evolution of responses to support education in post...
TRANSCRIPT
ED/EFA/MRT/2015/PI/18
Background paper prepared for the
Education for All Global Monitoring Report 2015
Education for All 2000-2015: achievements and
challenges
Evolution of responses to support education in post-
conflict situations and the aftermath of natural
disasters
Susan Nicolai
2015 This paper was commissioned by the Education for All Global Monitoring Report as background
information to assist in drafting the 2015 report. It has not been edited by the team. The views
and opinions expressed in this paper are those of the author(s) and should not be attributed to
the EFA Global Monitoring Report or to UNESCO. The papers can be cited with the following
reference: “Paper commissioned for the EFA Global Monitoring Report 2015, Education for All
2000-2015: achievements and challenges” For further information, please contact
1
Evolution of responses to support education in post-conflict situations and the aftermath of natural disasters
By Susan Nicolai
Background Paper for the EFA Global Monitoring Report 2015
31 July 2014
2
Abstract
This background paper examines the evolution of global and national efforts to support education in
post-conflict and natural disaster situations. It reviews what is known about the scale of the challenge,
and goes on to identify five drivers behind progress between 2000 and today: establishing a network,
development of common standards, building a literature and evidence base, mainstreaming response,
and advocacy and growing recognition for the sector. Four case studies then provide an overview of
education in emergency response in Pakistan, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Haiti and Syria. The
paper concludes by setting out eight core recommendations related to education in emergencies that
should be addressed by the post-2015 development agenda.
3
Acronyms
ADB Asian Development Bank
ANER Adjusted Net Enrolment Ratio
CCAPS Climate Change and African Political Stability Program
CRED Centre for Research on the Epidemiology of Disasters
CAPs Consolidated Appeals Processes
CFS Child friendly spaces
DAC Development Assistance Committee
DDR Disarmament, demobilization and reintegration
DHS Demographic and Health Survey
DRR Disaster Risk Reduction
ECW Education Can’t Wait Advocacy Working Group
ECWG Education Cluster Working Group
EFA Education for All
EMIS Education management information systems
EFA GMR Education For All Global Monitoring Report
ERA Education Resilience Approach
ERRA Earthquake Reconstruction and Rehabilitation Authority
HFA Hyogo Framework for Action
HLP High Level Panel of Eminent Persons on the Post-2015 Development Agenda
HuGos Humanitarian Goals
IASC UN Inter-Agency Standing Committee
IDMC Internal Displacement Monitoring Centre
IDPs Internally displaced persons
IIEP UNESCO’s International Institute for Educational Planning
INEE Inter-Agency Network on Education in Emergencies
IPCC International Panel on Climate Change
IRC International Rescue Committee
GCPEA Global Coalition to Protect Education from Attack
GER Gross Enrolment Ratio
GPE Global Partnership for Education
LICUS Low Income Countries Under Stress
MDGs Millennium Development Goals
MIRA Multi-cluster initial rapid assessment
MoE Ministry of Education
NDMA National Disaster Management Agency
NGO Non-governmental organisation
NFER National Foundation for Educational Research
NRC Norwegian Refugee Council
OWG UN Open Working Group on Sustainable Development Goals
4
PEAR Programme of Expanded Assistance to Returns
PRIO Peace Research Institute, Oslo
PTA Parent Teacher Associations
RRP6 Syria Regional Response Plan
SABER Systems Approach for Better Education Results
SIPRI Stockholm International Peace Research Institute
SMC School Management Committees
SHARP5 Syria Humanitarian Assistance Response Plan
TEP Teacher Emergency Package
TLC Temporary Learning Centres
TSS Temporary School Structures
UCDP Uppsala Conflict Data Program
UNDP United Nations Development Program
UIS UNESCO Institute for Statistics
UNGA United Nations General Assembly
UN OCHA United Nations Office for Coordination of Humanitarian Assistance
UNHCR United Nations High Commission for Refugees
UNESCO United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation
UNFCCC United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change
UNICEF United Nations Children’s Fund
UNISDR United Nations International Strategy for Disaster Reduction
USAID United States Agency for International Development
5
Table of Contents
Abstract ......................................................................................................................................................... 2
1. Introduction .......................................................................................................................................... 6
2. Scale of the challenge ........................................................................................................................... 6
2.1 Numbers affected ............................................................................................................................... 7
Impact of conflict .................................................................................................................................. 8
Effects of natural disasters .................................................................................................................. 10
2.2 Financing gaps ................................................................................................................................... 12
Humanitarian aid ................................................................................................................................ 12
Development assistance ..................................................................................................................... 13
Domestic spending and household expenditure ................................................................................ 13
3. The early days of education in emergencies....................................................................................... 14
3.1 Education response in the 1990s ...................................................................................................... 14
3.2 Unresolved issues ............................................................................................................................. 15
4. Consolidation of a new field ............................................................................................................... 15
4.1 Establishing a network ...................................................................................................................... 16
4.2 Development of common standards ................................................................................................ 16
4.3 Building a literature and evidence base ............................................................................................ 18
4.4 Mainstreaming of education response ............................................................................................. 19
4.5 Advocacy and growing recognition ................................................................................................... 21
A focus on education and conflict ....................................................................................................... 22
Policy on education and natural disasters .......................................................................................... 23
Efforts toward building resilience ....................................................................................................... 23
5. Four case studies ................................................................................................................................. 24
5.1 Pakistan: Refugees, natural disasters and insecurity ........................................................................ 24
5.2 DRC: Long term violent conflict in the east ...................................................................................... 27
5.3 Haiti: A devastating earthquake ....................................................................................................... 30
5.4 Syria: Civil war and extensive displacement ..................................................................................... 33
6. Implications for post-2015 .................................................................................................................. 36
7. Conclusion ........................................................................................................................................... 38
Bibliography ................................................................................................................................................ 40
6
1. Introduction
In recent years, millions of children and their families have been affected by conflict and natural
disasters. Education systems are inevitably disrupted at these times, with resulting negative impact
across all of the Education for All Goals.
One half of the global population of out of school children live in conflict-affected countries, a
proportion that rose again in recent years. In addition, natural disasters have increased in frequency
and intensity, and even a temporary disruption of education can have a lasting impact on children’s
chances to complete basic education.
This background paper to the 2015 Education For All Global Monitoring Report (EFA GMR) examines the
evolution of global and national efforts to support education for children in post-conflict and natural
disaster situations. In particular, it considers:
- What were the policies and programmes aimed at addressing educational consequences in post-
conflict and natural disaster emergency situations in 2000?
- How have these policies and programmes evolved in subsequent years? What has driven these
changes? To what extent have they addressed challenges related to this issue?
- What are the implications of the current status of policies and programmes for addressing
challenges related to a possible post-2015 agenda?
Following this introduction, Section 2 of this paper goes on to look carefully at the scale of the challenge
regarding emergencies and education, with a focus on reviewing data related to numbers affected and
financing gaps. Section 3 then steps back to look at the early days of education in emergencies, prior to
the adoption of the Dakar Framework for Action in 2000. Next, Section 4 looks more closely at the
global evolution of the sector between 2000 and the present day, identifying five drivers behind
progress in the sector: establishing of a network, development of common standards, building of a
literature and evidence base, mainstreaming of education response in humanitarian action, and finally
advocacy and growing recognition for the sector. Following this, in Section 5, four case studies review
the varied emergency contexts and education response in Pakistan, DRC, Haiti and Syria. Next, Section 6
considers implications for the post-2015 framework in relation to education in emergencies and
identifies 8 key areas of focus that should be addressed. Finally, Section 7 provides some conclusions
suggested by analysis throughout this paper.
2. Scale of the challenge
Both conflict and natural disaster have significant negative impacts on a variety of aspects of education,
which are in many places compounded by underlying poverty and fragility of a society. This mix of
factors can engender complex emergencies, which the UN Office for Coordination of Humanitarian
Affairs characterizes by “extensive loss of life, massive displacement of population, widespread damage
to societies and economies” alongside “need for large-scale, multi-faceted humanitarian assistance” (UN
7
OCHA, 2002). Emergencies often create or occur alongside other instabilities; including sudden
demographic shifts as internally displaced persons (IDPs) and refugees leave at-risk areas, rapid
urbanization, food insecurity, environmental degradation, climate change, health epidemics, and
entrenched poverty (CCAPS, 2013).
While there can be a sharp operational and conceptual distinction between natural disasters and conflict
and instability, this is often inappropriate. A recent report by Harris, et al. (2013) found that natural
disasters exacerbate pre-existing conflicts, often deepening grievances, limiting economic opportunities
and subverting political opportunities. Conversely, there is also strong evidence that conflict and
fragility magnify the impact of natural disasters, increasing vulnerability, limiting basic services, and
making livelihoods more insecure. Government capacity in these situations is inevitably reduced, with
greater reliance and subsequent strain thus put on the international humanitarian system (UN Secretary
General, 2013).
With the likelihood that poverty will be highly concentrated in fragile and conflict-affected states by
2025 (Kharas and Rogerson, 2012) and with many of these states still some way off meeting any of the
Millennium Development Goals (MDGs), the importance of coherently addressing both conflict and
natural disasters is becoming increasingly important for both the development and humanitarian
communities.
These have grave impacts on education, alongside with a range of other sectors, as detailed in the
Machel Study 10-year strategic review: Children and conflict in a changing world (UNICEF, 2009). Many
children are out of school, or have their education interrupted due to conflict and natural disasters.
Even when children are able to go to school, quality is often poor in these settings, with dilapidated
classrooms, few learning materials, irrelevant curriculum and teachers will little or poor professional
training. In addition, both teachers and students may be suffering from the traumas of war or natural
disasters. Furthermore, existing marginalisation by gender, ethnicity or disability is often exacerbated
by education systems in crisis. Displacement in particular can affect education, with limited access, poor
quality, and gaps in its protective function as the norm (Dryden-Peterson, 2011; NRC and IDMC, 2014).
Global analysis of the scale of the challenge for education in emergencies tend to focus on numbers of
children out of school, and while it is clear that emergencies also have grave effects for those in school,
these impacts tend to be described at a country level and in more qualitative ways. In more recent
years, the financing gap for education in emergencies has also been used more extensively to quantify
the scale of the challenge.
2.1 Numbers affected In terms of conflict, more than 172 million people were estimated to be affected globally in 2012; of this
149 million or 87%, were conflict-affected, but not displaced (CRED, 2013). However, displacement does
affect a significant population, and in 2013 the number of refugees and IDPs grew to 51.2 million, the
highest number since the Second World War; moreover, half of this total was children, which is the
highest number in a decade (UNHCRa, 2014; NRC and IDMC, 2014). Conflict-affected countries contain
one-third of those living in extreme poverty, and are responsible for over half of all child mortality in the
world (World Bank, 2011).
8
Natural disasters affected fewer people in 2012 than in previous years, with a total of 9,655 people
killed and 124.5 million affected, according to the Annual Disaster Statistical Review for that year. The
numbers affected between 2002 and 2011 were greater by several multiples, with 107,000 people killed
annually on average by natural disasters and 268 million affected each year; average levels of economic
damages from natural disasters during this period totaled US$ 143 billion annually (Guha-Sapir, et al.,
2013). In its global baseline report, the UN International Strategy for Disaster Reduction estimates that
175 million children are likely to be affected by natural disasters annually (UNISDR, 2012).
The below sections delve more deeply into the impacts of conflict and natural disasters on education
opportunities. Despite figures cited above and below, a common theme across both types of
emergencies is the lack of available and credible data, which means that while figures included are best
available estimates, these are often the low side due to missing information.
Several case studies included in Section 4 of this paper delve more deeply into the effects of
emergencies on education, with the study of Pakistan looking both at conflict and natural disasters, a
review of DRC and Syria exploring the impact of conflict, and a case study on Haiti outlining the impact
of a natural disaster on education.
Impact of conflict
The first systematic attempt to quantify the impact of conflict on education was probably The Global
Survey on Education in Emergencies by the Women’s Refugee Commission which found that more than
27 million children and youth were affected by armed conflict, focusing primarily at refugees and IDPs
(Women’s Commission, 2004). Several years later, as part of its Rewrite the Future campaign, Save the
Children (2006a) found that 43 million primary school age children – or one in three – were out of
school in conflict affected and fragile states, a broader categorization than used earlier by the Women’s
Commission.1 Several years later, further analysis by the EFA GMR 2011 found that 28 million primary
school age children living in conflict areas were out of school, about 42% of the total at the time
(UNESCO, 2011).2 The differing absolute numbers and proportions of these estimates are due to
separate categorizations used for countries affected by conflict and changes regarding overall numbers
out of school.
These figures have most recently been updated by the Education for All Global Monitoring Report 2014,
which found that 28.5 million primary school age children were not in school in conflict areas – around
half of those out of school, which was up from previous analysis; over 95% of primary age children who
are not in school in conflict areas live in low and middle income countries, with 44% in sub-Saharan
Africa, 19% in South and West Asia, and 14% in Arab States (UNESCO, 2014). The same report found
that 22% of primary school aged children live in conflict affected countries, but that a disproportionate
50% of primary school aged children out of school live in these countries and that amongst those out of
school in conflict areas, 55% are girls compared to 45% boys (ibid).
1 Save the Children (2006a) calculations were based on UIS data and databases from Project Ploughshares, the
Failed State Index, and World Bank Low Income Countries Under Stress (LICUS). 2 UNESCO (2011) figures, and those in subsequent EFA GMRs, are based on UIS data along with data from the
Uppsala Conflict Data Program (UCDP) and the Peace Research Institute, Oslo (PRIO) (Strand and Dahl, 2010).
9
Schools and other education institutions are often explicit targets during periods of armed conflict. In
the past five years, between 2009 and 2013, the Global Coalition to Protect Education from Attack
(GCPEA, 2014b: 8) found that “armed non-state groups, state military and security forces, and armed
criminal groups have attacked thousands of schoolchildren, university students, teachers, academics in
at least 70 countries worldwide.” Of these, 30 countries showed a significant pattern of attacks, with
Afghanistan, Colombia, Pakistan, Somalia, Sudan and Syria most heavily affected.
It is clear that conflict does not affect the education opportunities of all groups equally. Girls make up a
small majority of those out of school and further face disadvantages that are magnified by conflict and
insecurity. Sexual and gender based violence is often of particular concern, for instance with prevalence
levels in Liberia of up to 75% women and girls having been sexually violated or raped during the war
(Holmes and Bhuvanendra, 2014). Moreover, while boys may be somewhat more at risk for
recruitment, up to one third of children associated with fighting forces are girls – in 2013 alone there
were more than 4000 documented cases of children being recruited and used by 7 national armies and
50 armed groups (UN Secretary General, 2014).
Furthermore, the effects of conflict on education are particularly dire for refugees, whose access to
education can be extremely limited; in 2009 the average Gross Enrolment Ratio (GER) for primary-aged
refugee children was 76% (6-11 year olds) but fell to only 36% for secondary-aged refugees (12-17 year
olds); moreover, these percentages vary widely across regions and depending on camp vs. urban setting
(Dryden-Peterson, 2011). Education quality varies as well, with pupil teacher ratios varying between
18:1 in Ghana to 70:1 in Pakistan’s Northwest Frontier Province and school diplomas and certificates
from the country of origin not recognized in 17 host countries (ibid).
