Yasmine Sherif is Director, Education Cannot Wait
By Yasmine Sherif
NEW YORK, May 13 2020 (IPS)
Prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, we estimated that 75 million children and youth – of whom 39 million are girls – were not able to access a quality education in countries impacted by armed conflicts, forced displacement, natural disasters and climate change-induced emergencies. The impact of COVID-19 has both globally and exponentially deepened the already existing critical education crisis.
Yasmine Sherif
In countries affected by humanitarian crises, restrictive movement measures (including curfews), have led to the closure of schools and loss of access to education, psychosocial services, school feeding, hygiene and protection – all components of a quality education.In many of these countries, weak infrastructure does not allow for remote learning through technology. In most parts of Afghanistan, in the Central African Republic or in Chad, to mention just a few, remote technological learning is simply not an option today – further contributing to the education divide. At the same time, we know that quality, inclusive education is a foundational Sustainable Development Goal (SDG4) necessary to advance all other SDGs.
In the words of the President of the UN General Assembly, Tijjani Muhammad-Bande: “Given the importance of education in achieving the 2030 Agenda, we must ensure that we urgently tackle the disruptions that the pandemic has already caused … While it has been easier for developed countries to transit to remote learning, many governments around the world found it difficult or impossible.”
The President of the UN General Assembly concluded, “We cannot allow this pandemic to widen the educational gap that already exists. I call on you all [193 Member States] to make cooperation in education a key element in your response to this pandemic.”
Indeed, in countries affected by armed conflicts and forced displacement, we can expect to see a significant increase in long-term loss of access to inclusive quality education due to COVID-19. We will see an increase in school drop-out rates and a reduction in psychosocial support and other protection mechanisms for students and teachers alike. This, in turn, will impact socio-economic development and the ability to build back better.
A crisis, however complicated it is, must be a trigger for immediate action, rather than a cause for delay. An early response stands greater chances of mitigating the impact and reduce the risk of a growing education divide. As the President of the UN General Assembly highlighted, education needs to be a priority within the COVID-19 response.
Thanks to the support of Education Cannot Wait’s strategic donor constituency, a coordinated, comprehensive emergency investment was rapidly released in April to UN agencies and Civil Society organizations to enable them to quickly deliver education support for vulnerable girls and boys in 26 crisis-affected countries.
This emergency investment empowers: Ministries of Education in developing catch-up programmes and condensed curricula to prevent loss in the school year; production of distance learning material for pre-primary, primary and secondary levels; home-based learning and special measures for children with disabilities; expansion of radio and television education; COVID-19 awareness raising for children, parents and teachers; disinfection of schools; access to improved water and hygiene facilities and supplies; psychosocial counselling; and, the continued payment of teachers’ salaries during the crisis.
However, the needs remain enormous and urgent. Education Cannot Wait will therefore release a second round of investments in June. To this end, we have launched an appeal to both public and private sector donors for $50 million. We are deeply grateful to the United Kingdom and the LEGO Foundation for their swift contributions to cover 42% of the appeal, while Denmark has matched and frontloaded committed funding. However, at the time of writing, $29 million, is still urgently needed.
Unless we invest in education now – in the midst of the global COVID-19 crisis – much of the progress made through joint efforts among many different actors and organizations will be lost; perhaps irreversibly for millions of girls and boys, whose vulnerabilities will rapidly increase. Whatever befalls us in the coming ten years, whatever crises we face, there is one thing we cannot do. We cannot slide back on our progress and let the gap widen during the Decade of Action.
The post We Cannot Let the Education Gap Widen at the Start of the Decade of Action appeared first on Inter Press Service.
Excerpt:
Yasmine Sherif is Director, Education Cannot Wait
The post We Cannot Let the Education Gap Widen at the Start of the Decade of Action appeared first on Inter Press Service.
Written by Joseph Dunne and Katharina Eisele,
Joseph Dunne is Director of the European Parliament Liaison Office (EPLO) in Washington D.C. and Katharina Eisele is a Policy Analyst in the Ex-Ante Impact Assessment Unit of the European Parliamentary Research Service (EPRS) in Brussels. The opinions expressed in this document are the sole responsibility of the authors and do not represent an official position of the European Parliament.
© TungCheung / Adobe Stock
Laws and regulation affect all areas of people’s lives and businesses’ activity. ‘While good regulation is conducive to economic growth and wellbeing, inadequate regulation endangers both’, according to the OECD.
