2024-04-22-世界银行-难民教育融资_关键事实和发现——对中低收入国家难民教育融资的洞察（英）_29页_1mb

Refugee Education Financing: Key Facts and Findings Summary

Core Content

This working paper provides a comprehensive analysis of refugee education financing in low- and middle-income countries (LICs and MICs), highlighting key facts and findings based on a detailed dataset. The paper aims to improve understanding of funding mechanisms and inform future policy discussions on refugee education.

Main Points

1. Refugees are predominantly hosted in LICs and MICs

• Over the past decade, the number of forcibly displaced people has tripled, reaching 107.8 million by the end of 2022.
• 40.1 million of these are children under 18, and the majority (70%) of global refugees are hosted in LICs and LMICs.
• Only 4 of the top 20 host countries are high-income countries (HICs).
• The number of school-age refugees in LICs and LMICs has increased significantly, with LICs tripling their numbers between 2010 and 2022.

2. Africa and the Middle East have historically hosted the most refugees, but new crises are changing the landscape

• Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) and the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) have historically hosted the largest shares of school-age refugees.
• However, recent crises have led to a significant increase in refugee numbers in Europe and Central Asia (ECA) and Latin America and the Caribbean (LAC), particularly due to displacement from Venezuela and Ukraine.
• The geography of displacement is shifting, with more countries hosting large refugee populations.

3. Refugee enrollment rates are lower than host country rates in most LICs and MICs

• Refugee enrollment rates in primary, secondary, and tertiary education are consistently lower than those of host country children.
• In 2021/22, the average refugee GER was 65% at primary, 41% at secondary, and 7% at tertiary levels, compared to 101%, 77%, and 40% for host countries.
• Gender disparities persist in some countries, with higher enrollment rates for boys than girls in Gabon, Ethiopia, and Kenya, and vice versa in Senegal, the Philippines, and Iraq.

4. Host country governments struggle to finance inclusive refugee education

• Host governments in most large LICs and MICs cannot fully finance inclusive refugee education due to limited fiscal space and overstretched education systems.
• The average cost of inclusive refugee education is 2.4% of host country public education expenditure, with higher costs in LICs (3.7%) and lower in UMICs (1.6%).
• For 20 of the 25 largest refugee-hosting countries, host government financing for refugee education averaged 23% of the total cost, ranging from 0% in Bangladesh, Iraq, Lebanon, and Tanzania to 84% in Egypt.
• Combined, these 20 countries provided only US$1.75 billion for refugee education, which is less than a quarter of the required cost.

5. Philanthropic financing does not fully support inclusive refugee education

• Philanthropic contributions to refugee education in LICs and MICs totaled US$789 million in 2021, with US$491 million allocated to basic education.
• The majority of this funding comes from a small number of large organizations, such as Education Cannot Wait (ECW).
• Philanthropic financing is estimated to be insufficient and may underestimate the actual scale of support due to limited transparency in the sector.

Key Findings

6. ODA for refugee education is dominated by a few donor countries

• Over 80% of ODA for refugee education in LICs and MICs comes from just 5 donor countries.
• ODA allocations are unevenly distributed across regions and income groups.

7. ODA for refugee education is skewed toward specific countries

• Funding is concentrated in certain countries, with some receiving more than the cost of inclusive refugee education.
• The majority of ODA for refugee education is directed toward Syrian refugees, particularly in LICs and MICs.

8. ODA for refugee education is not sector-specific

• The OECD's classification of ODA by sector is limited, making it difficult to accurately assess education-specific funding.
• This paper uses "education identifiers" to ensure all education-related financing is properly categorized.

9. Host country financing data is limited and often not disaggregated

• Few host countries publish detailed data on refugee education financing.
• Estimates are often based on assumptions due to lack of transparency and data availability at the national level.

10. Financing gaps and biases are significant

• There are substantial gaps in the financing of refugee education, particularly in LICs and MICs.
• External assistance, including ODA and philanthropy, is critical to filling these gaps.
• Funding patterns reveal regional and income-based biases, with some countries receiving disproportionate shares.

Methodology

• The paper compiles and analyzes data from multiple sources, including the OECD, UNHCR, and surveys of international funders.
• It includes both primary and secondary data to create a comprehensive view of refugee education financing.
• The analysis focuses on inclusive education costs and government, ODA, and philanthropic contributions.

Conclusion

The findings emphasize the need for greater transparency, more equitable distribution of funding, and increased external support to meet the education needs of refugees in low- and middle-income countries.