KENYA-SOMALIA: Hungry for learning in Dadaab camps

DADAAB, 22 March 2011 (IRIN) – In one of the largest and oldest refugee settlements in the world, education is a luxury denied most of the 90,739 children who live there.
Photo: Manoocher Deghati/IRIN Across the three Dadaab camps, there are 19 primary schools, funded by the UN Refugee Agency (file photo)
Set up at the outset of Somalia’s civil war in 1991 to accommodate 90,000 refugees, three camps near the northeastern Kenyan town of Dadaab – Hagadera, Ifo and Dagahaley – are now home to more than three times that number, and persistent conflict in Somalia, from where 95 percent of the refugees originate, means the population grows daily.

According to the UN Children’s Fund (UNICEF), the primary school attendance rate is 43 percent while in secondary schools the rate is just 12 percent. Across the three camps, there are 19 primary schools, funded by the UN Refugee Agency (UNHCR). In addition there are 11 private, fee-paying primary and six secondary schools.

In 2010, some 2,500 refugee children sat for the Kenya Certificate of Primary Education. Of these, barely a fifth won a place at secondary school. National statistics for Kenya are considerably higher, at 82 percent and 49 percent for primary and secondary attendance respectively. The picture is far worse in Somalia itself, where primary school enrolment is 20 percent, with fewer than 10 percent going on to secondary school, according to UNICEF.

In Dadaab, money is the main problem. Despite being classified as a fundamental human right and recognized as providing much-needed psychological, physical and cognitive protection in emergency situations, education is the most underfunded sector in humanitarian aid. According to a recent report by the UN Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), only 2 percent of total humanitarian assistance is spent on education.

In 2010, UNHCR received only 20 percent of the US$30 million required to educate refugee children. Worldwide, according to UNICEF, approximately 75 million children are not enrolled in primary school. Half of them live in countries affected by conflict.

“The international community is failing Somali refugees by not prioritizing access to education,” Elizabeth Campbell of Refugees International (RI), an advocacy group, told IRIN. “The main reasons are lack of funding and lack of trained teachers. Even if there were more funding, there is a capacity problem that will be more challenging to address.

“Also, the Kenyan authorities have made it difficult to expand educational opportunities in Dadaab by not providing additional land required to build new structures.”

According to a 2010 report by UNICEF assessing education in Dadaab’s refugee camps, primary schools are stretched far beyond the standards for quality education, with each class accommodating 80 pupils instead of the stipulated 45. The schools also “have few Kenyan qualified teachers with nine trained and 800 untrained teachers in primary, 50 untrained and 35 trained teachers in secondary school”.

”It is very difficult to manage a high school on a zero budget”
Community initiatives

Three secondary schools have been set up by refugees themselves, but they only very partially bridge the gap in educational needs and they suffer from their own resource constraints.

“It is very difficult to manage a high school on a zero budget. We ask the students to pay some money for the teachers and maintenance,” Mohamed Kasim, chairman and founder of the community-run secondary schools, told IRIN.

Another obstacle to quality education comes from a lack of materials such as laboratory apparatus and basic equipment for practical classes like science subjects. “I have never attended a laboratory class for the past three years. I am very worried about how I will handle the practical examination during the KCSE [Kenya Certificate of Secondary Education],” said Aweys, a form-four student.

The headmaster of Towfiq Community Secondary School in Ifo camp, Hassan A. Saney, said that despite the hardships, he is optimistic about his students sitting his school’s first upcoming national examination. “We are expecting to receive some laboratory equipment by mid-March and hopefully we will have done something before we sit for the final examination,” he said.

The community initiative attracted support from NGOs Windle Trust Kenya (WTK) and CARE in the form of donations toward stationery and reference books. UNHCR also brought in qualified national teachers to the community schools.

WTK said a funding crisis meant money for schooling had to go to refugee teachers serving the schools and end-of-term examination papers. In addition, each student is required to pay KSh3,300, or $38 to be fully registered for 2011 admission, which many cannot afford. “We ourselves are forced to pay this money but in reality, we cannot afford it. We have to sell the little food we are given by WFP [World Food Programme] which is not even enough,” said Farhio, a form-four student from Towfiq Community Secondary School.

Schoolteachers insist that non-payment of fees should not be a hindrance. “We never allow qualified students to leave the school because they can’t afford to pay the money but a contribution from the community is paramount for a better society,” said Abdullahi, a teacher in Dagahaley community secondary school.

Except in the unlikely event of resettlement to a third country, even those who manage to complete secondary education in Dadaab have few opportunities for employment within the camps. But as RI’s Campbell says: “I don’t think that should be a reason to deny any child access to education. Some of the refugee graduates filter into urban areas or move elsewhere in the region and are able to start businesses and gain access to income and self-sufficiency.”

