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

Rewrite the Future

Last in L

ine,Last in S

choo

l 2009

Save the Children is a member of the

International Save the Children AllianceCambridge HouseCambridge GroveLondon W6 0LEUK

www.savethechildren.net/rewritethefuture

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

“Yet again Save the Children’s annual Last in Line,Last in School report highlights the urgent need forincreased donor action and support for education inemergencies and countries by conflict. The 2009report shows that, while there are encouraging signsof change, donors still need to do more. This is anexcellent example of research and advocacy thathas the potential to change the lives of the millionsof children caught up in emergencies and conflict.”

Allison Anderson, Inter-agency Network for Education in Emergencies

of basic education aid, even though they arehome to more than half – 40 million – of theworld’s 75 million out-of-school children. Basedon current trends, the required levels of basiceducation aid to CAFS will not be reached until 2034.

The role of education in emergency contextsnow has greater recognition in the internationalcommunity, and funding for education inemergencies has increased. However, this fundingis still not enough to meet the urgent needs ofchildren in countries affected by conflict andemergencies. And too few donors have a policycommitment to education in emergencies.

Education donors must act immediately toaccelerate progress if they are to fulfil theirpromise of good-quality education for allchildren by 2015.

Children have a right to education regardless of their circumstances. Yet millions continue tobe denied this right in situations of conflict andfragility. Education is one of the most importantinvestments a country can make to escape thelong-term cycle of poverty and conflict. Yet itremains underfunded.

This third edition of Last in Line, Last in Schooldemonstrates where and how donors must actto ensure that children in countries affected byconflict and emergencies do not miss out ontheir education, particularly in the midst of aglobal financial crisis. Since the first report waspublished in 2007, donors have made someprogress. But big gaps still remain.

This report finds there has been an increase ineducation aid to conflict-affected fragile states(CAFS). But CAFS still only receive a quarter

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

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

Published by International Save the Children AllianceCambridge HouseCambridge GroveLondon W6 0LEUK

First published 2009

© International Save the Children Alliance 2009

Registered Charity No. 10768220

This publication is copyright, but may be reproduced by any methodwithout fee or prior permission for teaching purposes, but not for resale.For copying in any other circumstances, prior written permission must beobtained from the publisher, and a fee may be payable.

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

Edited by Frances ElleryTypeset by Grasshopper Design CompanyPrinted by Page Bros (Norwich) Ltd

Printed on recycled paper

This report was written by Victoria Turrent. Management and oversight of the report was led by Janice Dolan. Research and analysis were supported by Gowri Vijayakumar and Joe Collenette.

Special thanks for their comments, guidance and inputs are due to Allison Anderson, Kitty Arrie, Elena Avenati, Saïd Belkachla, Laura Brannelly, Peter Buckland, Tanya Cox, Christa Dammermann,Emily Echessa, Olga Gormalova, Joe Hall, Sharyn Hanly, Malin Hansson, Bo Tovby Jørgensen, Kim Kerr,Edilberto Loaiza, Lucia Losoviz, Anne Haaranen, Birgit Lundbak, Daniel Meienberger, Rachel Maranto,Dina Morad, Kate Moriarty, Albert Motivans, Fosca Nomis, Kjersti Okkelmo, Koarai Rie, Marinke Ros,Andrea Sharrock, Trond Sæbø Skarpeteig, David Skinner, Marianne Victor and Ravi Wickremasinghe.

Save the Children is a member of the Global Campaign for Education.

Abbreviations and acronyms iv

Executive summary vi

1 Introduction 1

2 Aid, education and conflict-affected fragile states (CAFS) 3

Education aid: CAFS continue to miss out 3

Education aid falls short of requirements 5

Education still not a priority for donor investment in CAFS 8

Towards a new aid architecture for CAFS 9

3 Education in emergencies 11

Humanitarian funding for education falls short of need 11

Donors still give education a low priority in emergencies 13

4 Conclusion 15

5 Recommendations 16

Bibliography 17

Endnotes 18

Appendix 1: Methodology 21

Appendix 2: Donor profiles 24

Appendix 3: Comparative table assessing donor performance and progress 37

Contents

iv

Abbreviations and acronyms

CAFS Conflict-affected fragile states

CAP Consolidated Appeals Process

CERF Central Emergency Response Fund

CHF Common Humanitarian Fund

CRS Creditor Reporting System

DAC Development Assistance Committee

DFID Department for International Development (of the UK)

EC European Commission

ECHO European Community Humanitarian Office

EFA Education for All

ERF Emergency Response Fund

FTI Fast Track Initiative

G8 Group of Eight

GFE Global Fund for Education

GNI Gross National Income

IASC Inter-Agency Standing Committee

INEE Inter-agency Network for Education in Emergencies

LICs Low-income countries

MDG Millennium Development Goal

MICs Middle-income countries

OCHA Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs

ODA Official development assistance

OECD Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development

UN United Nations

UNESCO United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation

UNICEF United Nations Children’s Fund

UPE Universal primary education

Mary, 12, lost her father and uncle during the war in Liberia. Now she’sa student at Zeah Town School, which Save the Children UK supports.

“During the war, the fighters burned our houses and killed my father and myuncle. My mother and I ran away to the Ivory Coast.We got lost on the wayand walked in the bush for 15 days.We only had leaves to eat. It is still hardfor me to think about that.

“My mother lives in Monrovia now, so I’m staying with my auntie. She sellspepper soup to earn money. I help her in the evenings so she can makemore money. I started school in 2004 [at the age of eight].

“I still think about my father and my uncle and I feel sad. But when I’m atschool, I feel very happy about learning new things and I enjoy playing withmy friends. I hope that school will help me to forget the hard times I’ve had.I am thinking a lot about my future nowadays – I want to become a doctor.”

v

AN

NA

KA

RI/

SAV

E T

HE

CH

ILD

REN

This third annual Last in Line, Last in School reportexamines recent trends in donor support for educationfor children living in conflict-affected fragile states(CAFS) and those caught up in emergencies. Its broadconclusion is that, although donors have increasedtheir focus on meeting the education needs of childrenin these countries and situations, there is still a longway to go. If trends continue, CAFS will not receivethe levels of basic education aid needed to achieve theeducation Millennium Development Goal (MDG) ofuniversal primary education (UPE) until 2034, wellbeyond the 2015 deadline.

Education is recognised as one of the most vitalinvestments a government can make. As well as being every child’s right, it has a crucial role to play insafeguarding children, empowering women, promotingdemocracy and protecting the environment. It isessential for the recovery and development of CAFS.

Regardless of this critical role, on average between2005 and 2007, CAFS received just over a quarter of basic education aid, despite being home to morethan half – 40 million – of the world’s 75 million out-of-school children. Basic education aidcommitments to CAFS increased marginally from$0.9 billion in 2005 to $1.2bn in 2007 – well belowthe estimated $5.2bn required annually to achieveUPE in these countries. It is staggering that such asmall proportion of global education aid continues to be directed to those countries most at risk of failing to achieve the goal.

Furthermore, of total aid allocated to CAFS, onaverage just 5% went to education, compared to 10%in other low-income countries (LICs). This suggeststhat education is not seen by donors as a priority for investment in CAFS. While the demand forinvestment in governance and infrastructure is

inevitably higher in CAFS, and this is critical forenabling wider education reforms to reach remoteschools, it is clear that not enough attention is beingpaid to addressing the immediate educational needs of conflict-affected populations, where one in threeprimary-aged children is out of school.

Education is now more widely recognised as acomponent of humanitarian aid. Financing ofeducation in emergencies rose from $147 million in 2007 to $235m in 2008. However, less than half – 48% – of requests for education funding inhumanitarian crises in the Consolidated AppealsProcess (CAP), through which the majority ofhumanitarian aid is allocated, were met in 2008.

Too few donors have committed themselves at a policy and budgetary level to providing education insituations where there is a lack of will and/or capacityto respond to education needs, or as a component ofhumanitarian response. Only half of the DevelopmentAssistance Committee (DAC) donors have policycommitments to providing education in countriesaffected by conflict and fragility, and only five haveincluded education in their emergency strategies.

A far greater commitment to meeting the educationalneeds of children in CAFS is needed if UPE is to beachieved by 2015. This will require:• greater recognition of the important role education

can play in establishing strong state structures in CAFS

• a coordinated effort by all donors to deliver aid to education in these countries

• a commitment to initiate and restore educationservices as part of humanitarian response

• support for aid mechanisms that are appropriate to the complex development environments of CAFS.

vi

Executive summary

vii

E X E C U T I V E S U M M A R Y ●

Finally, it will require an abrupt increase in theamount of education aid directed to CAFS and thosecountries affected by emergencies. This aid needs toaddress short-term education needs, and be sustainedover the long term, for rebuilding institutions andsystems. Reaffirming commitment to the MDGs andmaintaining aid flows that are consistent with them is vital in the current climate of global financialinstability, especially in those CAFS less able towithstand economic shocks.

The future of children living in CAFS andemergencies must not be jeopardised by the failure of the international community to keep its promise to provide primary education for every child, nomatter where they live. Save the Children, therefore,calls on all donors to act now to:

1. Increase long-term predictable aid foreducation in CAFS

This requires donors to: • ensure funding is equitable, based on need, with at

least 50% of new basic education aid commitmentsgoing to CAFS

• increase basic education aid to meet the $9bnannual external financing requirement forachieving good quality UPE

• prioritise education in CAFS, ensuring that at least 10% of ODA in CAFS is allocated to education

• meet the Education for All-Fast Track Initiative(EFA-FTI) financing gaps and ensure adequatefunding of the FTI’s Education Transition Fund.

2. Ensure that education needs in emergencysituations are met

This requires donors to:• establish policies on education in emergencies

that ensure education is an integral part ofhumanitarian response

• allocate a minimum of 4.2% of humanitarian aid to education to meet education fundingrequirements in emergency situations

• support coordination for education inhumanitarian response through the Inter-AgencyStanding Committee (IASC) Education Cluster.

