In June 2012, the United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development (Rio +20) will be held in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. This conference represents 20 years since member states created and adopted Agenda 21: A Programme of Action for Sustainable Development.
The Zero Draft for Rio +20 was created in January, and includes very little on education, despite the fact that education is often affected by natural hazards (floods, tsunami, tornadoes, etc.), and education can be a critical factor in mitigating both the impact of natural hazard and environmental degradation.
As a contribution to the sustainability agenda and the outcomes of the Rio +20 conference, INEE has issued a statement (full text below and online here) advocating for the inclusion of education in the final document. Please feel free to distribute and use this statement for advocacy. Comments and discussion about this statement can be shared at the end of this INEE Blog post.
Crisis sensitive education: from response to prevention
INEE Position Statement on Rio +20 UN Conference on Sustainable Development
The Rio 2012 Issues Brief No.8 on Disaster Risk Reduction and Resilience Building states that “environmental degradation and climate change contribute to the increasing occurrence of disasters linked to natural hazards”. It further explains that the level of vulnerability to disasters is closely and inversely related to levels of social and economic development. The Inter-Agency Network for Education in Emergencies (INEE) maintains that through the provision of crisis-sensitive education before, during and after emergencies, children and youth’s lives can be saved and the foundations for sustainable social and economic development of communities and countries can be restored.
Crisis-sensitive education saves lives and builds resilience in schools, communities, and societies to prevent and withstand the impacts of disaster. Crisis-sensitive education follows the ‘do no harm’ principle and addresses root causes of conflict and disaster, for instance through inclusive access to learning content that reduces risks and promotes peace and sustainable development.
INEE’s approach to crisis-sensitive education is in line with the strategic goals based on the Hyogo Framework, and outlined in the above mentioned Rio +20 Issues Brief No.8. From the integration of disaster risk reduction in education sector policies and plans (Strategic Goal 1), to the development and strengthening of education institutions, mechanisms and capacities to build resilience to hazards, (Strategic Goal 2), crisis-sensitive education is at the very heart of sustainable development and crisis prevention. Evidence from the US Geological Survey and the World Bank demonstrate that for every dollar invested in disaster risk reduction between $2-10 is saved in disaster response and recovery costs[1]. Until principles of conflict and disaster risk reduction are fully integrated, implemented and monitored in education sector policies and plans, efforts for sustainable development will continue to be compromised.
Education systems can educate citizens to be resilient to disasters, both in ensuring physical safety of children and in teaching and disseminating information on appropriate preparedness and response behavior. Children, youth and school communities are particularly vulnerable to the impact of natural disasters caused by climate change. For example, the 2008 earthquake in the Sichuan province of China took the lives of more than 10,000 children in their schools. The 2010 Haitian earthquake killed more than 4,000 children and 700 teachers, all of whom were teaching and learning in non-earthquake resistant buildings. These are shocking statistics, particularly when combined with the existing 175 million children likely to be affected by natural disasters over the next decade. Not only do these statistics illustrate that some of the current Millennium Development and Education for All Goals will not be reached, they also demonstrate that the post-2015 goals must explicitly address issues of education for sustainable development and conflict and disaster risk reduction.
Education also contributes to enabling people to escape poverty, build sustainable livelihoods, and act as responsible citizens. Equitable access to quality, relevant education in safe learning environments is a fundamental human right. However, access to school alone is not enough if girls and boys are not learning the skills to equip them for living and working in the 21st Century. Such skills not only include, literacy, numeracy, critical thinking, and problem solving, but also need to promote relevant knowledge in environmental and climate change; disaster risk reduction and preparedness; sustainable lifestyles and consumption; and green technical vocational education and training.
INEE also strives to support crisis-sensitive education during acute and chronic emergency situations. Despite offering both life-saving and long-term benefits to children and communities, education remains one of the least supported sectors in a humanitarian response. Yet education is typically one of the first priorities that children and parents consistently request during the early stages of disasters. One concrete framework for supporting education in such situations is through the use of the INEE Minimum Standards for Education: Preparedness, Response, Recovery[2].
In order to raise the profile of education for sustainable development, INEE calls on actors at Rio +20 to:
Put education front and centre on the Sustainable Development Goals agenda as the mechanism for future leaders to internalize principles of sustainable development;
Focus on access + learning to ensure that next generation is equipped with the skills and knowledge they need to build sustainable 21st century lives and livelihoods;
Champion crisis-sensitive education content and systems, together with safe learning environments in order to address the particular challenges of natural and human-made conflicts and disasters; and
Integrate conflict and disaster risk reduction into education sector planning and programming, ensuring that funding is available to support education in emergencies.
