Last in Line,
Last in School
2009
Last in Line, Last in School 2009
Donor trends in meeting education needs in
countries affected by conflict and emergencies
This third edition of Last in Line, Last in School
demonstrates where and how donors must act
to ensure that children in countries affected by
conflict and emergencies do not miss out on
their education, particularly in the midst of a
global financial crisis. Since the first report was
published in 2007, donors have made some
progress. But big gaps still remain.
This report finds there has been an increase in
education aid to conflict-affected fragile states
(CAFS). But CAFS still only receive a quarter
“Yet again Save the Children’s annual Last in Line,
Last in School report highlights the urgent need for
increased donor action and support for education in
emergencies and countries by conflict. The 2009
report shows that, while there are encouraging signs
of change, donors still need to do more. This is an
excellent example of research and advocacy that
has the potential to change the lives of the millions
of children caught up in emergencies and conflict.”
Allison Anderson, Inter-agency Network
for Education in Emergencies
of basic education aid, even though they are
home to more than half – 40 million – of the
world’s 75 million out-of-school children. Based
on current trends, the required levels of basic
education aid to CAFS will not be reached
until 2034.
The role of education in emergency contexts
now has greater recognition in the international
community, and funding for education in
emergencies has increased. However, this funding
is still not enough to meet the urgent needs of
children in countries affected by conflict and
emergencies. And too few donors have a policy
commitment to education in emergencies.
Last in Line, Last in School 2009
Children have a right to education regardless
of their circumstances. Yet millions continue to
be denied this right in situations of conflict and
fragility. Education is one of the most important
investments a country can make to escape the
long-term cycle of poverty and conflict. Yet it
remains underfunded.
Donor trends in meeting education
needs in countries affected by
conflict and emergencies
Education donors must act immediately to
accelerate progress if they are to fulfil their
promise of good-quality education for all
children by 2015.
International Save the Children Alliance
Cambridge House
Cambridge Grove
London W6 0LE
UK
www.savethechildren.net/rewritethefuture
Save the Children
is a member of the
Rewrite the Future
Last in Line,
Last in School 2009
Donor trends in meeting education needs in
countries affected by conflict and emergencies
The International Save the Children Alliance is the world’s leading
independent children’s rights organisation, with members in 28 countries
and operational programmes in more than 100.We fight for children’s rights
and deliver lasting improvements to children’s lives worldwide.
This report was written by Victoria Turrent. Management and oversight of the report was led by
Janice Dolan. Research and analysis were supported by Gowri Vijayakumar and Joe Collenette.
Special thanks for their comments, guidance and inputs are due to Allison Anderson, Kitty Arrie,
Elena Avenati, Saïd Belkachla, Laura Brannelly, Peter Buckland, Tanya Cox, Christa Dammermann,
Emily Echessa, Olga Gormalova, Joe Hall, Sharyn Hanly, Malin Hansson, Bo Tovby Jørgensen, Kim Kerr,
Edilberto Loaiza, Lucia Losoviz, Anne Haaranen, Birgit Lundbak, Daniel Meienberger, Rachel Maranto,
Dina Morad, Kate Moriarty, Albert Motivans, Fosca Nomis, Kjersti Okkelmo, Koarai Rie, Marinke Ros,
Andrea Sharrock, Trond Sæbø Skarpeteig, David Skinner, Marianne Victor and Ravi Wickremasinghe.
Save the Children is a member of the Global Campaign for Education.
Published by
International Save the Children Alliance
Cambridge House
Cambridge Grove
London W6 0LE
UK
First published 2009
© International Save the Children Alliance 2009
Registered Charity No. 10768220
This publication is copyright, but may be reproduced by any method
without fee or prior permission for teaching purposes, but not for resale.
For copying in any other circumstances, prior written permission must be
obtained from the publisher, and a fee may be payable.
Cover picture: Children sit in what remains of a classroom in Muza Harabad,
Pakistan, after their school was hit by an earthquake. (Photo: Tom Pietrasik)
Edited by Frances Ellery
Typeset by Grasshopper Design Company
Printed by Page Bros (Norwich) Ltd
Printed on recycled paper
Contents
Abbreviations and acronyms
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
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
iv
ANNA KARI/SAVE THE CHILDREN
Mary, 12, lost her father and uncle during the war in Liberia. Now she’s
a student at Zeah Town School, which Save the Children UK supports.
“During the war, the fighters burned our houses and killed my father and my
uncle. My mother and I ran away to the Ivory Coast.We got lost on the way
and walked in the bush for 15 days.We only had leaves to eat. It is still hard
for me to think about that.
“My mother lives in Monrovia now, so I’m staying with my auntie. She sells
pepper soup to earn money. I help her in the evenings so she can make
more money. I started school in 2004 [at the age of eight].
“I still think about my father and my uncle and I feel sad. But when I’m at
school, I feel very happy about learning new things and I enjoy playing with
my friends. I hope that school will help me to forget the hard times I’ve had.
I am thinking a lot about my future nowadays – I want to become a doctor.”
v
Executive summary
This third annual Last in Line, Last in School report
examines recent trends in donor support for education
for children living in conflict-affected fragile states
(CAFS) and those caught up in emergencies. Its broad
conclusion is that, although donors have increased
their focus on meeting the education needs of children
in these countries and situations, there is still a long
way to go. If trends continue, CAFS will not receive
the levels of basic education aid needed to achieve the
education Millennium Development Goal (MDG) of
universal primary education (UPE) until 2034, well
beyond the 2015 deadline.
Education is recognised as one of the most vital
investments a government can make. As well as
being every child’s right, it has a crucial role to play in
safeguarding children, empowering women, promoting
democracy and protecting the environment. It is
essential for the recovery and development of CAFS.
Regardless of this critical role, on average between
2005 and 2007, CAFS received just over a quarter
of basic education aid, despite being home to more
than half – 40 million – of the world’s 75 million
out-of-school children. Basic education aid
commitments to CAFS increased marginally from
$0.9 billion in 2005 to $1.2bn in 2007 – well below
the estimated $5.2bn required annually to achieve
UPE in these countries. It is staggering that such a
small proportion of global education aid continues
to be directed to those countries most at risk of
failing to achieve the goal.
Furthermore, of total aid allocated to CAFS, on
average just 5% went to education, compared to 10%
in other low-income countries (LICs). This suggests
that education is not seen by donors as a priority
for investment in CAFS. While the demand for
investment in governance and infrastructure is
vi
inevitably higher in CAFS, and this is critical for
enabling wider education reforms to reach remote
schools, it is clear that not enough attention is being
paid to addressing the immediate educational needs
of conflict-affected populations, where one in three
primary-aged children is out of school.
Education is now more widely recognised as a
component of humanitarian aid. Financing of
education in emergencies rose from $147 million
in 2007 to $235m in 2008. However, less than
half – 48% – of requests for education funding in
humanitarian crises in the Consolidated Appeals
Process (CAP), through which the majority of
humanitarian aid is allocated, were met in 2008.
Too few donors have committed themselves at a
policy and budgetary level to providing education in
situations where there is a lack of will and/or capacity
to respond to education needs, or as a component of
humanitarian response. Only half of the Development
Assistance Committee (DAC) donors have policy
commitments to providing education in countries
affected by conflict and fragility, and only five have
included education in their emergency strategies.
A far greater commitment to meeting the educational
needs of children in CAFS is needed if UPE is to be
achieved by 2015. This will require:
• greater recognition of the important role education
can play in establishing strong state structures
in CAFS
• a coordinated effort by all donors to deliver aid
to education in these countries
• a commitment to initiate and restore education
services as part of humanitarian response
• support for aid mechanisms that are appropriate
to the complex development environments
of CAFS.
E X E C U T I V E S U M M A RY ●
Finally, it will require an abrupt increase in the
amount of education aid directed to CAFS and those
countries affected by emergencies. This aid needs to
address short-term education needs, and be sustained
over the long term, for rebuilding institutions and
systems. Reaffirming commitment to the MDGs and
maintaining aid flows that are consistent with them
is vital in the current climate of global financial
instability, especially in those CAFS less able to
withstand economic shocks.
The future of children living in CAFS and
emergencies must not be jeopardised by the failure
of the international community to keep its promise
to provide primary education for every child, no
matter where they live. Save the Children, therefore,
calls on all donors to act now to:
1. Increase long-term predictable aid for
education in CAFS
This requires donors to:
• ensure funding is equitable, based on need, with at
least 50% of new basic education aid commitments
going to CAFS
• increase basic education aid to meet the $9bn
annual external financing requirement for
achieving good quality UPE
• prioritise education in CAFS, ensuring that
at least 10% of ODA in CAFS is allocated
to education
• meet the Education for All-Fast Track Initiative
(EFA-FTI) financing gaps and ensure adequate
funding of the FTI’s Education Transition Fund.
2. Ensure that education needs in emergency
situations are met
This requires donors to:
• establish policies on education in emergencies
that ensure education is an integral part of
humanitarian response
• allocate a minimum of 4.2% of humanitarian
aid to education to meet education funding
requirements in emergency situations
• support coordination for education in
humanitarian response through the Inter-Agency
Standing Committee (IASC) Education Cluster.
vii
213,000
375,000
Cambodia
Central African Republic
16,000
702,000
8,097,000
6,821,000
Myanmar (Burma)
Nepal
Nigeria
Pakistan
281,000
1,168,000
57,000
2,798,000
51,000
1,280,000
39,562,000
Source: UNESCO, 2008; UNICEF Child Info1
TOTAL
Zimbabwe
Uganda
Timor Leste
Sudan
Sri Lanka
Somalia
285,000
356,000
Liberia
Sierra Leone
508,000
Iraq
303,000
706,000
Haiti
Rwanda
389,000
Guinea
243,000
3,721,000
Ethiopia
Republic of Congo
308,000
5,203,000
Democratic Republic
of Congo
Eritrea
1,164,000
367,000
Côte d’Ivoire
Colombia
1,186,000
324,000
Burundi
Chad
824,000
1,816,000
Number of primary-aged
children out of school
Angola
Afghanistan
Country
Conflict-affected fragile states
Conflict-affected fragile states
1 Introduction
Remarkable gains towards universal primary education
(UPE) have been made in many of the world’s poorest
countries since the UN General Assembly adopted the
Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) in 2000.
However, conflict-affected fragile states (CAFS)2
remain the biggest threat to achieving UPE by 2015.
Currently, more than half – some 40 million3 – of
the world’s 75 million4 out-of-school children live in
CAFS – countries scarred by current or recent conflict,
many with governments unwilling or unable to deliver
basic services, or which are struggling to cope in the
aftermath of emergencies.
Access to good quality education in such situations
is critical to the wellbeing of children and young
people. Children’s right to education, and the need
for continuity of education, do not lapse during crises
or displacement (United Nations, 2007). Indeed, in
these circumstances education is a lifeline. Research
has shown that in emergency situations, safe, good
quality education is central to providing a protective
environment for children affected by traumatic
events (Aguilar and Retamal, 2009). In post-conflict
situations, reconstruction and reformation of the
education system are increasingly viewed as essential
strategic elements in reducing the risk of a country
relapsing into conflict (Buckland, 2005).
Getting children back to school is widely viewed as a
‘quick win’ that yields tangible benefits – enhancing
peace and signalling prospects for the future – as well
as contributing to longer-term economic growth and
political stability. However, government resources are
often too stretched between competing sectors to meet
education demands. International assistance therefore
plays a pivotal role in improving performance and
progress towards providing UPE.
Support for education in CAFS has been galvanised
through an increased academic and policy focus,
including through Save the Children’s Rewrite the
Future campaign, and:
• the Inter-agency Network for Education in
Emergencies (INEE)5
• the designation of education as a UN ‘cluster’
in humanitarian response
• the Education for All-Fast Track Initiative
(EFA-FTI) plans for an Education Transition
Fund (ETF) to support education in fragile
contexts
• the UN General Assembly Debate on Education
in Emergencies, raising awareness among Member
States that education in emergencies is a crucial
lifesaving intervention with implications for the
peace and prosperity of societies.
However, this increased attention has not been
reflected adequately in funding levels. Despite recent
increases, aid for education in CAFS remains pitifully
inadequate and far from the levels required to meet
the educational rights and needs of children who live
in CAFS. Too few donors have committed themselves
at a policy and budgetary level to education in these
countries, or as a component of humanitarian response.
Meeting the educational needs of children in CAFS is
ultimately dependent on overall funding levels – as well
as on more innovative ways of delivering aid. Most
donors continue to fall short of their commitment to
increase official development assistance (ODA) flows6
to 0.7% of Gross National Income (GNI), and must
make unprecedented increases to meet the targets they
set themselves for achieving annual aid commitments
of $130bn7 by 2010 (UNESCO, 2008).