The actual impact of conflict on education will vary across countries and individual experience. Most
egregiously, it can result in the death or mass exodus of teachers and students as in Rwanda, where
more than two-thirds of teachers in primary and secondary schools were killed or displaced as a result of
the genocide (Obura, 2003). There can be significant damage to school infrastructure: in Bosnia and
Herzegovina, 50% of its schools required reconstruction and in Iraq 85% of schools were destroyed
(Buckland 2005). Prolonged conflict can also slow or virtually stop development of education systems;
following more than 20 years of civil war in South Sudan, there were only an estimated 1% of children in
Equatoria province in primary school, and 30% in other parts of the country (Sommers, 2005). It is not
unusual for schools in conflict affected countries to operate in multiple shifts with shortened class
periods; this was the case in Kosovo following the conflict, where shifts at times also involved separate
ethnic groups (Sommers and Buckland, 2004). Language of instruction can also be a major issue such as
in Timor Leste, where there significant battles over the use of Portuguese, Bahasa, English or Tetum in
the several years after the referendum (Nicolai, 2004).
The state of a country’s education system can also make a difference regarding impact. A UNESCO
Institute for Statistics (2010) review using Demographic and Health Survey (DHS) data found that access
to formal schooling was severely impeded by conflict in countries such as Afghanistan, Rwanda and
Uganda during the conflict period. In other countries with relatively strong education systems at the
time of conflict, such as Bosnia and Herzegovina, Republic of Congo and Tajikistan, there was little
10
impact on the proportion of children without formal schooling, but there was still a negative impact on
school life expectancy and accessing higher levels of education.
Effects of natural disasters
It is clear that natural disasters also can have major negative impacts on education systems and
students. Unlike with conflict, there have been limited attempts to globally estimate the number of
children affected by natural disasters in relation to education. The only one found in the research for
this report was part of the UN International Strategy for Disaster Reduction (UNISDR, 2012) report
estimating that 175 million children are likely to be affected by natural disasters annually.
There have, however, been significant attempts to further calculate numbers affected by natural
disasters (as discussed above) as well as forecast future effects. A recent report looking at the
relationship between poverty and disasters finds that, without concerted action, there could be up to
325 million extremely poor people living in the 49 countries most exposed to the full range of natural
hazards and climate extremes in 2030; with the 11 countries most at risk of disaster-induced poverty
being Bangladesh, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Ethiopia, Kenya, Madagascar, Nepal, Nigeria,
Pakistan, South Sudan, Sudan and Uganda (Shepherd, et al., 2013).
In a study looking at the effect of natural disasters on human capital, Baez, de la Fuente and Santos
(2010) highlight the cross-sectoral linkages in terms of how this affects education. They make the point
that destruction of education-related infrastructure – such as schools – and complementary resources –
such as roads and teachers – can lead to deterioration of learning conditions and if not restored, result
in permanent loss of human capital. Moreover, where natural disasters impact the economic situation,
and where families are limited in access to credit, insurance or other coping mechanisms, children may
be taken out of school and put to work in order to reduce the burden and increase household income.
The study finds that the poorest are most significantly affected by natural disasters for several reasons –
inequalities in risk exposure, risk sensitivity, and access to resources, opportunities and capabilities.
Natural disasters tend to have the greatest long-term impact on the poorest, and beyond their impact
on incomes can lead to long-term setbacks in health, education and employment opportunities
(Shepherd, et al., 2013). There are a number of ways in which earthquakes, floods, tsunamis and other
phenomena negatively affect education, from destruction of school infrastructure to the deaths of
teachers and students themselves (Petal, 2008). For instance, as a result of Typhoon Haiyan in the
Philippines, more than 1.4 million school aged children were affected, and over 2500 schools were
reported damaged, with a number of children remaining out of school following relocation (Philippines
Education Cluster, 2014).
Other examples of natural disaster impacts on education, cataloged by the UNISDR (2012), include:
Floods in Bangkok, Thailand in 2012 where 2600 schools and 700,000 students were affected,
with estimated damage of US$224 million;
In Chile in 2010, where an earthquake affected 2 million people, with school damage estimated
at US$2.1 billion;
11
The 2010 earthquake in Haiti where 4,000 students and 700 teachers are thought to have died
in schools, with about 4,800 schools damaged or destroyed, including 1,300 schools and all
three universities in Port-au-Prince. About half of the nation’s 15,000 primary and 1,500
secondary schools were affected. The overall impact effectively collapsed the school system. A
case study in Section 4 further explores the impact and education response.
Cyclone Nargis in Myanmar in 2008, which destroyed 2,460 schools completely – a total of 50%
of schools in the affected area – with another 750 schools severely damaged.
The earthquake in Sichaun, China in 2008, which lead to an estimated 10,000+ children dying in
schools, and an estimated 7,000 classrooms destroyed.
In Cyclone Sidyr in Bangaldesh in 2007, 496 school buildings were destroyed and 2,110 more
damaged.
In Northern Pakistan in 2005, an estimated 17,000 students and 900 teachers died at school,
with 50,000 seriously injured and many disabled. In addition, 10,000 school buildings were
destroyed and 300,000 children affected. In some districts, 80% of schools were destroyed.
Section 4 includes a case study reviewing this emergency along with others in the country, and
education impacts and response.
Like conflict, groups are affected differently by natural disasters, with gender being a significant factor.
If forced to choose by post-disaster hardships, parents in many countries will send their son to school
over their daughter. In Pakistan, for instance, research supported by Plan International (2013)
compared school attendance records in eight rural schools before and after the 2010 floods, with 22% of
girls and 7% of boys dropping out of school after schools resumed. Primary research for the same report
also found that in Zimbabwe, two-thirds of heads of households stated they would be more likely to
send boys to school over girls following a disaster.
Damage or destruction of school infrastructure can also lead to significant delays in children returning to
school after a natural disaster. If schools remain standing, they are often used as shelters for homeless
families, further delaying a return to school by weeks, months and sometimes years. In a study in Sri
Lanka, two years after the 2003 tsunami, Save the Children (2006b) found that almost of third of the
2500 children surveyed were still displaced and had not returned to normal schooling.
The effects of recurrent food crises can also be severe. In Niger, because of the food crisis in 2012,
approximately 47,000 children were forced to abandon school, according to the Ministry of Education
(Gubbels, 2012). In further research by Plan International (2013) in relation to this same food crisis, it
was found that in Burkina Faso boys’ school attendance feel from 73% to 53% and girls’ dropped from
61% to 52%; whereas in Niger, were attendance was already low, boys’ attendance fell from 35% to 22%
and girls’ from 27% to 19%. A decline in school performance was found in each case.
Moving forward, the impact of natural disasters on education is important to consider in the context of
climate change, which according to the United Nations International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC,
2014) is progressing and will have extensive effects on human life and natural systems. Climate change
is a main causal factor in increased flooding, droughts, cyclones, typhoons, heat waves, rising sea levels
and loss of biodiversity.
12
2.2 Financing gaps Very little was known about the financing gap for education in emergencies in 2000, and while data has
become more available and more analysis has since been done, knowledge of the full scope of the
financing needs remain limited. While fairly detailed analysis of humanitarian funding has exposed
major shortages, less is known about the volume of other sources as related to education in
emergencies, including other development assistance, domestic resources and household expenditure
(Nicolai, et al., 2014).
Humanitarian aid
When it comes to humanitarian appeals, consolidated requests for funding prepared in most
emergencies, it is clear that education is consistently underfunded. In 2013, only 34% of education
funding requests were met, totaling 2.4% of aid contributed, leaving a gap of US$239 million from that
called for in the Consolidated Appeals Processes (CAPs). During this year, the requested amount of
funding for education was received in only two emergencies – Burkina Faso and South Sudan, while in
another two – Philippines (Haiyan) and Syria – the proportion of education requests outperformed total
requests met; in all other situations education received less than the average. The year before, in 2012,
just a quarter of requested education funding was received, which totaled only 1.4% of aid received,
with a shortfall of US$221 million from what had been requested. Over the past 8 years, in the period
2006-2013, education made up an average of 4% of requests in humanitarian appeals, but received an
average percent of only 2.3% of funding received (Global Education Cluster, 2014).
The latest EFA GMR shows that the percentage of humanitarian aid that goes to education has on
average been increasing since the early 2000s (UNESCO, 2014). However in 2013 the figure was just
2.0%, half the 4% target set by the UN Global Education First Initiative. The report lists 16 countries that
made education humanitarian funding appeals in 2013, with the Central African Republic and Sudan
receiving the highest percentage of their education funding requested at 8% and 6% respectively,
whereas half the countries received 1% or less.
It is important to note that both funding requests and that received are volatile, as is illustrated in
Section 5 by the humanitarian funding trends of each of the four case studies looking at Pakistan, DRC,
Haiti and Syria. As humanitarian funding includes only UN and international non-governmental
organisations (NGOs), but not governments, funding requests for education are dependent on the
presence of agencies active in the sector, as well as their level of ambition. Pakistan for instance had
education requirements of US$287.2 million identified for a 7 year period, DRC a total of US$325.7
million over a ten year period, Haiti requested $104 million over just 3 years, and for Syria a total of
US$162.4 million was requested over 3 years of appeals. Also, funding received seems to peak during
the year of an acute crisis, with Pakistan receiving 103% of requested funding in 2005 in response to the
earthquake; Haiti 99% in 2010 and 110% in 2011, following the 2010 earthquake; and Syria receiving
82% of requested funding in 2013, the year in which the civil war really hit the media and refugee
displacement became acute. DRC, sometimes seen as a forgotten emergency, has never received more
than 36% of its education requirements in over a decade of appeals. In terms of meeting the 4% target,
only Haiti achieved this, with education accounting for 7% of humanitarian funding across its three years
13
of appeals; the average across all appeal years for Pakistan was 2.4%, DRC was 1.1% and Syria only 1% to
date.
Development assistance
The latest EFA GMR shows that total donor aid to education – development and humanitarian – fell
from a high of $13.9 billion in 2010 to $12.6 billion in 2012, a drop of 9%; in 2003 education received
over 11% of all donor aid, falling by 2012 to 8.7% (UNESCO, 2014). Across all developing countries, 98%
of aid to education is in the form of development cooperation, with only 2% of education aid as
humanitarian. For the 21 countries that appealed for humanitarian aid for education in 2012, only 8% of
education aid received was humanitarian – 92% was still development aid.3
According Save the Children (2009), although there are encouraging signs, education aid to crisis
contexts remains severely underfunded. Between 2003 and 2005 conflict affected fragile states
accounted for more than twice the number of out-of-school children than other low income countries,
however these countries received just one third of aid committed to basic education in all low income
countries. The report notes that, while increasingly countries are recognising the importance of
education in conflict-affected countries, of 23 Development Assistance Committee (DAC) members only
ten had policy commitments to education in countries affected by fragility or conflict, and only five of 23
have embedded education in their emergency policies. Dolan (2011) went on to find more recently that
of 27 countries affected by conflict, five countries receive 50% of the education aid committed.
Domestic spending and household expenditure
Domestic government spending is likely the single largest expenditure on education in most countries.
Rose and Steer (2013), in a report on global financing for basic education, highlight the importance of
domestic spending versus donor assistance more generally for developing countries. They found that in
2010, spending on basic education in 46 low-income and lower-middle-income countries totalled $28
billion, with domestic spending accounting for $25 billion of this and $3 billion coming from donors.
However 25 countries – including a number of emergency affected countries such as Pakistan, the DRC
and Central African Republic – dedicate less than 3% GNP to education versus a recognised target of 6%
(UNESCO, 2014).
The EFA GMR 2014 analysed household expenditure data for seven countries, several of which are or
have been affected by emergencies, and found that households in poorer countries bore a greater
burden for education expenditure. In addition, households contribute more to higher levels of
education, with household expenditure accounting for 45% at primary, 49% at secondary and 57% at
tertiary levels (UNESCO, 2014). This balance is likely to be the case in emergency and recovery
situations as well.
A closer look at unconditional cash transfers may be one way to better understand how emergency-
affected households prioritise spending for education during and after crises. Following the 2010
earthquake in Haiti, Christian Aid (2012) distributed unconditional cash transfers in six locations across
the country and tracked how the money was used, with the results showing that education was the
3 Even in South Sudan and Somalia, humanitarian aid only account for 23% and 27% of aid to education respectively.
14
third highest priority with 13.8% of cash spent on the sector.4 In another study during the 2007/08
drought and food crisis in Swaziland, Devereux and Jere (2008) analysed the use of Save the Children’s
cash transfers, finding that education (7% of total spending) was again third of the list of spending
priorities.5 Particularly interesting was how household spending patterns changed when annual school
fees were due in January, with families receiving ‘cash only’ diverting funds they had been using for food
to cover school fees.
3. The early days of education in emergencies
Some of the earliest examples of post-conflict education can be found through the Marshall Plan in the
aftermath of WWII, which focused heavily on technical education and skills development as linked to
economic recovery (Tarnoff and Nowels, 2004). In subsequent years of the Cold War, as many fled their
homes during the Cold War to escape violence linked to proxy-wars, education was made available for
Cambodian refugees in Thailand and Afghans in Pakistan, including primary schools in camps,
universities in exile and English language courses (UNHCR, 2009). While these efforts were essentially
an education in emergency response, they were not yet guided by shared assumptions or approaches
(Winthrop, 2009).
3.1 Education response in the 1990s Following the Cold War, in the 1990s, the world saw a dramatic increase in the number of civil wars,
ethnic confrontations, and regional conflicts (SIPRI, 2000). Images such as those of the Balkans Wars and
Rwandan genocide were splashed live for the first time across TV screens around the world, often
profiling children. Between 1990 and 2000, global humanitarian assistance more than doubled, from
US$2.1 billion to $5.9 billion (Randal and German, 2002). While this led to a proliferation of
humanitarian actors, those addressing education concerns at the time remained relatively few.
However, in places like Mozambique and Guatemala, work with child soldiers and war-affected youth
showed the importance of activities such as education and training in promoting psychological healing
(Boothby, 1992, 1996; Herbst, 1995).
Alongside governments, international actors were increasingly responding to these needs. As
mentioned, UNHCR had long been responsible for education in refugee situations, and in the 1990s
created its first set of educational field guidelines, as well as entering into a partnership with the
Norwegian Refugee Council to provide staff secondments (Dryden-Peterson, 2011). Other agencies
were experimenting with ways to support rapid response: UNESCO’s Teacher Emergency Package (TEP)
was first used in Mogadishu in 1993, expanding to refugee camps across East Africa and later playing a
key role for education response in Rwanda. Similarly, UNICEF began to use ‘School-in-a-Box’, which
provided supplies for a classroom of up to 80 children, as well as initiating ‘Child-Friendly Spaces’, which
often included non-formal education activities (Sinclair, 2002a). International NGOs such as CARE,
Catholic Relief Services, Christian Children’s Fund (now ChildFund International), the International
4 Education followed food (30%) and cooking fuel (17.7%) with the remaining sectors being water (10.5%), rent/shelter (6.8%),
small enterprise (6.7%), health (6%), debt repayment (4.8%), household goods (3.3%) and savings (0.4%). 5 After food and livelihoods, and ahead of groceries (7%), transport (7%), clothing (3%) and health (2%).