--
[1] Red Cross (2007), Building safer, resilient communities
[2] This handbook provides guidance on how to prepare for, respond to and recover from disasters in ways that reduce risk, improve future preparedness and lay a solid foundation for quality education,which incorporates cross-cutting issues such as conflict mitigation, Early Childhood Development, Gender, HIV and AIDs, Human Rights, Inclusive Education, Inter-sectoral linkages, Protection, Psychosocial support and youth engagement
Each year during its Global Action Week, the Global Campaign for Education and its members all around the world give profile to one of the core areas of the Education For All agenda. In 2012, the focus is early childhood care and education. Using the slogan "Rights from the Start! Early Childhood Care and Education Now!", Global Action Week 2012 is focusing on the first of the six Education for All (EFA) Goals:
"Expanding and improving comprehensive early childhood care and education, especially for the most vulnerable and disadvantaged children".
While all children are among the most vulnerable in the face of an emergency, those considered to be in the ECD phase (prenatal to 8 years) are rendered even more at-risk, particularly those who have not yet entered the formal school system, because of a lack of targeted programming to meet their unique physical and cognitive development needs.
Mr. Essa Al-Mannai and Dr. Lori Henninger discuss standards for providing education in emergency and conflict situations, with a particular focus on their implementation in Nepal.
About the Project:
The program expands upon a successful ROTA project that addressed disaster preparedness in schools. It was developed in partnership with Mercy Corps and Action Aid Nepal. The program employs a three-pronged approach to improving the quality of education in Kailali District:
First, it increases the knowledge of the entire community regarding disaster risk reduction (DRR) measures through disaster preparedness training, simulation exercises, and community activities.
Second, the program addresses risks in schools by looking at shortcomings of school infrastructure, improving school accessibility for disabled children, ensuring safe and clean water and sanitation facilities. Communities are sensitized and mobilized to handle potential hazards during a natural disaster through trained peer groups, lobbying with relevant stakeholders, involvement of school management committees and Parent Teacher Associations.
Third, the program provides teacher training based on child-centered methodologies and builds the capacity of school management to promote transparent reporting and promote quality education.
Future perspectives:
The program is coordinating closely with government agencies to support the project outputs and expand them to other districts as well as to integrate DRR concepts in the national curriculum. The challenge is to make sure that these activities continue beyond the project timeframe. ROTA has been aware of such a challenge and is working closely with the local communities, school committees, and students to ensure strong local-national links and supports them as key advocates in national processes.
Despite the continuing commitment of the international community, global figures on girls’ education make it all too clear that many urgent challenges remain to be addressed:
some 39 million girls are still out of school;
women represent two-thirds of the world’s 796 million illiterate adults;
only one-third of countries have achieved gender parity at secondary level.
Among the recommendations of the International Institute for Educational Planning’s (IIEP) evidence-based Policy Forum held in October 2011 was to ensure ongoing collaboration with a variety of actors on gender equality issues. The Institute has therefore organized a two-week e-Forum of the same name to further expand the knowledge exchange on gender differences in student learning achievement at the school and classroom level, and gender equality in relation to educational leadership in planning and management.
In its continuous effort to strengthen the use of the INEE MS, the INEE Working Group on Minimum Standards and Network Tools commissioned a study to assess the awareness and use of the INEE Minimum Standards worldwide. From September 2011 to January 2012, the assessment analyzed how and to what extent the INEE Minimum Standards have been used for: advocacy; coordination; program planning and response; research; and institutional change. Based on a comprehensive desk review, a survey, interviews and focus group discussions, the assessment provides interesting data that will define the future work on the INEE Minimum Standards. Our sincere thanks go to the 701 respondents in 117 countries who participated in the Assessment Survey!
The 2012 INEE Minimum Standard Assessment Report synthesizes the findings and offers recommendations to the INEE Secretariat, IASC Education Cluster and other partners using the INEE Minimum Standards for their Education in Emergencies work. The INEE Working Group is committed to carefully considering and acting on the findings and recommendations in the report. Similarly, we encourage our partners—most notably, the IASC Education Cluster, UN agencies and NGOs working on education in conflict-affected and fragile states and territories—to review the report and consider acting on the findings and recommendations that pertain to them.
Highlights from the Assessment Survey!
Respondents reported using the INEE Minimum Standards most frequently in conflict contexts (32%), followed by natural disasters (24%) and in both conflict and natural disaster contexts (20%).
