Implications for ERP2

Based on the lessons from the current ERP, the ERP2 should be developed from the district level up, fully integrating refugee numbers into the main district education planning and budget for refugee-hosting districts.

There are calls for the ERP2 to be designed with the whole population of each refugee-hosting district in focus, rather than a plan focused only on refugees and host communities.

There have been a number of lessons about the financing of the ERP in this chapter, but one theme emerged with relation to planning ERP2. This viewpoint follows from the

challenges of tracking the ERP’s financing, due to the definitions of ‘what counts’ in funding allocations, particularly for targeted beneficiaries. Many arguments were made by partners in support of this, including the following: i) if refugees are to be really integrated into planning then standard district-level planning, budgeting, and monitoring systems (not an alternative system of ERP planning) need to be inclusive of all children; ii) activities such as capacity building for district officers would support the whole school population of the district; and iii) setting up a tracking system for financing (or indeed activities and outcomes) at sub-county level would create a parallel system, whereas the district should be considering refugees across all its activities. Following the findings in Section 5.3, it would also make sense for planning, costing, and budgeting to happen at the district level as part of the national ERP2.

This shift would have major implications. For example, the total number of target

beneficiaries would be very large, as it would include all children in each refugee-hosting district; as a result, the total costs would be very large to provide a quality standard of education service to all children under the ERP’s design.²⁴ However, the ERP2 does not need to be seen as a standalone and mutually exclusive plan. It is really a sub-section of the ESSP, and simply represents a more detailed operational plan for ensuring refugees and host communities are adequately supported by the national education system. Whilst a standalone plan was beneficial in the early stages of the response, going forward it may be that integrating refugee education into the national system of education planning (though still with specific objectives and targets for refugees) would allow for better coordination,

planning, and resource mobilisation.

5.5 Conclusions

Finding 1: The financing needs of the ERP are not perceived to have been met, even against an already modest view of the needs.

The ERP costing of US$ 389 million already reduced the target group to only a portion of host community children, and did not aim to achieve full enrolment rates for refugees or host

24 This was the reason behind the decision to limit the geographical coverage of the first ERP to refugee hosting sub-counties rather than including all sub-counties and Ugandan nationals in the district.

communities under the Plan. Furthermore, stakeholders believe that the refugee influx has actually been greater than that projected in the ERP costing model, though no analysis has been seen to confirm the extent of this. This US$ 389 million, though identified against priority activities and considered a realistic expectation, has not been secured to date, two years since the Plan’s start date. Furthermore, the actual accurate status of financing is not known due to difficulties in defining and tracking spending on the ERP. There are concerns around gaps in the number of classrooms and teachers, as well as inequitable distribution of resources between settlement sites; however, without accurate data it is not possible to confirm these issues. Short-term technical assistance on finance tracking, currently underway and supported by Maintains, will help uncover the actual situation and help identify where the gaps are.

Finding 2: Government funding towards the ERP will continue to be inadequate, in partners’ eyes, until refugees are fully included in the government’s mainstream planning and budgeting for the education sector.

Aligning the planning and budgeting of education service delivery for refugees within existing systems, as well as recognising and coding settlement schools, would improve access to government funds. These funds would go directly to schools as capitation grants, allow for the hiring of additional teachers under the government wage bill and improve access to resources for operational expenses at the district level, including for coordination and monitoring. This, however, would come at a notable cost to government and needs further analysis and discussion.

Finding 3: The presence of the ERP was an enabling factor for securing ECW, and possibly ECHO, funds, which together account for approximately US $41.6 million – 11% of the ERP’s costs. However, other than that the Plan is seen as having had little impact on improving total funding for ERP activities.

Whilst there are a large number of implementing partners who have been successful in securing funds, the presence of the ERP itself is not viewed as having been an enabling factor in securing additional funds to refugee and host communities than would have come in the absence of the ERP. It is also unclear the extent to which the ERP has contributed to more aligned and efficient financing, with no funders channelling through a pooled fund or through the government as the Plan had intended; resultantly, government officials are left feeling side-lined from spending decisions. However, the ERP Secretariat as a coordination mechanism is playing a key role with respect to dialogue on spending decisions and staff are confident that clearer results in this area will be seen in the very near future.

Finding 4: Stakeholders want to see an increase in fundraising efforts and a shift to multi-year financing commitments from donors to secure required resources and allow flexible responses to emerging needs.

It is important to recognise that the refugee influx in Uganda is a protracted crisis rather than a short-term emergency and so there must be a shift from humanitarian to development perspectives, with longer-term financing commitments. This would be in line with global efforts to strengthen the humanitarian–development nexus. However, more flexibility within funding sources (to change priorities) signals the challenge with setting out costed activities, as the ERP does. Emerging needs are likely to change from the original set of activities, and

there must be room to allow these changes and still ensure the success of the Plan, which should focus on outcomes rather than pre-set input targets.

Finding 5: District-level coordination and ownership must improve for financing to be better coordinated, and mobilised, at the local level.

There needs to be clarity among all stakeholders on district local government roles and responsibilities for coordination of grants implemented in their location, as well as responsibilities for resource mobilisation. This would help secure more adequate and efficient financing, focusing on needs identified by people on the ground, and should be a priority when developing the ERP2.