International aid architecture for education in fragile and conflict-affected situations: at the cross roads of humanitarian action, development and security.

• In Event: Capacity building by non-school actors in fragile and conflict-affected situations

Proposal

Globally, nearly 250 million children live in areas affected by prolonged, violent conflict (UNICEF, 2016a), and close to 50 million children are displaced with over a half of them due to violent conflict (UNICEF, 2016). Experience of conflict and displacement may have devastating consequences on children’s lives and long-lasting social and economic implications for society (World Bank, 2011; Nicolai, 2016). Children in conflict-affected countries are three times more likely to miss primary school (World Bank, 2011, p. 62.). According to the recent estimates 75 million children 3-18 years of age in 35 conflict-affected countries remain in the most need of educational support (Nicolai, 2016). Yet, education has remained underfunded both in humanitarian response and in situations affected by fragility. In 2016, 3.5 percent of humanitarian funding went to education (Nicolai, 2016), and only 21 percent of global education aid went to fragile states between 2005 and 2007 (Menashy & Dryden-Peterson, 2015). This funding gap persisted despite tremendous need and progressive realization of life-saving and protective role of education in crisis and transformative role in longer-term reconstruction.

However, since the Dakar Framework for Action was adopted in 2000, there has been a marked change in global response to education in fragile and conflict-affected settings. This change was driven by a concerted effort on behalf national and international actors to strengthen support to education in these contexts as a contribution to broader education and development goals (Winthrop & Matsui, 2013). Donors, international organizations as well as international NGOs began to prioritize education in emergencies and fragile settings in their strategies (UNICEF, 2012, Winthrop & Matsui, 2013, Menashy & Dryden-Peterson, 2015). Consequently, in 2011, as the Fast Track Initiative (FTI) became the Global Partnership for Education (GPE), it shifted to prioritize education in fragile and conflict-affected states – a marked deviation from the lack of investment in these contexts by the FTI (Winthrop & Matsui, 2013, Menashy & Dryden-Peterson, 2015). At the World Humanitarian Summit in 2016, the global fund for education in emergencies was launched by key donors and international organizations to ‘leverage additional finance and catalyze new approaches to funding’ for education in emergencies and protracted crises (Agenda for Humanity, 2016). As a result, the international architecture for education support fragile and conflict-affected environments rapidly grew more complex.

These changes happened against the backdrop of expansion in the discourse on state fragility within the international humanitarian, development and security communities, triggered by the September 11, 2001 attacks in the United States, as donors increasingly sought to better understand the relationship between development, security and peacebuilding (Duffied, 2010, Winthrop & Matsui, 2013, Novelli, 2011). Education–in addition to being a fundamental child right denied to millions of children affected by crises–has also gained attention of funders, international actors and governments as an instrument for violence prevention (Barakat and Urdal, 2009), reconciliation, positive social transformation and peacebuilding (Novelli et al., 2014; Smith et al., 2011). At the same time, the rise of the counter-terrorism and prevention of violent extremism agendas have also placed high hopes for education as a tool to resist radicalization, violence and recruitment by armed actors, with key global education actors, such as UNESCO joining the UN prevention against violent extremism plans (Novelli, 2011).

Research questions:

This study seeks to address two main research questions: 1) What explains the recent changes in the international aid architecture in education as it relates to fragile and conflict-affected settings?; 2) What are the implications of the international education aid architecture for the nature and national ownership of education policies and delivery in fragile and conflict-affected contexts?

Using a mixed methods study that brings together extensive documents analysis, a global survey of education humanitarian and development practitioners and interviews with key informants, this study explores the power dynamics, interests, capacities, and agendas of actors shaping international architecture, both in terms of financial mechanisms and policy advice, for situations affected by fragility and crises. Furthermore, it investigates the role of education multilateralism in shaping education systems in fragile and conflict-affected states. This study takes multilateralism in international relations (and in education in particular) to offer potential for understanding the changes to the international aid architecture for education in crises-affected situations (Chabbott, 2003, 2015, Mundy, 2007, Barnett & Finnemore, 1999). In addition, this study also draws on political economy framework (UKAID and University of Sussex, 2014, Department for International Development, 2002; Pherali, 2015; Pherali & Sahar 2018) for the study of implications of the education aid architecture for education policy and practice in fragile and conflict-affected settings. The preliminary findings indicate important linkages between

Preliminary findings indicate that support to education in fragile and conflict-affected contexts driven on one hand by commitment to the right to education has also become, as a part of the broader development assistance, increasingly influenced by security concerns of the donors. The increased engagement of traditionally ‘development’ funding modalities in both fragile context and in complex emergencies have also raised critical operational challenges for principled approach to engagement. A critical analysis in our field of how the ongoing integration of humanitarian, development and peace and security agendas in international cooperation translates to education support to conflict-affected environments will continue to be critical to ensure education remains human-rights driven, inclusive and serves the best interest of communities it is designed to serve.

Author

• Anna Azaryeva Valente, Teachers College, Columbia University