Cou

ntry

Num

ber

of p

rim

ary-

aged

ch

ildre

n ou

t of

sch

ool

Afg

hani

stan

1,81

6,00

0

Ang

ola

824,

000

Bur

undi

324,

000

Cam

bodi

a21

3,00

0

Cen

tral

Afr

ican

Rep

ublic

375,

000

Cha

d1,

186,

000

Co

lom

bia

367,

000

Cô

te d

’Ivo

ire

1,16

4,00

0

Dem

ocr

atic

Rep

ublic

5,20

3,00

0o

f C

ong

o

Eri

trea

308,

000

Eth

iopi

a3,

721,

000

Gui

nea

389,

000

Hai

ti70

6,00

0

Iraq

508,

000

Lib

eria

356,

000

Mya

nmar

(B

urm

a)16

,000

Nep

al70

2,00

0

Nig

eria

8,09

7,00

0

Pak

ista

n6,

821,

000

Rep

ublic

of

Co

ngo

243,

000

Rw

anda

303,

000

Sie

rra

Leo

ne28

5,00

0

So

mal

ia1,

280,

000

Sri

Lan

ka51

,000

Sud

an2,

798,

000

Tim

or

Les

te57

,000

Uga

nda

1,16

8,00

0

Zim

babw

e28

1,00

0

TO

TA

L39

,562

,000

Con

flict

-affe

cted

frag

ile s

tate

s

Co

nflic

t-af

fect

ed f

ragi

le s

tate

s

Sour

ce:U

NES

CO

,200

8;U

NIC

EF C

hild

Info

1

1

1 Introduction

Remarkable gains towards universal primary education(UPE) have been made in many of the world’s poorestcountries since the UN General Assembly adopted theMillennium Development Goals (MDGs) in 2000.However, conflict-affected fragile states (CAFS)2

remain the biggest threat to achieving UPE by 2015.Currently, more than half – some 40 million3 – of the world’s 75 million4 out-of-school children live inCAFS – countries scarred by current or recent conflict,many with governments unwilling or unable to deliverbasic services, or which are struggling to cope in theaftermath of emergencies.

Access to good quality education in such situations is critical to the wellbeing of children and youngpeople. Children’s right to education, and the need for continuity of education, do not lapse during crisesor displacement (United Nations, 2007). Indeed, inthese circumstances education is a lifeline. Researchhas shown that in emergency situations, safe, goodquality education is central to providing a protectiveenvironment for children affected by traumatic events (Aguilar and Retamal, 2009). In post-conflictsituations, reconstruction and reformation of theeducation system are increasingly viewed as essentialstrategic elements in reducing the risk of a countryrelapsing into conflict (Buckland, 2005).

Getting children back to school is widely viewed as a‘quick win’ that yields tangible benefits – enhancingpeace and signalling prospects for the future – as wellas contributing to longer-term economic growth andpolitical stability. However, government resources areoften too stretched between competing sectors to meeteducation demands. International assistance thereforeplays a pivotal role in improving performance andprogress towards providing UPE.

Support for education in CAFS has been galvanisedthrough an increased academic and policy focus,including through Save the Children’s Rewrite theFuture campaign, and:• the Inter-agency Network for Education in

Emergencies (INEE)5

• the designation of education as a UN ‘cluster’ in humanitarian response

• the Education for All-Fast Track Initiative (EFA-FTI) plans for an Education Transition Fund (ETF) to support education in fragilecontexts

• the UN General Assembly Debate on Education in Emergencies, raising awareness among MemberStates that education in emergencies is a cruciallifesaving intervention with implications for thepeace and prosperity of societies.

However, this increased attention has not beenreflected adequately in funding levels. Despite recentincreases, aid for education in CAFS remains pitifullyinadequate and far from the levels required to meetthe educational rights and needs of children who livein CAFS. Too few donors have committed themselvesat a policy and budgetary level to education in thesecountries, or as a component of humanitarian response.

Meeting the educational needs of children in CAFS isultimately dependent on overall funding levels – as wellas on more innovative ways of delivering aid. Mostdonors continue to fall short of their commitment toincrease official development assistance (ODA) flows6

to 0.7% of Gross National Income (GNI), and mustmake unprecedented increases to meet the targets theyset themselves for achieving annual aid commitmentsof $130bn7 by 2010 (UNESCO, 2008).

In the current global financial crisis, there is increasedpressure on aid budgets. Many low-income countries,including CAFS – which are highly dependent onexternal assistance – are facing an even more uncertainfuture. Already the crisis is hitting export revenues andflows of private investment, remittances and otherincome to developing countries (OECD, 2008).Millions of people are facing steep oil and food price rises. By the end of 2010, it is estimated that 90 million more people will be living in extremepoverty as a result of the financial crisis.8

It is much harder for CAFS to withstand external shocks such as the current financial crisis.Governments are even less likely to invest in services,including education, and families are forced to maketough choices. As parents lose jobs, even thosechildren already receiving an education are beingpulled out of school to earn money for the family.9

Reaffirming commitment to the MDGs andmaintaining aid flows is, therefore, vital in the current climate of global financial instability.

Some progress, but still last in line

In 2007, Save the Children began to monitoreducation aid flows to CAFS, and as part ofhumanitarian response. This 2009 Last in Line, Last in School report reflects on progress made so far, drawing comparisons with previous years anddetermining recent trends in the allocation ofeducation aid. Education aid flows are analysed withina needs-based framework, exploring the fundingsituation for CAFS and emergencies in particular.

The report demonstrates that education aid continuesto fall short of what is required to achieve UPE by2015, and that while funding for CAFS has improvedin recent years, it is not enough to meet pressingeducational needs in those countries. Significantly,there needs to be greater recognition of the importantrole education can play in establishing strong statestructures in CAFS. Donors must make an urgentcoordinated effort to deliver aid to meet educationneeds in these countries, and to establish an aidarchitecture that is geared towards quick and flexibledisbursement and building administrative capacity.

The report also highlights recent shifts in support foreducation during emergencies. Gradually, education’skey role as an integral part of humanitarian response is being accepted, as reflected in increased funding.However, many donors still do not have policies inplace to ensure that education is a central componentof their emergency aid. As a result, education fundingduring humanitarian crises continues to fall far shortof what is needed.

All children have the right to education, regardless of their circumstances. With one in three children inCAFS still out of school, and in light of the currentfinancial crisis, donors must make a coordinated andcommitted effort to ensure that what gains have beenmade are not lost, and that millions more children arenot denied an education. Save the Children calls on alldonors to increase long-term predictable aid to meetthe education financing requirements of CAFS, and toensure that all education needs in emergency situationsare fulfilled.

● L A S T I N L I N E , L A S T I N S C H O O L 2 0 0 9

2

3

2 Aid, education and conflict-affected fragile states

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

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

Education aid: CAFS continue tomiss out

Recent trends:While education aid commitments toCAFS have risen, their share of the global education aidenvelope remains low at 21%. Based on current trends,basic education aid commitments to CAFS will notreach the US$5.2 billion11 required annually to achieveUPE until 2034.

Action required: Increase significantly volumes ofeducation aid directed to CAFS, as well as increasingtheir share of the global education aid envelope.Education aid to low-income countries should bedistributed equitably, according to need, between CAFSand other LICs. A minimum of 50% of all new basiceducation funding should be allocated to CAFS.

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

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

Source: OECD Creditor Reporting System (CRS) database

Basic education aid commitmentsEducation aid commitments

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

US

$ m

illio

ns (

cons

tant

200

6)

4,500

4,000

3,500

3,000

2,500

2,000

1,500

1,000

500

0

388

964

488

1,393

596

1,243

865

964

708

1,714

1,125

2,677

879

1,1801,026

1,501

1,047

1,180

KeyCAFS Other LICs

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

US

$ m

illio

ns (

cons

tant

200

6)

4,500

4,000

3,500

3,000

2,500

2,000

1,500

1,000

500

0

742

1,943

1,157

2,437

1,147

2,127

1,617

2,368

1,404

2,916

1,912

4,129

1,678

2,4622,001

3,089

2,574

2,724

KeyCAFS Other LICs

LICs (Figure 1). However, the amount actually madeavailable and disbursed is much lower – in 2007 it wasjust $1.4bn in CAFS and $1.9bn in other LICs.12

CAFS are continuing to falter in their progress towards meeting the Millennium Development Goals(MDGs) – most notably in their progress towardsachieving UPE. Of the 15 CAFS for which projectionsare available, only two – Cambodia and Myanmar(Burma) – are expected to achieve UPE by 2015.13

The remaining countries are either moving away fromthe goal or making progress too slowly.14

Significant increases in funding levels are needed if theeducational needs of children in CAFS are to be metby 2015. Despite an increase on previous years, 2007commitments to basic education in CAFS ($1.2bn)were less than a quarter of what is needed to achieveUPE in these countries. It is estimated that 58% –$5.2bn – of the $9bn annual external financingrequirement should be directed to CAFS.

As a result of large basic education aid commitmentsby the Netherlands, Japan and the UK, basiceducation commitments to CAFS increased by anaverage of $150 million per year between 2005 and2007. While this is an encouraging trend and reflectsgrowing political support for education in CAFS, it isnot enough. Based on additional annual increases ofthis size, the $5.2bn of basic education aid requiredannually would not be reached until 2034, wellbeyond the 2015 deadline for achieving UPE.

There has been considerable discussion – and donor-stated commitment – on the importance of targetingaid towards low-income countries. However, sincepublication of the first Last in Line, Last in Schoolreport in 2007 (Save the Children, 2007), the averageshare of education aid apportioned to all low-incomecountries between 2005 and 2007 dropped to lessthan half – from 51% to 49%. The average share ofeducation aid to CAFS has increased only marginallyfrom 18% to 21%, as the result of increases in thelevels of education aid allocated to these countries in2006 and 2007 (Figure 2).

More than half of all education aid is now allocated to middle-income countries (MICs), or recorded as‘unallocated’.15 On average between 2005 and 2007,10% of all education aid went to just two MICs –China and Indonesia. Given their Dakar and G8commitments,16 donors need to ask themselveswhether this allocation is consistent with distributionalequity, and achievement of international educationgoals (UNESCO, 2008).

Over the same period, the share of basic education aid allocated to CAFS increased from 23% to 27%.While this is a positive trend, it remains well belowwhat is needed, given that CAFS are home to morethan half the world’s out-of-school population.

The low share of basic education aid allocated toCAFS is of major concern when considered in light of the lack of progress these countries are makingtowards achieving UPE. Education has been shown tocontribute to other goals such as increased economicgrowth, improved health, and better environmentalmanagement. Failure to achieve UPE will hinderprogress to all other MDGs.

● L A S T I N L I N E , L A S T I N S C H O O L 2 0 0 9

4

Figure 2: Distribution of education and basic education aidcommitments in developing countries (average 2005–07)

Source: OECD CRS

CAFS 21%

Other LICs 28%

MICs 38%

Unallocated13%

CAFS 27%

Other LICs 34%

MICs 25%

Unallocated14%

Education aid

Basic education aid

5

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

The number of out-of-school children is a usefulapproximation for need, indicating how much basiceducation aid should be allocated per child (UNESCO,2008). Given the exceptionally high proportion of out-of-school children in CAFS, an out-of-school childin a conflict-affected fragile state is currently allocatedless than half ($26) that of an out-of-school child inanother low-income country ($67), and less than aquarter of an out-of-school child in a middle-income

Basic education aid per child

Figure 3: Basic education aid commitments per child (average 2005–07)

CAFS Other LICs MICs

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

US

$

120

100

80

60

40

20

0

Key

Per out-of-school child

Per school-aged child$4

$109

$6

$67

$8

$26

Education aid falls short of requirements

Recent trends: While total education aid rosemarginally in 2007, commitments to basic educationdeclined.The average proportion of education aidallocated to basic education has fallen from 41% to 37%since the 2007 Last in Line, Last in School report. Basiceducation aid continues to fall short of the $9bn level of external financing required to achieve UPE each year.Only five donors are meeting 80% or more of their fairshare, compared to eight last year.