15
Rescue Committee (IRC) and Save the Children played important roles in education response (Nicolai
and Triplehorn, 2003).
When the UN Secretary General requested a comprehensive study look at the needs of children and
armed conflict, Graça Machel’s 1996 report, The Impact of Armed Conflict on Children, brought
increased attention to the importance of education, outlining the role for education in the psychosocial
recovery of war-affected children and the reconstruction of societies and calling for “educational activity
to be established as a priority component of all humanitarian assistance” (Machel, 1996). By 2000,
when the Dakar Framework for Action was adopted by the World Education Forum, recognition for the
need for attention to education in emergencies was clear. ‘Education in situations of crisis and
emergency’ was one of six areas of concern identified at Dakar, which began to set wheels in motion to
more systematically take forward work in this area (World Education Forum, 2000).
3.2 Unresolved issues By 2000, a number of major issues affected efforts to improve education in emergency response. Some
of these were conceptual, others were practical. For instance, lack of agreement on a definition was an
on-going concern, with parameters varied in terms of the type of education (i.e. formal schooling, peace
education, health promotion, recreation activities) as well as the scope of what counted as an
emergency (i.e. the first few months after a crisis, through a period of recovery, or including long-term
instability) (Sinclair, 2002a; Nicolai and Triplehorn, 2003). Moreover, there were questions as to
whether education in emergencies was indeed its own humanitarian sector, as projects were often
jointly with child protection, psychosocial, or health efforts. There were thus serious questions in terms
of its distinctiveness as a sector and relationship to longer-term education efforts.
On a practical level, there was limited education in emergencies capacity in many of the key agencies, a
problem intensified by lack of training materials, little to no related research, limited political buy-in,
and poor coordination at a country level. In addition, education in emergencies seemed to fall
somewhere in between the humanitarian response (which didn’t tend to prioritise education) and
development work on education (where actors rarely worked in crisis situations). This resulted, on each
side, in a lack of prioritization and funding, issues which continue to be of concern.
4. Consolidation of a new field
Since the Dakar Framework for Action was adopted in 2000, there have been significant advances in the
field of education in emergencies. Consolidation of the sector has occurred through five main drivers or
areas of work, including establishment of a professional network; development of common standards;
building of a literature and evidence base; mainstreaming of education response; and advocacy and
growing recognition leading to a more recent raised profile. Each of these, in their own way, helped to
address some of the unresolved conceptual and practical issues that were facing the sector in 2000;
however, as the field of education in emergencies has become more systematized and been explored in
more depth, a range of other issues has inevitably emerged.
16
4.1 Establishing a network In 2000, following Dakar, a small group of actors from the UN and international NGOs who had attended
decided to form a knowledge-sharing network to coordinate action in relation to education and
emergencies. The Inter-Agency Network on Education in Emergencies (INEE) was born shortly
thereafter, with a Steering Group initially comprised of representatives from UNICEF, UNHCR, UNESCO,
the World Bank, CARE, IRC and the Save the Children Alliance. Over the course of its existence,
membership has grown by the thousands, with activities in all corners of the globe.
Mendizabal and Hearn (2011), in an analysis of the network, found that INEE had three defining
characteristics which have contributed to its success. First, it is non-operational, serving as a flexible and
responsive mechanism for collaboration and sharing of experience; in fact, the network does not even
have an office or bank account, with Secretariat staff hosted and hired by member organisations.
Second, it is virtual in nature, with the website and listserv being the main channel of engagement for
most members. Third, while membership itself can be individual, institutional members form the
backbone of the network across its Steering Group, working groups and task teams, bringing sustained
commitment and capacity.
The structure of the network has developed organically and currently includes:
More than 11,000 individual members living and working in more than 170 countries and
working in a wide range of organisations, including UN agencies, international and national
NGOs, donor agencies, government ministries and academic institutions.
Steering Group of ten, including representatives from ChildFund International, the IRC, Open
Society Foundations, Refugee Education Trust, Save the Children Alliance, UNESCO, UNHCR,
UNICEF, USAID, and the World Bank.
Working Group on Minimum Standards and Network Tools, currently in its third iteration, which
now includes 35 representatives from 19 groups.
Working Group on Education and Fragility, which in its 2011-2013 phase included
representatives of 25 organisations.
Working Group on Education Cannot Wait Advocacy, which currently includes 24 organisational
and individual members.
Six Thematic Task Teams covering Adolescents and Youth, Early Childhood, Gender, Inclusive
Education, Quality Education and Technology.
Language Communities in Arabic, French, Portuguese and Spanish.
A Secretariat comprised of ten full time staff hosted by various agencies including IRC, UNESCO,
UNHCR and UNICEF.
4.2 Development of common standards Following the humanitarian crises of the early to mid-1990s in the Balkans and Great Lakes of Africa,
there was increasing scrutiny of humanitarian response, with a felt need for self-regulation and
standardization. To this end, a group of international NGOs came together to develop the Sphere
Handbook (2000), setting out minimum standards for four technical sectors: water and sanitation,
17
nutrition and food aid, shelter and site planning, and health (Buchanan-Smith, 2003). The fact that
Sphere did not include a chapter on education was seen as a major gap amongst those involved in INEE
and others.
In 2002, INEE and UNESCO hosted an Experts’ Workshop to discuss the applicability of standards to
education and to identify a mechanism for promoting such standards. The INEE Working Group on
Minimum Standards was formed in 2003, and over the following year undertook a broad consultative
process involving a variety of stakeholders, including over 100 local, national and sub-regional
consultations, four regional consultations, and a peer review process. In the end, over 2250 individuals
from more than 50 countries contributed to the development of this new set of minimum standards
(Anderson, 2004). The final standards were launched at INEE’s Second Global Inter-Agency Consultation
for Education in Emergencies and Early Recovery in December 2004 in Cape Town, South Africa.
The 2004 edition of the standards was updated in 2010 as the INEE Minimum Standards for Education:
Preparedness, Response and Recovery. These standards are organised into five domains, which include:
1. Foundational Standards;
2. Access and Learning Environment;
3. Teaching and Learning;
4. Teachers and Other Education Personnel; and
5. Education Policy.
Within these, there are 19 standards, each with accompanying key actions and guidance notes. The
2010 edition of the standards is available in 19 languages, and has been contextualized for a number of
different country contexts.
In 2012, an assessment of the standards was completed that surveyed more than 700 individuals (INEE,
2012). It found that the INEE Minimum Standards are used in both conflict and natural disasters, most
frequently for preparedness activities, but also for advocacy and coordination. The standards have, for
instance, informed the South Sudan Education Sector Strategic Plan, a back to school campaign in
Yemen, the Swaziland Disaster Risk Reduction National Action Plan, the education strategy for Dadaab
Refugee Camp in Kenya, and were used as a guide in Haiti to advocate access and quality education for
displaced children. However, concerns were also raised that implementation of the standards is
difficult; one interviewee, referring to work in Chad, commented that they could not live up to the
standards, saying, “teachers should get trained, but we couldn’t do everything.” Recommendations
included building greater awareness, support for implementation, and work toward contextualization
and quantifiable targets. This year 2014 marks the ten year anniversary of the standards.
Box 1: Principles for Child Friendly Spaces in Emergencies
Child friendly spaces (CFS) are widely used in emergencies and address children’s needs across several
sectors, including protection, non-formal education and mental health and psychosocial well‐being.
They serve as rapid and transitional spaces for care and protection of children, offering a place where
parents and caregivers can leave children as they re-build homes, seek new work, or manage day-to-day
tasks like collecting food and water. Variations on the model, sometimes called safe spaces, have been
in use since the 1999 war in Kosovo and Turkey’s earthquake that same year. They have since been
18
used in Afghanistan, Angola, Chad, Colombia, East Timor, El Salvador, India, Indonesia, Iran, Lebanon,
Liberia, Russia, the occupied Palestinian Territories, Pakistan, Somalia, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Syria, Timor-
Leste and Uganda, amongst other places (Davis and Iltus, 2009; UNICEF, 2009).
In 2011, a set of joint principles for CFS was developed with the support of INEE, the Global Education
Cluster, the Global Chile Protection sub-Cluster and the IASC Reference Group on Mental Health and
Psychosocial Support (Global Child Protection Sub-Cluster, et al., 2011). These principles included:
1. Take a coordinated, inter‐agency, and multi‐sectoral approach
2. Use CFSs as a means of mobilizing the community
3. Make CFSs highly inclusive and non‐discriminatory
4. Ensure that CFSs are safe and secure
5. Make CFSs stimulating, participatory, and supportive environments
A three-year effort is currently underway to better document CFS effectiveness, identify good practice
and contribute to better monitoring and evaluation tools, which involves Columbia University, Save the
Children, UNICEF and World Vision International. Structured evaluations have been conducted with
Somali refugees in Ethiopia (Metzler, et al., 2013b), Congolese refugees in Uganda (Metzler, et al.,
2013b) and Syrian refugees in Iraq (Metzler, et al., 2014). With regard to education, the Ethiopia study
found that the CFS resulted in major gains in basic literacy and numeracy and the Uganda study found
promotional effects in terms of literacy and numeracy acquisition.
4.3 Building a literature and evidence base In addition to building a strong network and establish standards, there have been significant efforts to
strengthen a body of documentation and evidence in the sector. This has included overviews of the
field, case studies, training materials, and several key global monitoring reports. While not yet
comprehensive, this growing body of work provides a strong foundation for analysis and improved
response across the sector.
One of the first publications focused on education in emergencies following Dakar was Learning for a
Future, put together by UNHCR as a review of its own experience of refugee education (Crisp et al.,
2001). In a seminal piece on Planning Education In and After Emergencies, Sinclair (2002b) identified
principles which characterise good practice in educational response to crisis, covering the areas of
access, resources, activities and curriculum, coordination and capacity-building. In The Role of Education
in Protecting Children in Conflict, Nicolai and Triplehorn (2003) provide an overview of the sector and go
on to explore links between education and protection. Reshaping the Future, prepared for the World
Bank, outlines examples of the range of impacts that conflict has had on education systems and makes
recommendations to address these (Buckland, 2005). An overview of this and other research was
subsequently pulled together by the National Foundation for Educational Research (NFER) (Tomlinson
and Benefield, 2005).
There was also a growing focus on better documenting the experience of countries facing different types
of emergencies, exploring the shape and effectiveness of education response. Most notable along this
line was a series of case studies commissioned by UNESCO’s International Institute for Educational
19
Planning (IIEP) which are largely descriptive in nature and outline the practice of educational provision
across a variety of emergency contexts. This series included reviews of education response in Rwanda,
Kosovo, Timor Leste, South Sudan, the occupied Palestinian Territories, Burundi, Pakistan, Afghanistan,
Bosnia and Herzegovina, Cambodia and Liberia, published between 2003 and 2013. The series also
included separate publications focused on the themes of coordination, alternative education, rapid
response, participation, donor engagement, certification, education innovation and reform, fragility, and
prevention and peace-building.
These years also saw a focus on developing training and capacity building materials for education in
emergencies. Initially, several agencies began to develop their own manuals, with separate but similar
guidance emanating from the likes of IRC, Save the Children UK, Save the Children US and Plan
International. However, these manuals were generally directed at international and national staff
employed by the agencies, as opposed to in-country leadership. To better reach this audience, in 2006
UNESCO IIEP published the Guidebook for Planning Education in Emergencies and Reconstruction,
subsequently revised in 2010, which aims to support educational authorities in providing education for
children affected by conflict or disaster (UNESCO IIEP, 2010).
More recently, several global monitoring reports have contributed to the evidence base for the sector,
as well as helping to garner attention for education in emergencies more broadly. Efforts to monitor
attacks on education have been brought together in a series of reports on Education Under Attack
(UNESCO, 2007; UNESCO, 2010; GCPEA, 2014b). In addition, in 2008 the Special Rapporteur on the Right
to Education produced and submitted his report on The Right to Education in Emergency Situations to
the UN General Assembly, outlining emergencies as a source of serious violations of the right to
education (Muñoz, 2008). The EFA GMR 2011, entitled The hidden crisis: Armed conflict and education,
led to widespread recognition of the scale of challenge that conflict presents in achieving the range of
global education goals (UNESCO, 2011). Issues of natural disasters and education are also beginning to
be looked at more comprehensively, with Assessing School Safety from Disasters: A Global Baseline
Report produced by the UNISDR in 2012.
Over the past fourteen years, a range of academic work on education in emergencies has been
published. Significantly for the sector, in academic terms, a new Journal on Education in Emergencies is
now being established with its first edition planned for autumn of 2014.
4.4 Mainstreaming of education response The establishment of the Education Cluster has been one of the most significant developments over the
past decade in terms of clear recognition that education has a place in emergency response. In 2005,
the Inter-Agency Standing Committee (IASC) and UN Emergency Relief Coordinator commissioned the
Humanitarian Response Review to assess response capacities across the humanitarian system
(Aldinolphi, et. al., 2005). Amongst other issues, the report highlighted the need to address
coordination gaps and the IASC subsequently established the cluster approach.
Box 2: The IASC cluster approach
20
The IASC cluster approach involves a designated lead agency and groups of humanitarian organisations
in each of eleven main sectors of humanitarian action, i.e. health, water-sanitation, protection, logistics.
According to the IASC (2006), at global level clusters are responsible for three main areas of activity:
standards and policy setting, building response capacity, and operational support. At a country level,
specific responsibilities of cluster leads include the following:
Coordination with national/local authorities, State institutions, local civil society and other relevant
actors;
Needs assessment and analysis;
Emergency preparedness;
Planning and strategy development;
Application of standards;
Monitoring and reporting;
Advocacy and resource mobilization;
Training and capacity building; and,
Provision of assistance or services as a last resort.
While education was not initially included as a cluster, a major advocacy push led to its inclusion as of
December 2006, with UNICEF and Save the Children designated as global co-leads and a global
Education Cluster Unit established in early 2008 (Anderson and Hodgkin, 2008).
At the global level, the Education Cluster Unit in Geneva and the Education Cluster Working Group
(ECWG), comprised of 21 member organisations, focus on strengthening capacity to prepare for,
respond to and recover from emergencies. Efforts are structured around four key areas: field
operations, capacity development, knowledge management and a strategic advisory group. A Rapid
Response Team started in 2012, in partnership with Save the Children, NRC and Finn Church Aid,
includes staff that are deployable as coordinators and information managers to emergencies for up to
three months’ time.
At the country level, Education Clusters have been activated in over 42 countries, with a total of 20
active country-level clusters at the time of this writing. The groups work with national authorities and
member organisations to conduct common needs assessments, support information management,
prepare Consolidated Appeals, and strengthen use of the INEE Minimum Standards. A Cluster
Coordinator, staffed through one of the lead agencies, facilitates this. Education clusters are activated
for the duration of a humanitarian crisis and, depending on the emergency, can be either short-term or
may remain activated for years, as in countries with protracted crises. Some countries do not formally
implement the approach but rather using cluster-like mechanisms – typically called Education Working
Groups. An example of the transitions in coordination mechanisms can be seen in Sri Lanka, where the
Education Cluster, activated in 2007, was initially led by UNICEF and Save the Children in close
collaboration with the government, with the Ministry of Education taking over leadership from 2010
until the cluster was de-activated in 2012, and then setting up an education-focused Disaster Risk
Reduction Working Group (Lei, n.d.).
