Policy Paper
May 2017
Aid to education is stagnating and
not going to countries most in need
D omestic expenditures in low and lower middle
income countries cannot cover the costs of reaching
Sustainable Development Goal 4 (SDG 4), and so aid must
make up the shortfall. But aid to education has been
stagnant since 2010, and the aid that is given often does
not go to the countries most in need, worsening the
prospects for achieving global education goals.
The governments of low and lower middle income
countries have increased their spending on education
since 2000 (UNESCO, 2015a). Even if they continue to do
so in coming years, the Global Education Monitoring Report
estimated that these countries would face an annual
financing gap of US$39 billion in 20152030. In low income
countries, this is equivalent to 42% of the total cost of
providing quality pre-primary, primary and secondary
education to all children (UNESCO, 2015b). Aid to education
in low and lower middle income countries needs to be
six times higher than 2012 levels, an estimate confirmed
by the International Commission on Financing Global
Education Opportunity (Education Commission, 2016).
But instead, donors continue to place a lower priority on
aid to education.
This paper analyses current levels and trends of aid to
education using data from three sources: the Organisation
for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD)
Development Assistance Committee (DAC) and its
Creditor Reporting System (CRS) database; the Global
Partnership for Education (GPE), which has just launched
its 2020 replenishment effort; and the United Nations
Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Assistance
(OCHA). The most recent data is mainly from 2015, which
should serve as a benchmark for monitoring progress
during the implementation of the 2030 Agenda for
Sustainable Development.
United Nations
Educational, Scientic and
Cultural Organization
31
Aid to education has dropped in
priority for the sixth year in a row
Total global official development assistance (ODA) rose
from US$145 billion in 2014 to US$152 billion in 2015, an
increase of 5% in real terms. The increase is partly explained
by the migration and refugee crisis in Europe, which
peaked in 2015: A 1988 DAC rule on aid reporting allows
donor countries to categorize certain expenses related
to refugees as ODA for the first year after their arrival.
Germany, Greece and Italy reported that over 20% of their
ODA in 2015 was spent on refugee costs (OECD, 2016).
The cumulative increase of ODA between 2010 and 2015
is 24%. However, even as overall aid increases, aid to
education is stagnating (Figure 1). In 2010, aid to education
reached its highest level since records on disbursement
were established in 2002. It decreased in 2011/12 in the
aftermath of the financial crisis, and has only slowly
recovered since then. Between 2014 and 2015, aid to
education grew by US$500 million, or 4%, to reach US$12
billion. But it is still 4% below its 2010 level significantly
less than the amount needed to achieve SDG 4.
In 2015, the share going to basic education, which includes
support to pre-primary and primary education as well
as adult education and literacy programmes, was one
percentage point below its 2010 peak. By contrast, the
share going to secondary education has increased over the
past decade: It has risen from 12% in 2005 to 19% in 2015,
reaching its highest share of 21% in 2014 (Figure 2).
 POLICY PAPER 31

There is little evidence to suggest that the migration

F I GURE 1 : and refugee crisis in Europe and the stagnation in aid to
Aid to education continues to stagnate education are linked (OECD, 2016; 2017). Rather, donors
Total aid to education disbursements, by level of education, 20022015 are simply shifting their priorities away from education.
14 Educations share in total aid (excluding debt relief) has
fallen for six years in a row, from 10% in 2009 to 6.9% in
12.5
12.2
12.0 12.1 12.0 2015. By comparison, the share of aid to the health and
12 11.5
11.2 population sector increased from 11.4% in 2004 to 15.9%
10.5 10.3 in 2013, followed by a sharp fall to 12.6% in the following
10 9.5 4.7 4.8 two years. The share of the transport sector, which was
4.7 4.6 4.6
4.3 two-thirds the level of education in the mid-2000s, has
8.6 4.5
4.4 since 2012 been equal to or higher than educations
Constant US$ 2015 billions

7.7 4.1
8 7.4
4.2
share (Figure 3).
3.9 2.1 2.1
2.0 2.5 2.2
6 5.6 3.5 2.5
3.6 2.0

1.4
1.7 1.7
Aid to basic education must be
2.2
4
1.1
1.1
better allocated
1.0
0.9 5.5 In 2015, total aid to basic education increased by 8% to
5.4 5.3 5.0 5.2
4.4 4.5 4.7 4.8
2 3.6 3.9 US$5.2 billion, up from US$4.8 billion in 2014 (Figure 4).
2.8 3.1
2.5 Bilateral donors still play a leading role, disbursing 62% of
the total (including both DAC and non-DAC members). But
0
multilateral donors are becoming more important.
2004