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

The level of aid for education and basic educationdirected to CAFS is, of course, dependent on the overalllevel of education aid. With the exception of a large dropin 2005,17 education aid has increased consistently

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

country ($109) (Figure 3).This is despite one in threeprimary-aged children being out of school in CAFS,compared to one in 11 in other LICs and one in 33 inmiddle-income countries.

On average, based on the number of primary-agedchildren in each country, a primary-aged child in aconflict-affected fragile state receives more basiceducation aid than a primary-aged child in another low-income or middle-income country.

Basic education represents a 37% average share19 ofeducation aid, a drop from 41% since the 2007 Last in Line, Last in School report – well below therecommended figure of 50% (FTI Secretariat, 2006).While aid to education rose marginally in 2007, therewas a significant drop – of almost one-third – in thelevel of commitments to basic education from $4.5bnin 2006 to $3.5bn in 2007. This was the result oflarge basic education commitments being made by the Netherlands and the UK in 2006. There is a riskthat the downturn in the growth in basic educationcommitments will lead to a stagnation, or evendecline, in disbursements. This is worrying as it hasbeen estimated that $9bn in external assistance willneed to be disbursed annually in order to achieve UPE by 2015.

Moreover, estimations of the external financingrequired to meet international education goals arelikely to be under-estimates (UNESCO, 2008). Theyare based on the costs of educating children already in

school, and do not take into account the additionalcosts of reaching those who are currently outside theeducation system. This is particularly important forthe financing of CAFS, because they are home to the highest numbers of out-of-school primary-agedchildren. The cost of getting these children into school will be significantly greater.

Meeting the challenge to provide out-of-schoolprimary-aged children with education will require a greater concentration of additional funding to be directed towards the most marginalised, thosechildren currently outside the reach of the educationsystem. These children are more expensive to reach, so an intensified and sustained political and financialeffort on the part of donors is needed. The cost ofinaction, however, will be higher, as education is one of the best investments a country can make –contributing to increased individual incomes,economic growth, improved child and maternalhealth, and social cohesion.

● L A S T I N L I N E , L A S T I N S C H O O L 2 0 0 9

6

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

Source: OECD CRS

Basic educationEducation

2,4032,780 2,876

1,446

2,812

1,856

3,774

2,089

4,791

2,304

3,223

2,795

4,520

3,232

3,519

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

US

$ m

illio

ns (

cons

tant

200

6)

12,000

10,000

8,000

6,000

4,000

2,000

0

6,2956,590 6,601

4,175

8,070

6,227

9,411

6,249

10,824

7,026

8,091 7,939

10,955

8,808

11,036

KeyCommitmentsDisbursements

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

US

$ m

illio

ns (

cons

tant

200

6)

12,000

10,000

8,000

6,000

4,000

2,000

0

KeyCommitmentsDisbursements

Amount needed

7

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

Using Gross National Income (GNI) to comparewealth across the Development Assistance Committee(DAC) countries, it is possible to identify how mucheach country should be contributing to the externalfinancing requirement for UPE (its ‘fair share’), and how close it is to achieving this target.

Together, DAC donors committed less than a third –31% – of the $9bn external financing requirement onaverage between 2005 and 2007.20 Only three donorscommit their fair share – the Netherlands and Norwaycontinue to lead the way, as in previous years, alongwith New Zealand, which has significantly increased its contribution from just 30% in the 2007 Last in Line,Last in School report to 120% this year (Figure 5).

Since last year’s report, there has been a drop in thenumber of donors meeting more than 80% of their fair share, from eight to five, with Denmark (52%),Sweden (71%) and the UK (64%) now committingless.21 Thirteen of the 22 DAC donors – Australia,

Donors fail to meet their ‘fair share’ of financing requirements

Austria, Belgium, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Italy,Japan, Portugal, Spain, Switzerland and the United States– contribute less than 50% of their fair share.22

Of the G8 members, only the UK and Canadacontribute more than 50% of their fair share. France(25%), Germany (20%), Italy (3%), Japan (18%), and the United States (15%) all contribute significantly less.23

This is despite strong commitments to work with otherdonors and recipient governments to fund long-termplans to ensure that every child gets to school; and topay particular attention to those low-income countriesand fragile states furthest away from achieving UPE by 2015 (G8, 2007). Italy, which committed an averageof just 3% of its fair share between 2005 and 2007,will need to make a demonstrable effort to reverse its current standing, to set an example for other G8 leaders in advance of this year’s summit in La Maddalena, Italy.

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

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

% f

air

shar

e co

mm

itte

d

200

180

160

140

120

100

80

60

40

20

0

Nether

lands

Norway

New Z

ealan

d

Luxe

mbour

g

Irelan

d

Swed

en UK

Canad

a

Denmar

k

Finlan

d

Austra

lia

Belgi

umSp

ain

Fran

ce

German

yJap

an

Portu

gal

USA

Switz

erlan

d

Austri

a

Greec

eIta

ly

315

100% fair share

Education still not a priority fordonor investment in CAFS

Recent trends: There has been a slight increase inthe priority given to education in CAFS (from 4% to5% of ODA allocated to education) since the 2007Last in Line, Last in School report. However, this remainswell below that of other LICs (10%).

Action required: Greater priority to be given toeducation in CAFS in recognition of the right toeducation and role of education in establishing strongstate structures. Nineteen of the 22 DAC donors need to increase the proportion of aid they give toeducation in CAFS to a minimum of 10%.

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

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

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

One of the biggest challenges to education servicedelivery in many CAFS is a lack of basic infrastructure.Investment in reconstructing infrastructure is thereforecritical if education reforms are to reach remoteschools. Nonetheless, there is clearly a difference in the degree to which education in CAFS and otherLICs is funded in comparison to other sectors. Oftotal aid allocated to CAFS, an average of just 5% wasallocated to education, compared with 10% of aid inother LICs. Eighteen donors allocated more than 10%of their aid to education in other LICs, but only four– Greece, Ireland, Portugal and the World Bank –allocated more than 10% of their aid to the educationsector in CAFS.26

Despite its important role in creating a protectiveenvironment for children in situations of emergencyand conflict, as well as its recognised benefits in kick-starting reconstruction in the aftermath of conflict,

● L A S T I N L I N E , L A S T I N S C H O O L 2 0 0 9

8

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

Source: OECD CRS

Education13%

Populationprogrammes

11%

Health13%

Government andcivil society

40%

Water supply and sanitation10%

Other13%

Education20%

Population programmes19%

Health19%

Government andcivil society

18%

Water supply and sanitation

19%

Other5%

CAFS Other LICs

9

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

education in CAFS is not a priority investment sectorfor many donors. Just 11 of the 22 DAC donors –Australia, Canada, Denmark, the EC, Ireland, theNetherlands, Norway, Spain, the UK, the USA, andthe World Bank – have policy commitments forsupporting the provision of education in CAFS.

Towards a new aid architecture for CAFS

Recent trends: Over the past year, the Education forAll-Fast Track Initiative (EFA-FTI) has worked to addressthe lack of financing available for CAFS through the FTIby establishing the Education Transition Fund (ETF).

Action required: Genuine progress towards a newaid architecture for CAFS is dependent on endorsementof the ETF proposal at the FTI Partnership Meetings inApril 2009, and on the fund becoming fully operationaland adequately resourced by a wide range of donors.

The 2005 Paris Declaration on Aid Effectiveness27

is based on the assumption that aid will be moreeffective if donors and recipients apply the principlesof ownership, alignment, harmonisation, managing forresults and mutual accountability in their developmentcooperation. However, as acknowledged by the 2008Accra Agenda for Action,28 these principles need to be adapted to environments where there is weak ownership or capacity. As a result, a new aidarchitecture is emerging that addresses the need forfinancing mechanisms that provide flexible, rapid and long-term funding for CAFS.

The Education for All-Fast Track Initiative

Since it was established in 2002, the FTI has focusedon accelerating progress towards UPE by 2015, basedon a compact linking increased donor support foreducation to recipient countries’ policy performanceand accountability for results. However, in recent years the FTI has come under criticism for failing togenerate and disburse sufficient funds. In some cases,even countries that have been endorsed as meetingFTI criteria have not been allocated funds.

To date, 18 donors29 have contributed to the CatalyticFund, the main funding mechanism of the FTI,30 andthe Netherlands and the UK have been the primaryfinancers, collectively contributing 68% of all funds.The FTI Secretariat projects that the Catalytic Fundwill face a deficit of $900m by spring 2009 (FTISecretariat, 2008a). The FTI Secretariat estimates that the total long-term external financing gap for the56 countries expected to join the FTI by 2010 will bearound $2bn per year (FTI Secretariat, 2008b).

Only nine of the 28 CAFS have been able to meet the requirements for FTI endorsement. Of these, onlyCambodia, Rwanda and Timor Leste have receiveddisbursements through the Catalytic Fund. CentralAfrican Republic, Ethiopia, Guinea and Sierra Leonehave been allocated Catalytic Fund grants, but theseare in process. Sierra Leone’s grant has been in processfor almost two years – illustrating the disbursementproblems the fund has faced. Slow disbursementcontinues to plague the Catalytic Fund, causingdifficulties for countries heavily reliant on externalassistance to fund national plans. However, recentchanges in the FTI governance structure andprocedures are expected to address this problem.

Seven CAFS are scheduled for FTI endorsement in2009. At the time of writing the 2007 Last in Line,Last in School report, nine CAFS had not beenscheduled for endorsement. Two years on, these same nine – Afghanistan, Côte d’Ivoire, Myanmar(Burma), Nepal, Pakistan, Somalia, Sri Lanka, Sudan,and Zimbabwe – are still not included in the FTItimetable for endorsement, denying 15 millionchildren access to education, and millions more a good quality education. This fact alone is acompelling reason for finding alternative ways offinancing education in CAFS through the EducationTransition Fund.

The Education Transition Fund

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

operate in tandem with the Catalytic Fund. It isintended to offer more flexible and less risk-aversefinancing, tailored to the immediate education needs of CAFS, at the same time as strengthening technicaland administrative capacity, and addressing thefiduciary concerns of donors.

The success of the ETF will depend on a wide rangeof donors adequately resourcing the fund, and onaddressing issues of governments’ weak absorptivecapacity. It will need to be quick in its decision-making and disbursal of predictable aid, and beflexible in responding to the diverse and changingcontexts of CAFS.

It is important that the ETF proposal is endorsed atthe FTI Partnership Meetings in Copenhagen in April2009, and that the fund becomes fully operationalshortly afterwards in order to accelerate progresstowards UPE in CAFS.

Global Fund for Education

A Global Fund for Education (GFE) has recently beenproposed,32 to address slow progress towards achievingthe EFA goals, to mobilise increased resources foreducation, and to improve donor accountability indelivering additional aid for education. It is intendedto operate as a multilateral fund encompassing a widerange of aid modalities, building on the key strengthsand experience of the FTI.