21
Through the Education Cluster, the following key activities have taken place (Lattimer, 2012; Global
Education Cluster, 2013):
Development of an Education Cluster Coordinator Handbook and Joint Education Needs
Assessment Toolkit;
More than 3,500 government, UN and NGO staff trained in education in emergencies around
the world, with more than 500 trained in education cluster coordination;
In 2013, the Rapid Response Team were deployed to Pakistan, Syria (Jordan), Syria (Damascus),
CAR, Somalia and the Philippines, for a total of 581 deployment days;
Joint Needs Assessments conducted in more than 11 countries using the toolkit as a guide,
Education Needs Assessment Training Package developed in English and French and delivered
at global, regional and country levels;
Lesson-learning exercises in Haiti, Pakistan, Somalia and Sri Lanka;
Setting up and facilitating an IM Community of Practice with a focus on assessments, as well as
strong Education Cluster engagement with various multi-cluster working groups on IM and NA;
Contributions to the Multi-Sector Initial Rapid Assessment (MIRA), the IASC Gender Handbook,
Camp Coordination Handbook, and Disaster Risk Reduction (DRR) materials;
Joint development with INEE of an Education in Emergencies Harmonised Training Package;
Resources on Protecting Education from Attack, in partnership with the Child Protection
Working Group, Mental Health and Psychosocial Support Network, and Education Above All;
Active involvement in the INEE Education Can’t Wait (ECW) Advocacy Working Group, and
organisation Education Cannot Wait UN General Assembly (UNGA) side event (Sep 2013) in
New York;
Policy briefs showing the under-funding of education in 2012 and 2013 humanitarian appeals;
Work with the Global Partnership for Education (GPE) on the accelerated funding modality.
4.5 Advocacy and growing recognition Advocacy has long been an essential element of work on education in emergencies, with some gains in
recognition cutting across types of emergencies, and others that have been specific to either conflict or
natural disasters.
Early efforts to advocate for the INEE Minimum Standards addressed both types of crises, and resulted
in widespread awareness of the sector and eventual companionship by the Sphere Project in 2008.
During those years, INEE members also began to play a role in advocacy on related issues, holding a
series of policy roundtables focused on issues like teacher compensation (2007) and financing for fragile
states (2008). These roundtables convened a diverse range of donors, UN and NGO practitioners, and
academics, and resulted in follow-up actions including advocacy strategies (Medizabel and Hearn, 2011).
Joint advocacy efforts toward recognition of a Global Education Cluster were also important between
2006 and 2007. INEE played a key role in this, mobilizing members in a coordinated advocacy effort,
with UNICEF and Save the Children, subsequent co-leads for the Global Education Cluster, getting
involved at the chief executive level.
22
These combined efforts led to a greater focus on education in emergencies from the human rights
community. The report of the Special Rapporteur on the Right to Education has already been
mentioned (Muñoz, 2008). In addition, in September of the same year, the UN Committee on the Rights
of the Child held a Day of General Discussion on Education in Emergencies, highlighting education in
emergencies as a vital element of the right to education. This was furthered in March 2009, when the
UN General Assembly held a debate to highlight the crucial role of education in emergency and post-
crisis situations, followed in 2010 by the adoption of resolution A/RES/64/290 on the right to education
in emergency situations.
Several years later, in September 2012, the UN Secretary-General launched Education First, a five-year
education strategy that includes, as the second ‘key action’ to sustain education in humanitarian crises,
especially conflict. Since then, a number of UN agencies, NGOs and other key organisations have come
together under the banner of Education Can’t Wait, calling for the percentage of aid to education given
through humanitarian appeals to be increased to 4%, a doubling of levels at the start of the decade.
A focus on education and conflict
In terms of gains related specifically to education and conflict, Save the Children’s Rewrite the Future
campaign 2005-2009 played a significant role in kick starting advocacy for the sector. This was backed
by research quantifying the scale of the challenge in terms both of children out of school and financing
gaps (Save the Children, 2006a and 2007). The Last in Line series, published in 2007, 2008 and 2009,
examined donor trends for the sector and played a particularly important role in growing attention to
funding shortfalls (Save the Children, 2009). As part of this effort, 31 winners of the Nobel Peace Prize
were enlisted by Save the Children in November 2008 to call for urgent action to implement quality
education and build peace in conflict-affected countries. Several years later in 2012, when the EU
received the Nobel Peace Prize, it dedicated the prize money to funding education in emergencies, more
than doubling the award to US$2.7 million and supporting projects with partners in Iraq, Pakistan,
Colombia, Ecuador, Ethiopia and DRC.
Another area where gains have been made in terms of education and conflict has been GPE’s support
for fragile states and commitment to establish an Accelerated Funding modality. This was a result of
sustained advocacy by INEE member organisations. Winthrop and Steer (2014) provide a synopsis of the
gains, highlighting that “the number of fragile states in the partnership went up from just 1 in 2002 to 17
in 2011 and 28 in 2013…. Today fragile states make up close to half of the total 59 developing country
partners in the partnership.” However the partnership is still struggling with the issue of how to address
more acute emergencies – because of recipient constraints, for instance, it has not provided any
significant education support for the Syrian crisis.
More recently, the draft Lucens Guidelines have been drawn up with the aim of better protecting
schools and universities from use by armed groups for military purposes (GCPEA, 2014a), Switzerland,
with representatives from 12 states, as well as the human rights and humanitarian law community.
There are currently advocacy efforts underway calling for their adoption.
23
Policy on education and natural disasters
Progress in relation to education and natural disasters has also been seen. While two major climate
treaties, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) (1994), and the Kyoto
Protocol (2005) have articles calling on governments to support education for climate change,
recognition regarding the importance of education in relation to natural disasters and DRR really began
in the mid-2000s. The Hyogo Framework for Action (HFA), a 10-year strategy developed during the 2005
Hyogo World Conference on Disaster Risk Reduction, is particularly important and sets three main goals
for DRR in schools: student and staff protection; educational continuity; and a culture of safety
(Anderson, 2010).
The UNISDR has furthered this work, implementing a Safe Schools Campaign which includes three pillars
of school safety: safe school facilities, school disaster management and risk reduction education
(UNISDR, 2012). Moreover, DDR has increasingly had a place in education policy and practice, as
evidenced by a recent UNESCO and UNICEF (2012) mapping of DDR in the curriculum. This study
reviewed case studies from thirty countries and showed a broad range of approaches to integrating DRR
in the curriculum, including through textbooks, pilot projects, core competencies, specialist subjects,
and special events. Examples include Turkey, which takes a structured interdisciplinary approach to
primary level DDR curriculum with extensive teacher training; Indonesia, which uses a ‘local content
curriculum’ space together with infusing DRR related themes and topics into existing subjects; and Cuba,
which addresses DRR through the holistic application of environmental education to the national
curriculum (ibid.).
Efforts toward building resilience
While much has been done to provide a system and structure to education in emergency response,
most notably through the INEE Minimum Standards, questions remain in terms of how best to
institutionalise this within more traditional development structures and policies. As Kelcey (2013) points
out, emergency practitioners are often told, “teacher trainings are not appropriate emergency
interventions, or that a focus on quality must wait until the crisis is over.” This of course is extremely
problematic when considering the complex and protracted nature of many emergencies and blurred
lines between humanitarian and development phases.
There have been a number of tools and approaches used by development partners to support crisis-
sensitive planning and its implementation. DFID (2010) has used conflict assessments and ‘scenario
planning’ for programming, while USAID has developed an education and fragility assessment tool
(Miller-Grandvaux, 2009) and a Checklist for Assessing Conflict Sensitivity in Education Programs (USAID,
2013). UNICEF has had its Peacebuilding, Education and Advocacy Programme (Jantzi, et al., 2013). In
addition, as mentioned above, the GPE (2012) includes fragile states as a strategic priority and offers
guidance for countries in preparing their transitional education sector plans.
These are also some of the issues that the Education Resilience Approaches (ERA) programme at the
World Bank has been exploring, as a complement to its Systems Approach for Better Education Results
(SABER). A framework has been produced that focuses on working within existing resources, leveraging
actual community solutions and mobilising actors across the education community (Reyes, 2013c). Case
24
studies have looked at resilience in education systems such as Honduras, Colombia, Rwanda and South
Sudan. Issues such as learning and resilience, transforming adversity, and use of assets to operationalise
resilience are also being explored more systematically (Varela, et al, 2013; Reyes, 2013b; Reyes, 2013a).
Finally, over the past few years the INEE Working Group on Education and Fragility has been exploring
some of these questions. In April 2013, a High Level Symposium was held, which brought together
around 200 Ministers of Education, ambassadors and representatives alongside a range of education
stakeholders to offer concrete recommendations on ways forward. This resulted in the Paris Symposium
Declaration on Conflict Sensitive Education that calls for the prioritization of conflict sensitive education
in conflict affected and fragile contexts. Further support to this agenda is provided by INEE’s Conflict-
Sensitive Education Pack (INEE, 2013).
5. Four case studies
While many gains have been made in the sector globally, governments in different parts of the world
continue to grapple with responding to education needs in relation to emergencies. In order to more
deeply explore the trends in policy and programmes related to education in emergencies at a country
level, and where possible look at what these efforts have meant toward achieving Universal Primary
education, four case studies have been selected and are explored in depth below.
The selected countries – Pakistan, DRC, Haiti and Syria – hail geographically from four corners of the
world, and have very different socio-economic starting points. They represent a range of emergency
experiences, from chronic crisis to more acute emergencies in the form of natural disasters and civil war.
Moreover, each of the cases has involved significant displacement, either internally or as refugees.
Key issues explored in each of the case studies include:
The impact of the emergency situation on education, including a look at issues of inequality and
broader key challenges faced as part of response and recovery;
Review of coordination mechanisms for education in emergencies in the country;
Discussion on how policy and programmes have evolved to address challenges and improve
education sector response;
An overview of finance for education in relation to the emergency, to the extent data and details
are available.
It is hoped that these short case studies, with a look across very different types of emergencies, will
further illuminate how broader progress in the sector has played out at country levels.
5.1 Pakistan: Refugees, natural disasters and insecurity A number of shifts have taken place in Pakistan in terms of education and crises over the years, with an
initial focus on Afghan refugees, then, shifting to earthquake response in 2005 just as the IASC cluster
system was being piloted, responding to major floods in 2010, and a more recent increasing focus on
addressing attacks on education. The Pakistani authorities have been strong throughout these phases,
alongside a wide range of international donors.
25
Education context and emergency impact
Pakistan, a lower middle income country, has the world’s second highest out of school population, two-
thirds of which are girls. Between 1999 and 2011, its Primary Education Adjusted Net Enrolment Ratio
(ANER) rose from 58% to 72% and the number of out of school primary age children was reduced from
8.4 to 5.4 million (UNESCO, 2014); however, learning achievement is low, and both education access and
achievement are distributed very unequally. Contributing factors include poor teacher quality and
accountability, inadequate funding and weak governance (Dundar and Waheed, 2013).
As such, it has been said that “education in Pakistan was an emergency even before the emergency”
(Alexander, 2011). In the 1980s, 1990s and into the 2000s, emergency response was largely in relation
to Afghan refugees, which numbered as many as 2 million at their peak. Many of these schools,
however, were of poor quality and espoused fundamental Islamist ideologies, including as a part of their
curriculum. Between 1985 and 1989, retention rates for Afghan refugees after five years of schooling
were only 18-26%, despite a large education budget and spend of US$56 per student per year (Dryden-
Peterson, 2011). Throughout the camps, education for girls was severely restricted (Waters and
LeBlanc, 2005). Following the fall of the Taliban in 2001, there was a push for these Afghan refugees to
repatriate, and by 2005, almost all refugee schools had been shut down (Ghaffar-Kutcher, 2005).
It wasn’t long, however, before Pakistan faced a new kind of emergency on an unprecedented scale. On
8 October 2005, an earthquake struck the northern areas of Pakistan, killing over 75,000 people and
leaving 2.8 million. The timing of the quake in the morning meant that almost 20,000 school children
were killed, many of them in poorly constructed school buildings (Kirk, 2008). It was estimated that the
earthquake interrupted the schooling of over 1 million students (UNICEF, 2006).
A few years later, in late July 2010, the worst monsoon rains in Pakistan’s 80 year history hit resulting in
severe flash floods. The floods claimed over 1,985 lives, and affected an estimated 20.1 million people, 8
million of them children. The education sector was hit particularly hard with over 10,000 schools
damaged or destroyed (Alexander, 2011).
Since then, between 2009-2012, there has also been an increasing number of attacks on schools, more
than any other country. Over this time, armed groups, particularly the Pakistani Taliban, attacked at
least 838 schools and deprived hundreds of thousands of children of education (GCPEA, 2014b).
Coordination mechanisms
Coordination for Afghan refugee education in Pakistan up to the mid-2000s was led by UNHCR, with
little involvement of the Pakistani government. Due to lack of access to Afghanistan, as well as the
Taliban’s policy banning education of girls, the aid work for both countries was headquartered out of
Pakistan, meaning that there was a fair amount of capacity built up in country (Sommers, 2004).
This capacity, to a certain extent, was drawn on as a part of the earthquake response beginning in 2005.
At the time of the earthquake, Kirk (2008) describes how while Pakistan had no disaster management
agency, the government moved quickly to establish Earthquake Reconstruction and Rehabilitation
Authority (ERRA). The ERRA did have education leadership, which was seen as somewhat weak, with
poor coordination with the Ministry of Education (MoE).
26
In September 2005, following an IASC decision to implement the cluster approach in all new
emergencies, it was applied in Pakistan. A Global Education Cluster had not yet been approved, and the
initial Flash Appeal education as part of the protection sector. It wasn’t long before an ad-hoc Education
Cluster was in place, following the IASC model and guidelines, which was formalized as a cluster several
weeks later. UNICEF served as cluster lead, headquartered in Islamabad, with four district hubs later
established (Kirk, 2008). Immediate issues fell into two main areas (a) needs assessment, and (b) tents
and supplies. As the response shifted toward recovery, there was close collaboration between the
cluster and an education working group, headed by UNESCO, which was formed within the Early
Recovery and Reconstruction cluster (Anderson, et al., 2006).
There was much stronger government capacity to respond to the 2010 floods, following the experience
of the earthquake. Led by the National Disaster Management Agency (NDMA), education was again
included in flood response, with the Ministry of Education itself taking on a greater role. The Pakistan
Education Cluster was re-activated, and five hub sites were quickly set up (Alexander, 2011).
Regarding attacks on schools, GCPEA has been working closely with Education Cluster member
organisations to monitor the situation.
Policy and programmes
During the Afghan refugee crisis, a number of international and national NGOs were involved in
education provision, both through setting up schools in the camps as well as community and home-
based schooling (Kirk and Winthrop, 2009). Attention was in particular given to girls’ education, given
official Taliban policy of exclusion, but this had to be done in culturally appropriate ways.
