Crisis sensitive planning: from education in emergencies to conflict and disaster risk reduction
•Télécharger en tant que PPTX, PDF•
2 j'aime•1,339 vues
Autor: Leonora MacEwen, programme specialist IIEP-UNESCO Presentation made for CIES 2016, Vancouver, Canada.
Recommandé
Recommandé
Contenu connexe
Tendances
Tendances (20)
En vedette
En vedette (13)
Similaire à Crisis sensitive planning: from education in emergencies to conflict and disaster risk reduction
Similaire à Crisis sensitive planning: from education in emergencies to conflict and disaster risk reduction (20)
Plus de IIEP-UNESCO
Plus de IIEP-UNESCO (9)
Dernier
Dernier (20)
Crisis sensitive planning: from education in emergencies to conflict and disaster risk reduction
- 1. Crisis-sensitive planning: from education in emergencies to conflict and disaster risk reduction CIES, March 2016 Leonora MacEwen UNESCO-IIEP
- 2. Overview • Reflecting on the past • Building the bridge – IIEP’s approach • Preconditions for crisis-sensitive educational planning • Reflections for the future
- 3. Reflecting on the past – we’ve come a long way!
- 4. Reflecting on the past • EiE emerges (2000) • INEE Minimum Standards (2002) • IIEP Guidebook for planning EiE (2006) • Cluster system introduced (2005) • Push for government leadership and links with ESWG Reflecting on how education can mitigate risks of disaster and conflict
- 5. One Humanity: Shared Responsibility Core responsibility 4 - moves from delivering aid to ending need Reinforce Anticipate Transcend the humanitarian- development divide Two sections on education: safe, quality and inclusive access sufficient domestic and international funding
- 6. Building the bridge – IIEP’s approach
- 7. Different but complementary logics… Planning for risk reduction: • Preparedness • Prevention • Mitigation
- 8. • Research: case studies • Training Technical support Knowledge management IIEP’s approach to crisis-sensitive planning education4resilience@iiep.unesco.org
- 9. Crisis-sensitive educational planning: the process Regular process Education Sector Analysis Policy formulation Plan preparation M&E framework Cost & financing framework Crisis-sensitive planning aspects Conflict and disaster risk analysis Policies Priority programmes Integrate crisis indicators Ensuring adequate financing from all sources
- 10. Pre-conditions for crisis-sensitive educational planning
- 11. Pre-conditions for crisis-sensitive education sector planning Institutional Organizational Individual • Government led • Participatory • Well-organized • Capacity development process
- 12. Pre-conditions for crisis-sensitive education sector planning Institutional capacities: Political will, MoE leadership, int. and nat. frameworks and mechanisms Organizational capacities: e.g. EiE Cluster, technical and financial WGs, partners Individual capacities: Invested advocates or ‘crisis-sensitive planning champions’ • Government led • Participatory • Well-organized • Capacity development process
- 13. Reflections for the future: challenges and opportunities 1. Political and funding 2. Operational 3. Capacity
- 14. Political and funding issues Funding mechanisms still not very flexible Education still not priority in humanitarian funding Multiple & often-competing agendas in planning Considerable momentum o Particularly at international level o But also in countries affected by crisis: Common Platform, bilateral partners
- 15. Operational factors Silo approach in many agencies High staff turnover Push for increase in coordination, collaboration & innovation between humanitarian AND development partners: o At global level thru fora such as WHS o At country-level thru instruments i.e. TEP Cross-sectoral collaboration: o Education used in peacebuilding o Education as the basis for the SDGs
- 16. Capacity issues HR turnover & tight deadlines challenges sustainability of CD efforts Strengthening capacities for a critical mass & at all levels does NOT happen within 1 program cycle Particular needs include: o Implement, monitor and evaluate crisis-sensitive planning, o Data collection & analysis, EMIS & monitoring tools must include risks & use innovative collection methods in hard-to-reach areas Push to eliminate need for aid thru working with existing systems & reinforcing capacity New tools developed to address crisis-sensitive planning: TEP, IIEP guidelines & booklets
Notes de l'éditeur
- The Cluster Approach was applied for the first time following the 2005 earthquake in Pakistan. Nine clusters were established within 24 hours of the earthquake. Since then two evaluations on the Cluster Approach have taken place. The first, finalized in 2007, focused on implementation. The second, conducted in 2010, focused on the outcome of the cluster approach in improving humanitarian assistance. The learning from these evaluations led to the IASC Transformative Agenda (TA), a serie of actions aimed at simplifying processes and outcomes. The IASC Principals “agreed there is a need to restate and return to the original purpose of clusters, refocusing them on strategic and operational gaps analysis, planning, assessment and results”. The aim of the cluster approach is to strengthen system-wide preparedness and technical capacity to respond to humanitarian emergencies, and provide clear leadership and accountability in the main areas of humanitarian response. At country level, it aims to strengthen partnerships, and the predictability and accountability of international humanitarian action, by improving prioritization and clearly defining the roles and responsibilities of humanitarian organizations. Supporting service delivery by providing a platform for agreement on approaches and elimination of duplication Informing strategic decision-making of the HC/HCT for the humanitarian response through coordination of needs assessment, gap analysis and prioritization Planning and strategy development including sectoral plans, adherence to standards and funding needs Advocacy to address identified concerns on behalf of cluster participants and the affected population Monitoring and reporting on the cluster strategy and results; recommending corrective action where necessary Contingency planning/preparedness/national capacity building where needed and where capacity exists within the cluster. Push for government leadership at least in the education cluster, however, this doesn’t occur in many countries. There has also been a push for creating links with country-level educaiton groups, or ESWGs, or LEGS This has been done in order to improve ownership, but also to ensure that programming maintains a long-term vision In parallel, the push for reflecting on how education can mitigate risks of disaster and conflict