The GFE represents a unique opportunity forgalvanising increased focus on, and support for, CAFS. Commitment to meeting the educational needsof children in low-income countries – and CAFS inparticular – will need to be clearly stated as part of thefund’s mandate, in order to ensure progress towardsUPE. It will need to be backed up with appropriatechannels for delivering aid, in order to build capacityand increase aid predictability.

● L A S T I N L I N E , L A S T I N S C H O O L 2 0 0 9

10

11

3 Education in emergencies

Many children around the world living throughemergencies and chronic crises are dependent onhumanitarian aid to provide access to education.Conflict-affected fragile states (CAFS) in particularrely heavily on humanitarian aid. On average between2005 and 2007, 12% of aid to CAFS was in the formof emergency assistance and reconstruction funding,compared with less than 3% in other low-incomecountries (LICs).

Education has positive long-term effects thatcontribute to the rebuilding of systems in theaftermath of an emergency or crisis. It providesprotection for children, and promotes justice andrespect for human rights – enhancing peace andstability (Aguilar and Retamal, 2009).

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

Humanitarian funding foreducation falls short of need

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

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

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

Table 1: Humanitarian aid allocated to education

Year Humanitarian aid Aid to education Education aid as % of(US$ millions) (US$ millions) humanitarian aid

2006 7,615 112 1.5

2007 7,760 147 1.9

2008 11,494 235 2.0

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

These increases are the result of sustained advocacy for education in emergencies and several developmentsin humanitarian funding, including: the expandedCentral Emergency Response Fund (CERF); thecountry-level pooled funding mechanisms that haveincorporated education components – CommonHumanitarian Funds (CHFs) and EmergencyResponse Funds (ERFs); and the formation of anEducation Cluster. A further development is the Inter-Agency Network for Education in Emergencies(INEE) and Sphere’s33 announcement of acompanionship agreement, whereby the INEE (2006)Minimum Standards for Education in Emergencies,Chronic Crises and Early Reconstruction 34 will bemainstreamed throughout the Sphere standards, andvice versa. This is significant, as many humanitarian

donors support Sphere and a number of themmention the standards in their humanitarian policy.

Since 2006, CERF contributions to educationincreased significantly, from $1.1m in 2006 to $6.8min 2008 (Table 2). This represents an increase in theproportion of CERF humanitarian funding disbursedto education activities from 0.4% in 2006 to 1.6% in2008. These increases are largely due to a revision ofCERF guidelines to systematically include educationas a funding sector in emergency response.

Despite these positive trends, education in emergenciescontinues to be underfunded. Figures recorded by the Consolidated Appeals Process (CAP) – thehumanitarian sector’s main tool for coordination,

● L A S T I N L I N E , L A S T I N S C H O O L 2 0 0 9

12

Table 2: CERF contributions to education

Year Total aid Aid to education Education aid (US$ millions) (US$ millions) as % of total aid

2006 257.3 1.1 0.4

2007 351.8 4.9 1.4

2008 425.6 6.8 1.6

Source: OCHA FTS

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

Year Overall funding (US$ millions) Education (US$ millions)

Funding Funding % of Funding Funding % of requirements received coverage requirements received coverage

2006 5,061 3,364 66% 212 55 26%

2007 5,142 3,720 72% 162 65 40%

2008 7,232 5,078 70% 334 162 48%

Source: OCHA FTS

13

3 E D U C A T I O N I N E M E R G E N C I E S ●

strategic planning and programming – show that while the trend towards increased aid for education is encouraging, funding is still well below what is needed.

Although there has been increased coverage ofeducation requirements, less than half of all fundingrequests to the CAP – 48% – were met in 200836

(Table 3). Ten out of the 11 countries37 that requestedCAP funding included education requirements.However, experience shows that not all educationneeds/projects are put forward to be part of the CAP.This needs to happen more consistently in the future,to ensure that all education requirements are fully funded.

In 2009, education funding requested in the CAPreached its highest levels yet – $383m up to February2009, compared with a total of $334m for 2008.Twelve out of the 13 countries38 requesting CAPfunding included education requirements. Thechallenge will be to ensure that these funding needsare met over the course of the year.

Donors still give education a lowpriority in emergencies

Recent trends: Many donors still have not prioritisededucation as part of their emergency response.Nineteen of the 22 Development AssistanceCommittee (DAC) donors allocate less than 3% oftheir humanitarian funding to education, and only fivehave explicitly stated their commitment to providingeducation in emergency situations.

Action required: Donors must make explicit theirintentions to fund education in emergencies in boththeir policy and budgetary commitments. As one of the largest humanitarian donors, the EC HumanitarianOffice (ECHO) in particular must ensure priority for education in emergencies. All donors shouldallocate a minimum of 4.2%39 of their humanitarian aid to education.

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

The Inter-Agency Standing Committee (IASC)Education Cluster (co-led by UNICEF and Save theChildren) is intended to strengthen preparedness,coordination and technical capacity within theeducation sector in order to respond to humanitarianemergencies. An Education Cluster approach iscurrently active in 28 countries, 19 of which are CAFS.35

At a global level, the cluster has a variety of roles,including: broadening understanding of the importanceof education in humanitarian response; providing arapid response to emergencies; coordinating the workof all the different agencies involved in a humanitarianresponse; supporting emergency preparedness plans;

Coordination for education in emergencies: the education cluster

and enhancing the capacity of emergency response staff (Save the Children, 2008a). At a national level, thecluster works to establish networks of agencies on theground that can provide a coordinated, high-qualityresponse to emergency situations; and it ensurescollaboration with other clusters such as protection,shelter, camp management and early recovery.

To date, the key donors to support the educationcomponent of the cluster appeal have been Denmark,Ireland, Norway and Sweden. In addition, UNICEF hassupported the education cluster using funds from thegrant for Education in Emergencies, Post-Crisis Transitionsand Fragile States that it received from the Netherlands in late 2006.

● L A S T I N L I N E , L A S T I N S C H O O L 2 0 0 9

14

5.2

3.8

3.6

2.7

2.3

1.9

1.9

1.9

1.7

1.4

1.4

1.3

1.2

0.7

0.7

0.7

0.5

0.4

0.4

0.3

0.3

0.05

0

0

Denmark

Japan

Australia

Netherlands

Norway

EC

Ireland

Italy

New Zealand

Sweden

Spain

Canada

Belgium

Finland

USA

Switzerland

Germany

Austria

ECHO

France

UK

Luxembourg

Portugal

Greece

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

Source: OCHA FTS

0 1 2 3 4 5 6

% humanitarian aid allocated to education

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

allocated more than a 3% share of their humanitarianassistance to education (Figure 7).

Just five donors – Canada, Denmark, Japan, Norway,and Sweden – have clear policies on education in emergencies.40 In 2008 only Denmark met thetarget of allocating 4.2% of its humanitarian aid to education.

The EC Humanitarian Office (ECHO) – one of thelargest humanitarian donors – allocates an average of just 0.4% of its humanitarian aid to education,

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

15

4 Conclusion

As we enter the final stretch towards the 2015deadline for achieving the education MillenniumDevelopment Goals (MDGs), 75 million primary-aged children remain out of school. More than half of these – 40 million – live in conflict-affected fragilestates (CAFS). The benefits of providing access to education for these children have been widelyacknowledged, yet funding levels continue to lag farbehind what is required. In the wake of the globalfinancial crisis, aid for education in CAFS has neverbeen more vital, as national governments are likely to find it even more difficult to fund education.

This report provides evidence of an increased focus on providing education aid for CAFS, as well as thosecountries experiencing emergencies. However, fundinglevels need to increase significantly, and support mustbe given to innovative aid delivery mechanisms, if thegoal of universal primary education (UPE) is to beachieved by 2015.

Experience shows that some CAFS are unsuited to the partnership requirements embodied by the aideffectiveness agenda. This is often because they lackthe capacity to design and/or implement education

programmes, or the ability to raise sufficient domesticfunds. Funding mechanisms, therefore, need to betailored to address the specific needs of CAFS. Inparticular, they need to focus on building capacity and mitigating fiduciary risk, as well as ensuring thatquicker and more predictable aid is delivered to theeducation sector.

In the case of emergencies, what is needed is acommitment to initiate and restore safe, good qualityeducation services as part of humanitarian response,laying a strong foundation upon which more stableand resilient systems and societies can be built in thereconstruction phase for sustainable development. It is essential that adequate resources for education aremade available urgently for short-term interventions,and that aid is sustained over the long term forrebuilding education institutions and systems.

The international donor community has a pivotal role to play in securing a dramatic expansion ineducational opportunities for children in CAFS. Save the Children believes that the right to educationshould be made a reality for all children, regardless oftheir circumstances.

1. Increase long-term predictable aid foreducation in CAFS

This requires donors to:• Ensure funding is equitable based on need,

with at least 50% of new basic education aidcommitments going to CAFSUrgent action is needed by: Australia, Austria,Canada, Finland, France, Germany, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Spain, Switzerland, and the UK, as well as the European Commission.

• Increase basic education aid to meet the US$9 billion annual external financingrequirement for achieving good quality UPEUrgent action is needed by: Australia, Austria,Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Finland, France,Germany, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Japan,Luxembourg, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, the UK, and the USA.

• Prioritise education in CAFS, ensuring that at least10% of ODA in CAFS is allocated to education Urgent action is needed by: Australia, Austria,Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Finland, France,Germany, Italy, Japan, Luxembourg, theNetherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Spain,Sweden, Switzerland, the UK, and the USA, as well as the European Commission.

• Meet the Education for All-Fast Track Initiativefinancing gaps, and ensure adequate funding ofthe FTI’s Education Transition FundUrgent action is needed by: All donors andUNICEF.

2. Ensure that education needs inemergency situations are met

This requires donors to:• Establish policies on education in emergencies

that ensure education is an integral part ofhumanitarian responseUrgent action is needed by: Australia, Austria,Belgium, Finland, France, Germany, Greece,Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, NewZealand, Portugal, Spain, Switzerland, the UK, andthe USA, as well as the European Commission.

• Allocate a minimum of 4.2% of humanitarian aid to education, to meet education fundingrequirements in emergency situations Urgent action is needed by: Australia, Austria,Belgium, Canada, Finland, France, Germany,Greece, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Luxembourg, theNetherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Portugal,Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, the UK, and the USA, as well as the European Commission.

• Support coordination for education inhumanitarian response through the Inter-AgencyStanding Committee (IASC) Education ClusterUrgent action is needed by: All donors.