Very different types of response were needed as a part of the 2005 earthquake. Education was seen as
a priority both by communities, government actors, and to a certain extent by the international
community. Factors which contributed to this prioritization included the massive scale of destruction
and the loss of students’ and teachers’ lives in schools of sub-standard construction. This was
highlighted in early needs assessments, such as those by Asian Development Bank (ADB) and World
Bank (ADB-WB, 2005) and UNESCO (2005). As part of the response, however, there tended to be a focus
on the hard elements of reconstruction, with less attention to transitional learning or child friendly
spaces (Kirk, 2008). By 2010, this emphasis on education reconstruction had evolved to include a
greater focus on the immediate. As a response to the floods, a major priority was establishment of
Temporary Learning Centers (TLCs), with subsequent rehabilitation of schools affected by the floods or
as a result of being used as IDP shelters, and provision of Temporary School Structures (TSS) for partially
or completely damaged schools (Alexander, 2011).
The Education Cluster promoted and applied the INEE Minimum Standards as a guiding framework for
its work during the 2005 earthquake response. With a first training the standards having just been
completed in Pakistan in the weeks prior to the earthquake, key accomplishments included further
training, translation of the handbook into Urdu, and use of the standards as a coordinating framework
as evidenced by reference in key education documents (Anderson, et al., 2006). By the time of the
floods in 2010, while cluster members at the national level in Islamabad were aware of the standards,
most other members were not, and refresher trainings were subsequently rolled out (Alexander, 2011).
27
In 2013, the Pakistan NDMA published a National Disaster Risk Reduction Policy which includes a strong
focus on DRR being mainstreamed across the education system (Government of Pakistan, 2013). Key
infrastructure lifelines are identified, which include education facilities, and promoting DRR in schools
and colleges is prioritized.
Humanitarian finance for education in Pakistan
Pakistan has had a joint appeal for the earthquake in 2005 (which included parts of India and
Afghanistan as well), and then appeals related to cyclones and floods for every year from 2007 to 2012.
Figure 1 below shows the data on the percentage of humanitarian funding requests met for education in
Pakistan during these years, compared to all sectors combined, as well as the percentage of total
humanitarian funding that has been for the education sector. As a whole, there have been education
requirements of US$287.2 million identified, with humanitarian funding to education only reaching
US$60.3 million, or 21% on average as opposed to the 60% received for all sectors. While education has
been comparatively well funded at during the year when large scale natural disasters hit (103% of
requests for the 2005 earthquake, 52% for the 2010 floods), its funding for intervening years fell far
below that of the average for other sectors. While in 2005 and 2010, education received 8.2% and 4.8%
of all humanitarian funding respectively, during intervening years it averaged less than the target of 4%.
On average, education received only 2.4% of humanitarian funding.
Figure 1: Trends in humanitarian funding to education in Pakistan
Source: Financial Tracking Service, accessed 30th
June 2014
5.2 DRC: Long term violent conflict in the east In DRC, a decades-long conflict has, since 1997, been estimated to have left more than 5 million dead
(Coughlan, 2007). In the east, as much as 81% of the population has been displaced, on average as
many as 3.3 times (Bender, 2010). While a peace accord signed in 2003, with more than 40 armed
103%
28%
6%
52%
42%
2%
66%
49%
77%
50%
70%
44%
18%
8.2% 3.3% 1.6% 4.8% 2.5%
0.6% 0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
120%
2005* 2007 2008-09 2010 2010-2011 2011-2012 2012
Education All sectors Education as % of total funding
28
groups involved high levels of conflict have continued. The education response to this context has
evolved extensively over the years, driven by a combination of both humanitarian and development
actors, working to support education authorities and providers. There has been an Education Cluster
established and active since 2008.
Education context and emergency impact
Ranked at the bottom of the Human Development Index (UNDP, 2013), DRC is estimated to have as
many as 7.6 million school-age children out of school – nearly half of the school-aged children in the
country (Oxfam, 2013). The 2014 EFA GMR cites a Primary ANER of 33% for 1999, but includes no
equivalent data for 2011. However, other sources do show growth in number of students, claiming that
the number of children going to school grew by 11% annually between 2002 and 2007 (De Herdt, et al.,
2010). That said, any progress made has largely benefited the more advantaged students, with urban
boys at the head of the pack (UNESCO, 2014).
The war has directly impacted many children’s lives, including a chance at education. This is felt perhaps
most acutely amongst those who have been abducted or recruited into the armed forces and groups.
More than 30,000 child soldiers were released between 2004 and 2006 under the national
disarmament, demobilization and reintegration (DDR) programme, and thousands more in subsequent
years, however it appears that fewer than 50% of the under-18s released benefited from promised
reintegration programs, including education (Coalition to Stop the Use of Child Soldiers , 2011).
In addition, in DRC sexual violence is widespread. In 2008, there were 15,996 new cases of sexual
violence reported, with 65% of the victims younger than 18 years, and 10% younger than 10 years
(UNPF, 2009). Estimates are that 1 million of the countries women and girls have been victims of sexual
violence (Peterman, et al., 2011). Bender (2010) states that of reported cases in 2008, 35% of victims
were students, and one in five rapes took place at school. In one study, approximately 90% of sexual
violence survivors were either illiterate or had attended only primary school, which may imply either
that victims tended to be less educated or that their schooling was interrupted (Bartels, S., et al., 2010).
Moreover, between 2009 and 2012, attacks on schools continued to occur in the eastern provinces.
Attacks have included abduction of students and staff, sexual violence committed en route to and from
school, looting and burning of schools, or occupation of education buildings. There were 51 reported
attacks in 2009 and at least 14 in 2010 (GCPEA, 2014b).
Coordination mechanisms
While the government plays an important lead role in education, they do so without much of the
authority found in other countries. The education system has long been fragile, with the roots of
today’s challenges in the 1970s, when the government was unable to meet costs of education and
signed an agreement with the church to delegate management responsibilities (De Herdt, et al., 2010).
By 1990 the situation had deteriorated further, and teachers went on strike nationwide, until a 1992
agreement was signed that essentially made parents responsible for paying teachers’ salaries.6 School
6 Between 1982 and 1987, DRC’s budget for education virtually evaporated, decreasing from 25% to 7% of the general budget,
with teachers’ salaries being reduced from US$68 to $27 per month. By 2002, following a decade of war, a teacher’s salary had
fallen to only $13 a month (De Herdt, et al., 2010).
29
management committees (SMCs) and parent-teacher associations (PTAs) began to take on this role,
often also responsible for school infrastructure and other costs. Working with education authorities,
including in relation to emergencies, thus requires links at a number of levels – national, provincial,
district, within the church and directly with individual schools.
In 2006, the DRC was one of the pilot countries for the IASC cluster approach. Danailov and Michel
(2008) describe how UNICEF was given the lead in 5 out of 10 clusters established in the country,
including education. To further operationalize the approach, UNICEF established provincial clusters and
sub-clusters in emergency-affected provinces, which were co-chaired and convened by key international
NGO partners. Since 2008, UNICEF and Save the Children together have co-led the national Education
Cluster, with 11 provincial clusters and 5 sub-clusters co-facilitated by a range of other international
NGOs including NRC, AVSI and Save the Children again (UNICEF, 2014a). There have been a number of
challenges in this model, as NGO co-leads have to allocate time away from agency-specific work and
fund their own staff time (NGOs and Humanitarian Reform Project, 2010).
Policy and programmes
A range of education responses have been tried across the DRC, with much of the value added in the
form of programmes specifically targeted to consequences of the crisis. This seems to have largely
fallen along the lines of four types of activities. The first is what may be called ‘stock’ interventions,
including setting up emergency classrooms, distributing education kits and some limited teacher
training. Many of these though result in temporary solutions, which in the context of DRC and its on-
going crisis is seen by many to be inadequate (Bender, 2010).
Second is an extensive programme of accelerated learning, or catch-up classes, which provide primary
education for children who have never attended or whose schooling has been interrupted. In DRC,
these catch-up classes were initially set up by NRC as part in line with the TEP, essentially a one year
bridging course which prepares children to enter school the following year (Baxter and Bethke, 2009).
This response has since been endorsed by education authorities, with a number of other international
NGOs contributing. In 2013, 126,570 children benefited from remedial classes to enable their
reintegration to school (UNICEF, 2014a).
The third type of activity involves efforts to integrate education and protection outcomes. In 2012,
Education Cluster members worked with schools to analyse risks, including protection-related threats,
and develop risk reduction plans. In parts of the country, SMCs and PTAs have been able to play a role
in reporting violations of children rights (Gladwell and Tanner, 2014). Moreover, recent UN-led
interventions have resulted in the armed forces vacating schools (GCPEA, 2014b). In addition, the
cluster has recently been supporting the government to develop a national policy on peace education
and develop curriculum that seeks to address the causes of conflict (UNICEF, 2014a).
Finally, there are a number of efforts which occupy both a humanitarian and development space, in that
they address longer-term issues, but in emergency-affected areas. For example, IRC has implemented a
major programme focused on community governance, which in many cases supports construction,
30
rehabilitation or equipment for classrooms (Bender, 2010). UNICEF and other agencies have built on the
Programme of Expanded Assistance to Returns (PEAR) and implemented ‘PEAR Plus’, an integrated
package of health, WASH, education and child protection assistance. And NRC is implementing
education through the EU Children of Peace Initiative, providing school vouchers, catch-up classes, child
friendly spaces and vocational training (Gladwell and Tanner, 2014).
Humanitarian finance for education in DRC
There have been CAPs for DRC for every year from 2000, an indicator of the recurrent and protracted
nature of the crisis there. Figure 2 shows data from 2000 to 2014 on the percentage of humanitarian
funding requests met for education in DRC compared to all sectors combined, as well as the percentage
of total humanitarian funding that has been for the education sector. Over this ten year period, a total
of US$325.7 million has been requested for the education sector, with only US$55 million being
provided, an overall average of 17%. At most, only 36% of education requirements were met, in 2003.
Moreover, the percentage of education requests met has been consistently lower than the average for
all sectors combined, which as a whole has seen 67% of requirements met. As a percentage of total
funding, education has only received 1.1% of humanitarian aid since 2000, well below the target of 4%
set by the UN Global Education First Initiative.
Figure 2: Trends in humanitarian funding to education in DRC
Source: Financial Tracking Service, accessed 9th
June 2014
5.3 Haiti: A devastating earthquake Haiti has long faced major challenges, including in the education sector. The earthquake that hit on 12
January 2010 – the strongest in more than 200 years and– added to those challenges exponentially,
bringing with it a massive scale of destruction. The quake left more than 222,000 dead and 2.3 million
homeless (UN, 2010). A cholera epidemic and Hurricane Thomas followed that same year. A major
0.0% 0.7% 0.4% 1.6% 0.1% 0.0% 2.2% 1.1% 1.4% 1.0% 1.2% 1.2% 1.0% 1.0%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
Education All sectors Education as % of total funding
31
international humanitarian response was mounted, which included activation of an Education Cluster
and a variety of activities aimed at education response and recovery.
Education context and emergency impact
As the poorest country in its region, Haiti’s education indicators have never been strong. Even so, there
have been gains, with 77% of children of primary school age (11-16) attending primary school in 2012, a
significant improvement from just under 50% prior to the earthquake in 2005-2006 (UN , 2013). Still, in
that same year, 51% of women and 46% of men aged 15 to 49 had no more than primary education
(UNESCO, 2014). Haiti has a largely non-public education system – with only 19% of children enrolled in
public schools, and the remaining 81% in a mix of religious, for-profit, and non-governmental schools
(Demombynes, et al., 2010). In addition, school fees are prohibitively expensive and parents in many
cases cannot afford to send their child to school.
The earthquake’s impact on the education sector was devastating. Approximately 80% of the schools
were damaged or destroyed (Bender, 2010). In addition, large numbers of teachers and other education
personnel were killed and injured. The earthquake was particularly strong in the capital of Port au
Prince, with many officials killed and the Ministry of Education building was destroyed. According to the
Post-Disaster Needs Assessment (PDNA) conducted shortly after the earthquake, a total of 4,268
education institutions were damaged or destroyed, and the cost at all levels of the system and to
equipment was estimated at 478.9 million USD and the cost of losses was a further 147.9 million USD
(Government of Haiti, 2010).
The earthquake directly affected an estimated 1.26 million children and youth, and according to UNICEF
disrupted education for as many as 2.5 million. Schools in the departments not affected by the
earthquake do not have the capacity to enrol the large number of children who have migrated to live
with extended families in rural areas. Furthermore, many children and staff fear being in concrete
buildings due to the risk of aftershocks and flooding (Lacroix, 2010).
While the earthquake caused clear visible impact on education, it has also been recognized that violence
and on-going insecurity affect the system. According to Luzincourt and Gulbrandson (2010), issues of
inequality are reinforced through high levels of private provision, and the curriculum needs to better
support tolerance and inclusion.
Coordination mechanisms
The earthquake led to the loss of life of numerous g overnment officials, with damage and destruction of
many of its offices, including the Ministry of Education. Initially, there was little to no capacity amongst
government education officials to lead the response. Within days, clusters were established to support
national authorities to coordinate the humanitarian effort. However, most clusters, including education,
were not functional until several weeks after the quake (Bhattacharjee and Lossio, 2011).
The Education Cluster was established alongside other clusters and was co-led by UNICEF and Save the
Children, with initial meetings convened by UNESCO as their office had survived. In the weeks and
months following the earthquake, the cluster was responsible for coordinating the work of more than
100 organisations The national cluster was convened in Port-au-Prince and three sub-national clusters
32
were also established. Initial activities included a Rapid Joint Needs Assessment (RJNA) and
contributions to the government’s official Post-Disaster Needs Assessment (PDNA)
The Education Cluster in Haiti worked alongside a pre-existing Education Sector Working Group, known
locally as a Table Sectorielle (TS). UNESCO led this group, which focused on longer-term education
support (Lattimer and Berther, 2010). Several years after the earthquake the clusters were phased out,
with this Education Sector Working Group taking over a number of cluster activities.
Policy and programmes
Education was seen by a many as a priority in response and recovery, and a number of education
activities were coordinated through the Education Cluster (Lattimer and Berther, 2010). Working groups
were created to focus on specific thematic areas: capacity development/teacher training, psychosocial
support (linked to the inter-cluster Psychosocial Task Force), the curriculum, early childhood
development, and infrastructure/reconstruction. Disaster risk reduction was initially integrated into the
work of different groups and later established as a sub-group in its own right (Global Education Cluster,
2010).
Before the official re-opening of schools, a number of organisations provided Child Friendly Spaces (CFS)
to provide non-formal education, psychosocial support and recreation (Rivera, 2010). In parallel, a
major effort was put on readying space for formal schooling, clearing debris, providing temporary
learning spaces and sourcing basic learning materials. Education Cluster members provided technical
support to the government for re-opening of schools in April and the beginning of the new school year
in October. There was a major effort to promote the reintegration of children living in camps, in schools
located in their community of origin or close to the displacement sites (UN, 2010).