- The UN Secretary-General’s Report, One Humanity: Shared Responsibility, was recently released in advance of the World Humanitarian Summit in Istanbul this May. It contains calls for reform in humanitarian aid architecture that could change lives for millions if taken at their word. Core responsibility 4 Change people's lives – from delivering aid to ending need Success must now be measured by how people's vulnerability and risk are reduced, not by how needs are met year after year. Ending need will require three fundamental shifts in the way we work: Reinforce, don't replace national systems Anticipate, do not wait for crises Transcend the humanitarian-development divide The writing also dedicates two sections to education, giving it some of the prominence we might hope for, raising expectations in advance of the Summit. In particular, it underlines the following ‘Core Responsibilities’: Commit to ensure safe, quality and inclusive access to primary and secondary education and vocational opportunities in and after crises, including for children and youth with disabilities. Provide primary, secondary and vocational education and certification for those living in displacement, in line with national qualifications and standards. Provide sufficient domestic and international funding to enable all children and adolescents to receive education and vocational training opportunities, including in crisis settings.
- The logic /dynamics of development and humanitarian actors can be seen as conflicting or contradictory, however they can also be seen as complementary, and both are necessary… Humanitarian vs development Short-term dynamics vs long-term dynamics Quick fix vs sustainability Unpredictable vs relatively predictable (3-5 years) How can development actors (which rely on a long-term & predictable vision) address emergency situations (with short-term & unpredictable dynamics)? Also, how can emergency actors break out of the perpetual disaster-disaster response cycle? How can they act in a way that is not just response, response, response – which is unsustainable in the long run. From IIEP’s perspective, the bridge is through planning for risk reduction which means: Preparedness = dealing with the impact of the crisis once the emergency situation occurs Prevention = avoiding the impact and addressing the causes of disasters and conflicts Mitigation = the lessening or limitation of the adverse impacts of hazards and related disasters Cross sectoral issues, education not alone
- Research: case studies Palestine, Nepal, Burkina Faso, forthcoming Uganda, South Sudan Case studies that look at process—the idea being to understand what political will and buy-in was necessary, who the actors were, and if and how equal representation of different stakeholders was ensured Training Resource booklets and training materials Distance course on educational planning for safety, resilience and social cohesion (2012 - 2015) Regional workshops in Asia and the Pacific (2014, 2015) and East and Southern Africa (2015, 2016) Technical Cooperation Piloting materials in Burkina Faso, Mali, Uganda and South Sudan: 2012 - 2015 Continued capacity development support in 2016 in Uganda and South Sudan Knowledge management Development of IIEP-PEIC website and online repository: education4resilience@iiep.unesco.org
- Conflict and disaster risk analysis (effects of crises on education, role of education in conflict) Policies e.g.: Schools as safe and child-friendly spaces, equity policies, curriculum policy, … Priority programmes: Curriculum review, teacher training; school-based emergency preparedness plans; rrelocate, retrofit schools Crisis indicators integrated into data collection, maps, EMIS Ensuring adequate financing, including from humanitarian sources and government budges
- Planning is an opportunity in and of itself, given its very nature, to bring together different actors and integrate approaches. IIEP and GPE have put forward 4 key principles for planning. First and foremost, developing an ESP must be a country-led process. Since an ESP is a national policy instrument, it is first the responsibility of the national government, which ultimately decides on priorities and is responsible for the plan’s implementation. Secondly, developing an ESP is a participatory process. Engaging political leaders and technical experts will allow you to strike a balance between ambitions and constraints. It will also help raise awareness and gain the commitment of a wide range of education stakeholders. This is really the opportunity to engage humanitarian actors. To efficiently manage this participation, developing an ESP must be a well-organized process. Ensuring clarity on the roles and responsibilities of different actors is essential. Finally, the development of an ESP is a capacity development process. The process of ESP preparation is as important as the final product. CAPACITIES needed at all levels: Finally, the planning process should be viewed as a capacity-development process. Because plan implementation depends on a wide range of actors within te administration, from central to school levels, and it is important that capacity at all these levels be addressed. Actual work on drafting a plan and involvement in consultations are of great value to developing capacities and strengthening motivation. Based on the technical cooperation we’ve undertaken in Burkina Faso, Mali, Uganda and South Sudan, we find the following pre-conditions necessary for effective crisis-sensitive planning. 1. Institutional capacities: Political will to make education crisis-sensitive; MoE leadership, int. and national frameworks and mechanisms 2. Organizational capacities: organizational mechanisms/technical WG – clear mandate/roles and responsibilities 3. Individual capacities: Capacity of key education ministry officials, invested advocates for crisis-sensitive planning. Planning for safety, resilience and social cohesion can be difficult to integrate into the educational planning process due to its sensitive language and limited funds available. The experience of IIEP shows that outspoken advocates for these issues are the key for institutions to collaborate and lead activities to address conflict and disasters in education.