1
●
LAST IN LINE, LAST IN SCHOOL 2009
In the current global financial crisis, there is increased
pressure on aid budgets. Many low-income countries,
including CAFS – which are highly dependent on
external assistance – are facing an even more uncertain
future. Already the crisis is hitting export revenues and
flows of private investment, remittances and other
income to developing countries (OECD, 2008).
Millions of people are facing steep oil and food
price rises. By the end of 2010, it is estimated that
90 million more people will be living in extreme
poverty as a result of the financial crisis.8
It is much harder for CAFS to withstand
external shocks such as the current financial crisis.
Governments are even less likely to invest in services,
including education, and families are forced to make
tough choices. As parents lose jobs, even those
children already receiving an education are being
pulled out of school to earn money for the family.9
Reaffirming commitment to the MDGs and
maintaining aid flows is, therefore, vital in the
current climate of global financial instability.
Some progress, but still last in line
In 2007, Save the Children began to monitor
education aid flows to CAFS, and as part of
humanitarian response. This 2009 Last in Line,
Last in School report reflects on progress made so
far, drawing comparisons with previous years and
determining recent trends in the allocation of
education aid. Education aid flows are analysed within
a needs-based framework, exploring the funding
situation for CAFS and emergencies in particular.
2
The report demonstrates that education aid continues
to fall short of what is required to achieve UPE by
2015, and that while funding for CAFS has improved
in recent years, it is not enough to meet pressing
educational needs in those countries. Significantly,
there needs to be greater recognition of the important
role education can play in establishing strong state
structures in CAFS. Donors must make an urgent
coordinated effort to deliver aid to meet education
needs in these countries, and to establish an aid
architecture that is geared towards quick and flexible
disbursement and building administrative capacity.
The report also highlights recent shifts in support for
education during emergencies. Gradually, education’s
key role as an integral part of humanitarian response
is being accepted, as reflected in increased funding.
However, many donors still do not have policies in
place to ensure that education is a central component
of their emergency aid. As a result, education funding
during humanitarian crises continues to fall far short
of what is needed.
All children have the right to education, regardless
of their circumstances. With one in three children in
CAFS still out of school, and in light of the current
financial crisis, donors must make a coordinated and
committed effort to ensure that what gains have been
made are not lost, and that millions more children are
not denied an education. Save the Children calls on all
donors to increase long-term predictable aid to meet
the education financing requirements of CAFS, and to
ensure that all education needs in emergency situations
are fulfilled.
2 Aid, education and conflict-affected
fragile states
This chapter looks at recent trends in education
funding, and at what progress has been made since
the first Last in Line, Last in School report (Save the
Children, 2007). It makes comparisons between the
volumes of education aid that are committed to
conflict-affected fragile states (CAFS) and other
low-income countries (LICs), and highlights where
donors need to do more to achieve universal primary
education (UPE) by 2015.10
Education aid: CAFS continue to
miss out
Recent trends: While education aid commitments to
CAFS have risen, their share of the global education aid
envelope remains low at 21%. Based on current trends,
basic education aid commitments to CAFS will not
reach the US$5.2 billion11 required annually to achieve
UPE until 2034.
Action required: Increase significantly volumes of
education aid directed to CAFS, as well as increasing
their share of the global education aid envelope.
Education aid to low-income countries should be
distributed equitably, according to need, between CAFS
and other LICs. A minimum of 50% of all new basic
education funding should be allocated to CAFS.
Full details of the data sources, limitations and
methodology can be found in Appendix 1. Individual
donor analysis and profiles, with a summary of key
recommendations by donor, are in Appendix 2.
A table illustrating individual donor performance
and progress since the 2007 report can be found
in Appendix 3.
Between 1999 and 2007, annual allocations to
education increased from US$0.7 billion to $2.6bn
in CAFS, and from $1.9bn to $2.7bn in other
Figure 1: Education and basic education aid commitments to CAFS and other LICs
Education aid commitments
Basic education aid commitments
4,500
4,500
4,129
4,000
3,500
3,089
2,916
3,000
2,437
2,500
2,000
2,724
2,368
2,127
2,462
1,943
1,912
2,001
1,678
1,617
1,404
1,500
1,000
2,574
1,157
1,147
742
500
US$ millions (constant 2006)
US$ millions (constant 2006)
4,000
3,500
3,000
2,000
1,714
1,393
1,500
1,000
500
0
2,677
2,500
1,501
1,243
964
964
388
1,125
488
1,180
1,180
1,026
708
596
865
2001
2002
1,047
879
0
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
Key
1999
2000
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
Key
CAFS
Other LICs
CAFS
Other LICs
Source: OECD Creditor Reporting System (CRS) database
3
●
LAST IN LINE, LAST IN SCHOOL 2009
LICs (Figure 1). However, the amount actually made
available and disbursed is much lower – in 2007 it was
just $1.4bn in CAFS and $1.9bn in other LICs.12
CAFS are continuing to falter in their progress
towards meeting the Millennium Development Goals
(MDGs) – most notably in their progress towards
achieving UPE. Of the 15 CAFS for which projections
are available, only two – Cambodia and Myanmar
(Burma) – are expected to achieve UPE by 2015.13
The remaining countries are either moving away from
the goal or making progress too slowly.14
Significant increases in funding levels are needed if the
educational needs of children in CAFS are to be met
by 2015. Despite an increase on previous years, 2007
commitments to basic education in CAFS ($1.2bn)
were less than a quarter of what is needed to achieve
UPE in these countries. It is estimated that 58% –
$5.2bn – of the $9bn annual external financing
requirement should be directed to CAFS.
Figure 2: Distribution of education and basic education aid
commitments in developing countries (average 2005–07)
Education aid
Unallocated
13%
CAFS
21%
MICs
38%
Other LICs
28%
Basic education aid
Unallocated
14%
CAFS
27%
MICs
25%
Other LICs
34%
Source: OECD CRS
4
As a result of large basic education aid commitments
by the Netherlands, Japan and the UK, basic
education commitments to CAFS increased by an
average of $150 million per year between 2005 and
2007. While this is an encouraging trend and reflects
growing political support for education in CAFS, it is
not enough. Based on additional annual increases of
this size, the $5.2bn of basic education aid required
annually would not be reached until 2034, well
beyond the 2015 deadline for achieving UPE.
There has been considerable discussion – and donorstated commitment – on the importance of targeting
aid towards low-income countries. However, since
publication of the first Last in Line, Last in School
report in 2007 (Save the Children, 2007), the average
share of education aid apportioned to all low-income
countries between 2005 and 2007 dropped to less
than half – from 51% to 49%. The average share of
education aid to CAFS has increased only marginally
from 18% to 21%, as the result of increases in the
levels of education aid allocated to these countries in
2006 and 2007 (Figure 2).
More than half of all education aid is now allocated
to middle-income countries (MICs), or recorded as
‘unallocated’.15 On average between 2005 and 2007,
10% of all education aid went to just two MICs –
China and Indonesia. Given their Dakar and G8
commitments,16 donors need to ask themselves
whether this allocation is consistent with distributional
equity, and achievement of international education
goals (UNESCO, 2008).
Over the same period, the share of basic education
aid allocated to CAFS increased from 23% to 27%.
While this is a positive trend, it remains well below
what is needed, given that CAFS are home to more
than half the world’s out-of-school population.
The low share of basic education aid allocated to
CAFS is of major concern when considered in light
of the lack of progress these countries are making
towards achieving UPE. Education has been shown to
contribute to other goals such as increased economic
growth, improved health, and better environmental
management. Failure to achieve UPE will hinder
progress to all other MDGs.
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 ●
Basic education aid per child
The number of out-of-school children is a useful
approximation for need, indicating how much basic
education aid should be allocated per child (UNESCO,
2008). Given the exceptionally high proportion of
out-of-school children in CAFS, an out-of-school child
in a conflict-affected fragile state is currently allocated
less than half ($26) that of an out-of-school child in
another low-income country ($67), and less than a
quarter of an out-of-school child in a middle-income
country ($109) (Figure 3).This is despite one in three
primary-aged children being out of school in CAFS,
compared to one in 11 in other LICs and one in 33 in
middle-income countries.
On average, based on the number of primary-aged
children in each country, a primary-aged child in a
conflict-affected fragile state receives more basic
education aid than a primary-aged child in another
low-income or middle-income country.
Figure 3: Basic education aid commitments per child (average 2005–07)
120
$109
100
80
US$
$67
60
40
$26
Key
20
$8
Per out-of-school child
$6
$4
Per school-aged child
0
CAFS
Other LICs
MICs
Source: OECD CRS, UNESCO (2008)/UNICEF Child Info
Education aid falls short of requirements
Recent trends: While total education aid rose
marginally in 2007, commitments to basic education
declined.The average proportion of education aid
allocated to basic education has fallen from 41% to 37%
since the 2007 Last in Line, Last in School report. Basic
education aid continues to fall short of the $9bn level
of external financing required to achieve UPE each year.
Only five donors are meeting 80% or more of their fair
share, compared to eight last year.
The level of aid for education and basic education
directed to CAFS is, of course, dependent on the overall
level of education aid. With the exception of a large drop
in 2005,17 education aid has increased consistently
Action required: Individual donors – including
Australia, Austria, Belgium, Finland, France, Germany,
Greece, Italy, Japan, Portugal, Spain, Switzerland and
the United States – need to significantly increase
their basic education commitments to meet their
‘fair share’ of the external financing required to
achieve UPE.
from $6.3bn in 1999 to its 2007 peak of $11bn (see
Figure 4 overleaf ). Despite this increase, education aid
levels continue to fall far short of the $16bn that is
required annually to achieve Education for All (EFA).18
5
●
LAST IN LINE, LAST IN SCHOOL 2009
Figure 4: Education and basic education aid commitments and disbursements for all developing countries
Education
Basic education
12,000
12,000
US$ millions (constant 2006)
10,000
11,036
9,411
8,808
8,070
8,000
8,091
6,295
6,590
6,601
6,227
6,249
7,939
7,026
6,000
4,175
4,000
2,000
US$ millions (constant 2006)
10,955
10,824
10,000
Amount needed
8,000
6,000
4,791
3,774
4,000
2,403
2,780
2,876
3,519
2,812
3,232
2,000
1,446
0
4,520
3,223
1,856
2,089
2,304
2004
2005
2,795
0
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2006
2007
Key
Key
Commitments
Disbursements
Commitments
Disbursements
Source: OECD CRS
Basic education represents a 37% average share19 of
education aid, a drop from 41% since the 2007
Last in Line, Last in School report – well below the
recommended figure of 50% (FTI Secretariat, 2006).
While aid to education rose marginally in 2007, there
was a significant drop – of almost one-third – in the
level of commitments to basic education from $4.5bn
in 2006 to $3.5bn in 2007. This was the result of
large basic education commitments being made by
the Netherlands and the UK in 2006. There is a risk
that the downturn in the growth in basic education
commitments will lead to a stagnation, or even
decline, in disbursements. This is worrying as it has
been estimated that $9bn in external assistance will
need to be disbursed annually in order to achieve
UPE by 2015.
Moreover, estimations of the external financing
required to meet international education goals are
likely to be under-estimates (UNESCO, 2008). They
are based on the costs of educating children already in
6
school, and do not take into account the additional
costs of reaching those who are currently outside the
education system. This is particularly important for
the financing of CAFS, because they are home to
the highest numbers of out-of-school primary-aged
children. The cost of getting these children into
school will be significantly greater.
Meeting the challenge to provide out-of-school
primary-aged children with education will require
a greater concentration of additional funding to
be directed towards the most marginalised, those
children currently outside the reach of the education
system. These children are more expensive to reach,
so an intensified and sustained political and financial
effort on the part of donors is needed. The cost of
inaction, however, will be higher, as education is
one of the best investments a country can make –
contributing to increased individual incomes,
economic growth, improved child and maternal
health, and social cohesion.
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 ●
Donors fail to meet their ‘fair share’ of financing requirements
Using Gross National Income (GNI) to compare
wealth across the Development Assistance Committee
(DAC) countries, it is possible to identify how much
each country should be contributing to the external
financing requirement for UPE (its ‘fair share’), and
how close it is to achieving this target.
Together, DAC donors committed less than a third –
31% – of the $9bn external financing requirement on
average between 2005 and 2007.20 Only three donors
commit their fair share – the Netherlands and Norway
continue to lead the way, as in previous years, along
with New Zealand, which has significantly increased
its contribution from just 30% in the 2007 Last in Line,
Last in School report to 120% this year (Figure 5).