5 Recommendations

16

17

Bibliography

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

quality education in humanitarian contexts’ International Journal

of Educational Development Vol. 29, No.1, pp.3–16

Bermingham, D (2009) We Don’t Need No Education?: Why the

United States should take the lead on Global Education Washington

DC: Centre for Global Development

Brannelly, L and Ndaruhutse, S (2008) Education Finance in

States Affected by Fragility Prepared for INEE Policy Roundtable

27–28 October 2008 Brussels, Belgium

Bruns, B, Mingat, A and Rakotomalala, R (2003) Achieving

Universal Primary Education by 2015: A chance for every child

Washington DC: World Bank

Buckland, P (2005) Reshaping the Future: Education and

Postconflict Reconstruction Washington DC: World Bank

Education Policy and Data Center (2008) 2008 series of education

projections to 2015 and 2025 Background paper for Education for

All Global Monitoring Report 2009

FTI Secretariat (2006) Analysis of Official Development Assistance

Washington DC: Fast Track Initiative

FTI Secretariat (2008a) Catalytic Fund: Annual Status Report

Washington DC: Fast Track Initiative

FTI Secretariat (2008b) The Road to 2015: Reaching the Education

Goals Washington DC: Fast Track Initiative

G8 (2007) Growth and Responsibility in Africa Summit Declaration

G8 Summit, Heiligendamm

Global Campaign for Education (2006) A Global Report Card

Ranking Governments’ Efforts to Achieve Education for All

Johannesburg: GCE

International Network for Education in Emergencies (2006)

Minimum Standards for Education in Emergencies, Chronic Crises

and Early Reconstruction New York: INEE

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

Understanding data used to compare donors

OECD (2008) Aid Targets Slipping Out of Reach? Paris: OECD

Rose, P and Greeley, M (2006) Education in Fragile States:

Capturing Lessons and Identifying Good Practice Prepared for the

DAC Fragile States Group

Save the Children (2007) Last in Line, Last in School: How donors

are failing children in conflict-affected fragile states London: Save the

Children

Save the Children (2008a) Delivering Education for Children in

Emergencies: A key building block for the future London: Save the

Children

Save the Children (2008b) Last in Line, Last in School 2008: How

donors can support education for children affected by conflict and

emergencies London: Save the Children

Sperling, G (2008) A Global Education Fund: Toward a True

Global Compact on Universal Education New York: Council on

Foreign Relations

UNESCO (2006) EFA Global Monitoring Report 2007: Strong

Foundations – Early childhood care and education Paris: UNESCO

UNESCO (2007) EFA Global Monitoring Report 2008: Will we

make it? Paris: UNESCO

UNESCO (2008) EFA Global Monitoring Report 2009:

Overcoming inequality – why governance matters Paris: UNESCO

United Nations (2007) Children and Conflict in a Changing World:

Machel Study 10-Year Strategic Review New York: United Nations

World Education Forum (2000) The Dakar Framework for Action:

Meeting our Collective Commitments Dakar: World Education

Forum

1 Introduction

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

2 See Appendix 1: Methodology for details of country classification

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

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

compiled using the 2009 EFA Global Monitoring Report

(UNESCO, 2008) as a primary source. Where out-of-school

figures were unavailable in the EFA Global Monitoring

Report, these have been sourced from UNICEF:

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

4 Following the publication of the 2008 EFA Global Monitoring

Report (UNESCO, 2007), the UNESCO Institute for Statistics

revised its estimate for out-of-school children upwards from

72 million to 77 million using new population data. The current

estimation of out-of-school children worldwide is 75 million

(UNESCO, 2008). Taking into account population data revisions,

Save the Children calculates that there are 40 million children

out-of school in CAFS.

5 In 2008, INEE established the Working Group on Education

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

comprised of 21 institutions that aims to strengthen consensus on

how best to mitigate state fragility through education; support the

development of effective quality education programmes in fragile

states; and promote the development of alternative financing

mechanisms to support education in fragile states in the period

of transition from humanitarian to development assistance.

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

of major debt relief, and declined in 2007 to $116bn. Overall aid

to CAFS dropped by more than a third between 2005 and 2007,

explained in part by the tapering-off of debt relief to Nigeria. In

CAFS, total ODA dropped from $53bn in 2005 to $34bn in

2007. In other LICs, ODA rose slightly from $26bn to $27bn

over the same period.

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

8 Secretary of State for International Development Douglas

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

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

9 Ibid

2 Aid, education and conflict-affectedfragile states

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

education are used. Basic education according to the OECD

comprises early childhood education, primary education and

basic life skills training for young people and adults.

11 UNESCO (2006) estimates the annual global external financing

required to achieve UPE in low-income countries to be $9 billion

(at 2003 prices). This UNESCO estimate is based on a World

Bank simulation exercise run on 47 countries (Bruns et al, 2003).

It is extrapolated for the whole low-income group and factors in

additional costs related to domestic financing, HIV and AIDS,

and conflict (UNESCO, 2006). To estimate the proportion of

the $9 billion financing requirement that is needed in CAFS,

Save the Children returned to the World Bank study, finding that

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

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

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

is estimated to be $5.2 billion annually.

12 Disbursements in other LICs have declined due to a drop in

commitments in 2005. The contraction in commitments signals

a shrinkage in future education aid flows.

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

(accessed 19 February 2009). The situation in other LICs is only

slightly better: only 9 of the 24 countries for which projections

are possible are on track to achieve UPE (Bangladesh, Tajikistan,

Benin, Mongolia, India, Zambia, Sao Tome & Principe,

Madagascar, and Tanzania).

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

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

18

Endnotes

19

E N D N O T E S ●

countries for which formal projections are not possible are unlikely

to achieve UPE either. For example, conservative estimates suggest

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

Sudan (UNESCO, 2008: 66)

15 Where donors have made commitments to regions or where

recipients are unspecified, these have been labelled as ‘unallocated’

by income group. The proportion of aid recorded as unallocated in

2006 and 2007 was significantly higher than in previous years,

and is therefore presented as a separate category.

16 The Dakar Framework for Action sets ambitious targets for

education, agreeing that no country committed to Education for

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

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

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

17 Annual variability alone does not explain the drop in education

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

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

International Development (DFID), which were the main donors

to the countries, made large commitments in 2004 that

contributed to the drop in 2005.

18 According to the Global Campaign for Education. See:

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

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

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

targets set in the Dakar Framework for Action on Education for

All: universal primary education, early childhood programmes,

and adult literacy.

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

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

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

account for bilateral contributions to multilateral agencies.

21 Ireland, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, New Zealand and

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

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

substantial increases in education aid. Approximately US$500m in

new funding is scheduled for the next three years to strengthen

basic education systems, access and quality.

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

analysis as it is not a DAC donor.

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

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

The FTI Secretariat (2006) recommends that approximately 20%

of national budgets should be allocated to education.

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

in Line, Last in School report.

26 For more information on donors’ prioritisation of education in

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

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

harmonization/Paris/FINALPARISDECLARATION.pdf

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

fileadmin/templates/pdfs/accraseptagendafin.pdf

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

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

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

Norway, Sweden, and Denmark have all substantially increased

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

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

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

30 The Catalytic Fund was initially designed to provide transitional

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

since been expanded to provide longer-term financing to any

country with a financing gap.

31 The ETF proposal builds on the experience of the UNICEF

fund for Education in Emergencies, Post-Crisis Transitions and

Fragile states, which was funded by a $201m grant from the

Netherlands in 2006.

32 More recently the Global Campaign for Education and others,

including US-based NGOs, have also called for the establishment

of a GFE. It was initially proposed by President Barack Obama

in his election campaign, and the proposal was reiterated by

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in her Senate confirmation

hearing. Further details on the GFE can be found in Sperling

(2008) and Bermingham (2009).

3 Education in emergencies

33 The Sphere project was launched in 1997 by a group of

humanitarian NGOs and the Red Cross and Red Crescent. It has

produced the Humanitarian Charter and Minimum Standards in

Disaster Response handbook and other tools.

34 The INEE Minimum Standards serve as a useful framework for

developing policies for education in emergencies, fragile states and

reconstruction contexts that promote rights-based programming

and establish relevant links to child protection.

35 Afghanistan, Burundi, Central African Republic, Chad,

Colombia, Côte d’Ivoire, Democratic Republic of Congo,

Ethiopia, Guinea, Haiti, Iraq, Myanmar (Burma), Nepal, Pakistan,

Somalia, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Timor Leste and Uganda.

36 Only Agriculture (42%), Economic Recovery and Infrastructure

(37%), Health (46%), Mine Action (20%), and Safety and

Security of Staff and Operations (6%) had fewer of their funding

requirements met.

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

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

Sudan, Uganda and Zimbabwe requested education funding.

West Africa did not.

38 Afghanistan, Central African Republic, Chad, Democratic

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

Somalia, Sudan, Uganda, West Africa and Zimbabwe requested

aid funding. Côte d’Ivoire did not.

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

the 2006 CAP. In 2006, 4.2% of humanitarian funds requested

were for the education sector, and so represent the minimum needs

for education in emergencies in that year.

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

mentions the need to support basic education in emergencies and

post-crisis contexts.

● L A S T I N L I N E , L A S T I N S C H O O L 2 0 0 9

20

21

Appendix 1: Methodology

Country classification

While there is general agreement over what constitutesa ‘fragile’ or ‘failing’ state – conflict, a lack of politicalwill and/or capacity – there is no internationalconsensus on a definition (UNESCO, 2007). Anumber of organisations, including the World Bankand Organisation for Economic Development-Development Assistance Committee (OECD-DAC),have therefore developed lists of fragile states based on differing criteria.

In order to analyse education issues in those fragilestates that are also affected by conflict, Save theChildren established a list of 28 ‘conflict-affectedfragile states’ (CAFS) in 2007.1 While acknowledgingthat countries will tend to move in and out of fragility,Save the Children has used the CAFS list of countriesin previous Last in Line, Last in School reports (Savethe Children, 2007; 2008b) in order to analyseprogress over time.

Conflict-affected fragile states (CAFS)

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

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

Other low-income countries (other LICs)

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

Data sources

This report relies on secondary data compiled by the Organisation for Economic Cooperation andDevelopment (OECD). The data were accessed fromthe OECD Creditor Reporter System (CRS),3 anonline database that gives detailed information on aid activities, including aid flows to education from the 22 DAC 4 countries, the World Bank, theEuropean Commission, the African and AsianDevelopment Funds, the Inter-American Development Bank Special Fund, and UNICEF.

The CRS does not allow for an analysis ofhumanitarian aid by sector. In order to analysehumanitarian aid to education – which in some CAFS is a major source of education financing – this study refers to the UN Office for theCoordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA)Financial Tracking Service.5

Methods

To obtain an accurate profile of official developmentassistance (ODA) flows supporting the educationsector, the analysis takes into account reportededucation ODA and general budget support, which iscrucial for the development of education systems. TheFTI Secretariat (2006) suggests that between 15% and25% of general budget support benefits the educationsector. This report accounts for 20% of general budgetsupport as being allocated to the education sector.

Basic education aid6 in this report includes reportedbasic education ODA and 10% of budget support and one-third of ‘Education – Level Unspecified’.Assuming that 50% of the budget to education isallocated to primary education (in line with the FTI benchmark), it would represent around 7.5% to 12.5% of total general budget support. Therefore,an average of 10% general budget support is includedin basic education aid. One-third of the category‘Education – Level Unspecified’ (which accounts foreducation sector budget support) is also included, inline with the Global Campaign for Education (2006)recommendations.