- Planning is an opportunity in and of itself, given its very nature, to bring together different actors and integrate approaches. IIEP and GPE have the characteristicsFirst and foremost, developing an ESP must be a country-led process. Since an ESP is a national policy instrument, it is first the responsibility of the national government, which ultimately decides on priorities and is responsible for the plan’s implementation. Secondly, developing an ESP is a participatory process. Engaging political leaders and technical experts will allow you to strike a balance between ambitions and constraints. It will also help raise awareness and gain the commitment of a wide range of education stakeholders. This is really the opportunity to engage humanitarian actors. To efficiently manage this participation, developing an ESP must be a well-organized process. Ensuring clarity on the roles and responsibilities of different actors is essential. Finally, the development of an ESP is a capacity development process. The process of ESP preparation is as important as the final product. CAPACITIES needed at all levels: Finally, the planning process should be viewed as a capacity-development process. Because plan implementation depends on a wide range of actors within te administration, from central to school levels, and it is important that capacity at all these levels be addressed. Actual work on drafting a plan and involvement in consultations are of great value to developing capacities and strengthening motivation. Based on the technical cooperation we’ve undertaken in Burkina Faso, Mali, Uganda and South Sudan, we find the following pre-conditions necessary for effective crisis-sensitive planning. 1. Institutional capacities: Political will to make education crisis-sensitive; MoE leadership, int. and national frameworks and mechanisms 2. Organizational capacities: organizational mechanisms/technical WG – clear mandate/roles and responsibilities 3. Individual capacities: Capacity of key education ministry officials, invested advocates for crisis-sensitive planning. Planning for safety, resilience and social cohesion can be difficult to integrate into the educational planning process due to its sensitive language and limited funds available. The experience of IIEP shows that outspoken advocates for these issues are the key for institutions to collaborate and lead activities to address conflict and disasters in education.
- Political and funding Funding mechanisms still are not that flexible, however Ministries but also country-level partners need flexibility in programming and budgeting Education still not seen as priority in humanitarian funding (only gets 1.2% of funds on average) Navigating through the complexity of and competition around integrating crisis-sensitivity component/strategy into the National education plan is key—crisis-sensitivity is not an add on, but needs to be weaved throughout, in order to ensure an equitable system. The purpose of a new Common Platform for education in emergencies and protracted crises is to generate political, operational and financial commitment to meet the educational needs of millions of children and young people affected by crises. Major bilateral donors including DfID, USAID, GPE, Norway, are redirecting their strategies towards crisis-settings. There are funds there, because of the growing focus on this issue. In countries like South Sudan, funding is shifting from development to humanitarian, since 2011)
- Operational issues Silo approach in many agencies is still in existence—humanitarian actors cannot have a longer term vision, and development partners are not able to invest in « crisis-affected » areas. This was a relatively long struggle even within IIEP to institutionalize the crisis perspective and to get all colleagues on board. Political turnover –retaining competent staff, in government and also within the country. also the problem turnover with partners and short rotation times TEP as instrument and the work that goes into it should help ensure that approaches are integrated and implementation is more coordinated Cross-sectoral collaboration also is an opportunity to stop working in silos and have a more integrated approach. The idea is to work off of the comparative advantage of the respective sectors and optimizing the use of resources, to ensure an equitable access to education. Planning is about seeing inequities and inefficiencies, education as the basis of SDGs Need for continued advocacy, evidence and financial support
- Capacity issues HR turnover and tight deadlines make sustainability challenging—particularly true given our approach to planning which is that it is to be a capacity development exercise. CD efforts including training, but if those trained don’t stay with Ministry, efforts are “lost”. Also CD may be more timely, so when timelines are tight, there is less time to allow for this. Strengthening capacities at all levels (individual/organizational/institutional level) is key, however it is important that all partners and donors keep in mind that system strengthening does NOT happen within 1 program cycle Strengthening capacities on how to monitor and evaluate impacts of crisis-sensitive planning is key, especially impact of prevention-related actions and when concepts remain fluid (resilience, social cohesion) data collection and analysis, EMIS and monitoring tools to include aspects on risks, and innovative methods of collection in hard-to-reach areas