Preparedness was cited by 35% of the respondents as the stage at which the Standards are most often used, but when combining the often indistinguishable early recovery, chronic/protracted emergency and development stages, this skewing towards Preparedness as the stage the Standards are more frequently used decreases.
Nearly half (48%) of respondents agreed that the Standards were used to prioritize and fund education in emergencies.
54% of respondents agreed and 34% somewhat agreed that the Standards had been used as a guide for coordination of education stakeholders.
Frequency of use of the Standards when planning and implementing work increases with people who have received training on the Standards.
The Standards are often used as a tool for project planning, monitoring and evaluation, proposal development and training/capacity development.
INEE invites you to share the INEE Minimum Standards Assessment with education in emergencies colleagues in your country in April-May 2012! We encourage you to hold short launch events to share the findings and recommendations with other EiE practitioners in your country. The materials in the Presentation Packets can help you present the findings and facilitate dialogue around the further use of the INEE Minimum Standards to support EiE programs and initiatives.
For more information on the Assessment Presentation Packets or to share the date and time of the presentation that you are organizing, please contact Devin Faris at devin@ineesite.org.
Sincerely,
Tzvetomira Laub, INEE Coordinator for Minimum Standards and Network Tools
For the March 2012 Thematic Spotlight, INEE is calling on you to share resources, information, and research that focus on protection and a number of related areas:
Separation
Psychosocial support
Gender-based violence & exploitation
Child soldiers (preventing child recruitment)
Physical harm reduction/prevention
Monitoring and reporting grave violations
By identifying what work has been done on education within the field of protection, we hope to draw attention to the important role of education in protecting children and other vulnerable groups.
Most researchers and practitioners maintain that true prevention and assistance comes from working across disciplines and networks to provide holistic responses in emergency situations. INEE would like to identify and share resources that demonstrate programs and responses that encompass a holistic approach. For that, we need your help!
To submit your contribution, please leave a comment below, or send a message to thematicspotlights@ineesite.org by March 20th, 2012.
The new INEE Thematic Spotlights are a way for INEE members to discover and share information on particular themes within education in emergencies. The goal is to expand and make available the knowledge base for both practice and research within key thematic areas. A special call is made to researchers, program people and donors to become actively engaged. We also encourage all members to identify key research projects, academic articles, and member experts in the thematic areas. Thematic Spotlights may also include webinars, Meet-up events, blog posts, and INEE Twitter campaigns. For more information on the purpose of thematic hubs visit the INEE website.
In 2011, significant strides were made in improving the education of children around the world: More children are now enrolled in primary schools than ever before. Still, in spite of remarkable progress, civil unrest and natural disasters have slowed down improvements in affected areas.
To wrap up the year, UNICEF podcast moderator Femi Oke spoke to United Nations Special Rapporteur on the Right to Education Kishore Singh.
Sustainable progress
The past year has seen major educational achievements on several levels, Mr. Singh says. There has been sustainable progress in expanding education, greater recognition of the critical importance of education on the UN development agenda, serious country initiatives to advance secondary education, and stronger emphasis on technical and vocational training around the world.
Girls’ education has also improved significantly, even though girls still comprise more than half of all children out of school.
“One of the biggest impediments [to gender equality in education] is the social misconception,” says Mr. Singh. “Girls in many developing countries are still viewed to be not equally entitled to education.”
Educating children in emergencies
In his latest report to the UN General Assembly, Mr. Singh estimates that around 28 million children of primary school age who live in conflict-affected countries are currently out of school. Around 875 million school children live in high seismic-risk zones and millions more face regular floods, landslide or other natural disasters.
Educating children in these areas is vital, not only to recovery but also to preventing humanitarian emergencies in the first place.
Mr. Singh also emphasized that there is need for a clear vision that leads to more innovative and equitable education systems around the world.
Education can play a crucial role in peacebuilding in all phases of conflict, a UNICEF-commissioned study has concluded, outlining how education can help prevent conflict and contribute to long-term peace.
A fundamental human right of a quality education for all children is most at risk during conflict situations. It is precisely at these times that education can impart knowledge and skills that provide protection and access to life-saving abilities. In the longer term, education can provide values and attitudes that offer the basis for addressing the multiple drivers of conflict.
The report titled “The Role of Education in Peacebuilding,” was presented on 9 February, to a packed room of United Nations experts, donors, human rights activists and aid workers.