Impact assessments, next to public stakeholder consultations and ex-post evaluations, are tools for better law-making at the EU level. These tools aim to improve the quality of EU legislation. What is ex-ante impact assessment and why is it important for good regulation? Ex-ante impact assessment in the EU context can be defined as an attempt to provide, in advance of legislating, a coherent analysis of the reasoning that lies behind, and the foreseeable effects of, any proposed measure or policy initiative.
The EU and the USA have institutionalised frameworks in place to support evidence-based policy and rule-making. While the ways that regulatory policy is shaped are similar, there are also some differences.
Ex-ante impact assessment as an integral part of better regulationThe term ‘better regulation’ has been high on the agenda in Brussels since Jean-Claude Juncker, (now former) European Commission President, made it a top priority in 2015. At that time, the European Commission, as the EU’s executive, adopted its Better Regulation Agenda, in which it committed to consult and listen more, to give everyone the chance to have a say, to explain its policy initiatives better, to open up to scrutiny, as well as to examine the existing stock of EU legislation.
What did this entail? First, better regulation was included in the portfolio of the (then) Commission’s first Vice-President, Frans Timmermans. Moreover, better regulation was set to cover the whole policy cycle, from planning, adoption, design, implementation, application, to evaluation and revision. The Commission also published Better Regulation Guidelines and an accompanying Toolbox (which were updated in 2017), addressed to Commission staff.
Momentum increased a year later, in 2016, when the main three EU institutions (the European Commission, the European Parliament and the Council of the EU) adopted a new Interinstitutional Agreement on Better Law-Making. In this agreement, the three EU institutions recognised their joint responsibility for delivering high-quality EU legislation. The agreement highlighted ex-ante impact assessment as a key element of better regulation and an important tool for improving the quality of legislation without, however, replacing political decisions. The agreement also provides a common definition of impact assessments in its paragraph 12:
‘Impact assessments should cover the existence, scale and consequences of a problem and the question whether or not Union action is needed. They should map out alternative solutions and, where possible, potential short and long-term costs and benefits, assessing the economic, environmental and social impacts in an integrated and balanced way and using both qualitative and quantitative analyses. The principles of subsidiarity and proportionality should be fully respected, as should fundamental rights.’
The European Commission’s role as the EU executiveAt the EU level, the European Commission – as the EU executive – has the primary responsibility for conducting impact assessments. The Commission’s internal Regulatory Scrutiny Board (RSB) scrutinises the quality of such impact assessments for the Commission (the RSB Members have a more independent status, with three out of seven Members recruited from outside the European Commission). Impact assessments have to receive a positive opinion from the RSB for the initiative to proceed.
When is an impact assessment necessary? In the Interinstitutional Agreement on Better Law-Making the European Commission committed to conduct impact assessments of its legislative and non-legislative initiatives, which are expected to have significant economic, environmental or social impacts, and those included in the Commission’s annual work programme. Any other relevant impacts of an initiative also need to be assessed, while taking the principle of proportionate analysis into account. However, an impact assessment should be carried out only when it is useful. According to the Commission, no impact assessment is needed when there is little or no choice available for the Commission; when impacts cannot be clearly identified ex-ante; or when impacts are small.
The Commission took stock of its better regulation activities in 2019 concluding that ‘there is a general recognition that progress has been achieved across several dimensions since 2015’. The OECD also evaluated the EU better regulation system as among the very best. While progress has undeniably been made, there are also areas for further improvement.
In a 2019 review study, the European Parliamentary Research Service (EPRS) emphasised inter alia the need for a balanced consideration of the three types of impacts. This translates into better assessment and screening of the relevant impacts, while maintaining the principle of proportionate analysis. The EPRS also showed that the description and assessment of policy options needed improvement. The European Parliament (EP) has also criticised the lack of impact assessments, especially in the sensitive field of justice and home affairs, in a considerable number of cases.
Strengthening the European Parliament in its scrutiny roleIndeed, impact assessment work has attracted increasing attention in the European Parliament, which became a full co-legislator (together with the Council of the EU) in 2009. Increasing interest in and commitment to carrying out impact assessments in the Parliament has also contributed to a greater understanding of why and how the European Commission proposes its initiatives.