2008
2006

2009
2005
2002

2003

2007

2010

2014

2015
2012

2013
2011

Total aid to basic education The amount of aid provided to basic education by bilateral
Total aid to secondary education DAC donors has been declining in 2015, it was 18% lower
Total aid to post-secondary education than in 2010. The United States and the United Kingdom
Source: GEM Report team analysis based on OECD Creditor Reporting System (2017). are the two largest bilateral DAC (and G7) donors to basic
education, and they have prioritized basic education since
20082010. Nevertheless, in 2015, they decreased their
aid to basic education by 11% (to US$782 million) and by
F I GURE 2 :
9% (US$534 million) respectively (Figure 5A). Three of the
Despite a dip in 2015, more aid is being allocated to secondary
education G7 countries were outside the list of top ten donors to
Share of aid to education by level, 20022015 basic education in 2015 (Figure 5B): Japan was in 11th place,
France was in 13th and Italy was in 21st.
60 Total aid to basic education
Total aid to secondary education
Total aid to post-secondary education At the same time, several non-DAC bilateral donors
50 49 have emerged since 2013, and by 2015 accounted for 9%
44 43 of bilateral aid and 6% of total aid to basic education.
41
For example, the United Arab Emirates disbursed
40 38 38
37 US$227 million of aid to basic education per year on
average in 20132015.
30
Meanwhile, multilateral aid has returned to 2010 levels.
%

21
As a result, multilateral donors accounted for 38% of
20 19
total aid to basic education in 2015, as compared to 35%
13 12 in 2010. The World Bank is the largest multilateral donor,
10 providing US$782 million in 2015, which represents an
increase for the third year in a row, though still at levels
similar to 20082010.
0
2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

Source: GEM Report team analysis based on OECD Creditor Reporting System (2017).

2
 POLICY PAPER 31

F I GURE 3 : FIG U R E 4 :
Donors continue to give less priority to education DAC countries have been reducing their support to basic
Share of education, health and population, and transport in total aid, education since 2010
20022015 Total aid to basic education, by donor type, 20022015
18
6
Health and population Non-DAC countries
15.9
16 Education 1%
Multilaterals 6%
Transport 6%
5 DAC countries
1% 2%
14
35%
35%
35%
12 12.6
10.8 4 31 % 29%
29% 30% 35% 38%

Constant US$ 2015 billions

10.0
10 8.7
34%
%

3
44%
8
35%
6.8 6.9
36%
6 2 45%
65% 65% 64%
71 % 70% 68% 65%
63% 57%
4 66%
1 65% 56%
64%
2 55%

0 0
2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2004

2008
2006

2009
2005
2002

2003

2007

2010

2014

2015
2012

2013
2011
Source: GEM Report team analysis based on OECD Creditor Reporting System (2017). Source: GEM Report team analysis based on OECD Creditor Reporting System (2017).

F I GURE 5:
The United States and the United Kingdom buck the trend by emphasizing basic education
Total aid to education disbursements, by level of education, 20022015
A. Top 10 bilateral and multilateral donors in total aid to basic education (200215), B. Top 10 bilateral and multilateral donors and remaining G7 donors to basic education, 2015
20022004, 20082010, and 20132015
900
United States 2.9%
800 United States World Bank 7.8%

United Kingdom 4.6%

700

World Bank EU Institutions 3.1%

600 United Kingdom
UNRWA 52.4%
Constant US$ 2015 billions

Germany 2.4%
500
United Arab Emirates 6.3%
400 EU Institutions Norway 7.5%
UNRWA
Australia 7.8%
300
Germany Top 10 donors in 2015
Japan Canada 5.1%
200 Norway Japan 2.4%
France France 1.8%
100 Other G7 donors

Netherlands Italy 1.9%

0
200204 200810 201315 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900
Constant US$ 2015 millions
Note: G7 countries are represented with black bars in Figure 5B. Percentages in boxes represent the share in total aid allocated by each donor to basic education.
Source: GEM Report team analysis based on OECD Creditor Reporting System (2017).

3
 POLICY PAPER 31

DONORS DO NOT TARGET BASIC EDUCATION AID total aid to education and 32% of aid to basic education in
SUFFICIENTLY TO COUNTRIES MOST IN NEED 2015 (down from 29% and 37%, respectively, in 2014).

