Crisis-sensitive planning: from education in emergencies to conflict and disaster risk reduction

CIES, March 2016Leonora MacEwenUNESCO-IIEP

Overview• Reflecting on the past • Building the bridge – IIEP’s

approach• Preconditions for crisis-sensitive

educational planning• Reflections for the future

Reflecting on the past – we’ve come a long way!

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

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

Building the bridge – IIEP’s approach

Different but complementary logics…

Planning for risk reduction: • Preparedness • Prevention • Mitigation

DevelopmentHumanitarian

• Research: case studies• Training Technical support Knowledge management

IIEP’s approach to crisis-sensitive planning

education4resilience@iiep.unesco.org

Crisis-sensitive educational planning: the process

Regular process

Education Sector Analysis

Policy formulation

Plan preparation

M&E framework

Crisis-sensitive planning aspects

Conflict and disaster risk analysis

Policies

Priority programmes

Integrate crisis indicators

Ensuring adequate financing from all sources

Pre-conditions for crisis-sensitive educational planning

Pre-conditions for crisis-sensitive education sector planning

Institutional Organizational Individual

• Government led• Participatory

• Well-organized • Capacity development process

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

Reflections for the future: challenges and opportunities

1. Political and funding2. Operational3. Capacity

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 levelo But also in countries affected by crisis: Common Platform, bilateral partners

Operational factorsSilo 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 WHSo At country-level thru instruments i.e. TEP

Cross-sectoral collaboration: o Education used in peacebuildingo Education as the basis for the SDGs

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