Since last year’s report, there has been a drop in the
number of donors meeting more than 80% of their
fair share, from eight to five, with Denmark (52%),
Sweden (71%) and the UK (64%) now committing
less.21 Thirteen of the 22 DAC donors – Australia,
Austria, Belgium, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Italy,
Japan, Portugal, Spain, Switzerland and the United States
– contribute less than 50% of their fair share.22
Of the G8 members, only the UK and Canada
contribute more than 50% of their fair share. France
(25%), Germany (20%), Italy (3%), Japan (18%), and
the United States (15%) all contribute significantly less.23
This is despite strong commitments to work with other
donors and recipient governments to fund long-term
plans to ensure that every child gets to school; and to
pay particular attention to those low-income countries
and fragile states furthest away from achieving UPE
by 2015 (G8, 2007). Italy, which committed an average
of just 3% of its fair share between 2005 and 2007,
will need to make a demonstrable effort to reverse
its current standing, to set an example for other
G8 leaders in advance of this year’s summit in
La Maddalena, Italy.
Figure 5: Fair share contributions of donors to the $9 billion annual external financing requirement
for UPE (based on average commitments from 2005–07)
315
200
180
% fair share committed
160
140
120
100% fair share
100
80
60
40
20
Ita
ly
U
SA
Sw
itz
er
lan
d
Au
st
ria
G
re
ec
e
Jap
an
Po
rt
ug
al
Sp
ain
Fr
an
ce
G
er
m
an
y
U
K
C
an
ad
a
D
en
m
ar
k
Fin
lan
d
Au
st
ra
lia
Be
lgi
um
N
et
he
rla
nd
s
N
or
N
w
ew
ay
Ze
ala
Lu
nd
xe
m
bo
ur
g
Ire
lan
d
Sw
ed
en
0
Source: OECD CRS/World Bank GNI (2006), Atlas Method
7
●
LAST IN LINE, LAST IN SCHOOL 2009
Education still not a priority for
donor investment in CAFS
Recent trends: There has been a slight increase in
the priority given to education in CAFS (from 4% to
5% of ODA allocated to education) since the 2007
Last in Line, Last in School report. However, this remains
well below that of other LICs (10%).
Action required: Greater priority to be given to
education in CAFS in recognition of the right to
education and role of education in establishing strong
state structures. Nineteen of the 22 DAC donors
need to increase the proportion of aid they give to
education in CAFS to a minimum of 10%.
our first report – compared with 20%25 in other LICs
(Figure 6). In part this is because, where the capacity
and/or will of the state are weak, donors have opted
to support governance and civil society programmes
(40% in CAFS compared with 18% in other LICs).
While establishing strong state structures is a priority
in many fragile states, the part education can play –
both in terms of its role in development, and as one
of the most visible state services, with an important
symbolic value in establishing the legitimacy of the
state – needs to be more systematically acknowledged
(Rose and Greeley, 2006).
Many governments in CAFS have made strong
policy commitments to education, but limited
national budgets and competing demands often lead
to a shortfall in the amount they can spend on the
education sector (Brannelly and Ndaruhutse, 2008).
In countries for which data is available, CAFS spend
on average 13% of total government expenditure on
education, whereas other LICs spend 18%.24 External
assistance therefore plays a pivotal role in supporting
national efforts to meet children’s right to education.
One of the biggest challenges to education service
delivery in many CAFS is a lack of basic infrastructure.
Investment in reconstructing infrastructure is therefore
critical if education reforms are to reach remote
schools. Nonetheless, there is clearly a difference in
the degree to which education in CAFS and other
LICs is funded in comparison to other sectors. Of
total aid allocated to CAFS, an average of just 5% was
allocated to education, compared with 10% of aid in
other LICs. Eighteen donors allocated more than 10%
of their aid to education in other LICs, but only four
– Greece, Ireland, Portugal and the World Bank –
allocated more than 10% of their aid to the education
sector in CAFS.26
However, education in CAFS is not a priority sector
for donor investment. Just 13% of aid to social
infrastructure and services is allocated to the education
sector in CAFS – a rise of 1 percentage point since
Despite its important role in creating a protective
environment for children in situations of emergency
and conflict, as well as its recognised benefits in kickstarting reconstruction in the aftermath of conflict,
Figure 6: Distribution of sector-allocable aid to social infrastructure and services in CAFS and other LICs (average 2005–07)
CAFS
Other
13%
Other LICs
Education
13%
Other
5%
Health
13%
Government and
civil society
40%
Population
programmes
11%
Water supply and sanitation
10%
Source: OECD CRS
8
Education
20%
Government and
civil society
18%
Health
19%
Water supply
and sanitation
19%
Population programmes
19%
2
education in CAFS is not a priority investment sector
for many donors. Just 11 of the 22 DAC donors –
Australia, Canada, Denmark, the EC, Ireland, the
Netherlands, Norway, Spain, the UK, the USA, and
the World Bank – have policy commitments for
supporting the provision of education in CAFS.
Towards a new aid architecture
for CAFS
Recent trends: Over the past year, the Education for
All-Fast Track Initiative (EFA-FTI) has worked to address
the lack of financing available for CAFS through the FTI
by establishing the Education Transition Fund (ETF).
Action required: Genuine progress towards a new
aid architecture for CAFS is dependent on endorsement
of the ETF proposal at the FTI Partnership Meetings in
April 2009, and on the fund becoming fully operational
and adequately resourced by a wide range of donors.
The 2005 Paris Declaration on Aid Effectiveness27
is based on the assumption that aid will be more
effective if donors and recipients apply the principles
of ownership, alignment, harmonisation, managing for
results and mutual accountability in their development
cooperation. However, as acknowledged by the 2008
Accra Agenda for Action,28 these principles need
to be adapted to environments where there is
weak ownership or capacity. As a result, a new aid
architecture is emerging that addresses the need for
financing mechanisms that provide flexible, rapid
and long-term funding for CAFS.
The Education for All-Fast Track Initiative
Since it was established in 2002, the FTI has focused
on accelerating progress towards UPE by 2015, based
on a compact linking increased donor support for
education to recipient countries’ policy performance
and accountability for results. However, in recent
years the FTI has come under criticism for failing to
generate and disburse sufficient funds. In some cases,
even countries that have been endorsed as meeting
FTI criteria have not been allocated funds.
A I D , E D U C A T I O N A N D C O N F L I C T- A F F E C T E D F R A G I L E S T A T E S ●
To date, 18 donors29 have contributed to the Catalytic
Fund, the main funding mechanism of the FTI,30 and
the Netherlands and the UK have been the primary
financers, collectively contributing 68% of all funds.
The FTI Secretariat projects that the Catalytic Fund
will face a deficit of $900m by spring 2009 (FTI
Secretariat, 2008a). The FTI Secretariat estimates
that the total long-term external financing gap for the
56 countries expected to join the FTI by 2010 will be
around $2bn per year (FTI Secretariat, 2008b).
Only nine of the 28 CAFS have been able to meet
the requirements for FTI endorsement. Of these, only
Cambodia, Rwanda and Timor Leste have received
disbursements through the Catalytic Fund. Central
African Republic, Ethiopia, Guinea and Sierra Leone
have been allocated Catalytic Fund grants, but these
are in process. Sierra Leone’s grant has been in process
for almost two years – illustrating the disbursement
problems the fund has faced. Slow disbursement
continues to plague the Catalytic Fund, causing
difficulties for countries heavily reliant on external
assistance to fund national plans. However, recent
changes in the FTI governance structure and
procedures are expected to address this problem.
Seven CAFS are scheduled for FTI endorsement in
2009. At the time of writing the 2007 Last in Line,
Last in School report, nine CAFS had not been
scheduled for endorsement. Two years on, these
same nine – Afghanistan, Côte d’Ivoire, Myanmar
(Burma), Nepal, Pakistan, Somalia, Sri Lanka, Sudan,
and Zimbabwe – are still not included in the FTI
timetable for endorsement, denying 15 million
children access to education, and millions more
a good quality education. This fact alone is a
compelling reason for finding alternative ways of
financing education in CAFS through the Education
Transition Fund.
The Education Transition Fund
The Education Transition Fund (ETF) has been
established by the FTI to finance education plans
in countries that do not meet the eligibility criteria
for financing through the Catalytic Fund.31 As a
multi-donor trust fund managed by UNICEF, it will
9
●
LAST IN LINE, LAST IN SCHOOL 2009
operate in tandem with the Catalytic Fund. It is
intended to offer more flexible and less risk-averse
financing, tailored to the immediate education needs
of CAFS, at the same time as strengthening technical
and administrative capacity, and addressing the
fiduciary concerns of donors.
The success of the ETF will depend on a wide range
of donors adequately resourcing the fund, and on
addressing issues of governments’ weak absorptive
capacity. It will need to be quick in its decisionmaking and disbursal of predictable aid, and be
flexible in responding to the diverse and changing
contexts of CAFS.
It is important that the ETF proposal is endorsed at
the FTI Partnership Meetings in Copenhagen in April
2009, and that the fund becomes fully operational
shortly afterwards in order to accelerate progress
towards UPE in CAFS.
10
Global Fund for Education
A Global Fund for Education (GFE) has recently been
proposed,32 to address slow progress towards achieving
the EFA goals, to mobilise increased resources for
education, and to improve donor accountability in
delivering additional aid for education. It is intended
to operate as a multilateral fund encompassing a wide
range of aid modalities, building on the key strengths
and experience of the FTI.
The GFE represents a unique opportunity for
galvanising increased focus on, and support for,
CAFS. Commitment to meeting the educational needs
of children in low-income countries – and CAFS in
particular – will need to be clearly stated as part of the
fund’s mandate, in order to ensure progress towards
UPE. It will need to be backed up with appropriate
channels for delivering aid, in order to build capacity
and increase aid predictability.
3 Education in emergencies
Humanitarian funding for
education falls short of need
Many children around the world living through
emergencies and chronic crises are dependent on
humanitarian aid to provide access to education.
Conflict-affected fragile states (CAFS) in particular
rely heavily on humanitarian aid. On average between
2005 and 2007, 12% of aid to CAFS was in the form
of emergency assistance and reconstruction funding,
compared with less than 3% in other low-income
countries (LICs).
Recent trends: Greater recognition of the need to
fund education as part of humanitarian response has
resulted in the amount of humanitarian aid allocated
to education more than doubling from US$112 million
in 2006 to $235m in 2008. However, coverage of
education in the Consolidated Appeals Process (CAP)
continues to remain low – with just 48% of
requirements met in 2008.
Education has positive long-term effects that
contribute to the rebuilding of systems in the
aftermath of an emergency or crisis. It provides
protection for children, and promotes justice and
respect for human rights – enhancing peace and
stability (Aguilar and Retamal, 2009).
Action required: Sustain the increase in aid flows
to education in emergency situations, and ensure
that education programmes are funded as part of
humanitarian response.
This chapter analyses trends in the allocation of
humanitarian aid to education, examining donor aid
commitments and policies for providing education
in emergency situations.
Despite greater recognition of the need to fund
education in emergencies, and the amount of aid
allocated having more than doubled – from $112m
in 2006 to $235m in 2008 – education still only
receives 2% of humanitarian aid (Table 1).
Table 1: Humanitarian aid allocated to education
Year
Humanitarian aid
(US$ millions)
Aid to education
(US$ millions)
Education aid as % of
humanitarian aid
2006
7,615
112
1.5
2007
7,760
147
1.9
2008
11,494
235
2.0
Source: UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) Financial Tracking Service (FTS)
11
●
LAST IN LINE, LAST IN SCHOOL 2009
Table 2: CERF contributions to education
Year
Total aid
(US$ millions)
Aid to education
(US$ millions)
Education aid
as % of total aid
2006
257.3
1.1
0.4
2007
351.8
4.9
1.4
2008
425.6
6.8
1.6
Source: OCHA FTS
These increases are the result of sustained advocacy
for education in emergencies and several developments
in humanitarian funding, including: the expanded
Central Emergency Response Fund (CERF); the
country-level pooled funding mechanisms that have
incorporated education components – Common
Humanitarian Funds (CHFs) and Emergency
Response Funds (ERFs); and the formation of an
Education Cluster. A further development is the
Inter-Agency Network for Education in Emergencies
(INEE) and Sphere’s33 announcement of a
companionship agreement, whereby the INEE (2006)
Minimum Standards for Education in Emergencies,
Chronic Crises and Early Reconstruction 34 will be
mainstreamed throughout the Sphere standards, and
vice versa. This is significant, as many humanitarian
donors support Sphere and a number of them
mention the standards in their humanitarian policy.
Since 2006, CERF contributions to education
increased significantly, from $1.1m in 2006 to $6.8m
in 2008 (Table 2). This represents an increase in the
proportion of CERF humanitarian funding disbursed
to education activities from 0.4% in 2006 to 1.6% in
2008. These increases are largely due to a revision of
CERF guidelines to systematically include education
as a funding sector in emergency response.