There are different ways to monitor the share of total aid A third approach is to examine the distribution of aid
to education allocated to low income countries, which is to basic education by region. Sub-Saharan Africa, the
a thematic indicator for SDG 4.5, the target that aims at region with over half of the worlds out-of-school children,
ensuring equal access to education. One approach is to remains the largest recipient of aid to basic education,
focus on the 32 countries classified as low income by the accounting for US$1.3 billion or 26% of the total in 2015.
World Bank, all but 5 of which are in sub-Saharan Africa. And yet this represents almost half its share in 2002.
By this measure, low income countries received 19% of Northern Africa and Western Asia, home to 9% of out-of-
total aid to education and 23% of aid to basic education school children, has received a disproportionately high
in 2015. Both shares had remained constant for 10 years, share (rising from 5% in 2002 to 22% in 2015), with notable
but they fell sharply in 2015 (from 21% total aid and 29% increases going to Jordan, Lebanon and Palestine. The
basic education aid in 2014), representing a 13% decrease proportion of aid to basic education that is not explicitly
in overall aid to education and a 16% fall in aid to basic assigned to specific countries has also increased, from 4%
education in low income countries (Figure 6). in 2002 to 13% in 2015 (Figure 7). This, to a large extent, is
because of the emergence of the Global Partnership for
One issue with this approach is that the countries Education (Box 1).
identified by the World Bank as low income change over
time. An alternative approach is to focus on the countries Income status and region are only proxies of need. A
classified by the United Nations as least developed, since more direct approach to monitoring basic education
the membership of this group changes less frequently. In aid allocation would examine whether aid is allocated to
December 2016, the group consisted of 48 countries, of countries in proportion to the cost of reaching their out-of-
which only Equatorial Guinea and Vanuatu are expected school populations. This is not a straightforward task, but
to exit by 2020. Least developed countries received 27% of one plausible, if a little rough, option would be to use three

F I G U RE 6 : FIG U R E 7 :
The share of aid to basic education to low income countries fell Sub-Saharan Africa receives a declining share of aid to basic
sharply in 2015 education
Share of low income countries (LICs) and least developed countries (LDCs) Share of aid to basic education, by selected regions, 20022015
in total aid to education and to basic education disbursements, 20022015
50 60

45
50
40

35
LDCs, 40
basic education, 32
30
LDCs,
25 education, 27.0 30 Sub-Saharan Africa, 26
%
%

LICs,
20 basic education, 22.9 Southern Asia, 23
LICs, 20 Northern Africa
15 and Western Asia, 22
education, 18.6
LDCs, basic education
10 LICs, basic education 10 Developing countries,
unspecified, 13
LDCs, education
5 LICs, education
0
0
2011

2012

2013

2015
2014
2010
2007
2002

2003

2005

2006

2009
2004

2008
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015

Source: GEM Report team analysis based on OECD Creditor Reporting System (2017).
Source: GEM Report team analysis based on OECD Creditor Reporting System (2017).

4
 POLICY PAPER 31

BOX 1

The increasing role of the Global Partnership for Education

Between 2004 and 2016, the Global Partnership for Education (GPE)
FIG U R E 8:
disbursed US$3.6 billion to the education sector for 302 grants through
The share of GPE aid to basic and secondary education in its
6 funding mechanisms, of which implementation grants accounted for
partner countries has doubled since 2010
about 95% of the total. GPE grants mainly support programmes up to the
GPE aid to basic and secondary education and as a percentage of basic
level of lower secondary education, although in some countries GPE aid has and secondary education ODA in GPE countries, 20042015
supported upper secondary education as part of its whole sector and system-
strengthening approach. 500 100
446
450 90
Although aid to education has generally stagnated since 2010, GPE
400 80
disbursements increased by 14% on average from 2010 to 2015. As a result,
in 2015, GPE disbursements made up 12% of basic and secondary education 350 70

ODA in its partner countries, as compared to 6% in 2010 (Figure 8). GPE 300 60

US$ millions
disbursements have increased from US$16 million in 2004 to US$446 million in 250 50

%
2015, making the organization the second-largest multilateral donor to basic
200 40
and secondary education after the World Bank.
150 30
With about 77% of its disbursements directed to sub-Saharan Africa and nearly 100 20
12
60% to countries affected by fragility or conflict, GPE is very effective in
50 6 10
reaching countries that are most in need. The GPE allocation model is based
on two key elements: the needs of the education sector in the partner country 0 0
2004