Refugee teachers are paid about $70 a month. While many refugees work for aid agencies in various capacities, they tend to receive meagre “incentive payments” rather than proper salaries, purportedly because of Kenya’s restrictive labour laws.

Lack of opportunity is a concern: “These idle youths turn to drugs and then indulge in criminal activities which in turn lead to insecurity problems. If something is not done I am afraid that these youth might even join the militia groups fighting back in their homes of origin,” said Liban Rashid, a youth spokesperson from Ifo camp.

In 2009, Human Rights Watch reported that Somalia’s Transitional Federal Government was also recruiting in the Dadaab camps and claimed that despite their denials, the Kenyan government was involved in the process.

Source: http://www.irinnews.org/report.aspx?reportID=92256
[This report does not necessarily reflect the views of the United Nations]

Leila Chirayath Janah: Ending Poverty in the Digital Age

Leila Chirayath Janah: Ending Poverty in the Digital Age from TEDx Silicon Valley on Vimeo.

Samasource enables marginalized people, from refugees in Kenya to women in rural Pakistan, to receive life-changing work opportunities via the Internet. In parallel, we enable socially responsible companies, small businesses, nonprofits, and entrepreneurs in the US to contribute to economic development by buying services from our workforce at fair prices. http://www.samasource.org

Courses

The Open University gives free access to Open University course materials on the OpenLearn website.
There are hundreds of free study units, each with a discussion forum.
The OU says, “Study independently at your own pace or join a group and use the free learning tools to work with others.”

Here are the  Units in Environment, Development and International Studies:

An introduction to sustainable energy (T206_2) This unit allows guest users to enter Summary 3 Introductory RSS Feed for T206_2
Claiming connections: a distant world of sweatshops? (DD205_2) This unit allows guest users to enter Summary 14 Intermediate RSS Feed for DD205_2
Climate change (U316_1) This unit allows guest users to enter Summary 5 Intermediate RSS Feed for U316_1
Climate change (S250_3) This unit allows guest users to enter Summary 18 Intermediate RSS Feed for S250_3
Climate change: island life in a volatile world (DD205_3) This unit allows guest users to enter Summary 15 Intermediate RSS Feed for DD205_3
Developing countries in the world trade regime (DU321_1) This unit allows guest users to enter Summary 8 Advanced RSS Feed for DU321_1
Earth’s physical resources: petroleum (S278_1) This unit allows guest users to enter Summary 12 Intermediate RSS Feed for S278_1
Environment: Following the flows (U116_2) This unit allows guest users to enter Summary 12 Introductory RSS Feed for U116_2
Environment: treading lightly on the Earth (U116_1) This unit allows guest users to enter Summary 15 Introductory RSS Feed for U116_1
Global warming (E500_11) This unit allows guest users to enter Summary 5 Introductory RSS Feed for E500_11
Health and environment (SK220_2) This unit allows guest users to enter Summary 12 Introductory RSS Feed for SK220_2
Intergrated safety, health and environmental management: an introduction (T835_1) This unit allows guest users to enter Summary 15 Masters RSS Feed for T835_1
Introducing international development management (TU870_1) This unit allows guest users to enter Summary 40 Masters RSS Feed for TU870_1
Introducing the environment: ecology and ecosystems (Y161_2) This unit allows guest users to enter Summary 5 Introductory RSS Feed for Y161_2
Living in a globalised world (DD205_1) This unit allows guest users to enter Summary 12 Intermediate RSS Feed for DD205_1
Managing coastal environments (U216_1) This unit allows guest users to enter Summary 3 Intermediate RSS Feed for U216_1
Nature matters: caring and accountability (TD866_2) This unit allows guest users to enter Summary 15 Advanced RSS Feed for TD866_2
Nature matters in conversation (TD866_1) This unit allows guest users to enter Summary 12 Advanced RSS Feed for TD866_1
Nature matters: systems thinking and experts (TD866_3) This unit allows guest users to enter Summary 15 Advanced RSS Feed for TD866_3
Rights and justice in international relations (DU301_1) This unit allows guest users to enter Summary 13 Advanced RSS Feed for DU301_1
Sustainable Scotland (T123_1) This unit allows guest users to enter Summary 5 Introductory RSS Feed for T123_1
Why sustainable energy matters (T206_1) This unit allows guest users to enter Summary 9 Introductory RSS Feed for T206_1
Working with our environment – an introduction (T172_1)
The OpenLearn website gives free access to Open University course materials. This is the LearningSpace, where you’ll find hundreds of free study units, each with a discussion forum. Study independently at your own pace or join a group and use the free learning tools to work with others.