Calculating ODA flows to education

Total education aid = Education ODA + 20% General Budget Support

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

Data presentation

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

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

Limitations

The OECD database constitutes the mostcomprehensive internationally comparable data source on aid flows. However, it does not account for all international aid. Aid flows reported to theOECD CRS can differ from those reported by donors in-country. This can be due to differences inreporting criteria and reporting years, exchange ratefluctuations, or differences in what is recorded as aid.7

Moreover, the CRS does not take into account recentexpansions in South–South cooperation and privateaid flows.

Where bilateral donors channel aid throughmultilateral organisations, a proportion is often usedfor education and reported as multilateral, rather thanbilateral aid. Individual donor profiles therefore do notreflect all funds committed to education. These fundsare, however, captured in the total education aidfigures recorded in the main body of the report andAll Donors profile in Appendix 2.

Notes1 Countries categorised as conflict-affected are those included on

the Project Ploughshare list of states that experienced at least one

armed conflict in the 1995-2004 period, or those classed as

‘critical’ on the 2006 Failed States Index, which assesses violent

internal conflicts. Countries categorised as fragile are those

22

● L A S T I N L I N E , L A S T I N S C H O O L 2 0 0 9

23

A P P E N D I X 1 : M E T H O D O L O G Y ●

classified as either ‘Core’ or ‘Severe’ on the 2006 Low Income

Countries Under Stress list, which categorises countries according

to their Country Policy and Institutional Assessment rating. As

data is only provided for nation-states, this list does not include

countries experiencing only regional conflict.

2 The majority of the CAFS are low-income countries. However,

some are lower middle-income countries according to the World

Bank Atlas method, which classifies economies by income group

according to gross national income (GNI) per capita. Removal

of these countries from the analysis does not alter the broad

conclusions of this report.

3 Accessed 2 March 2009 at: http://stats.oecd.org/WBOS/

Index.aspx?DatasetCode=CRSNEW

4 The DAC is the principal body through which the OECD

cooperates financially with developing countries.

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

6 The CRS records funding to basic rather than primary education.

The CRS definition of basic comprises early childhood education,

primary education and basic life skills for young people and adults.

As primary education data is not available, basic education is used

as a proxy in discussions of commitments and progress toward

universal primary education.

7 See, for example, Nowell (2006), which highlights

methodological differences in US appropriations figures and

those reported by DAC.

All donors In 2007, education aid commitments to developing countries reached their highest-everlevel at US$11bn. However, only a small proportion of this – $3.5bn – went to basiceducation. While the share of education aid allocated to CAFS has increased slightly, theshare to other LICs has fallen. The share allocated to middle-income countries remainsvery high. Donors must step up their commitments by: • increasing aid to basic education from $3.5bn to reach the required $9bn a year to

achieve UPE• increasing allocations of education and basic education aid to CAFS in line with need• giving increased priority to education in CAFS• including education as part of humanitarian policy and response.

8% ODA to education

37% education aid tobasic education

Prioritisation of education(% ODA to education):5% in CAFS10% in other LICs

Humanitarian aid toeducation:1.8%

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

2,574

2,724

2,001

3,089

1,678

2,462

1,912

4,129

1,404

2,916

1,617

2,368

1,147

2,127

1,157

2,437

742

1,943

Education aid commitments Distribution of education aid

Distribution of basic educationaid

US

$ m

illio

ns

(co

nsta

nt 2

006)

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

KeyCAFS Other LICs

4,5004,0003,5003,0002,5002,0001,5001,000

5000

CAFS21%

Unallocated13%

Unallocated14%

Other LICs28%

MICs38%

CAFS27%

Other LICs34%

MICs25%

KeyCAFS Other LICs

1,047

1,180

1,026

1,501

879

1,180

708

2,677

865

1,714

596

964 1,1251,243

488

1,393

388

964

Basic education aid commitments

US

$ m

illio

ns

(co

nsta

nt 2

006)

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

3,000

2,500

2,000

1,500

1,000

500

0

Appendix 2: Donor profiles

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

24

25

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

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

13% ODA to education

30% education aid tobasic education

Fair share contribution to UPE financingrequirement:32%

Prioritisation of education(% ODA to education):2% in CAFS12% in other LICs

Humanitarian aid toeducation:3.6%

Top 3 recipients educationaid (US$ millions):Philippines 39Papua New Guinea 22Indonesia 22

14

80

0.3

46

2

151

23

5

98

103

43

24

151

5

97

9

Education aid commitments Distribution of education aid

Distribution of basic educationaid

US

$ m

illio

ns

(co

nsta

nt 2

006)

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

KeyCAFS Other LICs

160

140

120

100

80

60

40

20

0

CAFS 3%

CAFS 4%

Other LICs23%

MICs38%

Other LICs36%

MICs51%

KeyCAFS Other LICs

6

43

0.02

19

40.7 1

134

82

71

30

2

74

2

48

5

Basic education aid commitments

US

$ m

illio

ns

(co

nsta

nt 2

006)

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

9080706050403020100

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

9% ODA to education

4% education aid to basiceducation

Fair share contribution to UPE financingrequirement:5%

Prioritisation of education(% ODA to education):1% in CAFS11% in other LICs

Humanitarian aid toeducation:0.4%

Top 3 recipients educationaid (US$ millions):Turkey 21Bosnia-Herzegovina 15Serbia 10

6

14

5

7

4

4

4

6

3

55

5

3

5

4

44

7

Education aid commitments Distribution of education aid

Distribution of basic educationaid

US

$ m

illio

ns

(co

nsta

nt 2

006)

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

KeyCAFS Other LICs

16

14

12

10

8

6

4

2

0

CAFS 5%Other LICs 7%

MICs77%

CAFS 9% Other LICs

5%

MICs77%

KeyCAFS Other LICs0.2

0.3

0.2

0.7

0.2

0.3

0.1

0.7

0.1

0.8

0.1

1.2

0.1

0.4

0.10.1

1.7

0.1

Basic education aid commitments

US

$ m

illio

ns

(co

nsta

nt 2

006)

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

1.81.61.41.21.00.80.60.40.2

0

Unallocated36%

Unallocated9%

Unallocated11%

Unallocated9%

● L A S T I N L I N E , L A S T I N S C H O O L 2 0 0 9

26

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

11% ODA to education

20% education aid tobasic education

Fair share contribution to UPE financingrequirement:31%

Prioritisation of education(% ODA to education):7% in CAFS16% in other LICs

Humanitarian aid toeducation:1.2%

Top 3 recipients educationaid (US$ millions):Democratic Republic of Congo 14Rwanda 11Vietnam 7

31

50

41

50

36

37

27

32

28

30

29

30

13

32

14

26

10

22

Education aid commitments Distribution of education aid

Distribution of basic educationaid

US

$ m

illio

ns

(co

nsta

nt 2

006)

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

KeyCAFS Other LICs

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

CAFS28%

Other LICs22%

MICs15%

CAFS49%

Other LICs37%

MICs9%

KeyCAFS Other LICs

6

19

15

20

11

15

9

12

5

11

3

6

2

13

3

6

2

4

Basic education aid commitments

US

$ m

illio

ns

(co

nsta

nt 2

006)

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

25

20

15

10

5

0

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

10% ODA to education

70% education aid tobasic education

Fair share contribution to UPE financingrequirement:59%

Prioritisation of education(% ODA to education):7% in CAFS36% in other LICs

Humanitarian aid toeducation:1.3%

Top 3 recipients educationaid (US$ millions):Mali 44Afghanistan 40Mozambique 31

88

89

60

169

42

164

39

112

8

211

31

102

21

55

35

67

8

37

Education aid commitments Distribution of education aid

Distribution of basic educationaid

US

$ m

illio

ns

(co

nsta

nt 2

006)

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

KeyCAFS Other LICs

250

200

150

100

50

0

CAFS23%

Other LICs52%

MICs13%

CAFS16%

Other LICs60%

MICs13%

KeyCAFS Other LICs

44

61

20

158

26

123

24

100

3

146

19

79

20

48

9

38

2

20

Basic education aid commitments

US

$ m

illio

ns

(co

nsta

nt 2

006)

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

180160140120100806040200

Unallocated35%

Unallocated5%

Unallocated 12%

Unallocated 11%

27

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

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

6% ODA to education

49% education aid tobasic education

Fair share contribution to UPE financingrequirement:52%

Prioritisation of education(% ODA to education):6% in CAFS7% in other LICs

Humanitarian aid toeducation:5.2%

Top 3 recipients educationaid (US$ millions):Benin 13Bolivia 10Afghanistan 8

20

41

9

3031

58

41

70

4

2624

77

5

13

62

66

0.32

Education aid commitments Distribution of education aid

Distribution of basic educationaid

US

$ m

illio

ns

(co

nsta

nt 2

006)

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

KeyCAFS Other LICs

9080706050403020100

CAFS25%

Other LICs54%

MICs20%

CAFS38%

Other LICs51%

MICs11%

KeyCAFS Other LICs

12

17

9

1524

2735

40

2

1311

45

57

25

57

0.5

Basic education aid commitments

US

$ m

illio

ns

(co

nsta

nt 2

006)

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

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

7% ODA to education

43% education aid tobasic education

Fair share contribution to UPE financingrequirement:35%

Prioritisation of education(% ODA to education):5% in CAFS14% in other LICs

Humanitarian aid toeducation:0.7%

Top 3 recipients educationaid (US$ millions):Mozambique 13Tanzania 8Zambia 4

9

24

10

18

4

38

20

36

15

16

4

23

6

18

0.5

8

1

9

Education aid commitments Distribution of education aid

Distribution of basic educationaid

US

$ m

illio

ns

(co

nsta

nt 2

006)

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

KeyCAFS Other LICs

40

35

30

25

20

15

10

5

0

CAFS16%

Other LICs57%

MICs9%

CAFS20%

Other LICs61%

MICs12%

KeyCAFS Other LICs

5

13

4

8

3

1619

21

5

63

11

2

8

0.1

4

0.4

3

Basic education aid commitments

US

$ m

illio

ns

(co

nsta

nt 2

006)

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

25

20

15

10

5

0

Unallocated 1%

Unallocated 0%

Unallocated18%

Unallocated7%

● L A S T I N L I N E , L A S T I N S C H O O L 2 0 0 9

28

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

18% ODA to education

10% education aid tobasic education

Fair share contribution to UPE financingrequirement:25%

Prioritisation of education(% ODA to education):5% in CAFS19% in other LICs

Humanitarian aid toeducation:0.3%

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

163

294

174

366

128

236

142

290

123

243

188

190

124

210

131

224

105

158

Education aid commitments Distribution of education aid

Distribution of basic educationaid

US

$ m

illio

ns

(co

nsta

nt 2

006)

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

KeyCAFS Other LICs

400

350

300

250

200

150

100

50

0

CAFS 10%

Other LICs20%

MICs68%

CAFS9%

Other LICs31%

MICs53%

KeyCAFS Other LICs

14

39

18

78

8

1612

85

7

49

19

4639

81

41

80

28

35

Basic education aid commitments

US

$ m

illio

ns

(co

nsta

nt 2

006)