In the first year of response, nearly 200,000 children benefited from temporary learning spaces, over
88,000 children under the age of six enrolled in early childhood development classes and over 500,000
children received basic learning materials. Working with other humanitarian and civil-military
coordination bodies, debris was cleared from approximately 70% of destroyed and heavily damaged
schools on the priority list. Moreover, the INEE Minimum Standards were translated and contextualized
for the Haiti context and agreement was reached by Cluster members to adhere to the Standards. In
addition, training was conducted for over 10,000 teachers and education personnel on psychosocial
recovery, disaster risk reduction and emergency preparedness (Lattimer and Berther, 2010).
Following more immediate response work there was a shift to recovery. Long-term objectives, such as
establishing an information system and developing a new education strategy, were supported by cluster
members. This also included work to mobilise partners to develop contingency plans for other potential
emergencies, such as the response to Hurricane Tomas or the cholera epidemic (Fall, 2012).
Humanitarian finance for education in Haiti
Haiti has had consolidated appeals in every year since its 2010 earthquake; education, however, was
only included in appeals up to 2012. Through the appeals process, over the three year period, the
Haitian education sector received $100 million of the requested $104 million, or 96% of its requirement.
As shown in Figure 3, in the first two years after the earthquake, education received 99% and 110% of
humanitarian funding requests, far above the average for all sectors combined. This fell to 33% in 2012,
33
the final year education made humanitarian funding requests. Only four other sectors received more –
food ($410m), WASH ($171m), health ($170m) and shelter and non-food items ($120m). From 2010 to
2012, education accounted for 7% of all humanitarian funding to Haiti, thus making it one of the few
cases that has met the 4% target set by the UN.
Figure 3: Trends in humanitarian funding to Haiti
Source: Financial Tracking Service, accessed 9th
June 2014
5.4 Syria: Civil war and extensive displacement
Now in its third year, the conflict in Syria has grown exponentially in terms of scale and intensity.
UNICEF (2014b) characterises this crisis as ‘accelerating’, with the number of children affected having
doubled from 2.3 to 5.5 million in the year prior to March 2014, with the number displaced inside Syria
having more than tripled from 920,000 to almost 3 million and the number of child refugees having
quadrupled from 260,000 to more than 1.2 million. As today's biggest humanitarian crisis, the response
is regional and complex. Issues of education have been fairly high on the agenda for response, although
they’ve largely garnered attention for their inadequacy in the face of the crisis.
Education context and emergency impact
Prior to the civil war, Syria’s education system was the envy of many in the region. Classed as a lower
middle income country, the most recent EFA GMR shows that primary school ANER had grown from an
already high 97% in 1999 to 100% by 2011, with numbers of children out of school falling from 87,000 in
1999 to only 8,200 in 2011 (UNESCO, 2014). With literacy rates of over 90%, education had been strong
for more than a generation (UNICEF, et al., 2013). Moreover, Syria spent almost 5% of its GDP on
education (UNICEF, 2014b). The collapse of this once strong education system has shocked many Syrian
families, and raised concerns that this investment may soon be lost.
99%
110%
33%
73%
56%
47% 47%
8% 6% 3% 0%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
120%
2010 2011 2012 2013
Education
All sectors
Education as % of totalfunding
34
An astonishing number of Syrian children are out of school. As of December last year, UNICEF, et al.
(2013) found that of 4.8 school-age Syrian children, approximately 2.2 million still inside the country
were out of school, alongside a further half million refugee children residing in Lebanon, Jordan, Turkey,
Egypt and Iraq. Areas hardest hit by violence have felt the most profound impacts on education, with
loss of up to a quarter of schools in some areas, and attendance falling below 30%. The report goes on
to say that more than 4,000 Syrian schools have been destroyed, damaged or turned into shelters for
displaced people.
Within Syria there is significant concern regarding violence and education. Globally, Syria has had by far
the most incidents of attacks on education between 2009 and 2012, a trend which continues to persist
(GCPEA, 2014b). Children have been arrested or detained on the way to school, caught in crossfire
within schools, or in at least two documented cases, subjected to airstrikes on schools (Human Rights
Watch, 2013), and fear of shelling is the main reason for not attending school throughout the north
(Assessment Working Group for Northern Syria, 2014). The Syrian Network for Human Rights alleges
that a thousand schools have been turned into detention and torture centres by the government, and
there has been a number of schools turned into barracks for fighting forces (GCPEA, 2014b).
While refugee children may not face such direct violence in relation to their education, they face other
significant challenges. Two thirds of Syrian refugee children are out of school, with this group facing
lower school enrolment rates than those found in Afghanistan, a country with a much longer history of
conflict and poorer tradition of education (UNICEF, et al., 2013). The sheer numbers and needs of these
refugee children is also overwhelming education systems in a number of neighbouring countries
(Watkins, 2013).
Coordination mechanisms
The Syrian crisis spans the region, and thus involves separate coordination groups for each country. In
Syria itself, an Education Working Group is active rather than an Education Cluster, due to the fact that
the cluster approach has not been agreed between the government and humanitarian actors. Operating
in many ways like a cluster, the Education Working Group is hosted by Save the Children International.
A focus is put on harmonizing activities between actors, including coordinating with local councils and
community based initiatives (INEE, 2014). Working group members contributed to a Joint Rapid Needs
Assessment in Northern Syria, which found that “the education system in the northern governorates
ha[d] collapsed as a direct consequence of the conflict” and education was amongst the lowest coverage
for humanitarian assistance (Assessment Working Group for Northern Syria, 2014).
Various other coordination mechanisms have been put in place in host countries, often working in close
collaboration with national education authorities. A Syria Regional Response Plan has been put together
involving a number of partners, which includes education activities in Egypt, Iraq, Jordan, Lebanon and
Turkey (UNHCRb, 2014). In Jordan, an Education Working Group is co-chaired by UNICEF and NRC, and
there have been several assessments, including a Joint Education Needs Assessment carried out in
Za’atari Camp and host communities (Jordan Education Sector Working Group, 2013). In Lebanon, the
Education Working Group is led by UNHCR, UNICEF and the Ministry of Education; in other countries,
like Turkey, while there are no formal education coordination mechanisms, UNICEF and other actors
hold regular meetings with government counterparts (INEE, 2014).
35
Furthermore, the scale of the crisis and its regional nature has led to more global efforts at coordination
and advocacy. In December of 2013 a high level regional conference on education and the Syrian
refugee crisis was held, jointly convened by UNHCR, UNESCO and the ODI. Also, education proved to be
a central concern at the Second Humanitarian Pledging Conference for Syria in January 2014.
Policy and programmes
To date, a range of responses have been implemented by the Governments of affected countries, UN
agencies, international NGOs and national organisations. In Syria, a mapping by INEE (2014) highlights
that this has involved provision of school kits, rehabilitation of schools and learning spaces, and summer
learning programmes. In addition, there have been many trainings to build teacher capacity on
education in emergencies, classroom management, psychosocial support and first aid. Child Friendly
Spaces have also been set up in at least 16 camps, with a number of agencies making close links
between their education and protection responses. Trainings have also been conducted on the use of
the INEE Minimum Standards.
In host countries, a number of country governments are accommodating refugee children in their
formation school system. Where this is not possible, the INEE (2014) mapping of education response
reveals that activities include setting up schools and CFS, particularly in camp settings. In some
countries, there are also efforts around provision of additional learning spaces, particularly in urban
areas. Some agencies are financing registration fees, cash grants and transportation costs for refugee
children. Significant efforts are also being made on teacher training, particularly in Jordan and Lebanon.
And certain agencies like Save the Children International are working on early childhood education, with
others like NRC focused on providing programmes for youth.
Responding to education needs for the growing number of affected Syrian children is daunting. No Lost
Generation, a joint initiative by governments, the UN, and international NGOs sets out plans to address
immediate and long-term impacts of the Syria crisis (UNICEF, 2014c). Clearly identified targets are set
out around increasing learning and skills, providing a protective environment and broadening
opportunities for children and adolescents. This plan’s success of relies on funding to the tune of
US$990 million, with nearly 60% of activities included in existing funding mechanisms of the revised
Syria Humanitarian Assistance Response Plan (SHARP5) and Regional Response Plan (RRP6).
Humanitarian finance for education in Syria
Appeals related to the Syrian crisis have included both the Syria Humanitarian Assistance Response Plan
(2012 onwards) and Syria Regional Refugee Response Plan (2013 onwards). Between 2012 through the
first half of 2014, a total of US$162.4 million was requested for education, with US$52.5 million funded,
or 32%. Figure 4 shows that in the first appeal, education only received 9% of requirements but that this
jumped to 82% in 2013, higher than the 71% average of all sectors. However, education as a percent of
total funding was only 0.6% in 2012, 1.2% in 2013, and to date is 0.7% for 2014, far below the 4% target
which is being advocated.
Figure 4: Trends in humanitarian funding to Syria
36
Source: Financial Tracking Service, accessed 30th
June 2014
6. Implications for post-2015
The post-2015 development agenda aims to define the future global development framework to
succeed the MDGs, the set of eight global development targets which come to an end in 2015.
Education features prominently across a number of proposals for this agenda, including some of the most politically prominent (HLP, 2013; OWG, 2014). The High Level Panel of Eminent Persons on the Post-2015 Development Agenda’s (HLP) report did include a goal on peaceful and stable societies and
reference to humanitarian response in addressing climate change mitigation, adaptation and DDR and the UN Open Working Group on Sustainable Development Goals’ (OWG) draft zero of the goals includes
a focus area on peaceful and inclusive societies, rule of law and capable institutions. Neither refers
overtly to emergencies.
With the post-2015 Sustainable Development Goals clearly focused on a broader development agenda,
some debate remains as to whether and how humanitarian crises should be included in the framework.
For instance, there is resistance by some countries to include a goal on peace as part of post-2015, with peace seen as the prerogative of the UN Security Council rather than part of development and within the remit of the UN General Assembly. However, groups like the g7+, a political grouping of fragile states, are advocating strongly for its inclusion (da Costa and Hage, 2014). Alternatively, there is a growing movement to have separate Humanitarian Goals (HuGos), which is championed by David
Miliband, the former British politician and now head of the International Rescue Committee. The
separate set of goals could tackle four fundamental issues; focus attention and resources on what the
humanitarian system is trying to achieve, align diverse practical efforts on the ground, establish accountability in and for the system, and rally public opinion (Miliband, 2014).
9%
82%
13%
62%
71%
30%
0.6% 1.2% 0.7%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
2012 2013 2014
Education
All sectors
Education as % of totalfunding
37
Amongst education actors, the Joint Proposal of the EFA Steering Committee on Education Post-2015 is recognised to have the most political traction (EFA Steering Committee, 2014). Its second target, on equity and inclusion, highlights the need to “pay particular attention to marginalized groups and to those affected by conflict and disaster.” There is, however, no further reference to humanitarian crises
and emergencies, perhaps somewhat of an oversight given the fact that one-third of those out of school live in conflict-affected contexts, an average of 175 million children are affected by natural disasters annually, and a significant number of children not achieving minimum learning standards likely live in such settings. It appears that education in emergencies has so far been relegated to a lesser place even than it was as a part of the Dakar Framework for Action where ‘Education in situations of crisis and
emergency’ was one of six areas of concern (World Education Forum, 2000).
There is much debate regarding the role of global goals and national targets as a part of the post-2015
agenda (Norton, 2012). This could entail setting overarching targets focused on eradicating extreme poverty on a global scale, alongside allowing countries to set different kinds of targets which are relevant to them. This could be particularly important in reference to education in emergencies, where
each context and starting point in relation to starting points really is quite different. This tension
between global and national goals could give space for greater leadership in countries that have the political will and capacity to set out national education in emergency policies, whether for response, conflict-sensitive education or disaster risk reduction, but also facilitate stronger international
engagement where government capacity is limited.
There are a number of concrete implications this analysis brings to light in relation to education in
emergencies and the emerging post-2015 agenda. Amongst these are:
1. The fact that ‘education in situations of crisis and emergency’ was one of six areas of concern
identified in the Dakar Framework for Action spurred progress in the sector – education in
emergencies should again be listed as an area of focus in post-2015 education goal statements.
While this is clearly an issue of equity and inclusion, the issues stretch beyond this theme and
form core challenges in areas of access and quality, gender equity, lifelong learning and
education for sustainable development.
2. In order to better understand the scale of the challenge and progress made much greater
attention to data collection and analysis related to education in emergencies is needed – this
is particularly true in terms of natural disasters, where there is little to no data collated globally.
While UIS provides a global overview of education data, significant gaps exist in emergency
contexts and stronger investments need to be made in education management information
systems (EMIS) as they relate to emergencies. This should be done in conjunction with the
Education Cluster’s efforts around information management in emergencies.
3. Greater efforts are needed to mobilise humanitarian financing for education in emergencies,
and ensure its complementarity to development aid and domestic resources. Ways to better
track the range of financing sources to education in emergencies are also needed in order to
develop flexible mechanisms that allow for government and donor funding to be reallocated for
education in emergency response where appropriate.
38
4. Given their applicability across types and phases of emergency, ensure that education in
emergencies plans, policies and programmes are consistent with utilise the INEE Minimum
Standards for Education: Preparedness, Response and Recovery. Efforts toward
contextualisation, and setting quantifiable targets at the country level, are particularly
important to this end, in order to ensure that the standards move from policy toward greater
implementation.
5. Increased investment should be made in Education Cluster capacity at both globally and at
country levels to coordinate assessment, information management, and response plans in new
emergencies, given that government capacity in emergency situations is often compromised.
The Education Cluster serves as a key mechanism for coordination in humanitarian crises, and
should increasingly be brought into discussions with broader education actors such as the GPE.
6. Monitoring and support for response to mitigate the damages caused by attacks on education
is essential, and needs more engagement both globally and at country level. Protection of
education spaces from attack, military use and occupation of schools must be ensured through
strict observance of international humanitarian standards. The Lucens Guidelines on protecting
schools and universities from use by armed groups for military purposes should be widely
adopted, with the aim of minimising the negative impact that armed conflict has on students’
safety and education.
7. To advance work on disaster risk reduction and education, a greater focus should be put on
school safety, minimising student and staff injuries due to hazard impacts, providing temporary
shelter, sanitation and nutrition for learners in the case of disaster, minimising education
interruptions due to hazard impacts, and maximising learners’ resilience in the face of disasters.
This work should be done in line with the Hyogo Framework for Action.
8. Finally, given the likelihood of recurrence of both conflict and natural disasters in many
contexts, as well as their complex and protracted nature, the post-2015 framework and further
efforts on education in emergencies must prioritise resilience. Efforts toward durable
solutions should pay special attention to refugees and the internally displaced, ensuring equal
education opportunities are available to these populations. It should also link closely with
education systems work being developed more broadly across the sector.
7. Conclusion If universal primary education is to be achieved it is vital that governments can ensure educational
provision during emergencies and rebuild functioning education systems post-emergency. Governments
and the international community also need to address the specific educational and psychosocial needs
of children, including for internally displaced and refugee children.
39
This paper has reviewed what is known about the scale of the challenge in respect to education in
emergencies, with most recent estimates being that 28.5 million primary school age children – around
half of those out of school globally – are not in school in conflict areas. In terms of natural disasters, the
current best guess is that 175 million children are likely to be affected annually. In 2013, there was a
humanitarian funding gap for education of US$239 million; moreover, assistance to education totaled
only 2.4% of aid contributed as part of humanitarian appeals, far below a target of 4%.