Despite these positive trends, education in emergencies
continues to be underfunded. Figures recorded
by the Consolidated Appeals Process (CAP) – the
humanitarian sector’s main tool for coordination,
Table 3: Consolidated and flash appeals – global requirements, and funding overall and for education
Year
Overall funding (US$ millions)
Funding
requirements
Funding
received
% of
coverage
Funding
requirements
Funding
received
% of
coverage
2006
5,061
3,364
66%
212
55
26%
2007
5,142
3,720
72%
162
65
40%
2008
7,232
5,078
70%
334
162
48%
Source: OCHA FTS
12
Education (US$ millions)
3
E D U C AT I O N I N E M E R G E N C I E S ●
Coordination for education in emergencies: the education cluster
The Inter-Agency Standing Committee (IASC)
Education Cluster (co-led by UNICEF and Save the
Children) is intended to strengthen preparedness,
coordination and technical capacity within the
education sector in order to respond to humanitarian
emergencies. An Education Cluster approach is
currently active in 28 countries, 19 of which
are CAFS.35
At a global level, the cluster has a variety of roles,
including: broadening understanding of the importance
of education in humanitarian response; providing a
rapid response to emergencies; coordinating the work
of all the different agencies involved in a humanitarian
response; supporting emergency preparedness plans;
strategic planning and programming – show that
while the trend towards increased aid for education
is encouraging, funding is still well below what
is needed.
Although there has been increased coverage of
education requirements, less than half of all funding
requests to the CAP – 48% – were met in 200836
(Table 3). Ten out of the 11 countries37 that requested
CAP funding included education requirements.
However, experience shows that not all education
needs/projects are put forward to be part of the CAP.
This needs to happen more consistently in the future,
to ensure that all education requirements are
fully funded.
In 2009, education funding requested in the CAP
reached its highest levels yet – $383m up to February
2009, compared with a total of $334m for 2008.
Twelve out of the 13 countries38 requesting CAP
funding included education requirements. The
challenge will be to ensure that these funding needs
are met over the course of the year.
and enhancing the capacity of emergency response
staff (Save the Children, 2008a). At a national level, the
cluster works to establish networks of agencies on the
ground that can provide a coordinated, high-quality
response to emergency situations; and it ensures
collaboration with other clusters such as protection,
shelter, camp management and early recovery.
To date, the key donors to support the education
component of the cluster appeal have been Denmark,
Ireland, Norway and Sweden. In addition, UNICEF has
supported the education cluster using funds from the
grant for Education in Emergencies, Post-Crisis Transitions
and Fragile States that it received from the Netherlands
in late 2006.
Donors still give education a low
priority in emergencies
Recent trends: Many donors still have not prioritised
education as part of their emergency response.
Nineteen of the 22 Development Assistance
Committee (DAC) donors allocate less than 3% of
their humanitarian funding to education, and only five
have explicitly stated their commitment to providing
education in emergency situations.
Action required: Donors must make explicit their
intentions to fund education in emergencies in both
their policy and budgetary commitments. As one of
the largest humanitarian donors, the EC Humanitarian
Office (ECHO) in particular must ensure priority
for education in emergencies. All donors should
allocate a minimum of 4.2% 39 of their humanitarian
aid to education.
Bilateral donors’ record of supporting education in
emergencies is mixed, with only a core few donors –
Australia, Denmark and Japan – having consistently
13
●
LAST IN LINE, LAST IN SCHOOL 2009
Figure 7: Percentage of humanitarian aid allocated to education by donor (average 2005–08)
5.2
Denmark
3.8
Japan
Australia
3.6
Netherlands
2.7
Norway
2.3
EC
1.9
Ireland
1.9
Italy
1.9
New Zealand
1.7
Sweden
1.4
Spain
1.4
Canada
1.3
Belgium
1.2
0.7
Finland
USA
0.7
Switzerland
0.7
Germany
0.5
Austria
0.4
ECHO
0.4
France
0.3
UK
0.3
Luxembourg
0.05
Portugal
4.2% = target amount needed
to match education needs
(based on 2006 CAP)
0
Greece
0
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
% humanitarian aid allocated to education
Source: OCHA FTS
allocated more than a 3% share of their humanitarian
assistance to education (Figure 7).
Just five donors – Canada, Denmark, Japan, Norway,
and Sweden – have clear policies on education
in emergencies.40 In 2008 only Denmark met the
target of allocating 4.2% of its humanitarian aid
to education.
The EC Humanitarian Office (ECHO) – one of the
largest humanitarian donors – allocates an average
of just 0.4% of its humanitarian aid to education,
14
indicating that education has not been one of its
priority areas. However, in February 2008, ECHO
launched a working document on children in
humanitarian crises. One of the three themes of this
paper focused on the important role of education
in emergencies, and laid down a commitment to
develop more operational recommendations for its
humanitarian interventions in education. It is hoped
that this will translate into greater priority being
given to education in ECHO’s emergency response.
4 Conclusion
As we enter the final stretch towards the 2015
deadline for achieving the education Millennium
Development Goals (MDGs), 75 million primaryaged children remain out of school. More than half
of these – 40 million – live in conflict-affected fragile
states (CAFS). The benefits of providing access
to education for these children have been widely
acknowledged, yet funding levels continue to lag far
behind what is required. In the wake of the global
financial crisis, aid for education in CAFS has never
been more vital, as national governments are likely
to find it even more difficult to fund education.
This report provides evidence of an increased focus
on providing education aid for CAFS, as well as those
countries experiencing emergencies. However, funding
levels need to increase significantly, and support must
be given to innovative aid delivery mechanisms, if the
goal of universal primary education (UPE) is to be
achieved by 2015.
Experience shows that some CAFS are unsuited to
the partnership requirements embodied by the aid
effectiveness agenda. This is often because they lack
the capacity to design and/or implement education
programmes, or the ability to raise sufficient domestic
funds. Funding mechanisms, therefore, need to be
tailored to address the specific needs of CAFS. In
particular, they need to focus on building capacity
and mitigating fiduciary risk, as well as ensuring that
quicker and more predictable aid is delivered to the
education sector.
In the case of emergencies, what is needed is a
commitment to initiate and restore safe, good quality
education services as part of humanitarian response,
laying a strong foundation upon which more stable
and resilient systems and societies can be built in the
reconstruction phase for sustainable development.
It is essential that adequate resources for education are
made available urgently for short-term interventions,
and that aid is sustained over the long term for
rebuilding education institutions and systems.
The international donor community has a pivotal
role to play in securing a dramatic expansion in
educational opportunities for children in CAFS.
Save the Children believes that the right to education
should be made a reality for all children, regardless of
their circumstances.
15
5 Recommendations
1. Increase long-term predictable aid for
education in CAFS
2. Ensure that education needs in
emergency situations are met
This requires donors to:
• Ensure funding is equitable based on need,
with at least 50% of new basic education aid
commitments going to CAFS
Urgent action is needed by: Australia, Austria,
Canada, Finland, France, Germany, Ireland,
Italy, Japan, Luxembourg, the Netherlands,
New Zealand, Norway, Spain, Switzerland, and
the UK, as well as the European Commission.
• Increase basic education aid to meet the
US$9 billion annual external financing
requirement for achieving good quality UPE
Urgent action is needed by: Australia, Austria,
Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Finland, France,
Germany, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Japan,
Luxembourg, Portugal, Spain, Sweden,
Switzerland, the UK, and the USA.
• Prioritise education in CAFS, ensuring that at least
10% of ODA in CAFS is allocated to education
Urgent action is needed by: Australia, Austria,
Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Finland, France,
Germany, Italy, Japan, Luxembourg, the
Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Spain,
Sweden, Switzerland, the UK, and the USA,
as well as the European Commission.
• Meet the Education for All-Fast Track Initiative
financing gaps, and ensure adequate funding of
the FTI’s Education Transition Fund
Urgent action is needed by: All donors and
UNICEF.
This requires donors to:
• Establish policies on education in emergencies
that ensure education is an integral part of
humanitarian response
Urgent action is needed by: Australia, Austria,
Belgium, Finland, France, Germany, Greece,
Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, New
Zealand, Portugal, Spain, Switzerland, the UK, and
the USA, as well as the European Commission.
• Allocate a minimum of 4.2% of humanitarian
aid to education, to meet education funding
requirements in emergency situations
Urgent action is needed by: Australia, Austria,
Belgium, Canada, Finland, France, Germany,
Greece, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Luxembourg, the
Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Portugal,
Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, the UK, and the
USA, as well as the European Commission.
• Support coordination for education in
humanitarian response through the Inter-Agency
Standing Committee (IASC) Education Cluster
Urgent action is needed by: All donors.
16
Bibliography
Aguilar, P and Retamal, G (2009) ‘Protective environments and
Nowell, L (2006) CRS Report for Congress on Foreign Aid:
quality education in humanitarian contexts’ International Journal
Understanding data used to compare donors
of Educational Development Vol. 29, No.1, pp.3–16
Bermingham, D (2009) We Don’t Need No Education?: Why the
United States should take the lead on Global Education Washington
DC: Centre for Global Development
Brannelly, L and Ndaruhutse, S (2008) Education Finance in
States Affected by Fragility Prepared for INEE Policy Roundtable
27–28 October 2008 Brussels, Belgium
Bruns, B, Mingat, A and Rakotomalala, R (2003) Achieving
Universal Primary Education by 2015: A chance for every child
Washington DC: World Bank
Buckland, P (2005) Reshaping the Future: Education and
Postconflict Reconstruction Washington DC: World Bank
Education Policy and Data Center (2008) 2008 series of education
projections to 2015 and 2025 Background paper for Education for
All Global Monitoring Report 2009
FTI Secretariat (2006) Analysis of Official Development Assistance
Washington DC: Fast Track Initiative
FTI Secretariat (2008a) Catalytic Fund: Annual Status Report
Washington DC: Fast Track Initiative
FTI Secretariat (2008b) The Road to 2015: Reaching the Education
Goals Washington DC: Fast Track Initiative
G8 (2007) Growth and Responsibility in Africa Summit Declaration
G8 Summit, Heiligendamm
Global Campaign for Education (2006) A Global Report Card
Ranking Governments’ Efforts to Achieve Education for All
Johannesburg: GCE
International Network for Education in Emergencies (2006)
OECD (2008) Aid Targets Slipping Out of Reach? Paris: OECD
Rose, P and Greeley, M (2006) Education in Fragile States:
Capturing Lessons and Identifying Good Practice Prepared for the
DAC Fragile States Group
Save the Children (2007) Last in Line, Last in School: How donors
are failing children in conflict-affected fragile states London: Save the
Children
Save the Children (2008a) Delivering Education for Children in
Emergencies: A key building block for the future London: Save the
Children
Save the Children (2008b) Last in Line, Last in School 2008: How
donors can support education for children affected by conflict and
emergencies London: Save the Children
Sperling, G (2008) A Global Education Fund: Toward a True
Global Compact on Universal Education New York: Council on
Foreign Relations
UNESCO (2006) EFA Global Monitoring Report 2007: Strong
Foundations – Early childhood care and education Paris: UNESCO
UNESCO (2007) EFA Global Monitoring Report 2008: Will we
make it? Paris: UNESCO
UNESCO (2008) EFA Global Monitoring Report 2009:
Overcoming inequality – why governance matters Paris: UNESCO
United Nations (2007) Children and Conflict in a Changing World:
Machel Study 10-Year Strategic Review New York: United Nations
World Education Forum (2000) The Dakar Framework for Action:
Meeting our Collective Commitments Dakar: World Education
Forum
Minimum Standards for Education in Emergencies, Chronic Crises
and Early Reconstruction New York: INEE
17
Endnotes
1 Introduction
8
Secretary of State for International Development Douglas
Alexander’s speech at Chatham House on 24 February 2009:
1
http://www.childinfo.org/education_outofschool.php
2
See Appendix 1: Methodology for details of country classification
http://www.dfid.gov.uk/news/files/speeches/sos-wb-speech.asp
9
Ibid
and the full list of conflict-affected fragile states (CAFS).
3
The number of out-of-school children in CAFS has been
compiled using the 2009 EFA Global Monitoring Report
(UNESCO, 2008) as a primary source. Where out-of-school
figures were unavailable in the EFA Global Monitoring
Report, these have been sourced from UNICEF:
http://www.childinfo.org/education_outofschool.php
4
Following the publication of the 2008 EFA Global Monitoring
Report (UNESCO, 2007), the UNESCO Institute for Statistics
revised its estimate for out-of-school children upwards from
72 million to 77 million using new population data. The current
estimation of out-of-school children worldwide is 75 million
(UNESCO, 2008). Taking into account population data revisions,
Save the Children calculates that there are 40 million children
out-of school in CAFS.
5
In 2008, INEE established the Working Group on Education
2 Aid, education and conflict-affected
fragile states
10
As data is not available for primary education, figures for basic
education are used. Basic education according to the OECD
comprises early childhood education, primary education and
basic life skills training for young people and adults.
11
UNESCO (2006) estimates the annual global external financing
required to achieve UPE in low-income countries to be $9 billion
(at 2003 prices). This UNESCO estimate is based on a World
Bank simulation exercise run on 47 countries (Bruns et al, 2003).
