

183 54

CAFS 50%

420

365 371

228

200

148

211

174

199 102

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

CAFS 16%

Other LICs 22%

Key

Basic education aid commitments US$ millions (constant 2006)

●

Key CAFS Other LICs

Other LICs 37%

Appendix 3: Comparative table assessing donor performance and progress This table provides comparable statistics illustrating the key changes that have taken place in donor support of CAFS since publication of the first Last in Line, Last in School report in 2007 (Save the Children, 2007). Country

Fair share contribution to UPE financing requirement (%)

Overall % ODA to education in CAFS

Distribution of education aid: CAFS % share

Distribution of basic education aid: CAFS % share

Humanitarian aid to education (%)

Avg 03–05

Avg 05–07

Avg 03–05

Avg 05–07

Avg 03–05

Avg 05–07

Avg 03–05

Avg 05–07

Avg 03–05

Avg 05–07

All donors

–

1.5

1.8

Australia

3.6

Austria

0.3

0.4

Belgium

1.4

1.2

Canada

2.7

1.3

Denmark

3.8

5.2

Finland

1.7

0.7

France

0.2

0.3

Germany

0.5

Greece

0.2

0.0

Ireland

2.8

1.9

Italy

1.9

Japan

4.6

3.8

Luxembourg

0.05

Netherlands

165

315

2.9

2.7

New Zealand

120

2.1

1.7

Norway

163

136

2.5

2.3

Portugal

0.7

0.0

Spain

0.5

1.4

Sweden

2.7

1.4

Switzerland

0.7

1.3

0.3

USA

0.4

0.7

European Commission

–

0.3

1.9

World Bank IDA

–

Last in Line, Last in School 2009

Last in Line, Last in School 2009 Donor trends in meeting education needs in countries affected by conflict and emergencies

Last in Line, Last in School 2009

Donor trends in meeting education needs in countries affected by conflict and emergencies

Education donors must act immediately to accelerate progress if they are to fulfil their promise of good-quality education for all children by 2015.

International Save the Children Alliance Cambridge House Cambridge Grove London W6 0LE UK

www.savethechildren.net/rewritethefuture Save the Children is a member of the

Rewrite the Future