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

9080706050403020100

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

11% ODA to education

15% education aid tobasic education

Fair share contribution to UPE financingrequirement:20%

Prioritisation of education(% ODA to education):3% in CAFS12% in other LICs

Humanitarian aid toeducation:0.5%

Top 3 recipients educationaid (US$ millions):China 155Indonesia 41Turkey 40

110

273

119

183

60

74105

166

114

191

103

131

82

115

81

105

108

120

Education aid commitments Distribution of education aid

Distribution of basic educationaid

US

$ m

illio

ns

(co

nsta

nt 2

006)

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

KeyCAFS Other LICs

300

250

200

150

100

50

0

CAFS 9%

Other LICs17%

MICs58%

CAFS16%

Other LICs40%

MICs34%Key

CAFS Other LICs

25

116

25

35

24

38

18

41

10

38

12

25

11

29

12

25

26

27

Basic education aid commitments

US

$ m

illio

ns

(co

nsta

nt 2

006)

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

140

120

100

80

60

40

20

0

Unallocated 2%

Unallocated 7%

Unallocated16%

Unallocated10%

29

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

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

19% ODA to education

6% education aid to basiceducation

Fair share contribution to UPE financingrequirement:3%

Prioritisation of education(% ODA to education):25% in CAFS33% in other LICs

Humanitarian aid toeducation:0%

Top 3 recipients educationaid (US$ millions):Albania 13Afghanistan 3Turkey 3

1.7

6

0.2

4

0.5

13

0.4

3

0.21

0.30.8

Education aid commitments Distribution of education aid

Distribution of basic educationaid

US

$ m

illio

ns

(co

nsta

nt 2

006)

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

KeyCAFS Other LICs

14

12

10

8

6

4

2

0

CAFS19%

Other LICs2%

MICs79%

CAFS55%

Other LICs 2%

MICs41%

KeyCAFS Other LICs0.03

0.30.02

0.6

0.1

3.3

0.1

0.4

0.1

0.5

0.05

Basic education aid commitments

US

$ m

illio

ns

(co

nsta

nt 2

006)

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

3.5

3.0

2.5

2.0

1.5

1.0

0.5

0

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

12% ODA to education

56% education aid tobasic education

Fair share contribution to UPE financingrequirement:80%

Prioritisation of education(% ODA to education):10% in CAFS17% in other LICs

Humanitarian aid toeducation:1.9%

Top 3 recipients educationaid (US$ millions):Uganda 12Zambia 11Mozambique 10

24

36

23

26

22

29

20

27

23

28

28

29

16

25

8

17

Education aid commitments Distribution of education aid

Distribution of basic educationaid

US

$ m

illio

ns

(co

nsta

nt 2

006)

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

KeyCAFS Other LICs

40

35

30

25

20

15

10

5

0

CAFS31%

Other LICs41%

MICs12%

CAFS29%

Other LICs41%

MICs13%

KeyCAFS Other LICs

17

10

17

14

18

12

19

11

1513

19

11

12

5

96

Basic education aid commitments

US

$ m

illio

ns

(co

nsta

nt 2

006)

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

20181614121086420

Unallocated 0%

Unallocated 2%

Unallocated16%

Unallocated17%

● L A S T I N L I N E , L A S T I N S C H O O L 2 0 0 9

30

Italy The proportion of total aid allocated to education and basic education remainssignificantly low. Italy needs to:• drastically increase basic education aid to meet its fair share of the financing requirement• increase allocations of education and basic education aid to CAFS and other LICs• give increased priority to education in CAFS and other LICs• include education in humanitarian policy and response• maintain commitment to ensure timely reporting of education aid data to the OECD-DAC.

3% ODA to education

25% education aid tobasic education

Fair share contribution to UPE financingrequirement:3%

Prioritisation of education(% ODA to education):1% in CAFS3% in other LICs

Humanitarian aid toeducation:1.9%

Top 3 recipients educationaid (US$ millions):Palestinian Adm. Areas 3Afghanistan 3Mozambique 3

6

7

6

62

17

11

33

2

21

6

22

8

47

6

14

1

18

Education aid commitments Distribution of education aid

Distribution of basic educationaid

US

$ m

illio

ns

(co

nsta

nt 2

006)

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

KeyCAFS Other LICs

50454035302520151050

CAFS18%

Other LICs9%

MICs31%

CAFS25%

Other LICs8%

MICs38%

KeyCAFS Other LICs1

32

6

4

11

0.3

7

2

7

2

15

0.7

10.1

5

0.8 1

Basic education aid commitments

US

$ m

illio

ns

(co

nsta

nt 2

006)

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

16

14

12

10

8

6

4

2

0

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

requirement• significantly increase allocations of education and basic education aid to CAFS• give increased priority to education in CAFS and other LICs.

6% ODA to education

26% education aid tobasic education

Fair share contribution to UPE financingrequirement:18%

Prioritisation of education(% ODA to education):2% in CAFS4% in other LICs

Humanitarian aid toeducation:3.8%

Top 3 recipients educationaid (US$ millions):China 267Indonesia 90Vietnam 37

77

167

78

184

92

163115

215

72

164

64

69

31

121

13

78

28

76

Education aid commitments Distribution of education aid

Distribution of basic educationaid

US

$ m

illio

ns

(co

nsta

nt 2

006)

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

KeyCAFS Other LICs

250

200

150

100

50

0

Other LICs21%

MICs64%

CAFS17%

Other LICs36%

MICs45%

KeyCAFS Other LICs

24

85

38

6046

81

44

75

29

70

39

47

21

33

9

35

25

47

Basic education aid commitments

US

$ m

illio

ns

(co

nsta

nt 2

006)

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

9080706050403020100

Unallocated42%

Unallocated29%

Unallocated2%

CAFS 10%Unallocated 5%

31

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

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

13% ODA to education

32% education aid tobasic education

Fair share contribution to UPE financingrequirement:97%

Prioritisation of education(% ODA to education):5% in CAFS16% in other LICs

Humanitarian aid toeducation:0.05%

Top 3 recipients educationaid (US$ millions):Senegal 5Cape Verde 5El Salvador 3

2

14

0.7

15

0.9

9

0.4

11

15

10

16

Education aid commitments Distribution of education aid

Distribution of basic educationaid

US

$ m

illio

ns

(co

nsta

nt 2

006)

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

KeyCAFS Other LICs

181614121086420

CAFS 4%

Other LICs44%

MICs49%

Other LICs44%

MICs39%

KeyCAFS Other LICs

2

5

0.4

5

0.6

2

0.1

5

00.5

6

Basic education aid commitments

US

$ m

illio

ns

(co

nsta

nt 2

006)

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

7

6

5

4

3

2

1

0

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

14% ODA to education

68% education aid tobasic education

Fair share contribution to UPE financingrequirement:315%

Prioritisation of education(% ODA to education):10% in CAFS25% in other LICs

Humanitarian aid toeducation:2.7%

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

66

155125

402

44

152

10

175

7323

286

44

172

15

117

21

86

28

Education aid commitments Distribution of education aid

Distribution of basic educationaid

US

$ m

illio

ns

(co

nsta

nt 2

006)

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

KeyCAFS Other LICs

450400350300250200150100500

Other LICs27%

MICs 22%

Other LICs30%

MICs 18%

KeyCAFS Other LICs

53

13386

327

9

71

6

165

4416

270

40

140

7

8459

20 16

Basic education aid commitments

US

$ m

illio

ns

(co

nsta

nt 2

006)

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

350

300

250

200

150

100

50

0

Unallocated 3%

Unallocated42%

Unallocated43%

CAFS 10%Unallocated 7%

CAFS 9%

CAFS9%

● L A S T I N L I N E , L A S T I N S C H O O L 2 0 0 9

32

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

23% ODA to education

57% education aid tobasic education

Fair share contribution to UPE financingrequirement:120%

Prioritisation of education(% ODA to education):8% in CAFS37% in other LICs

Humanitarian aid toeducation:1.7%

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

2

33

4

13

0.3

27

2

8

2

7

12

Education aid commitments Distribution of education aid

Distribution of basic educationaid

US

$ m

illio

ns

(co

nsta

nt 2

006)

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

KeyCAFS Other LICs

35

30

25

20

15

10

5

0

Other LICs39%

MICs49%

Other LICs51%

MICs41%

KeyCAFS Other LICs

0.8

28

0.4 20.1

25

1

7

0.73

0.20.6

Basic education aid commitments

US

$ m

illio

ns

(co

nsta

nt 2

006)

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

30

25

20

15

10

5

0

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

10% ODA to education

50% education aid tobasic education

Fair share contribution to UPE financingrequirement:136%

Prioritisation of education(% ODA to education):7% in CAFS13% in other LICs

Humanitarian aid toeducation:2.3%

Top 3 recipients educationaid (US$ millions):Tanzania 15Madagascar 14Zambia 13

43

57

34

68

44

80

34

85

45

195

54

87

34

23

3258

71

15

Education aid commitments Distribution of education aid

Distribution of basic educationaid

US

$ m

illio

ns

(co

nsta

nt 2

006)

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

KeyCAFS Other LICs

200180160140120100806040200

CAFS 17%

Other LICs29%

MICs 11%

CAFS18%

Other LICs25%

MICs 8%

KeyCAFS Other LICs13

1723

44

23

33

21

60

31

130

33

53

1913

47

60

88

Basic education aid commitments

US

$ m

illio

ns

(co

nsta

nt 2

006)

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

140

120

100

80

60

40

20

0

Unallocated 8%

Unallocated7%

Unallocated43%

Unallocated49%

CAFS 4%

CAFS 1%

33

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

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

20% ODA to education

13% education aid tobasic education

Fair share contribution to UPE financingrequirement:17%

Prioritisation of education(% ODA to education):29% in CAFS37% in other LICs

Humanitarian aid toeducation:0%

Top 3 recipients educationaid (US$ millions):Cape Verde 25Timor Leste 11Angola 10

18

20

18

20

16

22

14

16

14

22

18

22

21

22

7

21

8

16

Education aid commitments Distribution of education aid

Distribution of basic educationaid

US

$ m

illio

ns

(co

nsta

nt 2

006)

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

KeyCAFS Other LICs

25

20

15

10

5

0

CAFS32%

Other LICs27%

MICs39%

CAFS76%

Other LICs23%

KeyCAFS Other LICs

1

7

1

7

3

5

3

3

2

5

2

7

2

8

1

7

0.8

5

Basic education aid commitments

US

$ m

illio

ns

(co

nsta

nt 2

006)

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

1

0

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

10% ODA to education

39% education aid tobasic education

Fair share contribution to UPE financingrequirement:31%

Prioritisation of education(% ODA to education):6% in CAFS12% in other LICs

Humanitarian aid toeducation:1.4%

Top 3 recipients educationaid (US$ millions):Peru 14Honduras 14Morocco 12

32

60

20

23

16

20

10

1117

31

10

18

10

19

10

22

11

34

Education aid commitments Distribution of education aid

Distribution of basic educationaid

US

$ m

illio

ns

(co

nsta

nt 2

006)