It is extrapolated for the whole low-income group and factors in
additional costs related to domestic financing, HIV and AIDS,
and conflict (UNESCO, 2006). To estimate the proportion of
the $9 billion financing requirement that is needed in CAFS,
Save the Children returned to the World Bank study, finding that
and Fragility. The working group is an inter-agency group
58% of the external financing needs belonged to CAFS. Scaling
comprised of 21 institutions that aims to strengthen consensus on
up according to UNESCO’s (2006) recommendations and as a
how best to mitigate state fragility through education; support the
proportion of the $9 billion, the financing requirements of CAFS
development of effective quality education programmes in fragile
is estimated to be $5.2 billion annually.
states; and promote the development of alternative financing
mechanisms to support education in fragile states in the period
of transition from humanitarian to development assistance.
6
Overall aid commitments peaked in 2006 at $127bn as the result
of major debt relief, and declined in 2007 to $116bn. Overall aid
to CAFS dropped by more than a third between 2005 and 2007,
explained in part by the tapering-off of debt relief to Nigeria. In
CAFS, total ODA dropped from $53bn in 2005 to $34bn in
2007. In other LICs, ODA rose slightly from $26bn to $27bn
over the same period.
12
commitments in 2005. The contraction in commitments signals
a shrinkage in future education aid flows.
13
At 2004 prices – the equivalent of $138bn at 2006 prices.
18
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
7
Disbursements in other LICs have declined due to a drop in
For example, Pakistan’s progress toward UPE has slowed between
2005 and 2006 (Education Policy and Data Centre, 2008). Those
E N D N OT E S ●
countries for which formal projections are not possible are unlikely
24
to achieve UPE either. For example, conservative estimates suggest
was available for 12 out of 28 CAFS and 19 out of 31 other LICs.
that, by 2015, there will be 1.5 million children out of school in
The FTI Secretariat (2006) recommends that approximately 20%
Sudan (UNESCO, 2008: 66)
of national budgets should be allocated to education.
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.
25
The Dakar Framework for Action sets ambitious targets for
education, agreeing that no country committed to Education for
This has dropped from 30% since publication of the 2007 Last
in Line, Last in School report.
26
For more information on donors’ prioritisation of education in
CAFS and other LICs, refer to Appendix 2: Donor profiles.
27
16
Calculations based on figures cited in UNESCO (2008). Data
For further information see: http://www1.worldbank.org/
harmonization/Paris/FINALPARISDECLARATION.pdf
All will be thwarted in its achievement of the goal for lack of
28
resources (World Education Forum, 2000). The G8 reaffirmed this
fileadmin/templates/pdfs/accraseptagendafin.pdf
For further information see: http://www.dgfoundation.org/
at its 2007 summit in Heiligendamm, Germany (G8, 2007).
29
17
Annual variability alone does not explain the drop in education
These are Australia, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, EC, France,
Germany, Ireland, Italy, Japan, the Netherlands, Norway, Romania,
aid in 2005. The drop was concentrated mainly in Bangladesh,
Russia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, and the UK. Canada, Italy,
China and India. The World Bank and the UK Department for
Norway, Sweden, and Denmark have all substantially increased
International Development (DFID), which were the main donors
commitments to the FTI over the course of the past two years.
to the countries, made large commitments in 2004 that
Italy’s and Denmark’s commitments to the FTI more than tripled
contributed to the drop in 2005.
between 2007 and 2008, in a move away from project-based aid.
18
According to the Global Campaign for Education. See:
30
The Catalytic Fund was initially designed to provide transitional
http://www.campaignforeducation.org/en/why-education-for-all/
funding for countries until more donors came on board. It has
education-promises/ UNESCO (2008) refers to $11bn being
since been expanded to provide longer-term financing to any
needed annually in low-income countries to achieve three of the
country with a financing gap.
targets set in the Dakar Framework for Action on Education for
All: universal primary education, early childhood programmes,
and adult literacy.
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
19
The share of education aid allocated to basic education is 49% in
Netherlands in 2006.
CAFS, 45% in other LICs, and 25% in MICs.
32
20
The fair share analysis is based on bilateral aid only and does not
account for bilateral contributions to multilateral agencies.
21
Ireland, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, New Zealand and
Norway all continue to commit more than 80% of their fair share.
22
It should be noted that Australia’s 2008/09 aid budget includes
More recently the Global Campaign for Education and others,
including US-based NGOs, have also called for the establishment
of a GFE. It was initially proposed by President Barack Obama
in his election campaign, and the proposal was reiterated by
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in her Senate confirmation
hearing. Further details on the GFE can be found in Sperling
(2008) and Bermingham (2009).
substantial increases in education aid. Approximately US$500m in
new funding is scheduled for the next three years to strengthen
3 Education in emergencies
basic education systems, access and quality.
33
23
Russia is also a G8 member but is not accounted for in this
analysis as it is not a DAC donor.
The Sphere project was launched in 1997 by a group of
humanitarian NGOs and the Red Cross and Red Crescent. It has
produced the Humanitarian Charter and Minimum Standards in
Disaster Response handbook and other tools.
19
●
34
LAST IN LINE, LAST IN SCHOOL 2009
The INEE Minimum Standards serve as a useful framework for
developing policies for education in emergencies, fragile states and
reconstruction contexts that promote rights-based programming
and establish relevant links to child protection.
35
Afghanistan, Burundi, Central African Republic, Chad,
Colombia, Côte d’Ivoire, Democratic Republic of Congo,
Ethiopia, Guinea, Haiti, Iraq, Myanmar (Burma), Nepal, Pakistan,
Somalia, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Timor Leste and Uganda.
36
Only Agriculture (42%), Economic Recovery and Infrastructure
(37%), Health (46%), Mine Action (20%), and Safety and
Security of Staff and Operations (6%) had fewer of their funding
requirements met.
37
Central African Republic, Chad, Côte d’Ivoire, Democratic
Republic of Congo, Iraq, occupied Palestinian territory, Somalia,
20
Sudan, Uganda and Zimbabwe requested education funding.
West Africa did not.
38
Afghanistan, Central African Republic, Chad, Democratic
Republic of Congo, Iraq, Kenya, occupied Palestinian territory,
Somalia, Sudan, Uganda, West Africa and Zimbabwe requested
aid funding. Côte d’Ivoire did not.
39
Recommended by Save the Children (2007; 2008b), based on
the 2006 CAP. In 2006, 4.2% of humanitarian funds requested
were for the education sector, and so represent the minimum needs
for education in emergencies in that year.
40
It should be noted that Spain’s 2009–2012 development strategy
mentions the need to support basic education in emergencies and
post-crisis contexts.
Appendix 1: Methodology
Country classification
While there is general agreement over what constitutes
a ‘fragile’ or ‘failing’ state – conflict, a lack of political
will and/or capacity – there is no international
consensus on a definition (UNESCO, 2007). A
number of organisations, including the World Bank
and Organisation for Economic DevelopmentDevelopment Assistance Committee (OECD-DAC),
have therefore developed lists of fragile states based
on differing criteria.
In order to analyse education issues in those fragile
states that are also affected by conflict, Save the
Children established a list of 28 ‘conflict-affected
fragile states’ (CAFS) in 2007.1 While acknowledging
that countries will tend to move in and out of fragility,
Save the Children has used the CAFS list of countries
in previous Last in Line, Last in School reports (Save
the Children, 2007; 2008b) in order to analyse
progress over time.
Conflict-affected fragile states (CAFS)
Afghanistan, Angola, Burundi, Cambodia, Central
African Republic, Chad, Colombia, Republic of
the Congo, Côte d’Ivoire, Democratic Republic of
Congo, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Guinea, Haiti, Iraq, Liberia,
Myanmar (Burma), Nepal, Nigeria, Pakistan, Rwanda,
Sierra Leone, Somalia, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Timor Leste,
Uganda, Zimbabwe.
For purposes of comparison, the external financing
of CAFS is compared with a group of 31 ‘other
low-income countries’.2
Other low-income countries (other LICs)
Bangladesh, Benin, Bhutan, Burkina Faso, Comoros,
Gambia, Ghana, Guinea-Bissau, India, Kenya,
Democratic Republic of Korea, Kyrgyz Republic,
Lao PDR, Madagascar, Malawi, Mali, Mauritania,
Mongolia, Mozambique, Niger, Papua New Guinea,
São Tomé and Príncipe, Senegal, Solomon Islands,
Tajikistan, Tanzania, Togo, Uzbekistan, Vietnam,
Yemen, Zambia.
Data sources
This report relies on secondary data compiled by
the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and
Development (OECD). The data were accessed from
the OECD Creditor Reporter System (CRS),3 an
online database that gives detailed information
on aid activities, including aid flows to education
from the 22 DAC 4 countries, the World Bank, the
European Commission, the African and Asian
Development Funds, the Inter-American
Development Bank Special Fund, and UNICEF.
The CRS does not allow for an analysis of
humanitarian aid by sector. In order to analyse
humanitarian aid to education – which in some
CAFS is a major source of education financing
– this study refers to the UN Office for the
Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA)
Financial Tracking Service.5
21
●
LAST IN LINE, LAST IN SCHOOL 2009
Methods
To obtain an accurate profile of official development
assistance (ODA) flows supporting the education
sector, the analysis takes into account reported
education ODA and general budget support, which is
crucial for the development of education systems. The
FTI Secretariat (2006) suggests that between 15% and
25% of general budget support benefits the education
sector. This report accounts for 20% of general budget
support as being allocated to the education sector.
Basic education aid6 in this report includes reported
basic education ODA and 10% of budget support
and one-third of ‘Education – Level Unspecified’.
Assuming that 50% of the budget to education is
allocated to primary education (in line with the
FTI benchmark), it would represent around 7.5%
to 12.5% of total general budget support. Therefore,
an average of 10% general budget support is included
in basic education aid. One-third of the category
‘Education – Level Unspecified’ (which accounts for
education sector budget support) is also included, in
line with the Global Campaign for Education (2006)
recommendations.
As amounts committed to education aid are likely
to fluctuate over time, they are analysed here over
several years in order to examine trends in donor
behaviour. Where average commitment figures are
used these are based on commitment data for the
period 2005–07. Aid data are presented based on
the calendar year and all ODA figures adjusted
for inflation – expressed in 2006 US dollars.
Humanitarian aid flows to education are stated as
averages over the period 2005 to 2008, and recorded
in current US dollars.
Limitations
The OECD database constitutes the most
comprehensive internationally comparable data
source on aid flows. However, it does not account
for all international aid. Aid flows reported to the
OECD CRS can differ from those reported by
donors in-country. This can be due to differences in
reporting criteria and reporting years, exchange rate
fluctuations, or differences in what is recorded as aid.7
Moreover, the CRS does not take into account recent
expansions in South–South cooperation and private
aid flows.
Calculating ODA flows to education
Total education aid = Education ODA
+ 20% General Budget Support
Basic education aid = Basic Education ODA
+ 10% General Budget Support
+ one-third ‘Education – Level Unspecified’
Where bilateral donors channel aid through
multilateral organisations, a proportion is often used
for education and reported as multilateral, rather than
bilateral aid. Individual donor profiles therefore do not
reflect all funds committed to education. These funds
are, however, captured in the total education aid
figures recorded in the main body of the report and
All Donors profile in Appendix 2.
Data presentation
The OECD states that the database is virtually
complete since 1999, so this report examines
commitment trends from 1999 onwards.
Disbursement data is referred to from 2002, at
which point the OECD estimates coverage to be
more than 90%.
22
Notes
Countries categorised as conflict-affected are those included on
the Project Ploughshare list of states that experienced at least one
armed conflict in the 1995-2004 period, or those classed as
‘critical’ on the 2006 Failed States Index, which assesses violent
internal conflicts. Countries categorised as fragile are those
1
APPENDIX 1: METHODOLOGY ●
classified as either ‘Core’ or ‘Severe’ on the 2006 Low Income
Countries Under Stress list, which categorises countries according
to their Country Policy and Institutional Assessment rating. As
data is only provided for nation-states, this list does not include
countries experiencing only regional conflict.
The majority of the CAFS are low-income countries. However,
some are lower middle-income countries according to the World
Bank Atlas method, which classifies economies by income group
according to gross national income (GNI) per capita. Removal
of these countries from the analysis does not alter the broad
conclusions of this report.
2
Accessed 2 March 2009 at: http://stats.oecd.org/WBOS/
Index.aspx?DatasetCode=CRSNEW
3
The DAC is the principal body through which the OECD
cooperates financially with developing countries.
4
5
http://ocha.unog.ch/fts/pageloader.aspx
The CRS records funding to basic rather than primary education.
The CRS definition of basic comprises early childhood education,
primary education and basic life skills for young people and adults.
As primary education data is not available, basic education is used
as a proxy in discussions of commitments and progress toward
universal primary education.