2008
2006

2009
2005

2007

2010

2014

2015
2012

2013
2011
and the income level of the country in question. For example, while both
Ethiopia and Pakistan have high out-of-school populations, Pakistan received Share of GPE in aid to GPE disbursements to
relatively low GPE cumulative disbursements in 20102015 because of its basic and secondary education basic and secondary education

status as a lower middle income country. In February 2017, GPE introduced a
new allocation model based on a needs index. This combines the primary and
lower secondary school age population with the lower secondary completion
rate and income per capita, and makes an adjustment for fragile and conflict-
affected countries.
Note: GPE disbursements are deflated using OECD-DAC data. A deflator is calculated
as the ratio of ODA in US$ current to the ODA in constant US$ for GPE countries.
GPE disbursements in 61 country members only consider grants that are allocated to
specific countries. The year of GPE disbursements does not correspond fully to the
year of other donor disbursements in the OECD-DAC database.
Source: GPE Secretariat analysis based on OECD Creditor Reporting System (2017)
and GPE data.

GPE has taken steps to incorporate its aid statistics into the CRS database,
including harmonizing the GPE grant coding system with the International
Aid Transparency Initiative standards. Since GPE funds are provided by donors
that already report to the CRS, GPE is working with DAC to find the best way
to report its aid so as to minimize double counting of disbursements.

pieces of information. First, take the countrys expenditure
per primary school student. Multiply this by the number
of out-of-school children in the country, to provide a
hypothetical total cost of educating these children.
Finally, compare this figure with the volume of aid to basic
education disbursed to the country that year.
There are several issues with this kind of comparison.
First, the per capita cost of primary education varies for
different reasons in different countries, making cross-
country comparisons somewhat unreliable. For example,
the per primary school student expenditure in Senegal is
5.5 times the expenditure in Guinea, but that understates
the magnitude of Guineas need. Note that this only
considers public expenditure, while countries also differ in
the size of household contributions. Second, the cost of
educating out-of-school children is higher than the cost
of educating children already in school, which means that
countries would need more funding than the calculation
indicates. And third, at least part of the aid to education
is captured in public expenditure (and in estimated
expenditure per student), but this is not done in a uniform
way across countries.
But even with those caveats, the comparison has value.
Ideally, aid to basic education should be aligned with the
amount it would take to educate all out-of-school children.
For example, the cost of schooling the 49% of children who

5
 POLICY PAPER 31

are out of school in Burkina Faso would be close to US$182 was one-third down in 20132015 compared with 2008
million, but the country received only US$17 million in 2012. 2010 (Figure 11A). Of the G7 countries, three were outside
By contrast, the cost of schooling the 2% of children who the top 10 donors to secondary education in 2015: Canada
are out of school in Zimbabwe would be US$11 million, was 11th, the United States was 15th and Italy was 18th.
yet the country received US$31 million in 2012 (Figure 9). Bilateral DAC donors aid to secondary education was 14%
This means that there is scope for donors to rationalize lower in 2015 than in 2009.
aid allocations further in order to better take into account
countries level of need. At the same time, several non-DAC bilateral donors have
emerged since 2013, and by 2015 accounted for 11% of
bilateral aid and 7% of total aid to secondary education.
Aid to secondary education fell For example, the United Arab Emirates disbursed US$112
million of aid to secondary education per year on
by almost one-tenth in 2015 average in 20132015.
In 2015, total aid to secondary education decreased by
9% to US$2.2 billion, falling to levels similar to 20092010 Significantly, multilateral donors aid to secondary
(Figure 10). Of this amount, 62% was disbursed by bilateral education has increased 25% since 2009, despite a 10%
donors (including DAC and non-DAC members). The top decrease between 2014 and 2015. As a result, multilateral
two DAC bilateral donors were Germany (US$264 million) donors accounted for 38% of total aid to basic education in
and France (US$203 million), although Frances offering 2015 compared to 32% in 2009. The top three multilateral

F I GURE 9 :
Aid to basic education falls short of need in many low income countries
Comparison of hypothetical cost of educating out-of-school children with aid to basic education, selected low income sub-Saharan
African countries, 2014 (or nearest year)
200

Aid above need

150
Aid to basic education (million US$)

100

Aid below need

Zimbabwe
50
Uganda Mozambique
Senegal
Rwanda Burundi
Mali Burkina
Gambia Niger Faso
Guinea Benin
Chad
0
0 Togo 50 100 150 200

Cost to educate out-of-school children (million US$)

Note: For some countries, the data for out-of-school children, expenditure per primary school student, and aid to basic education expenditure differ by one year.
The size of the bubble reflects the number of out-of-school children.
Source: GEM Report team analysis based on OECD Creditor Reporting System (on aid), UIS (on expenditure per student), the World Inequality Database on
Education (on out-of-school children) and the United Nations Population Division (on cohort size).

