To what extent have international aid donors increased their political and financial commitments to education programmes in the poorest countries? This International Institute for Educational Planning report examines the changing nature of donors’ engagement in supporting education in fragile and conflict-affected states. While some donors have increased the priority given to education, many countries will not meet the Millennium Development Goals and the wider Education For All agenda without additional funding flows.
The ultimate responsibility for ensuring access to education for all lies with governments, but for many countries, especially the poorest, progress also depends heavily on support from the international community, especially donors. In 2000, donors committed themselves to making new, concrete financial commitments and providing increased development assistance and debt relief to help countries achieve Education for All (EFA). Nearly ten years later, an analysis of donors’ funding portfolios suggests that further prioritisation should take place to ensure that support is aligned with educational needs.
There is an increased recognition amongst donors of the importance of education in fragile and conflict-affected states within the international community. However, the volume of development funding received by fragile or conflict-affected states does not appear to correlate with the comparative needs for basic education and support required to meet the EFA goals. Findings include the following:
- In terms of humanitarian aid, education remains one of the least-funded sectors.
- With regard to appropriate mechanisms for channelling funds to the four different Development Assistance Committee (DAC) categories of fragile states, the donors interviewed typically prefer using budget support or pooled funding to gain greater harmonisation and alignment with government priorities. However, in practice they experience delays and other difficulties in using such mechanisms or feel that other modalities may be more appropriate.
- It is important for statebuilding to encompass the widest meaning of the term (government and civil society). Even in deteriorating or arrested development contexts, donors, NGOs and education stakeholders can collaborate closely with local, regional or central governments by working through non-state actors as implementing partners.
The recommendations below outline a framework and rationale for external stakeholders seeking to strengthen their engagement in education in fragile and conflict-affected states, and for governments to provide an enabling environment for stakeholders to engage more deeply. It is important to:
- Develop responses to address immediate needs, but with long-term development goals in mind, to ensure the coordination of humanitarian and development responses;
- Select aid modalities that are appropriate to the context and to the level of stakeholder capacity, balancing recipient and donor needs, contexts and capacities;
- Align the education response with the identified needs and comparative advantages of stakeholders;
- Identify opportunities to engage with non-state actors, to build capacity and ownership of the education response, but to be careful not to undermine the legitimacy of the state;
- Recognise that coordination is not easy – maintain realistic expectations;
- Prioritise local ownership and support education sector policy and plans where possible.