In the 1990s, education in emergencies was a young sector. Many of the unresolved issues of the time
have since been addressed – definitions have been systematized through the INEE Minimum Standards,
education has been recognized in its own right as a humanitarian response, capacity has grown both for
response and coordination, the literature and evidence base for the sector has grown exponentially (if
not still enough). While there is a better understanding of issues of prioritization and funding, limited
progress seems to have been made in these areas and a much stronger push is needed post-2015.
The paper goes on to illustrate the evolution of the education in emergencies sector, identifying five
drivers behind progress between 2000 and the present day. These include:
a) Establishing INEE as a professional network;
b) Development of the INEE Minimum Standards;
c) Building of a literature and evidence base for the sector;
d) Mainstreaming of the Education Cluster as part of humanitarian action; and
e) Advocacy and growing recognition for the sector.
Four case studies exploring varied emergency contexts and education in emergencies response in
Pakistan, DRC, Haiti and Syria are then presented. The case studies illustrate the varied impacts of
emergencies on the education sector, the role played by coordination mechanisms, key response
activities in terms of policy and programmes, and financing patterns for education in each emergency.
From these experiences one can see commonalities, including the key role of the Education Cluster and
sector working groups, importance of combining hard (i.e. construction) and soft elements (i.e. teacher
training) of education response, added value of collaborating with psychosocial and protection efforts,
and the utility of the INEE Minimum Standards as a framework across varied types and phases of
emergency. The case studies also bring up differences, with the role of national authorities varying
widely and greater funding shortfalls for education in conflict contexts over those of natural disaster.
Finally, the paper concludes by looking at implications for post-2015 in relation to education in
emergencies. It sets out eight core recommendations that should be addressed through the Sustainable
Development Goals agenda. The years since 2000 have shown considerable progress; in order to
continue gains in the next fifteen years leading up to 2030, these and other efforts toward
mainstreaming and accelerating work on education in emergencies must be prioritised.
40
Bibliography Adinolphi, C., Basiouni, D., Lauritzsen, H.F., Williams, H.R. 2005. Humanitarian Response Review. UN
OCHA: New York and Geneva. http://www.ennonline.net/resources/713.
Alexander, J. 2011. ‘Education Cluster in Pakistan, Lessons learned: Flood response’.
http://www.ineesite.org/uploads/files/resources/Final_Lessons_Learned_Review_Pakistan.pdf.
Anderson, A. 2010. ‘Combatting climate change through quality education.’ Washington, DC, The
Brookings Institution.
http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/research/files/papers/2010/9/climate%20education%20an
derson/09_climate_education.pdf.
Anderson, A. 2004. ‘Developing minimum standards for education in emergencies’ in Humanitarian
Exchange Magazine, 28.
-----. 2005. Case study on the utilisation of the INEE Minimum Standards: Inter-Agency Coordination in
the aftermath of the Tsunami.
Anderson, A., Martone, G., Perlman Robinson, J., Rognerud, E. Sullivan-Owomoyela, J. 2006. Standards
put to the test. Humanitarian Practice Network Paper 57. London: ODI.
Anderson, A. and Hodgkin, M. 2010. The creation and development of the global IASC Education Cluster.
UNESCO: Paris.
Assessment Working Group for Northern Syria. 2014. ‘Joint Rapid Asssesment of Northern Syria II.’ (J-
RANS II). http://reliefweb.int/sites/reliefweb.int/files/resources/JRANS%20II%20-
%20Final%20Report_0.pdf.
Baez, J., de la Fuente, A., & Santos, I. 2010. Do Natural Disasters Affect Human Capital? An Assessment
Based on Existing Empirical Evidence. Bonn, Germany: IZA.
Bartels, S., Scott, J., Leaning, J., Mukwege, D., Lipton, R. and VanRooyen, M. 2010. ‘Surviving Sexual
Violence in Eastern Democratic Republic of Congo’ in Journal of International Women's Studies,
11(4), 37-49. http://vc.bridgew.edu/jiws/vol11/iss4/3.
Baxter, P. and Bethke, L. 2009. Alternative education: Filling the gap in emergency and post-conflict
situations. Paris, UNESCO IIEP and CfBT Education Trust.
Bender, L. 2010. ‘Education Cluster – Rapid Joint Needs Assessment.’
https://www.cimicweb.org/cmo/haiti/Crisis%20Documents/Education%20Cluster/RJNA%20Repor
t%20ENGLISH.pdf.
Bender, L. 2010. ‘Innovations in emergency education: The IRC in the Democratic Republic of Congo.’
Paris: UNESCO.
Bhattacharjee, A. and Lossio, R. 2011. ‘Evaluation of OCHA Response to the Haiti Earthquake’. OCHA.
file:///C:/Users/snicolai/Downloads/evaluation-of-ocha-response-to-the-haiti-earthquake.pdf.
Boothby, N. 1992. “Displaced children: psychological theory and practice from the field”, Journal of
Refugee Studies, 5, 106–22.
Boothby, N. 1996. “Children of war: survival as a collective act”, in M. McCallin (ed.). The psychosocial
well-being of refugee children. International Catholic Child Bureau, Geneva: 136–49.
Buchanan-Smith, M. 2003. How the Sphere Project came into being: A case study of policy-making in the
humanitarian aid sector and the relative influence of research. London: ODI.
41
Buckland, P. 2005. Reshaping the Future: Education and post-conflict construction. Washington DC: The
World Bank.
Bush, K. D., & Saltarelli, D. 2000. The Two Faces of Education in Ethnic Conflict: Towards a Peacebuilding
Education for Children. Florence: UNICEF, Innocenti Research Centre.
Climate Change and African Political Stability Program (CCAPS). 2013. ‘Research brief – Complex
emergencies.’ No. 16. University of Texas at Austin, Robert S. Strauss Center for International
Security and Law. https://strausscenter.org/complex-emergencies-publications.html.
Coalition to Stop the Use of Child Soliders. 2011. ‘Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) Briefing note
to the UN Security Council Working Group on Children and Armed Conflict’.
file:///C:/Users/snicolai/Downloads/finaldrcbriefingtoscwg4feb20111596791.pdf.
Coghlan et al. 2007. Mortality in the Democratic Republic of Congo: An Ongoing Crisis. New York: IRC,
http://www.theirc.org/resources/2007/2006-7_congomortalitysurvey.pdf.
Centre for Research on the Epidemiology of Disasters (CRED). 2013. People affected by conflict 2013.
Brussels, CRED. cred.be/sites/default/files/PAC2013.pdf.
Crisp, J., Talbot, C. and Cipollone, D.B. (eds) 2001. Learning for a Future: Refugee Education in
Developing Countries. Geneva, UNHCR.
http://www.unhcr.ch/pubs/epau/learningfuture/prelims.pdf.
Da Costa, H. and Hage, S. 2014. Putting Peace at the Core of the Post-2015 Agenda: The g7+ strategy.
Foreign Voices, 1. Bonn, Germany, The Development and Peace Foundation.
http://static.squarespace.com/static/5212dafbe4b0348bfd22a511/t/52ef6c0de4b0c81c8075041f
/1391422477663/fv-2014-01_da-costa_hage_en.pdf.
Danailov, S. and Michel, S. 2008. ‘Ensuring the predictability of emergency response: the DRC Rapid
Response Mechanism’ in Humanitarian Exchange, 39. London, ODI.
http://www.odihpn.org/humanitarian-exchange-magazine/issue-39/ensuring-the-predictability-
of-emergency-response-the-drc-rapid-response-mechanism.
Davies, L. 2005. Evaluating the link between education and conflict. Journal of Peacebuilding &
Development, 2(2), 42-58.
Davis, K. and Iltus, S. 2009. A Practical Guide for Developing Child Friendly Spaces. New York, UNICEF.
http://cpwg.net/wp-
content/uploads/sites/2/2011/09/A_Practical_Guide_to_Developing_Child_Friendly_Spaces_-
_UNICEF_11.pdf.
De Herdt, T., Titeca, K. and Wagemakers, I. 2010. ‘Making investment in education part of the peace
dividend in the DRC.’ Paris: UNESCO.
Demombynes, G., Holland, P. and León, G. 2010. ‘Students and the Market for Schools in Haiti’.
Washington DC, The World Bank. http://www-
wds.worldbank.org/external/default/WDSContentServer/WDSP/IB/2010/12/13/000158349_2010
1213134039/Rendered/PDF/WPS5503.pdf.
DFID. 2010. ‘Working Effectively in Conflict-affected and Fragile Situations Briefing Paper H: Risk
Management.’
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/67697/building
-peaceful-states-H.pdf.
42
Dryden-Peterson, 2011. Refugee education: A global review. UNHCR: Geneva.
http://www.unhcr.org/4fe317589.pdf.
Dundar, H. and Waheed, H. 2013. ‘Pakistan policy note 9: Expanding access to quality education’. The
World Bank.
Education Policy and Data Center. (2010). The effect of violent conflict on the primary education in
Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Pakistan. Paris, France: UNESCO.
Fall, M. 2012. ‘The Education Cluster in Haiti – Two Year On.’
www.ineesite.org/uploads/files/resources/Two_Year_On_Haiti_Education_Cluster_ENG.pdf.
Ghaffar-Kucher, A. 2005. ‘The Effects of Repatriation on Education in Afghan Refugee Camps in
Pakistan’. Burde, D. (ed). Education in Emergencies and Post-Conflict Situations: Problems,
Responses and Possibilities, Vol. 2. New York: Colombia University.
Gladwell, C. and Tanner, L. 2014. Hear it from the children: Why education in emergencies is critical.
London, Save the Children UK and NRC.
http://www.savethechildren.org.cn/sites/default/files/files/20140516_090221.pdf.
Global Child Protection Sub-Cluster, Global Education Cluster and IASC MHPSWG and INEE,. 2011.
‘Guidleines for Child Friendly Spaces in Emergencies’. http://cpwg.net/wp-
content/uploads/sites/2/2013/08/IASC-INEE-Protection-Cluster-Education-Cluster-2011-
Guidelines-for-CFSs-in-Emergencies.pdf.
Global Coalition to Protect Education from Attack (GCPEA). 2014a. Draft Lucens Guidelines for Protecting
Schools and Universities from Military Use during Conflict. New York: GCPEA.
http://protectingeducation.org/sites/default/files/documents/draft_lucens_guidelines.pdf.
Global Coalition to Protect Education from Attack (GCPEA). 2014b. Education Under Attack 2014. New
York: GCPEA.
http://www.protectingeducation.org/sites/default/files/documents/eua_2014_full_0.pdf.
Global Education Cluster. 2013. ‘The year in brief – 2013.’ Geneva, Global Education Cluster Unit.
Global Partnership for Education (GPE.). 2012. Making education aid more effective: Monitoring Exercise
on Aid Effectiveness in the Education Sector. Synthesis report. Washington, DC, GPE.
Government of Haiti. 2010. Haiti Earthquake PDNA: Assessment of damage, losses, general and sectoral
needs. http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTLAC/Resources/PDNA_Haiti-
2010_Working_Document_EN.pdf.
Government of Pakistan. 2013. ‘National Disaster Risk Reduction Policy’. Ministry of Climate Change,
National Disaster Management Authority.
http://www.ndma.gov.pk/Documents/drrpolicy2013.pdf.
Gubbels, P. 2012 ‘Ending the Everyday Emergency, Resilience and Children in the Sahel.’ Save the
Children and World Vision.
Guha-Sapir, D., Hoyois, Ph. and Below, R. 2013. Annual Disaster Statistical Review 2012: The Numbers
and Trends. Brussels: CRED. http://www.cred.be/sites/default/files/ADSR_2012.pdf.
Harris, K., Keen, D. and Mitchell, T. 2013. When disasters and conflict collide: Improving the links
between disaster resilience and conflict prevention. London, ODI.
http://www.odi.org/sites/odi.org.uk/files/odi-assets/publications-opinion-files/8228.pdf.
Herbst, L. 1995. Children in war: community strategies for healing. Save the Children Federation,
Westport, CT/University of Zimbabwe, Harare/Duke University, Durham, NC.
43
High-Level Panel of Eminent Persons on the Post-2015 Development Agenda (HLP). 2013. A new global
partnership: Eradicate poverty and transform economies through sustainable development.
New York, United Nations. http://www.post2015hlp.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/UN-
Report.pdf.
Holmes, R. 2010. The Role of Social Protection Programmes in Supporting Education in Conflict-Affected
Situations. Paris: UNESCO EFA GMR.
Holmes, R. and Bhuvanendra, D. 2014. Preventing and responding to sexual and gender based violence in
humanitarian crises. London, Humanitarian Practice Network at ODI.
http://r4d.dfid.gov.uk/pdf/outputs/HIEP/GBV_in_emergencies_NP_77_web.pdf
IASC. 2006. ‘Guidance Note on Using the Cluster Approach to Strengthen Humanitarian Response’.
https://clusters.humanitarianresponse.info/system/files/documents/files/IASC%20Guidance%2
0Note%20on%20using%20the%20Cluster%20Approach%20to%20Strengthen%20Humanitarian
%20Response%20(November%202006).pdf.
INEE. 2014. ‘Mapping the Education Response to the Syrian Crisis.’ INEE Working Group on Minimum
Standards and Network Tools.
http://www.ineesite.org/uploads/files/resources/Mapping_the_Education_Response_to_the_S
yrian_Crisis_FINAL.pdf.
INEE. 2013. Conflict sensitive education pack. New York, INEE. http://www.ineesite.org/en/education-
fragility/resources.
INEE. 2012. INEE Minimum Standards Assessment Report. New York, INEE.
http://www.ineesite.org/uploads/files/resources/2012_MS_Assessment_Report_FINAL.pdf.
IPCC. 2014. Climate Change 2014: Mitigation of Climate Change. Contribution of Working Group III to the
Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Edenhofer, O., et al.
(eds.). Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA.
http://mitigation2014.org/report/final-draft/.
Jordan Education Sector Working Group. 2013. ‘Joint Education Needs Assessment – Za’atari Refugee
Camp. file:///C:/Users/snicolai/Downloads/JENA_report_Za'atari_final_17June2013.pdf. Kelcey, J.
2013. ‘Closing the gap: using resilience to support education policy in emergency and crisis.’ INEE
blog, 28 July. http://www.ineesite.org/en/blog/closing-the-gap-using-resilience-to-support-
education-policy-in-emergency-a.
Jantzi, T., Stanberry, M., and Bauman, P. 2013. Evaluability assessment of the Peacebuilding, Education
and Advocacy Programme.
http://www.unicef.org/evaldatabase/files/PBEA_Evaluability_Assessment_Final_Report.pdf.
Kirk, J. 2008. Building back better: Post-earthquake responses and educational challenges in Pakistan.
Paris, UNESCO IIEP.
Kirk, J. and Winthrop, R. 2009. ‘Moving from innovation to policy: IRC’s work with community-based
education in Afghanistan.’ In Nicolai, S. (ed.), Opportunities for Change: Education innovation and
reform during and after conflict. Paris, UNESCO IIEP.
Kharas, H. and Rogerson, A. 2012. Horizon 2025: Creative destruction in the aid industry. London, ODI.
http://www.odi.org/sites/odi.org.uk/files/odi-assets/publications-opinion-files/7723.pdf.