6
 POLICY PAPER 31

F I G U RE 1 0:
Non-DAC donors are emerging as donors to secondary
The aid to education landscape
education is changing
Total aid to secondary education, by type of donor, 20022015
Current levels of aid to education fall well short of the
3.0
amount needed to achieve key SDG 4 targets. Faced with
DAC countries a chronic funding gap, the education sector must urgently
Multilaterals 3% seize opportunities. As well as existing programmes,
2.5 7%
Non-DAC countries
7% some emerging funding schemes offer potential to help
1% 1% redress the balance.
Constant US$ 2015 billions

2.0
32% 39%
32% 36%
38% First, the Global Partnership for Education has launched
39% 37%
1.5 29%
32% its replenishment campaign, to be completed by early
37% 2018. It seeks to raise US$3.1 billion for 20182020 to
1.0
28% 42% 35% implement its Financing and Funding Framework, which
39% 67% 63% 61 % 59%
68% 71 % 60% 63% 55% was adopted in early 2017. The Framework is meant to
0.5 63%
72% 58% 65% enable GPE to provide funding to up to 89 countries with
61 %
the highest educational poverty and increase the scale of
0.0
investments in global public goods for education and social
2004

2008
2006

2009
2005
2002

2003

2007

2010

2014

2015
2012

2013
2011

accountability initiatives. Combined with other plans to

leverage additional funds, GPE hopes to be able to disburse
Source: GEM Report team analysis based on OECD Creditor Reporting System (2017).
US$2 billion annually by 2020, four times higher than the
amount currently disbursed (GPE, 2017).

donors were the World Bank (US$334 million), the
European Union institutions (US$208 million) and the Asian
Development Bank (US$160 million) (Figure 11B).
Humanitarian aid to education
increased by more than half
in 2016
In the past five years, funding requests for education in
emergencies have increased by 21%, as a result of both
long-standing and new humanitarian crises. For example,
at the end of 2015, there were 65 million forcibly displaced
people, the highest number since the Second World War.
Disbursements for education in emergencies reached a
peak of US$245 million in 2010, and fell by two-thirds in
20112012. But funding has recovered since 2013, and it
increased by a further 55% in 2016 to reach a historic high
of US$303 million (Figure 12A).
However, funding for education in emergencies is still not
sufficient. Education in emergencies received 2.7% out
of a total amount of US$19.7 billion of humanitarian aid,
well below the target of 4% (Figure 12B). And it continues
to receive a lower than average share of the amount
requested: In 2016, the sector received 48% of what it had
requested in terms of humanitarian aid, as compared to an
average of 57% across all sectors.
Second, the International Commission on Financing Global
Education Opportunity has proposed the establishment
of an International Finance Facility for Education (IFFEd).
This would resemble the Heavily Indebted Poor Countries
initiative, which offered US$100 billion in debt relief to 38 of
the worlds poorest countries in the early 2000s, and the
International Finance Facility for Immunisation initiative,
which mobilized more than US$5 billion of funding.
IFFEd would work at two levels. It would use donor
guarantees to help increase the lending capacity of
development banks. And it would blend grants with
development bank loans (in other words, it would buy
down the loans) so as to make the terms similar to those
of concessional loans. By using about US$2 billion in
guarantees and about US$2.5 billion in buy-downs, IFFEd
could leverage around US$10 billion a year in additional
concessional financing by 2020. The focus would be on
lower middle income countries, for whom the interest on
loans offered by development banks (3.5%) and capital
markets (8%) is perceived to be too high (Education
Commission, 2017).
Finally, the Education Cannot Wait (ECW) fund was
established after the World Humanitarian Summit in 2016
to transform the delivery of education in emergencies. It is
provisionally hosted by the United Nations Childrens Fund
(UNICEF), which acts as the Fund Manager, provides a Fund

7
 POLICY PAPER 31

F I G URE 1 1 :
The Asian Development Bank, Japan and the Republic of Korea prioritize secondary education