“Education can do so much and play a vital and transformative role in societies through peacebuilding,” said Mario Novelli of the Centre for International Education, University of Sussex, who led the study together with Alan Smith of the University of Ulster. The study, managed by UNICEF’s Evaluation Office, was commissioned by UNICEF’s Education Section as part of its five-year Dutch-funded Education in Emergencies and Post-Crisis Transition (EEPCT) Programme.
According to the findings, education can intervene during conflicts through emergency schooling for displaced people and schools as zones of peace, in the immediate post-war period through school reconstruction and psycho-social support and in the medium-term post-conflict period through development and curricula reform.
“We must invest as much in prevention as in post-conflict situations ….invest in systems to overcome obstacles as much as in challenges…invest in people and therefore the norms that entrench them that go beyond peacebuilding and peace keeping,” said Nicholas Alipui, UNICEF’s Director of Programmes, opening the event.
Mr. Alipui thanked the Dutch government for its steadfast support and strong partnership during UNICEF’s EEPCT programme and its transition into a new education and peacebuilding programme.
“Peacebuilding is central to achieving progress in the Millennium Development Goals,” said Corien Sips of the Government of the Netherlands. “And we believe education is a core component in building sustainable peace.”
In 2011, a research team set out to collect evidence on how education interventions could have a stronger role in the UN peacebuilding architecture and, more specifically, how UNICEF can contribute effectively to peacebuilding through education.
Among the key findings were that the concept of peacebuilding remains underdeveloped and contested, even among UN agencies; security concerns dominate peacebuilding and marginalizes the role of education; weak, inequitable and segregated school systems can be and often are drivers of conflict.
Zeena Zakharia of the Columbia University and Mr. Smith were a part of the panel, while UNICEF’s Director of Emergency Operations, Louis-George Arsenault also spoke at the event.
Mr. Novelli said that UNICEF was well placed to make interventions in peacebuilding given its high level of credibility, strong civil society partnerships, its reputation as a lead agency in education and its rich national staff working in the field.
Key recommendations:
Develop a comprehensive policy paper on UNICEF’s commitment to peacebuilding.
Identify areas of common agreement with global partners on the contribution of education to peacebuilding in conflict-affected countries.
Carry out a short study to explore the extent to which UNICEF is integrated within UN peacebuilding, challenges and opportunities.
Capacity support for peacebuilding and conflict analysis within HQ and field offices.
At the outset, introduce education and peacebuilding in a limited number of countries.
Place greater emphasis on knowledge management and institutional learning.
The panelists commended UNICEF for already instituting changes in its education programming based on its recommendation and getting a head start, which they said reflected the organization’s commitment to peacebuilding.
“UNICEF is uniquely placed not only in delivering services but in community development,” said Susan Durston, Associate Director, Education Section in her closing remarks, “This new programming is going to help us not only to be more strategic but to also focus on our equity approach by drawing attention to the underprivileged and marginalized who are most at risk during conflict situations.”
To view the reports and listen to a podcast that discusses the role of education in building sustainable peace, click here.
Laura Wright, Ontario Institute for Studies in Education
University of Toronto
Education in emergencies (EiE) is both a research “field in its infancy” and a rapidly “emerging field” (Tomlinson and Benefield, 2005). This scoping study reviews a wide range of academic articles and grey literature in the education in emergencies field to map current and past research methodologies used by academics and practitioners. It identifies the unique successes and gaps in the evidence base in order to support future academics and practitioners in conducting and documenting research. This study concludes that ensuring sound ethical and rigorous reflective research practices is critical to fill research gaps, and to move EiE from infancy to a well-developed, reputable research field.
Introduction
Education in emergencies (EiE) is a research “field in its infancy” (Tomlinson and Benefield, 2005). Over the past decade, academics‘ and practitioners‘ interest in the challenges of educating children affected by emergencies--natural disasters (e.g. hurricanes, typhoons, floods) and human made crisis (e.g. war, internal conflict , and genocide) (Kagawa, 2010)--has grown rapidly. As EiE is still an ‗emerging field‘ (Seitz, 2004; Sinclair, 2002; Sommers, 2005; UNICEF, 2006) documentation of quality research with credible methodologies at both the macro and meso level exists but is limited. Thus, there is a pertinent need to establish a sound professional research foundation to examine the effect of emergencies on education at different stages of emergency (INEE 2010). This desk study will provide an overview of current and past evidence generating activities within the field of education in emergencies, while focusing specifically on research methodologies. The study will determine gaps and analyze the successes and challenges of the methodologies identified in the research within this field of knowledge.
Jake Scobey-Thal is an associate in the Asia division at Human Rights Watch.