6
See, for example, Nowell (2006), which highlights
methodological differences in US appropriations figures and
those reported by DAC.
7
23
Appendix 2: Donor profiles
Note: Official development assistance (ODA) figures are stated as averages 2005 to 2007,
and humanitarian aid as an average 2005 to 2008.
8% ODA to education
37% education aid to
basic education
Prioritisation of education
(% ODA to education):
5% in CAFS
10% in other LICs
Humanitarian aid to
education:
1.8%
Education aid commitments
Distribution of education aid
4,500
4,129
4,000
3,500
3,089
2,916
2,724
3,000
2,437
2,368
2,500
2,127
1,943
2,574
2,462
2,000
1,617
2,001
1,404
1,912
1,500
1,157 1,147
1,678
1,000 742
500
0
1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
Unallocated
13%
3,000
Distribution of basic education
aid
2,677
Unallocated
14%
1,714
1,393
1,500
1,000
500
0
1,125
964
964
388
1,180
1,243
488
596
708
865
879
Other LICs
28%
CAFS
Other LICs
2,500
2,000
CAFS
21%
MICs
38%
Key
Basic education aid commitments
US$ millions
(constant 2006)
Top 3 recipients education
aid (US$ millions):
China 609
Indonesia 373
Pakistan 286
In 2007, education aid commitments to developing countries reached their highest-ever
level at US$11bn. However, only a small proportion of this – $3.5bn – went to basic
education. While the share of education aid allocated to CAFS has increased slightly, the
share to other LICs has fallen. The share allocated to middle-income countries remains
very high. Donors must step up their commitments by:
• increasing aid to basic education from $3.5bn to reach the required $9bn a year to
achieve UPE
• increasing allocations of education and basic education aid to CAFS in line with need
• giving increased priority to education in CAFS
• including education as part of humanitarian policy and response.
US$ millions
(constant 2006)
All donors
CAFS
27%
1,501
1,180
1,026 1,047
MICs
25%
Key
CAFS
Other LICs
1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
Other LICs
34%
24
A P P E N D I X 2 : D O N O R P RO F I L E S ●
Prioritisation of education
(% ODA to education):
2% in CAFS
12% in other LICs
Humanitarian aid to
education:
3.6%
Top 3 recipients education
aid (US$ millions):
Philippines 39
Papua New Guinea 22
Indonesia 22
Austria
9% ODA to education
4% education aid to basic
education
Fair share contribution
to UPE financing
requirement:
5%
Prioritisation of education
(% ODA to education):
1% in CAFS
11% in other LICs
Humanitarian aid to
education:
0.4%
Top 3 recipients education
aid (US$ millions):
Turkey 21
Bosnia-Herzegovina 15
Serbia 10
Education aid commitments
160
Distribution of education aid
151
140
US$ millions
(constant 2006)
Fair share contribution
to UPE financing
requirement:
32%
CAFS 3%
120
100
98
97
60
46
43
40
24
5
Other LICs
23%
Unallocated
36%
80
80
20
10
3
23
9
5
Key
15
1
CAFS
Other LICs
14
2
0
0.3
MICs
38%
1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
Basic education aid commitments
US$ millions
(constant 2006)
30% education aid to
basic education
90
82
74
80
70
60
48
50
43
40
30
30
19
20
13
7
6
10
4
4
2
2
1
0.7
1 0.02
5
0
1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
Distribution of basic education
aid
Unallocated
9%
CAFS 4%
Other LICs
36%
Key
CAFS
Other LICs
MICs
51%
A rise in Austria’s education aid commitments has not led to an increase in support for basic
education. More than three-quarters of education and basic education aid goes to middleincome countries, while the share for CAFS remains extremely low. Austria needs to:
• drastically increase basic education aid to meet its fair share of the financing requirement
• significantly increase allocations of education and basic education aid to CAFS and other LICs
• give increased priority to education in CAFS
• include education as part of humanitarian policy and response.
Education aid commitments
Distribution of education aid
16
14
14
US$ millions
(constant 2006)
13% ODA to education
Australia’s total education aid commitments have continued to rise since 2005. However,
despite slight increases in the share of education aid allocated to CAFS and other LICs,
almost three-quarters of education aid is focused on middle-income countries or classed as
‘unallocated’. To improve its performance, Australia needs to:
• significantly increase basic education aid to meet its fair share of the financing requirement
• drastically increase allocations of education and basic education aid to CAFS
• increase the priority of education in CAFS
• include education in humanitarian policy.
Unallocated
11%
12
10
8
6
7
7
6
4
4
4
4
2
5
5
5
5
3
3
4
4
Key
4
CAFS
Other LICs
1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
Basic education aid commitments
1.8
1.6
1.4
1.2
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
CAFS 5%
Other LICs 7%
6
5
0
US$ millions
(constant 2006)
Australia
MICs
77%
Distribution of basic education
aid
Unallocated CAFS
9%
9%
1.7
Other LICs
5%
1.2
0.8
0.7
0.1
0.1
0.4
0.1 0.1
0.1
0.1
0.7
0.3
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.2
0.2
Key
CAFS
Other LICs
MICs
77%
1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
25
LAST IN LINE, LAST IN SCHOOL 2009
Fair share contribution
to UPE financing
requirement:
31%
Prioritisation of education
(% ODA to education):
7% in CAFS
16% in other LICs
Humanitarian aid to
education:
1.2%
Top 3 recipients education
aid (US$ millions):
Democratic Republic
of Congo 14
Rwanda 11
Vietnam 7
Canada
10% ODA to education
70% education aid to
basic education
Fair share contribution
to UPE financing
requirement:
59%
Prioritisation of education
(% ODA to education):
7% in CAFS
36% in other LICs
Humanitarian aid to
education:
1.3%
Top 3 recipients education
aid (US$ millions):
Mali 44
Afghanistan 40
Mozambique 31
26
Education aid commitments
Distribution of education aid
60
US$ millions
(constant 2006)
20% education aid to
basic education
50
50
37
40
32
30
30
30
32
28
27
26
22
20
10
29
14
41
36
50
13
0
Key
CAFS
Other LICs
1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
Distribution of basic education
aid
Unallocated
25
20
20
15
15
13
0
4
2
6
MICs
9%
19
9
5
CAFS
49%
11
6
Key
2
CAFS
Other LICs
3
3
5%
15
12
11
10
6
Other LICs
22%
MICs
15%
Basic education aid commitments
5
CAFS
28%
Unallocated
35%
31
10
US$ millions
(constant 2006)
11% ODA to education
Basic education aid commitments dropped in 2007 for the first time since 2003, leaving
the proportion of education aid allocated to basic education at just 20%. CAFS’ share of
education and basic education aid continues to increase, but Belgium still needs to:
• significantly increase basic education aid to meet its fair share of the financing requirement
• give increased priority to education in CAFS
• include education as part of humanitarian policy and response.
Other LICs
37%
1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
Canada continues to be a strong supporter of education, especially basic education, and its
aid allocations to education and basic education in CAFS have increased since last year.
Canada can improve its performance further by:
• increasing basic education aid to meet its fair share of the financing requirement
• continuing to increase allocations of education and basic education aid to CAFS
• giving increased priority to education in CAFS
• increasing funding for education in humanitarian response.
Education aid commitments
Distribution of education aid
250
211
US$ millions
(constant 2006)
Belgium
Unallocated 12%
200
164
169
MICs
13%
150
102
100
67
50
60
39
31
35
21
CAFS
23%
89
112
55
37
8
0
88
42
Key
CAFS
Other LICs
8
Other LICs
52%
1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
Basic education aid commitments
US$ millions
(constant 2006)
●
180
158
160
146
140
123
120
100
79
100
80
61
60
48
38
40
26
24
44
20
20
20
19
9
20
3
2
0
1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
Distribution of basic education
aid
Unallocated 11%
CAFS
16%
MICs
13%
Key
CAFS
Other LICs
Other LICs
60%
A P P E N D I X 2 : D O N O R P RO F I L E S ●
49% education aid to
basic education
Fair share contribution
to UPE financing
requirement:
52%
Prioritisation of education
(% ODA to education):
6% in CAFS
7% in other LICs
Humanitarian aid to
education:
5.2%
Top 3 recipients education
aid (US$ millions):
Benin 13
Bolivia 10
Afghanistan 8
Education aid commitments
US$ millions
(constant 2006)
6% ODA to education
Denmark is the leading supporter of education in humanitarian contexts. Its aid
commitments to education in CAFS and other LICs increased slightly in 2007 after two
years of decline. Although CAFS and other LICs continue to receive over 75% of Denmark’s
basic education aid, CAFS’ share of this decreased this year. Denmark still needs to:
• increase basic education aid to meet its fair share of the financing requirement
• increase allocations of education aid to CAFS
• give increased priority to education in CAFS and other LICs.
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Distribution of education aid
77
Unallocated 1%
70
66
MICs
20%
58
62
41
41
31
24
30
26
20
13
2 0.3
Key
9
4
5
CAFS
Other LICs
Basic education aid commitments
60
MICs
11%
45
40
30
35
25
11
15
17
Key
13
7
0.5
CAFS
38%
27
24
20
10
9
2
5
CAFS
Other LICs
12
Prioritisation of education
(% ODA to education):
5% in CAFS
14% in other LICs
Humanitarian aid to
education:
0.7%
Top 3 recipients education
aid (US$ millions):
Mozambique 13
Tanzania 8
Zambia 4
Education aid commitments
40
Distribution of education aid
36
38
35
US$ millions
(constant 2006)
Fair share contribution
to UPE financing
requirement:
35%
Other LICs
51%
Finland is a good supporter of education in other LICs. However, education aid as a
percentage of ODA has decreased this year. Support to education in CAFS has decreased,
and humanitarian aid to education is very low. Finland needs to:
• significantly increase basic education aid to meet its fair share of the financing requirement
• significantly increase the allocation of education and basic education aid to CAFS
• increase the priority of education in CAFS
• include education as part of humanitarian policy and response.
CAFS
16%
Unallocated
18%
30
24
23
25
20
18
20
15
10
9
5
1
18
15
8
6
MICs
9%
16
10
4
9
Key
4
CAFS
Other LICs
0.5
0
Other LICs
57%
1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
Basic education aid commitments
Distribution of basic education
aid
Unallocated
25
7%
21
US$ millions
(constant 2006)
43% education aid to
basic education
Unallocated 0%
40
1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
7% ODA to education
Other LICs
54%
Distribution of basic education
aid
57
50
0
Finland
CAFS
25%
1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
US$ millions
(constant 2006)
Denmark
20
MICs
12%
19
16
15
13
11
10
5
0
8
8
3
0.4
6
4
2
CAFS
20%
3
5
3
4
5
0.1
1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
Key
CAFS
Other LICs
Other LICs
61%
27
LAST IN LINE, LAST IN SCHOOL 2009
France
18% ODA to education
10% education aid to
basic education
Fair share contribution
to UPE financing
requirement:
25%
Prioritisation of education
(% ODA to education):
5% in CAFS
19% in other LICs
Education aid commitments
Distribution of education aid
400
366
350
250
224
200 158
150
100
131
Unallocated 2%
294
290
300
CAFS 10%
243
210
124
190
188
236
123
142
174
Other LICs
20%
163
128
Key
105
CAFS
Other LICs
50
0
MICs
68%
1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
Basic education aid commitments
90
81
85
80
78
80
70
60
49
46
50
41
39
39
40 35
30
18
20 28
14
12 16
19
7
10
8
0
1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
Distribution of basic education
aid
Unallocated 7%
CAFS
9%
Top 3 recipients education
aid (US$ millions):
Morocco 199
Algeria 153
China 122
US$ millions
(constant 2006)
Humanitarian aid to
education:
0.3%
France allocates a substantial amount of its aid to education. However, the proportion
of this that goes to basic education is very low. The majority of France’s education aid
continues to go to middle-income countries. France can improve its performance by:
• drastically increasing basic education aid to meet its fair share of the financing requirement
• significantly increasing allocations of education and basic education aid to CAFS
• giving increased priority to education in CAFS
• including education as part of humanitarian policy and response.
US$ millions
(constant 2006)
●
Germany
Germany’s support for basic education in other LICs more than tripled in 2007. Germany’s
support of CAFS for both education and basic education remains low. Germany can
improve its performance by:
• drastically increasing basic education aid to meet its fair share of the financing requirement
• significantly increasing allocations of education and basic education aid to CAFS
• increasing priority for education in CAFS
• including education as part of humanitarian policy and response.