44
Lacroix, E. 2010. Anticipating the future: Children and young people’s voices in Haiti’s Post Disaster
Needs Assessment (PDNA). Plan International. http://plan-international.org/files/global/haiti-
pdna-report.pdf.
Lattimer, C. 2012. Lessons in Leadership: Save the Children’s experience of co-leading the Education
Cluster. Save the Children International: London.
http://www.savethechildren.net/sites/default/files/Lessons_in_Leadership.pdf.
Lattimer, C. and Berther, A. 2010. ‘The work of the Education Cluster in Haiti’ in Humanitarian Exchange
Magazine, Issue 48. http://www.odihpn.org/humanitarian-exchange-magazine/issue-48/the-
work-of-the-education-cluster-in-haiti.
Lei, P. n.d. Education in emergencies in Sri Lanka (2001-2010). Save the Children.
http://www.ineesite.org/uploads/files/resources/Education_in_Emergencies_in_Sri_Lanka_(2001
-2010)_Lessons_Learned.pdf.
Luqman, A. 2013. ‘Disasters and Girls’ Education: Pakistan Study.’ Plan International.
Luzincourt, K. and Gulbrandson, J. 2010. ‘Education and conflict in Haiti: Rebuilding the education sector
after the 2010 earthquake.’ Washington DC, United States Institute for Peace.
http://www.usip.org/sites/default/files/sr245.pdf.
Machel, G. 1996. ‘Promotion and Protection of the Rights of Children: Impact of Armed Conflict on
Children’. 26 August, A/51/306, New York, UN.
http://www.un.org/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=A/51/306.
Metzler, J., Atrooshi, A., Khudeda, E., Ali, D. and Ager, A. 2014. ‘Evaluation of Child Friendly Spaces: Iraq Field Study Summary Report. World Vision International & Columbia University Mailman School of Public Health.
Metzler, J., Kaijuka, R., Vojta, M., Savage, K., Yamano, M., Schafer, A., Yu, G., Ebulu, G., & Ager, A. 2013a. ‘Evaluation of Child Friendly Spaces: Uganda Field Study Summary Report.’ World Vision International & Columbia University Mailman School of Public Health.
Metzler, J., Savage, K., Vojta, M., Yamano, M., Schafer, A., & Ager, A. 2013b. Evaluation of Child Friendly Spaces: Ethiopia Field Study Summary Report. World Vision International & Columbia University Mailman School of Public Health.
Mendizabel, E. and Hearn, S. 2011. Inter-Agency Network for Education in Emergencies: A community of
practice, a catalyst for change. Paris, UNESCO IIEP.
Miliband, D. 2014. ‘The humanitarian response must be fit for new crises.’ In The Guardian, Poverty
Matters blog, 22 May. http://www.theguardian.com/global-development/poverty-
matters/2014/may/22/david-miliband-humanitarian-response-goals-crises.
Miller-Grandvaux, Y. 2009. ‘Education and fragility: a new framework.’ Journal of Education for
International Development 4:1.
Muñoz, V. 2008. Right to education in emergency situations. Report of the Special Rapporteur on the
right to education. UN General Assembly Human Rights Council, A/HRC/8/10.
http://www.right-to-education.org/sites/right-to-education.org/files/resource-
attachments/UNSR_RTE_in_Emergencies_Situations_2008.pdf.
NGOs and Humanitarian Reform Project. 2010. ‘The participation of NGOs in Cluster Co-leadership at
country level: A review of experience.
https://icvanetwork.org/system/files/versions/doc00004217.pdf.
45
Nicolai, S. 2004. Learning independence: Education in emergency and transition in Timor-Leste since
1999. Paris, UNESCO IIEP. http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0013/001362/136277e.pdf.
Nicolai, S., Hine, S. and Hou, Z. 2014 (forthcoming). ‘Investment for education in emergencies: A review
of the evidence.’ London, ODI.
Nicolai, S. and Triplehorn, C. 2003. The role of education in protecting children in conflict. London:
Humanitarian Practice Group. http://www.odi.org.uk/sites/odi.org.uk/files/odi-
assets/publications-opinion-files/520.pdf.
Norton, A. 2012. ‘Global goals, national targets – squaring the MDG circle?’ Blog for post2015.org.
London, ODI. http://post2015.org/2012/10/29/global-goals-national-targets-squaring-the-mdg-
circle/.
NRC and IDMC. 2014. Global Overview 2014: People displaced by conflict and violence. Geneva: IDMC.
http://www.internal-displacement.org/assets/publications/2014/201405-global-overview-2014-
en.pdf.
Obura, A. 2003. Never again: Educational reconstruction in Rwanda. Paris, UNESCO IIEP.
http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0013/001330/133051e.pdf.
Open Working Group on the Sustainable Development Goals (OWG). 2014. ‘Zero Draft (Rev 1) -
Introduction and Proposed Goals and Targets on Sustainable Development for the Post 2015
Development Agenda.’
http://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content/documents/3686WorkingDoc_0205_additionals
upporters.pdf.
Oxfam. 2013. Oxfam Project to Improve Primary School Involves all Community.
http://www.oxfam.org/en/development/DRC_improve_primary_School.
Petal, Marla. 2008. Disaster Prevention for Schools Guidance for Education Sector Decision-Makers.
Consultation Version. UNISDR.
Peterman, A., Palermo, T. and Bradenkamp, C. 2011. ‘Estimates and Determinants of Sexual Violence
Against Women in the Democratic Republic of Congo’ in American Journal of Public Health, Vol
101, No. 6.
Philippines Education Cluster. 2014. ‘Philippines Typhoon Yolanda (Haiyan): Snapshot of education
needs, progress and gaps.’
https://www.humanitarianresponse.info/system/files/documents/files/Education_Cluster_SNAPS
HOT_April2014.pdf.
Plan International. 2013. Because I am a Girl the State of the World’ S Girl S 2013. In Double Jeopardy:
Adolescent Girls and Disasters.
http://issuu.com/planinternational/docs/biaag_2013_report_in_double_jeopard?e=6562302/536
0144.
Randal, J. and German, T. 2002. ‘Trends in the financing of humanitarian assistance’ in Macrae, J. ed.,
The new humanitarianisms: a review of trends in global humanitarian action. HPG: London.
http://www.odi.org.uk/sites/odi.org.uk/files/odi-assets/publications-opinion-files/293.pdf.
Reyes, J. 2013a. Towards an operationalization of resilience in education systems : identifying, protecting
and using assets in education communities. Education notes ; no. 2. Washington DC ; World Bank.
http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/2013/05/17816935/towards-operationalization-
resilience-education-systems-identifying-protecting-using-assets-education-communities
46
Reyes, J. 2013b. Transforming adversity into opportunity : how resilience can promote quality education
amidst conflict and violence. Education notes ; no. 1. Washington DC ; World Bank.
http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/2013/05/17816738/transforming-adversity-
opportunity-resilience-can-promote-quality-education-amidst-conflict-violence
Reyes, J. 2013c. What matters most for students in contexts of adversity : a framework paper. Education
Resilience Approaches (ERA) program. Washington DC ; World Bank.
http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/2013/01/17723938/matters-most-students-
contexts-adversity-framework-paper.
Rivera, C. 2010. ‘INEE Minimum Standards Case Study: Non-formal education in Haiti.’ INEE.
http://www.ineesite.org/uploads/files/resources/INEE_MS_Case_Study_Haiti.pdf.
Save the Children. 2009. Rewrite the Future: Three years on. London, Save the Children.
http://www.savethechildren.org/atf/cf/%7B9def2ebe-10ae-432c-9bd0-
df91d2eba74a%7D/REWRITE_THE_FUTURE_THREE_YEARS_ON_LOWRES-PDF-1.PDF.
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. 2006a. Rewrite the Future. London, Save the Children.
http://resourcecentre.savethechildren.se/sites/default/files/documents/3352.pdf.
Save the Children. 2006b. ‘Two years after the tsunami response, still more to be done for children’s
education.’ Sri Lanka media release, December.
Sinclair, M. 2002a. ‘Education in emergencies’ in Crisp, J. et. al. (eds), Learning for a future: Refugee
education in developing countries. UNHCR: Geneva. http://www.unhcr.org/4a1d5ba36.pdf.
Sinclair, M. 2002b. Planning Education In and After Emergencies. Paris: UNESCO International Institute
for Educational Planning.
Sommers, M. 2004. Coordinating education during emergencies and reconstruction: Challenges and
responsibilities. Paris: UNESCO IIEP.
SIPRI, 2000. SIPRI Yearbook 2000: Armaments, disarmament and international security. Stockholm
International Peace Research Institute: Stockholm. http://www.sipri.org/yearbook/2000.
Sommers, M. 2005. Islands of education: Schooling, civil war, and the Southern Sudanese (1983-2004).
Paris, UNESCO IIEP. http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0014/001431/143160e.pdf.
Sommers, M. and Buckland, P. 2004. Parallel worlds: Rebuilding the education system in Kosovo. Paris,
UNESCO IIEP. http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0013/001361/136152e.pdf.
Sphere Project. 2008. Humanitarian charter and minimum standards in disaster response.
Strand, H. and Dahl, M. 2010. ‘Defining conflict-affected countries.’ Paris, France: UNESCO. Tarnoff, C. and Nowels, L. 2004. Foreign Aid: An introductory overview of U.S. programs and policy.
Washington, DC: Congressional Research Service.
Tomlinson, K. and Benefield, P. 2005. Education and Conflict: Research and Possibilities. Slough, UK:
NFER.UN. 2010. Report of the United Nations in Haiti 2010: Situation, challenges and outlook.
http://onu-haiti.org/Report2010/docs/Haiti_Report_E.pdf.
UNDP. 2013. The Rise of the South: Human Progress in a Diverse World. Human Development Report.
http://hdr.undp.org/en/media/HDR2013_EN_Summary.pdf.
UNESCO, 2014. EFA Global Monitoring Report 2013/4, Teaching and Learning: Achieving quality for all.
Paris, France: UNESCO.
47
UNESCO, 2011. EFA Global Monitoring Report 2011, The hidden crisis: Armed conflict and education.
Paris, France: UNESCO.UNESCO, 2010. Education under attack 2010. Paris, UNESCO.
UNESCO, 2007. Education under attack 2010. Paris, UNESCO.
UNESCO and UNICEF. 2012. Disaster Risk Reduction in School Curricula: Case Studies from Thirty
Countries. Geneva, UNICEF and Paris, UNESCO.
http://www.unicef.org/education/files/DRRinCurricula-Mapping30countriesFINAL.pdf.
UNESCO Institute for International Education Planning (IIEP). 2010. Guidebook for planning education in
emergencies and reconstruction. http://www.iiep.unesco.org/information-
services/publications/abstracts/2010/guidebook.html.
UNESCO Institute for Statistics, 2010. The quantitative impact of conflict on education. Paris, France:
UNESCO.
UNHCRa. 2014. Global Appeal 2014-2015. http://www.unhcr.org/ga14/index.xml.
UNHCRb. 2014. Syria Regional Response Plan: Education. http://www.unhcr.org/syriarrp6/docs/syria-
rrp6-sectoral-plans-EDUCATION.pdf.
UNHCR. 2009. Education Strategy 2010-2012: Education for All Persons of Concern to UNHCR.
Worldwide Operations.
UNICEF. 2014a. ‘Education overview for Democratic Republic of Congo’. Kinshasa, UNICEF (unpublished).
UNICEF. 2014b. Under siege: The devastating impact on children of three years of conflict in Syria.
Amman, UNICEF. http://www.unicef.org/publications/files/Under_Siege_March_2014.pdf.
UNICEF. 2014c. No lost generation: Protecting the futures of children affected by the crisis in Syria.
http://www.unicef.org/appeals/files/No_Lost_Generation_Strategic_Overview__January_2014.p
df.
UNICEF, World Vision, UNHCR and Save the Children. 2013. Syria crisis: Education interrupted.
http://www.unicef.org/media/files/Education_Interrupted_Dec_2013.pdf.
UNICEF. 2009. Machel Study 10-year strategic review: Children and conflict in a changing world.
http://www.unicef.org/publications/files/Machel_Study_10_Year_Strategic_Review_EN_030909.
pdf.
UNICEF. 2006. ‘Consolidated emergency thematic report. October 2005-2006.’ Islamabad, UNICEF
Pakistan.
UNISDR, 2012. Assessing School Safety from Disasters: A Global Baseline Report. ISDR Thematic Platform
for Knowledge and Education. UNISDR, Geneva.
http://www.unisdr.org/files/35274_2012schoolsafetyglobalbaseline.pdf.
UN OCHA. 2002. ‘OCHA Orientation Handbook.’ New York, OCHA.
UN Population Fund. 2009. ‘Figures on Sexual Violence Reported in the DRC in 2008.’ New York, UNPF.
UN Secretary General. 2014. ‘Children and armed conflict: Report of the Secretary-General’. New York,
UN General Assembly and Security Council, 15 May, A/68/878–S/2014/339.
http://www.un.org/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=a/68/878.
UN Secretary General. 2013. ‘Strengthening of the coordination of emergency humanitarian assistance
of the United Nations’. New York, UN General Assembly and Economic and Social Council. 1-25
July. A/68/x-E/2013/y/.
48
UN Security Council. 2014. ‘Report of the Secretary-General on children and armed conflict in the Syrian
Arab Republic’. 27 January, S/2014/31.
http://www.un.org/en/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=S/2014/31.
USAID. 2013. ‘2013 USAID Education Summit: State of the Field, State of the Art. Conference
programme.’ http://www.usaided2013.net/august-7/#Concurrent 1.
Varela, A. D., Kelcey, J., Reyes, J., Gould, M., Sklar, J. 2013. Learning and resilience : the crucial role of
social and emotional well-being in contexts of adversity. Education notes. Washington DC ; World
Bank Group. http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/2013/12/18792087/learning-
resilience-crucial-role-social-emotional-well-being-contexts-adversity
Waters, T. and LeBlanc, K. 2005. ‘Refugees and Education: Mass public schooling without a nation-state.
Comparative Education Review, Vol 49. No. 2 pp. 129-147.
Watkins, K. 2013. Education without borders: A report from Lebanon on Syria’s out of school children. A
World at School. http://www.odi.org/sites/odi.org.uk/files/odi-assets/publications-opinion-
files/8575.pdf.
Winthrop, R. 2009. Education, conflict and fragility: Past developments and future challenges. Paris,
France: UNESCO.
Winthrop, R. and Steer, L. 2014. ‘Is the Global Partnership for Education ready for takeoff? Washington
DC, Brookings Center for Universal Education.
http://www.brookings.edu/research/opinions/2014/06/23-global-partnership-education-
winthrop-steer.
Women’s Commission for Refugee Women and Children. 2004. Global Survey on Education in
Emergencies. New York: Women’s Commission.
World Bank. 2011. World Development Report: Conflict, security and development. Washington, DC,
World Bank. http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTWDRS/Resources/WDR2011_Overview.pdf.
World Education Forum. 2000. The Dakar Framework for Action, Education for All: Meeting our collective
commitments. UNESCO: Paris. http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0012/001211/121147e.pdf.