The European Parliament, as co-legislator at the EU level, has established impact assessment capacities to support and empower it in its scrutiny role. In 2012, the Parliament’s Bureau created a Directorate for Impact Assessment and European Added Value – now within the EPRS. One unit within this Directorate, the Ex-Ante Impact Assessment Unit, routinely issues ‘initial appraisals’, which summarise and evaluate the quality of Commission impact assessments accompanying legislative proposals. These initial appraisals aim to inform parliamentary committees about the rationale and evidence base of the Commission’s proposal.
In addition, this unit also provides, upon request from parliamentary committees, other impact assessment work. This also relates to the commitment taken by Parliament to assess the impacts of substantial amendments whenever necessary and relevant, in line with the 2016 Interinstitutional Agreement on Better Law-Making. The overall goal is to empower Parliament to exercise its scrutiny role as a co-legislator in the EU legislative process. The specific parliamentary context and the political environment characterise the framework in which impact assessment work is conducted in the European Parliament; high quality research must be delivered under defined, usually tight time constraints.
What’s next: ex-ante impact assessment in the Von der Leyen CommissionIn the current European Commission, the portfolio for ‘Interinstitutional Relations and Foresight’ was allocated to Vice-President Maroš Šefčovič. This means he leads the Commission’s work on relations with other EU institutions, better policy-making and strategic foresight. The mission letter that new Commission President Ursula von der Leyen sent to Vice-President Šefčovič in December 2019 specifies ‘the need for the EU to act together where it matters the most and where it can provide the most added value. To do this, we need to strengthen evidence-based policy-making and identify long-term trends on which we need to act and about which we need to know more.’ The Commission also plans to integrate foresight into better regulation and therefore possibly into impact assessment work.
In the mission letter, President von der Leyen recommitted to better regulation by asking Vice-President Šefčovič to coordinate the Commission’s work in this field. The mission letter also explicitly refers to developing and applying a ‘one in, one out’ principle: ‘Every legislative proposal creating new burdens should relieve people and businesses of an equivalent existing burden at EU level in the same policy area. We will also work with Member States to ensure that, when transposing EU legislation, they do not add unnecessary administrative burdens.’
This principle seems, however, to be contradictory to the approach of the previous Juncker Commission, which explicitly rejected upfront burden reduction targets. A 2017 Communication stated that the Commission’s own experience does not suggest that an approach based on ex-ante reduction objectives would produce better results in terms of tackling unnecessary costs and providing tangible benefits for stakeholders than its current approach. This position was reiterated in the Commission’s 2019 better regulation stocktaking exercise.
The question arises how a ‘one in, one out’ principle will be applied by the Commission under President von der Leyen. It remains to be seen what this principle exactly means and entails in an EU context; critical observations have indeed already been raised. It also remains to be seen whether the Commission’s level of ambition concerning better regulation will indeed remain high. A Commission communication originally announced for May 2020 (now possibly postponed due to the corona crisis) is expected to provide clarifications in this regard.
Le consul du Maroc à Oran a tenu, ce mercredi, des propos « graves » envers l’Algérie, en la qualifiant de « pays ennemi ». En effet, en s’adressant aux ressortissants marocains venus demander leur rapatriement, le Consul du pays voisin a tenu des propos graves à l’encontre de l’Algérie. « Comme vous pouvez le […]
L’article Le Consul du Maroc à Oran : « Nous sommes dans un pays ennemi » (Vidéo) est apparu en premier sur .
Le gouvernement algérien a décidé d’octroyer une aide humanitaire de cinquante sept (57) tonnes à la République du Niger composée essentiellement de produits alimentaires et de médicaments. L’aide a été fournie par le Croissant-Rouge algérien et embarquée sur deux avions de transport militaire au départ de la base aérienne de Boufarik, selon « Ennaharonline ». Rédaction d’Algérie360 […]
L’article L’Algérie envoie une aide humanitaire au Niger est apparu en premier sur .
Le comité scientifique de suivi de l’épidémie du Coronavirus a fait état ce mercredi, de 7 nouveaux décès et 60 nouvelles guérisons, tous recensés ces dernières 24 heures. Ainsi le total des décès causés par le Covid-19 est passé à 522 mort, et le total des cas de guérisons est passé à 3058 cas guéris, […]
L’article Coronavirus Algérie : 7 décès et 60 cas de guérisons au bilan du 13 mai est apparu en premier sur .