Fair share contribution
to UPE financing
requirement:
20%
Prioritisation of education
(% ODA to education):
3% in CAFS
12% in other LICs
Humanitarian aid to
education:
0.5%
Top 3 recipients education
aid (US$ millions):
China 155
Indonesia 41
Turkey 40
CAFS
Other LICs
273
Unallocated
16%
250
191
200
150
MICs
53%
Distribution of education aid
300
183
166
120
105
115
100 108
114
105
74
119
CAFS 9%
Other LICs
17%
131
103
81
50
110
82
Key
60
CAFS
Other LICs
0
1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
Basic education aid commitments
MICs
58%
Distribution of basic education
aid
140
Unallocated
10%
116
120
CAFS
16%
100
80
60
40
27
20
26
0
25
38
29
25
11
12
10
12
41
38
35
25
18
24
25
1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
28
Key
Education aid commitments
US$ millions
(constant 2006)
15% education aid to
basic education
US$ millions
(constant 2006)
11% ODA to education
Other LICs
31%
MICs
34%
Key
CAFS
Other LICs
Other LICs
40%
A P P E N D I X 2 : D O N O R P RO F I L E S ●
6% education aid to basic
education
Fair share contribution
to UPE financing
requirement:
3%
Prioritisation of education
(% ODA to education):
25% in CAFS
33% in other LICs
Humanitarian aid to
education:
0%
Top 3 recipients education
aid (US$ millions):
Albania 13
Afghanistan 3
Turkey 3
Education aid commitments
Distribution of education aid
14
13
Unallocated 0%
12
US$ millions
(constant 2006)
19% ODA to education
Greece is a strong supporter of education as a share of its total aid. However, more than
three-quarters of this is allocated to middle-income countries, and just 6% is directed to
basic education. Greece commits none of its humanitarian aid to education. Greece needs to:
• drastically increase basic education aid to meet its fair share of the financing requirement
• significantly increase education aid allocations to CAFS and other LICs
• include education as part of humanitarian policy and response.
8
Other LICs
2%
6
6
4
3
0.8
0.3
0
1
4
0.2 0.4
0.5
Key
1.7
CAFS
Other LICs
0.2
Basic education aid commitments
3.5
Distribution of basic education
aid
3.3
Unallocated 2%
3.0
2.5
2.0
MICs
41%
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.5
0.05
0.4
0.1
0.1 0.1
0.02 0.03
CAFS
Other LICs
0.3
Prioritisation of education
(% ODA to education):
10% in CAFS
17% in other LICs
Humanitarian aid to
education:
1.9%
Top 3 recipients education
aid (US$ millions):
Uganda 12
Zambia 11
Mozambique 10
Education aid commitments
Distribution of education aid
40
36
35
US$ millions
(constant 2006)
Fair share contribution
to UPE financing
requirement:
80%
Other LICs 2%
Ireland remains a strong education supporter that gives priority to basic education. It is
committed to supporting education and basic education in low-income countries.
However, the share of education and basic education aid allocated to CAFS and other LICs
has decreased in recent years. Ireland needs to:
• meet its fair share of the basic education financing requirement
• increase allocations of education and basic education aid to CAFS
• include education as part of humanitarian policy and response.
29
30
25
25
20
17
28
27
26
23
20
22
MICs
12%
23
15
10
8
Key
CAFS
Other LICs
0
Other LICs
41%
1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
Basic education aid commitments
20
18
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
CAFS
31%
24
28
16
Unallocated
16%
29
5
US$ millions
(constant 2006)
56% education aid to
basic education
CAFS
55%
Key
0.6
1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
12% ODA to education
MICs
79%
1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
0
Ireland
CAFS
19%
10
2
US$ millions
(constant 2006)
Greece
19
19
13
12
18
17
12
14
Unallocated
17%
17
CAFS
29%
10
11
6
15
Distribution of basic education
aid
MICs
13%
11
9
Key
5
CAFS
Other LICs
1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
Other LICs
41%
29
LAST IN LINE, LAST IN SCHOOL 2009
3% ODA to education
25% education aid to
basic education
Fair share contribution
to UPE financing
requirement:
3%
Prioritisation of education
(% ODA to education):
1% in CAFS
3% in other LICs
Humanitarian aid to
education:
1.9%
Top 3 recipients education
aid (US$ millions):
Palestinian Adm. Areas 3
Afghanistan 3
Mozambique 3
The proportion of total aid allocated to education and basic education remains
significantly low. Italy needs to:
• drastically increase basic education aid to meet its fair share of the financing requirement
• increase allocations of education and basic education aid to CAFS and other LICs
• give increased priority to education in CAFS and other LICs
• include education in humanitarian policy and response
• maintain commitment to ensure timely reporting of education aid data to the OECD-DAC.
Education aid commitments
US$ millions
(constant 2006)
Italy
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
Distribution of education aid
47
CAFS
18%
33
18
22
21
14
6
Unallocated
42%
17
11
8
6
2
2
1
6
7
6
6
CAFS
Other LICs
MICs
31%
1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
16
Distribution of basic education
aid
15
14
11
12
7
8
6
7
6
5
4
4
2
1
2
2
2
0.3
0.1
0.8
0.7
1
3
Key
CAFS
Other LICs
1
1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
Fair share contribution
to UPE financing
requirement:
18%
Prioritisation of education
(% ODA to education):
2% in CAFS
4% in other LICs
Humanitarian aid to
education:
3.8%
Top 3 recipients education
aid (US$ millions):
China 267
Indonesia 90
Vietnam 37
Education aid commitments
Distribution of education aid
215
Unallocated 5%
200
150
167
163
121
100
76
50
28
0
92
78
69
31
Other LICs
21%
115
72
78
77
Key
64
CAFS
Other LICs
13
1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
Basic education aid commitments
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
CAFS 10%
184
164
81
70
47
47
35
33
25
85
75
44
46
2%
60
29
CAFS
17%
MICs
45%
38
39
MICs
64%
Distribution of basic education
aid
Unallocated
24
Key
9
21
1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
30
MICs
38%
250
US$ millions
(constant 2006)
26% education aid to
basic education
Other LICs
8%
Though Japan’s basic education aid to other LICs increased in 2007, basic education aid to
CAFS has been in decline since 2005. Nearly two-thirds of all education aid is allocated to
middle-income countries. Japan needs to:
• drastically increase support to basic education to meet its fair share of the financing
requirement
• significantly increase allocations of education and basic education aid to CAFS
• give increased priority to education in CAFS and other LICs.
US$ millions
(constant 2006)
6% ODA to education
CAFS
25%
Unallocated
29%
10
0
Japan
Other LICs
9%
Key
Basic education aid commitments
US$ millions
(constant 2006)
●
CAFS
Other LICs
Other LICs
36%
A P P E N D I X 2 : D O N O R P RO F I L E S ●
32% education aid to
basic education
Fair share contribution
to UPE financing
requirement:
97%
Prioritisation of education
(% ODA to education):
5% in CAFS
16% in other LICs
Humanitarian aid to
education:
0.05%
Top 3 recipients education
aid (US$ millions):
Senegal 5
Cape Verde 5
El Salvador 3
Education aid commitments
US$ millions
(constant 2006)
13% ODA to education
The share of basic education aid allocated to CAFS has increased slightly this year, but
remains low. Humanitarian aid to education is also extremely low. Luxembourg needs to:
• significantly increase allocations of education and basic education aid to CAFS
• give increased priority to education in CAFS
• include education in humanitarian policy and response.
18
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
16
Distribution of education aid
15
15
Unallocated 3%
14
CAFS 4%
11
9
10
MICs
49%
Other LICs
44%
Key
2
0.4
0.9
CAFS
Other LICs
0.7
1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
Basic education aid commitments
Distribution of basic education
aid
7
US$ millions
(constant 2006)
Luxembourg
6
6
5
Unallocated 7%
5
5
5
CAFS 10%
4
3
MICs
39%
2
2
2
Key
1
0.6
0.5
0.1
0
0
Other LICs
44%
CAFS
Other LICs
0.4
1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
14% ODA to education
68% education aid to
basic education
Fair share contribution
to UPE financing
requirement:
315%
Prioritisation of education
(% ODA to education):
10% in CAFS
25% in other LICs
The Netherlands continues to exceed its fair share of the financing requirement; however,
total bilateral aid to education has decreased substantially from a high point in 2006, and
CAFS receive a small share of bilateral education aid. The Netherlands has, however, been
contributing significantly to supporting CAFS through a US$200m contribution to
UNICEF in late 2006. The Netherlands can still improve its performance by:
• increasing the share of education and basic education aid allocated to CAFS
• giving priority to education in CAFS
• including education as part of humanitarian policy.
Education aid commitments
US$ millions
(constant 2006)
Netherlands
Humanitarian aid to
education:
2.7%
402
CAFS 9%
286
117
152
86
21
Unallocated
42%
175
172
44
15
155
CAFS
Other LICs
66
10
28
MICs 22%
Basic education aid commitments
350
Distribution of basic education
aid
CAFS
9%
327
300
270
250
200
140
86
84
59
50
0
Unallocated
43%
165
150
100
Other LICs
27%
Key
44
73
23
125
1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
US$ millions
(constant 2006)
Top 3 recipients education
aid (US$ millions):
Indonesia 92
Mozambique 43
South Africa 42
450
400
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
Distribution of education aid
20
71
40
7
44
16
6
Other LICs
30%
133
53
9
16
1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
Key
CAFS
Other LICs
MICs 18%
31
LAST IN LINE, LAST IN SCHOOL 2009
New Zealand
23% ODA to education
57% education aid to
basic education
Fair share contribution
to UPE financing
requirement:
120%
Prioritisation of education
(% ODA to education):
8% in CAFS
37% in other LICs
Humanitarian aid to
education:
1.7%
This year, New Zealand has exceeded its fair share of the basic education financing
requirement, following a large increase in basic education aid commitments. However,
education aid is still not reaching CAFS. New Zealand can further improve its
performance by:
• significantly increasing allocations of education and basic education aid to CAFS
• giving increased priority to education in CAFS
• including education as part of humanitarian policy and response.
Education aid commitments
Distribution of education aid
35
33
30
US$ millions
(constant 2006)
●
Unallocated 8%
27
20
Other LICs
39%
15
10
5
2
7
8
2
2
4
0.3
1
0
13
Key
CAFS
Other LICs
2
MICs
49%
1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
Basic education aid commitments
Distribution of basic education
aid
30
US$ millions
(constant 2006)
Unallocated
7%
28
25
Top 3 recipients education
aid (US$ millions):
Solomon Islands 17
Samoa 6
Tonga 5
CAFS 4%
25
25
CAFS 1%
20
15
10
7
5
3
0.2
0
0.6
0.7
1
MICs
41%
Key
0.1 0.4 2
Other LICs
51%
CAFS
Other LICs
0.8
1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
50% education aid to
basic education
Fair share contribution
to UPE financing
requirement:
136%
Prioritisation of education
(% ODA to education):
7% in CAFS
13% in other LICs
Humanitarian aid to
education:
2.3%
Top 3 recipients education
aid (US$ millions):
Tanzania 15
Madagascar 14
Zambia 13
32
Education aid commitments
US$ millions
(constant 2006)
10% ODA to education
Norway continues to be a strong education supporter, exceeding its fair share; however,
there is a worrying overall decline in education aid. Further, the share of education aid
committed to CAFS has decreased this year, and an increased proportion of education aid
is listed as unallocated. Norway needs to:
• increase allocations of education and basic education aid to CAFS
• give increased priority to education in CAFS
• continue to prioritise allocations to education in its development and humanitarian aid.
200
180
160
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
Distribution of education aid
195
CAFS 17%
Unallocated
43%
87
85
71
58
32
23
34
54
45
34
80
44
68
34
57
Key
Other LICs
29%
CAFS
Other LICs
43
15
1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
MICs 11%
Basic education aid commitments
140
Distribution of basic education
aid
CAFS
130
120
US$ millions
(constant 2006)
Norway
18%
100
Unallocated
49%
80
60
60
60
53
44
33
40 47
20
0
13
8
19
33
21
8
Key
17
31
23
23
13
1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
Other LICs
25%
CAFS
Other LICs
MICs 8%
A P P E N D I X 2 : D O N O R P RO F I L E S ●
13% education aid to
basic education
Fair share contribution
to UPE financing
requirement:
17%
Prioritisation of education
(% ODA to education):
29% in CAFS
37% in other LICs
Humanitarian aid to
education:
0%
Top 3 recipients education
aid (US$ millions):
Cape Verde 25
Timor Leste 11
Angola 10
Education aid commitments
25
21
US$ millions
(constant 2006)
20% ODA to education
Portugal commits a good proportion of its aid to education, and an increasing proportion
of that education aid goes to CAFS. However, Portugal continues to under-fund basic
education. None of its humanitarian aid goes to education. Portugal needs to:
• drastically increase basic education aid to meet its fair share of the financing requirement
• include education as part of humanitarian policy and response.