We told the children not to enter the building because the soldiers had weapons everywhere,” an official explained as he pointed to the corner of a government office where the soldiers had stacked guns. The troops had arrived in Gueday, a small village in the Cordillera Autonomous Region in northern Luzon, Philippines, in April 2010, just before the national elections.
As we sat in the village’s municipal hall, local officials described the military’s four-month stay, gesturing around the building the soldiers had transformed into a barracks. The officials squabbled over the size of the detachment (eventual consensus was approximately 15) and recalled how the troops gave out goods (canned food mostly). They pointed us to the basketball hoop the detachment built and the yard where soldiers would conduct morning exercises with the children.
But after the second cup of coffee, they revealed that the municipal hall was actually the second structure the detachment had used as a camp. For the first three months of their stay, the soldiers had occupied the smaller of the two buildings that make up the local elementary school.
The Philippine government is engaged in a long-running armed conflict with the insurgent New People’s Army (NPA), the armed wing of the Communist Party of the Philippines. While the NPA maintains a presence in the mountains of northern Luzon, there has only been limited military action in the Cordillera region since the 1990s. Despite the low levels of conflict, the military continues to place troops and guns in local communities. And in some cases these troops and their guns establish a home on school grounds.
During our eight-day investigation in November, Human Rights Watch documented five cases in which the military had used parts of functioning schools in the area as encampments for military detachments since 2009. School administrators, principals, and teachers described the troubling dynamics of running a school on top of, adjacent to, and occasionally within, de facto military barracks.
The first thing we saw as we approached Sadanga High School was the military sentry overlooking the access road. The lone entrance to the school opens up to a large courtyard, surrounded by individual classrooms. A school official told us that at one point the army had placed an armed guard at the entrance, but on the day we visited the soldiers were confined to a patch of land across the yard.
Local officials assured us the land the soldiers used was actually private, adjacent to the government-owned school grounds. While a portion of the camp was built behind the school on land that could, conceivably, be independently owned, we observed that at least part of the detachment—two soldiers, their sleeping quarters, and a 3x3 camouflaged military truck—sat well within school property.
The camp sits directly across the courtyard from the school’s one entrance. In order to leave the base, the soldiers - even those encamped on the ostensibly private land – must cross the school grounds. If a firefight were to occur, students and staff could well be caught in the middle.
At Sadanga, soldiers explained that they were on a “civilian-military operation.” Their mission is not combat related, they said, but rather focused on community development. The local mayor consented to their occupation, though in the Philippines sometimes local officials find it difficult to refuse the military’s requests.
The Philippines military has had a tenuous relationship with the indigenous communities of the Cordilleras owing to the legacy of Marcos-era abuses and ongoing violations by military forces in the efforts to dismantle the communist insurgency. The NPA has also committed abuses against the local population. Civilian-military operations, such as the one at Sadanga, are part of a larger government strategy to engage indigenous communities and isolate the NPA—an effort to “win hearts and minds.” Human Rights Watch saw these types of projects in a number of schools we visited.
While some people expressed unqualified contempt for the soldiers, many not only tolerated, but appreciated the military’s presence. In Sadanga, the soldiers built an office for the school nurse and led a Boy Scout troop; in another school, soldiers had maintained a small vegetable garden.
However, the question remains: Why are the soldiers in the schools?
As the soldiers at Sadanga High noted, the military occupation of schools is banned under Philippine law, and can violate international humanitarian and human rights law—and for good reason. The presence of soldiers endangers students and staff and disrupts education. The occupation of educational facilities also makes the school a legitimate target for insurgent forces. Human Rights Watch has documented the bombing of schools as part of insurgency tactics in India, Afghanistan, and southern Thailand. In the Philippines, teachers reported that students often interact with the soldiers, and with only a few staff members, schools do not have the resources to supervise these interactions. Teachers described instances in which students ran errands for the detachment, joined soldiers in their barracks to eat lunch and watch “bang bang” movies, and ran up to soldiers to touch their guns.
A teacher in Gueday ¬– one of four who taught while the military was encamped in the school - spoke highly of the troops. She recalled the morning exercises the soldiers led with the students and the help the soldiers provided in cleaning the school. We asked her why, after three months, the soldiers had left the library and moved to the municipal hall. She replied matter-of-factly, “The community asked them to leave… The danger to the students.”
If the government is serious about putting an end to military abuses in the north, it should protect students and teachers by ordering the armed forces to respect the law and to stay out of educational facilities. The military will not win hearts and minds by putting schools in the line of fire.
Each year during its 
Jake Scobey-Thal is an associate in the Asia division at Human Rights Watch.
Find Us On