A. Top 10 bilateral and multilateral donors in total aid to secondary education B. Top 10 bilateral and multilateral donors and remaining G7 donors to secondary education, 2015
500
(200215), 20022004, 20082010, and 20132015

450 World Bank 3.3%

World Bank
Germany 1.9%
400
EU Institutions 1.5%
350 United Kingdom France 3.9%

300 United Kingdom 1.6%

Constant US$ 2015 billions

Asian Development Bank 11.1%

250
United Arab Emirates 3.2%
Germany
200 France Republic of Korea 6.5%
EU Institutions
Japan 1.3% Top ten donors in 2015
150
Japan
IMF 13.6%
100
Australia Canada 2.0%
Other G7 donors
United States
50 IMF United States 0.2%

Spain Italy 1.2%

0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400
200204 200810 201315
Constant US$ 2015 millions

Note: G7 countries are represented with black bars in Figure 11B. Percentages in boxes represent the share in total aid allocated by each donor to secondary education.
Source: GEM Report team analysis based on OECD Creditor Reporting System (2017).

F I G URE 1 2 :
Humanitarian aid to education reached a historic high in 2016
Selected statistics on consolidated and flash appeals requests and funding for the education sector, 20002016
A. Total humanitarian aid to education B. Share of education in total humanitarian aid
350 5

303
300
4

250 245 3.4

3
US$ millions

200 2.7
%

150
2

100
79
1
50

0 0
2000

2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010

2012
2013
2014
2015
2016

2000

2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010

2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2001

2011

2001

2011

Source: Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (2017).

8
 POLICY PAPER 31
Support Office and houses the Secretariat. ECW offers
three types of support: an acceleration facility to invest
in global public goods, such as awareness, coordination
and crisis preparedness, as well as new approaches and
tools; a first response window to rapidly deploy funds at
the onset of a crisis (which has already been used to fund
US$20 million interventions in Afghanistan, the Central
African Republic, Madagascar, Peru, Somalia, Uganda and
Ukraine); and a multi-year window to help bridge the
divide between humanitarian and development efforts.
It aims to raise US$3.85 billion by 2020. As of April 2017,
it had raised US$113 million out of a first-year target of
US$153 million (ECW, 2017).
Donors will need to work in a concerted and coordinated
way to ensure that these three initiatives complement
each other and do not add unnecessary administration
costs or lead to duplication of effort. But new financing
facilities are not enough: Donors also need to increase
their efforts to turn around the fortunes of international
funding of education. To do this, two concrete steps will be
critical. First, donors must live up to their commitments
and ensure that they allocate at least 0.7% of their gross
national income to aid, and 10% of that to education.
And second, they must ensure that their allocations are
proportional to the financing gap that countries are facing,
so that in the effort to meet SDG 4, aid to education goes
where it is needed most.
References
nn ECW. 2017. Roadmap for 2017-2018. New York, Education
Cannot Wait.
nn Education Commission. 2016. The Learning Generation:
Investing in Education for a Changing World. New York,
The International Commission on Financing Global
Education Opportunity.
nn Education Commission. 2017. A Proposal to Create the
International Finance Facility for Education. New York,
The International Commission on Financing Global
Education Opportunity.
nn GPE. 2017. Case for Investment: Replenishment 2020.
Washington, D.C., Global Partnership for Education.
nn OECD. 2016. Development Aid in 2015 Continues to Grow
Despite Costs for In-donor Refugees. Paris, Organisation
for Economic Co-operation and Development.
nn OECD. 2017. Development Aid Rises Again in 2016.
Paris, Organisation for Economic Co-operation and
Development.
nn UNESCO. 2015a. EFA Global Monitoring Report: Education
for All 20002015 Achievements and Challenges.
Paris, UNESCO.
nn UNESCO. 2015b. Pricing the Right to Education: The Cost
of Reaching New Targets by 2030 (EFA Global Monitoring
Report Policy Paper No. 18). Paris, UNESCO.
Global Education Monitoring Report
c/o UNESCO
7, place de Fontenoy
75352 Paris 07 SP, France
Email: gemreport@unesco.org
Tel: +33 (1) 45 68 10 36
Fax: +33 (1) 45 68 56 41
www.unesco.org/gemreport
Developed by an independent team and published
by UNESCO, the Global Education Monitoring Report
is an authoritative reference that aims to inform,
influence and sustain genuine commitment
towards the global education targets in the new
Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) framework.
UNESCO
ED/GEMR/MRT/2017/PP/31