20
22
22
22
21
16
22
16
18
15
14
10
Distribution of education aid
20
20
18
18
Unallocated 2%
CAFS
32%
16
MICs
39%
14
8
5
Key
7
CAFS
Other LICs
0
1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
Other LICs
27%
Basic education aid commitments
US$ millions
(constant 2006)
Portugal
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
7
7
8
Distribution of basic education
aid
7
5
7
MICs 2%
5
5
3
Unallocated 0%
Other LICs
23%
3
2
3
0.8
1
2
1
2
1
Key
CAFS
Other LICs
CAFS
76%
1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
39% education aid to
basic education
Fair share contribution
to UPE financing
requirement:
31%
Prioritisation of education
(% ODA to education):
6% in CAFS
12% in other LICs
Humanitarian aid to
education:
1.4%
Top 3 recipients education
aid (US$ millions):
Peru 14
Honduras 14
Morocco 12
Education aid commitments
Distribution of education aid
70
60
60
US$ millions
(constant 2006)
10% ODA to education
In 2007, Spain has shown large increases in education and basic education aid commitments,
particularly to other LICs. However, the majority of education aid continues to be focused on
middle-income countries. Spain can improve its performance by:
• significantly increasing basic education aid to meet its fair share of the financing requirement
• increasing allocations of education and basic education aid to CAFS and other LICs
• giving greater priority to education in CAFS
• including education as part of humanitarian policy and response.
Unallocated
19%
50
40
34
30
22
19
20
18
17
11
10
10
11
Other LICs
12%
16
23
Key
20
CAFS
Other LICs
10
10
CAFS 10%
32
31
20
10
0
1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
Basic education aid commitments
MICs
59%
Distribution of basic education
aid
60
US$ millions
(constant 2006)
Spain
Unallocated
16%
48
50
CAFS
12%
40
Other LICs
21%
30
20
18
14
10
3
0
1
2
6
3
5
4
7
5
5
8
8
11
9
4
Key
CAFS
Other LICs
MICs
51%
1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
33
LAST IN LINE, LAST IN SCHOOL 2009
6% ODA to education
50% education aid to
basic education
Fair share contribution
to UPE financing
requirement:
71%
Prioritisation of education
(% ODA to education):
9% in CAFS
12% in other LICs
Humanitarian aid to
education:
1.4%
Top 3 recipients education
aid (US$ millions):
Afghanistan 19
Mali 16
Tanzania 14
Sweden has moved further and further from meeting its fair share of the financing
requirement in recent years. In 2007, education and basic education aid commitments
dropped. Sweden needs to:
• increase basic education aid to meet its fair share of the financing requirement
• give increased priority to education in CAFS
• increase humanitarian funding to education.
Education aid commitments
Distribution of education aid
120
101
US$ millions
(constant 2006)
Sweden
100
69
42
41
11
31
12
MICs
13%
53
40
26
34
31
Key
CAFS
Other LICs
22
3
14
7
1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
Other LICs
39%
Basic education aid commitments
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
CAFS
31%
83
57
60
0
Unallocated
17%
92
80
20
US$ millions
(constant 2006)
●
Distribution of basic education
aid
Unallocated
12%
91
87
MICs
9%
43
34
26
9
26
23
19
12
24
5
CAFS
47%
35
29
3
0.7
Key
CAFS
Other LICs
12
4
Other LICs
32%
1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
28% education aid to
basic education
Fair share contribution
to UPE financing
requirement:
12%
Prioritisation of education
(% ODA to education):
1% in CAFS
8% in other LICs
Humanitarian aid to
education:
0.7%
Top 3 recipients education
aid (US$ millions):
Burkina Faso 4
Bangladesh 3
Serbia 3
Education aid commitments
35
US$ millions
(constant 2006)
4% ODA to education
Switzerland continues to prioritise support to education in other LICs, while CAFS receive
much less support. Overall support for education, both as a proportion of ODA and in
humanitarian aid, remains very low. Switzerland needs to:
• drastically increase basic education aid to meet its fair share of the financing requirement
• significantly increase allocations of education and basic education aid to CAFS
• increase priority of education in CAFS
• include education as part of humanitarian policy and response.
Distribution of education aid
31
30
20
20
10
15
10
Other LICs
34%
10
10
5
5
0.8
2
1
5
Key
3
CAFS
Other LICs
0.7
0
1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
MICs
28%
Basic education aid commitments
25
Distribution of basic education
aid
23
20
Unallocated
18%
17
15
14
14
4
3
CAFS
10%
10
10
4
5
0
3
3
0.6 0.6
6
0.1
1
0.1
0.7
1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
34
Unallocated
32%
20
18
15
CAFS 6%
26
24
25
5
US$ millions
(constant 2006)
Switzerland
MICs
22%
Key
CAFS
Other LICs
Other LICs
50%
A P P E N D I X 2 : D O N O R P RO F I L E S ●
8% ODA to education
59% education aid to
basic education
Fair share contribution
to UPE financing
requirement:
64%
Prioritisation of education
(% ODA to education):
4% in CAFS
13% in other LICs
Humanitarian aid to
education:
0.3%
A drop in education aid commitments in 2007 has particularly affected basic education,
and the UK has fallen behind on meeting its fair share of the basic education financing
requirement. CAFS’ share of education aid has increased over the last two years, but
humanitarian aid to education is very low. The UK still needs to:
• increase basic education aid to meet its fair share of the financing requirement
• increase allocations of education and basic education aid to CAFS in line with their needs
• increase priority of education in CAFS
• include education in humanitarian policy and response.
Education aid commitments
Distribution of education aid
800
734
700
US$ millions
(constant 2006)
UK
Unallocated
18%
600
CAFS
26%
511
500
400
340
300 222
200
100
183
46
19
MICs 6%
304
255
196 182
183
228
304
225
76
Key
CAFS
Other LICs
19
15
0
1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
Other LICs 50%
Basic education aid commitments
Distribution of basic education
aid
700
688
600
US$ millions
(constant 2006)
Top 3 recipients education
aid (US$ millions):
Ghana 100
Nigeria 63
Ethiopia 62
Unallocated
22%
500
400
300
200
100
212
250
248
189
181
92
92
137
40
17
9
0
223
MICs 7%
Key
206
96
10
CAFS
Other LICs
93
7
1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
71% education aid to
basic education
Fair share contribution
to UPE financing
requirement:
15%
Prioritisation of education
(% ODA to education):
2% in CAFS
3% in other LICs
Humanitarian aid to
education:
0.7%
Top 3 recipients education
aid (US$ millions):
Pakistan 97
Egypt 95
Iraq 93
Education aid commitments
Distribution of education aid
400
375
348
350
US$ millions
(constant 2006)
3% ODA to education
Other LICs 42%
The proportion of education aid the USA allocates to CAFS remains significant, and education
aid to CAFS increased in 2007. However, education comprises a very small proportion of
overall aid and humanitarian assistance. The USA can increase its support to education by:
• drastically increasing basic education aid to meet its fair share of the financing requirement
• increasing the priority given to education in CAFS and other LICs
• including education as part of humanitarian policy and response.
370
Unallocated 8%
300
250
182
200
100
0
MICs
40%
188
150
50
50
43
58
46
63
89
27
47
59
74
79
CAFS
Other LICs
35
28
CAFS
42%
Key
1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
Other LICs 10%
Basic education aid commitments
Distribution of basic education
aid
Unallocated
350
340
300
US$ millions
(constant 2006)
USA
CAFS
29%
5%
306
250
252
200
MICs
39%
150
114
100
50
0
39
28
58
56
28
46
35
118
84
42
52
71
CAFS
43%
Key
73
27
CAFS
Other LICs
1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
Other LICs 13%
35
LAST IN LINE, LAST IN SCHOOL 2009
7% ODA to education
41% education aid to
basic education
Prioritisation of education
(% ODA to education):
5% in CAFS
9% in other LICs
Humanitarian aid to
education:
0.4% (ECHO)
1.9% (EC)
Top 3 recipients education
aid (US$ millions):
Egypt 49
Tunisia 35
Jordan 29
The EC increased education and basic education aid commitments to CAFS in 2007.
However, a large proportion of education aid still goes to middle-income countries.
In addition, only a small proportion of humanitarian aid is allocated to education.
The EC could further improve its performance by:
• increasing the share of aid allocated to education and basic education
• increasing allocations of education and basic education aid to CAFS
• increasing priority for education in CAFS
• including education as part of humanitarian policy and response.
Education aid commitments
US$ millions
(constant 2006)
European
Commission
Distribution of education aid
500
450
450
400
330
325
350
300
250
203
200 176
159 147
160
150
111
128
123
100 118
98
31
84
50
75
58
41
0
1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
Unallocated
16%
CAFS
Other LICs
367
Unallocated 2%
300
249
250
174
122
120
100
50
CAFS
27%
MICs
38%
191
200
150
MICs
46%
Distribution of basic education
aid
400
350
70
92
84
40
0
88
70
67
71
16
40
21
Key
CAFS
Other LICs
31
Other LICs
33%
1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
12% ODA to education
41% education aid to
basic education
Prioritisation of education
(% ODA to education):
15% in CAFS
11% in other LICs
Top 3 recipients education
aid (US$ millions):
India 118
Pakistan 89
Nigeria 79
The World Bank’s increase in education aid between 2005 and 2007 has particularly
benefited CAFS: CAFS now receive nearly half of education aid. However, there has been
a drop in the proportion of education aid allocated to basic education. The Bank now
needs to:
• ensure basic education remains a priority in CAFS and other LICs
• maintain allocations of education and basic education aid to CAFS.
Education aid commitments
1,600
Distribution of education aid
1,514
1,400
US$ millions
(constant 2006)
World Bank IDA
949
1,000
800
600
594
691
0
704
525
502
274
59
458
275
393
147
CAFS
47%
785
533
612
400
200
Key
405
CAFS
Other LICs
262
Other LICs
41%
1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
Distribution of basic education
aid
1,200
MICs
13%
1,036
US$ millions
(constant 2006)
Unallocated 0%
MICs 12%
1,200
Basic education aid commitments
1,000
Unallocated 0%
800
600
414
400
271
39
281
0
240
183
54
90
CAFS
50%
420
365 371
228
200
148
211
174
199
102
1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
36
CAFS
16%
Other LICs
22%
Key
Basic education aid commitments
US$ millions
(constant 2006)
●
Key
CAFS
Other LICs
Other LICs
37%
Appendix 3: Comparative table assessing
donor performance and progress
This table provides comparable statistics illustrating the key changes that have taken place in donor support of
CAFS since publication of the first Last in Line, Last in School report in 2007 (Save the Children, 2007).
Country
Fair share
contribution to
UPE financing
requirement (%)
Overall
% ODA to
education in
CAFS
Distribution of
education aid:
CAFS % share
Distribution of
basic education
aid:
CAFS % share
Humanitarian
aid to
education (%)
Avg
03–05
Avg
05–07
Avg
03–05
Avg
05–07
Avg
03–05
Avg
05–07
Avg
03–05
Avg
05–07
Avg
03–05
Avg
05–07
All donors
–
–
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
–
–
37
Last in Line,
Last in School
2009
Last in Line, Last in School 2009
Donor trends in meeting education needs in
countries affected by conflict and emergencies
This third edition of Last in Line, Last in School
demonstrates where and how donors must act
to ensure that children in countries affected by
conflict and emergencies do not miss out on
their education, particularly in the midst of a
global financial crisis. Since the first report was
published in 2007, donors have made some
progress. But big gaps still remain.
This report finds there has been an increase in
education aid to conflict-affected fragile states
(CAFS). But CAFS still only receive a quarter
“Yet again Save the Children’s annual Last in Line,
Last in School report highlights the urgent need for
increased donor action and support for education in
emergencies and countries by conflict. The 2009
report shows that, while there are encouraging signs
of change, donors still need to do more. This is an
excellent example of research and advocacy that
has the potential to change the lives of the millions
of children caught up in emergencies and conflict.”
Allison Anderson, Inter-agency Network
for Education in Emergencies
of basic education aid, even though they are
home to more than half – 40 million – of the
world’s 75 million out-of-school children. Based
on current trends, the required levels of basic
education aid to CAFS will not be reached
until 2034.
The role of education in emergency contexts
now has greater recognition in the international
community, and funding for education in
emergencies has increased. However, this funding
is still not enough to meet the urgent needs of
children in countries affected by conflict and
emergencies. And too few donors have a policy
commitment to education in emergencies.
Last in Line, Last in School 2009
Children have a right to education regardless
of their circumstances. Yet millions continue to
be denied this right in situations of conflict and
fragility. Education is one of the most important
investments a country can make to escape the
long-term cycle of poverty and conflict. Yet it
remains underfunded.
Donor trends in meeting education
needs in countries affected by
conflict and emergencies
Education donors must act immediately to
accelerate progress if they are to fulfil their
promise of good-quality education for all
children by 2015.
International Save the Children Alliance
Cambridge House
Cambridge Grove
London W6 0LE
UK
www.savethechildren.net/rewritethefuture
Save the Children
is a member of the
Rewrite the Future