Save

AFRICA: Going rural and green

Farming needs to make money to drive growth

ADDIS ABABA, 15 October 2010 (IRIN) – As rural Africa experiences an increasingly moody climate which will erode resilience, drive up hunger and threaten economic growth, it is time countries got serious about development, participants at the seventh African Development Forum in Addis Ababa were told.

Africa’s Rural Futures (RF) programme, an initiative of the African Union’s New Partnership for Development (NEPAD) and the World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF), sets out plans to boost rural development, and is an attempt to adapt to the impact of climate change.

At the same time, organizations such as the UN Environment Programme (UNEP) and the World Bank are backing the UN’s Green Economy Initiative, which is more focused on mitigation.

In his address, Ibrahim Assane Mayaki, NEPAD’s chief executive officer, called RF a “new way of thinking about development”.

But is it new? At a policy level, Lindiwe Sibanda, head of the Food Agriculture and Natural Resources Policy Analysis Network, a think-tank, explained: “Well, what they are talking about is integrated rural development with agriculture as the driver. It will get all the ministries to look at their sectors with a rural lens. It moves beyond the sectoral approach.”

This would do agriculture in Africa some good, she hoped. “Development of agriculture has suffered because of the sectoral approach.” Departments of transport, infrastructure and agriculture have not worked in consort in many countries, affecting food production and supply.

In a bid to revive their failing rural economies, some developed  countries have been running RF programmes for some years. WWF, which has been involved in some of these programmes, had been looking at an initiative to improve rural livelihoods with a link to improving biodiversity in Africa, when they found NEPAD.

Urbanization

African countries need to bring their own money to the table – then only will they be able  to decide what development path or programmes they want to implement

The RF programme is guided by the fact that 60 percent of the population in Africa is rural, though UN projections indicate that the number of urban dwellers is likely to treble over the next four decades.

“Urbanization is a part of the natural evolution of a society, but what conditions will these new urban dwellers live in – slums?” asked Estherine Lesinge-Fotabong, NEPAD’s programme implantation head.

By providing new impetus to agriculture, the RF programme also hopes to create jobs, absorb the growing population, and tackle food security and gender empowerment. Most subsistence farmers in Africa are women.

Fine-tuning

RF was launched at the Forum, but is still being fine-tuned and is currently at a “strategic document stage”. It envisages a two-year period of consultation with countries and civil society across Africa.

RF talks about developing linkages between local and regional markets, but stops short of any connections to industry. “That is its shortcoming, but the programme is still evolving,” said Mersie Ejigu, head of the Partnership for African Environmental Sustainability, an international NGO.

Ejigu, a development economist and former minister of development and planning in the Ethiopian cabinet, added: “I am not saying we need to have big investments in massive agro-based industries. It could be small-scale, home-based industries but when you are looking beyond agriculture and adding value, you have to look at processing the primary product.”

Donor-dependent

Read more
Are we heading for another crisis?
Hunger knows no borders
Farmers need a finanical umbrella
Food crisis in-depth

But money, and especially donors, decide the future of any programme in Africa, said Mamadou Cissokho, honorary president of the Network of West African Farmer and Producer Organizations. “African countries need to bring their own money to the table – then only will they be able to decide what development path or programmes they want to implement.”

This concern was also voiced by WWF’s Gabriella Richardson-Temm: “We are happy with the way this is shaping up and that Africa wants to design their own programme – but then donors, who bring in the funds, come with their own sets of conditions.”

RF could also be one of the components of the UN’s Green Economy Initiative, which is assisting governments to “green” their economies by reshaping policies to ensure growth on the basis of non-fossil fuel-based energy, backed by sustainable agriculture (with the help of investments in clean technology and public transport that runs on renewable energy). It also focuses on greening other sectors such as waste management and water services.

“You don’t want us to grow,” said a participant when UNEP’s Achim Steiner spelt out the initiative. Coal is still the cheapest source of energy in developing countries. Another said: “But Africa is already green – most of our people use biomass to produce energy.”

But you need money to access these alternative green technologies, pointed out Moussa Ould Hwedna, a technical adviser to Mauritania’s Ministry of Water and Sanitation. “Ours is a dry country and we need solar power to pump water from underground and the cost of solar energy is prohibitive.”

“We would like to adopt these technologies but developed countries should look at making it cheaper for us,” he added.

This is one of the issues at the UN climate change talks, the next round of which will take place in Mexico later this year.

jk/cb      Source: IRIN

Theme(s): Economy, Environment, Food Security, Gender Issues, Governance, Migration, Natural Disasters, Aid Policy, Urban Risk, Water & Sanitation,

[This report does not necessarily reflect the views of the United Nations]

GLOBAL: Millions wasted on shipping food aid


Photo: Chuck Simmins/Flickr
Aid has many hidden costs

JOHANNESBURG, 13 July 2010 (IRIN) – US taxpayers spend about US$140 million every year on non-emergency food aid in Africa, and roughly the same amount to ship food aid to global destinations on US vessels; money that could have been used to feed more people says a new study by researchers at Cornell University in the US.