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

KeyCAFS Other LICs

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

Other LICs 12%

MICs59%

CAFS 12%

Other LICs 21%

MICs51%

KeyCAFS Other LICs

18

48

9

11

8

85756

3

1

14

45432

Basic education aid commitments

US

$ m

illio

ns

(co

nsta

nt 2

006)

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

Unallocated19%

Unallocated16%

CAFS 10%

Unallocated 2%

Unallocated 0%MICs 2%

● L A S T I N L I N E , L A S T I N S C H O O L 2 0 0 9

34

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

6% ODA to education

50% education aid tobasic education

Fair share contribution to UPE financingrequirement:71%

Prioritisation of education(% ODA to education):9% in CAFS12% in other LICs

Humanitarian aid toeducation:1.4%

Top 3 recipients educationaid (US$ millions):Afghanistan 19Mali 16Tanzania 14

14

26

83

92

31

69

22

53

34

101

31

41

3

42

12

57

11

7

Education aid commitments Distribution of education aid

Distribution of basic educationaid

US

$ m

illio

ns

(co

nsta

nt 2

006)

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

KeyCAFS Other LICs

120

100

80

60

40

20

0

CAFS31%

Other LICs39%

MICs13%

CAFS47%

Other LICs32%

MICs9%

KeyCAFS Other LICs12

12

35

91

3

2319

43

29

87

24

26

0.7

26

5

34

9

4

Basic education aid commitments

US

$ m

illio

ns

(co

nsta

nt 2

006)

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

1009080706050403020100

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

4% ODA to education

28% education aid tobasic education

Fair share contribution to UPE financingrequirement:12%

Prioritisation of education(% ODA to education):1% in CAFS8% in other LICs

Humanitarian aid toeducation:0.7%

Top 3 recipients educationaid (US$ millions):Burkina Faso 4Bangladesh 3Serbia 3

3

26

5

20

0.7

5

1

24

10

18

10

20

2

15

0.8

31

5

10

Education aid commitments Distribution of education aid

Distribution of basic educationaid

US

$ m

illio

ns

(co

nsta

nt 2

006)

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

KeyCAFS Other LICs

35

30

25

20

15

10

5

0

Other LICs34%

MICs28%

CAFS10%

Other LICs50%

MICs22%Key

CAFS Other LICs

0.7

63

14

0.110.1

17

4

14

4

10

0.63

0.6

23

3

Basic education aid commitments

US

$ m

illio

ns

(co

nsta

nt 2

006)

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

25

20

15

10

5

0

Unallocated17%

Unallocated12%

Unallocated32%

Unallocated18%

CAFS 6%

35

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

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

8% ODA to education

59% education aid tobasic education

Fair share contribution to UPE financingrequirement:64%

Prioritisation of education(% ODA to education):4% in CAFS13% in other LICs

Humanitarian aid toeducation:0.3%

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

225

304

511

19

304183

734

76

255

15

182

46

183

340

19

228222 196

Education aid commitments Distribution of education aid

Distribution of basic educationaid

US

$ m

illio

ns

(co

nsta

nt 2

006)

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

KeyCAFS Other LICs

800

700

600

500

400

300

200

100

0

CAFS 26%

Other LICs 50%

MICs 6%

CAFS 29%

Other LICs 42%

MICs 7%Key

CAFS Other LICs93

96206

248

10

223137

688

40

189

7

9217

181

92

250

9

212

Basic education aid commitments

US

$ m

illio

ns

(co

nsta

nt 2

006)

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

700

600

500

400

300

200

100

0

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

3% ODA to education

71% education aid tobasic education

Fair share contribution to UPE financingrequirement:15%

Prioritisation of education(% ODA to education):2% in CAFS3% in other LICs

Humanitarian aid toeducation:0.7%

Top 3 recipients educationaid (US$ millions):Pakistan 97Egypt 95Iraq 93

7974

188

59

375 370

47

348

27

89

35

6346

182

58

43

50

28

Education aid commitments Distribution of education aid

Distribution of basic educationaid

US

$ m

illio

ns

(co

nsta

nt 2

006)

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

KeyCAFS Other LICs

400

350

300

250

200

150

100

50

0

CAFS42%

Other LICs 10%

MICs40%

CAFS43%

Other LICs 13%

MICs39%

KeyCAFS Other LICs

73

252

71

118

52

306

42

340

84

35

58

46

114

5639

272828

Basic education aid commitments

US

$ m

illio

ns

(co

nsta

nt 2

006)

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

350

300

250

200

150

100

50

0

Unallocated18%

Unallocated22%

Unallocated 8%

Unallocated5%

● L A S T I N L I N E , L A S T I N S C H O O L 2 0 0 9

36

EuropeanCommission

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

7% ODA to education

41% education aid tobasic education

Prioritisation of education(% ODA to education):5% in CAFS9% in other LICs

Humanitarian aid toeducation:0.4% (ECHO)1.9% (EC)

Top 3 recipients educationaid (US$ millions):Egypt 49Tunisia 35Jordan 29

75

147

41

159203

330

58

123

31

325

84

128

98

111160

450

118

176

Education aid commitments Distribution of education aid

Distribution of basic educationaid

US

$ m

illio

ns

(co

nsta

nt 2

006)

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

KeyCAFS Other LICs

500450400350300250200150100500

CAFS16%

Other LICs22%

MICs46%

CAFS27%

Other LICs33%

MICs38%

KeyCAFS Other LICs

31

88

21

122174

191

40

7116

249

67

70

40

7084

367

92

120

Basic education aid commitments

US

$ m

illio

ns

(co

nsta

nt 2

006)

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

400

350

300

250

200

150

100

50

0

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

12% ODA to education

41% education aid tobasic education

Prioritisation of education(% ODA to education):15% in CAFS11% in other LICs

Top 3 recipients educationaid (US$ millions):India 118Pakistan 89Nigeria 79

785

949

405

458

262

533

1,514

393

612

704

274

691

147

525

59

594502

275

Education aid commitments Distribution of education aid

Distribution of basic educationaid

US

$ m

illio

ns

(co

nsta

nt 2

006)

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

KeyCAFS Other LICs

1,600

1,400

1,200

1,000

800

600

400

200

0

CAFS47%

Other LICs41%

MICs 12%

CAFS50%

Other LICs37%

MICs13%

KeyCAFS Other LICs

174

420

199

211148

281

1,036

240

371365

183

414

228

39

271

54 90 102

Basic education aid commitments

US

$ m

illio

ns

(co

nsta

nt 2

006)

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

1,200

1,000

800

600

400

200

0

Unallocated16%

Unallocated 2%

Unallocated 0%

Unallocated 0%

37

Country Fair share Overall Distribution of Distribution of Humanitarian contribution to % ODA to education aid: basic education aid to UPE financing education in CAFS % share aid: education (%)

requirement (%) CAFS CAFS % share

Avg Avg Avg Avg Avg Avg Avg Avg Avg Avg 03–05 05–07 03–05 05–07 03–05 05–07 03–05 05–07 03–05 05–07

All donors – – 4 5 18 21 23 27 1.5 1.8

Australia 34 32 1 2 2 3 3 4 6 3.6

Austria 5 5 1 1 5 5 15 9 0.3 0.4

Belgium 26 31 4 7 24 28 32 49 1.4 1.2

Canada 57 59 4 7 10 23 9 16 2.7 1.3

Denmark 71 52 12 6 24 25 36 38 3.8 5.2

Finland 52 35 11 5 22 16 33 20 1.7 0.7

France 20 25 5 5 10 10 8 9 0.2 0.3

Germany 16 20 4 3 11 9 14 16 1 0.5

Greece 27 3 20 25 11 19 8 55 0.2 0.0

Ireland 72 80 14 10 37 31 39 29 2.8 1.9

Italy 3 3 2 1 38 18 38 25 2 1.9

Japan 15 18 2 2 9 10 21 17 4.6 3.8

Luxembourg 86 97 2 5 2 4 3 10 0 0.05

Netherlands 165 315 4 10 7 9 4 9 2.9 2.7

New Zealand 74 120 5 8 3 4 3 1 2.1 1.7

Norway 163 136 9 7 24 17 25 18 2.5 2.3

Portugal 15 17 6 29 30 32 62 76 0.7 0.0

Spain 16 31 5 6 8 10 11 12 0.5 1.4

Sweden 93 71 6 9 18 31 18 47 2.7 1.4

Switzerland 17 12 2 1 9 6 8 10 1 0.7

UK 77 64 3 4 15 26 13 29 1.3 0.3

USA 14 15 2 2 40 42 49 43 0.4 0.7

European Commission – – 4 5 12 16 21 27 0.3 1.9

World Bank IDA – – 11 15 32 47 27 50 – –

Appendix 3: Comparative table assessingdonor performance and progress

This table provides comparable statistics illustrating the key changes that have taken place in donor support ofCAFS since publication of the first Last in Line, Last in School report in 2007 (Save the Children, 2007).

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

Rewrite the Future

Last in L

ine,Last in S

choo

l 2009

Save the Children is a member of the

International Save the Children AllianceCambridge HouseCambridge GroveLondon W6 0LEUK

www.savethechildren.net/rewritethefuture

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

“Yet again Save the Children’s annual Last in Line,Last in School report highlights the urgent need forincreased donor action and support for education inemergencies and countries by conflict. The 2009report shows that, while there are encouraging signsof change, donors still need to do more. This is anexcellent example of research and advocacy thathas the potential to change the lives of the millionsof children caught up in emergencies and conflict.”

Allison Anderson, Inter-agency Network for Education in Emergencies

of basic education aid, even though they arehome to more than half – 40 million – of theworld’s 75 million out-of-school children. Basedon current trends, the required levels of basiceducation aid to CAFS will not be reached until 2034.

The role of education in emergency contextsnow has greater recognition in the internationalcommunity, and funding for education inemergencies has increased. However, this fundingis still not enough to meet the urgent needs ofchildren in countries affected by conflict andemergencies. And too few donors have a policycommitment to education in emergencies.

Education donors must act immediately toaccelerate progress if they are to fulfil theirpromise of good-quality education for allchildren by 2015.

Children have a right to education regardless of their circumstances. Yet millions continue tobe denied this right in situations of conflict andfragility. Education is one of the most importantinvestments a country can make to escape thelong-term cycle of poverty and conflict. Yet itremains underfunded.

This third edition of Last in Line, Last in Schooldemonstrates where and how donors must actto ensure that children in countries affected byconflict and emergencies do not miss out ontheir education, particularly in the midst of aglobal financial crisis. Since the first report waspublished in 2007, donors have made someprogress. But big gaps still remain.

This report finds there has been an increase ineducation aid to conflict-affected fragile states(CAFS). But CAFS still only receive a quarter