The US Agency for International Development (USAID) has accounted for more than half of the world’s food aid every year for decades, but has been “the last and slowest donor to reform its food aid policies”, noted Christopher Barrett, a leading food aid expert, and his colleagues, Elizabeth Bageant and Erin Lentz.

Their study, Food Aid and Agricultural Cargo Preference, has come up with the numbers to back a long-standing call for reforms, and goes a step further in showing that the policy designed to “nurture” or subsidise the US shipping industry “under the guise of humanitarian assistance” is not doing either effectively.

Most donors have moved towards cash transfers or vouchers to buy food, instead of providing food as aid, but the paper points out that most countries only had agribusiness and some NGO interests to contend with while reforming their food aid policy.

Reforms in the US have faced much tougher opposition from “a uniquely effective lobby”, referred to as the “iron triangle”, comprising agribusiness, the shipping sector and some NGOs.

Barrett and Daniel Maxwell, an associate professor at Tufts University, Boston, in the US, who wrote at length about the “iron triangle” in their 2005 book, Food Aid After Fifty Years: Recasting Its Role, estimated that it cost more than two dollars of US taxpayers’ money to deliver one dollar’s worth of food procured as in-kind aid.

''If our objective is to generate US jobs, why do so through a humanitarian food aid programme, rather than focusing on generating jobs directly''

Little known shipping subsidy

Little has been written about the costs and effects of a policy called the Agricultural Cargo Preference (ACP), which affects the shipping sector of the “iron triangle”, and USAID, the world’s largest food aid programme.

The ACP requires that 75 percent of US food aid be shipped on privately owned, US registered vessels, even if they do not offer the most competitive rates. Some of these costs are reimbursed by the Department of Transportation’s Maritime Administration, but ultimately the US taxpayer foots the entire bill.

The Cornell researchers used data available for every USAID food aid shipment in 2006, when ACP cost US taxpayers $140 million, “The amount paid above the regular cost of ocean freight on the competitive market,” said Barrett.

ACP was calculated by taking into account the costs of transporting the food aid on competing foreign vessels plying the same waters, after deducting the ACP costs borne by US Department of Agriculture food aid programmes, and reimbursements.

The un-reimbursed cost of ACP to food aid agencies was almost the same as what USAID spent on non-emergency food aid to Africa, which benefited 1.2 million people and was “widely deemed important to preventing food emergencies”. USAID declined to comment on the findings of the study, saying the research “spoke for itself”.

About 20 years ago the US Government Accountability Office (GAO), an independent investigative arm of Congress, looked at the costs of shipping food aid in US-flag vessels rather than using cheaper foreign ships, and estimated that it cost $150 million each year. Another report in 1994 put the cost as high as $200 million a year.
Failing shipping as well

The ACP was put in place to achieve four objectives: ensure that US vessels remained seaworthy and prepared should a war break out; maintain skilled jobs for American seafarers; maintain the financial viability of US ships; protect US ocean commerce from foreign domination.

Barrett, Bageant and Lentz found that “contrary to its national security and ‘buy American’ objectives”, ACP used vessels which were not useful to the military, and most of the vessels used were ultimately owned by foreign corporations.

They recommended that the US administration revisit the ACP, and suggested separating security objectives from humanitarian ones, with direct support for the Maritime Security Program.

But shipping industry says

The US shipping industry, which produced its own study – Impacts on the US Economy of Shipping International Food Aid – around the same time as the Cornell researchers, argues that eliminating the ACP would shrink the US-flag merchant fleet by 15 percent to 30 percent, with the loss of between 16,500 and 33,000 jobs.

Barrett said the shipping industry’s study had used “very crude multipliers not developed for this application, and seem to use the total ocean freight costs, not the marginal cost of cargo preference, thereby assuming that every maritime job would disappear. That’s a highly questionable assumption that they then inflate, using highly questionable multipliers”.

The Cornell study’s calculations showed that US taxpayers were paying a subsidy of almost $100,000 every year per mariner on an ACP vessel shipping food aid. “That’s a pretty handsome subsidy,” he commented.

“One would hope there would be some economic multiplier. The question is whether that’s the best use of those funds, if our objective is to generate US jobs; and if the objective is to generate US jobs, why do so through a humanitarian food aid programme, rather than focusing on generating jobs directly?”

Copyright © IRIN 2010. All rights reserved.