Reparaciones colectivas

The very final stage of the post-EFA process took place in May 2015 with the World Education Forum (hereafter referred to as the 2015-WEF), in Incheon, the Republic of Korea. The 2015 WEF marked the culmination of the post-2015 education policy processes, and was in some ways a moment of celebration, although tensions

remained. With the intergovernmental negotiations taking place in New York on the final wording of the SDGs, it was believed there was still the scope to influence the text of SDG4 through the 2015-WEF. For example, there was a push for financing to be included in the Incheon Declaration (which it was) in the hope that this would still influence the inter-governmental negotiations and make it into the final SDG4 text (which it did not). The 2015-WEF saw the sharing of a draft of the Education 2030 Frameworks for Action (FFA) - a guide to implementing SDG4. This FFA does include a call to mobilise increased resources for SDG4 (UNESCO, 2015a).

A number of ongoing struggles were reported by interviewees, including a focus on the scope and text of the new education agenda, as well as ongoing issues over the

leadership and even a last-minute effort to hold onto EFA. One dispute that surfaced arose over the word ‘free’. The Malala Fund26 _{identified the omission of the word in the}

draft outcome declaration, as one of my interviewees notes:

So, you at Malala Fund were really good, [ . . .. and] realized the drafters had left out free at last minute [and] came running to us and we were able to fly down there and get it back in and take a stand on ‘free not affordable,’ that was big (interviewee).27

I have heard different accounts of this and some individuals held the view that the word free had not even been part of the discussion but was inserted at the last moment by civil society representatives.28 _{This shows that even at this late stage – seemingly a}

moment of unity and celebration among the international education community – tensions remained. Ultimately, the word ‘free’ made it into the final Incheon Declaration (UNESCO 2015a), not once but twice, with a commitment to:

ensure the provision of 12 years of free, publicly funded, equitable quality primary and secondary education, of which at least nine years are

compulsory, leading to relevant learning outcomes. We also encourage the provision of at least one year of free and compulsory quality preprimary

26 _{With whom I worked at the time.}

27 _{The Interviewee was aware that I was working for the Malala fund at the time of the Incheon meeting}

and this may have influenced the praise given.

28 _{This is based on information from professional practice while working in the Malala Fund based on}

education and that all children have access to quality early childhood development, care and education. (Ibid, p.7).

The wording in the final text of SDG4, in regard to which aspects of education would be free, did not change from the OWG proposal in July 2014, so the Incheon Declaration in this regard is not in itself materially important. It does, however, highlight that divisions remained in the education community.

Another point of contention was that despite UNESCO having signalled their position on one post-2015 framework for education, some still held onto the possibility of keeping EFA alive:

As we worked on the draft Incheon Declaration in May 2015 [there was] still some reluctance from civil society to bind themselves to one agenda. They wanted to see what that one agenda would be like, whereas the Member States said they will have one agenda [ . . .] even though it might not be a 100% perfect agenda (interviewee).

However, the final Incheon Declaration committed “with a sense of urgency to a single,

renewed education agenda that is holistic, ambitious and aspirational, leaving no one behind” (UNESCO, 2015a). The 2030 Education Framework for Action (ibid.) went a step

further and argued that “[a] key lesson of past years is that the global education

agenda should work within the overall international development framework, [ . . . ] rather than alongside it as occurred with the separate EFA goals and education related MDGs.” (Ibid, p. 25).

There was also ongoing wrangling over the leadership of SDG4, with one interviewee critical of ongoing attempts to influence the leadership of SDG4 within the UN:

[there] was also a big fight over whether UNESCO would be lead agency, [and] whether GMR would continue, [ . . . . ] and it became clear to World Bank, UNICEF, Save the Children, etc., that there would be an Education 2030 Steering Committee, Ban Ki Moon had said UNESCO would be the lead, it was done so they had to hold their noses and come back to the tent [ . . . .] those were the heated negotiations in Incheon (interviewee).

The final Incheon Declaration was clear “[w]e further entrust UNESCO, as the United

Nations’ specialized agency for education, to continue its mandated role to lead and coordinate the Education 2030 agenda” (ibid).

One final notable point comes in the form of one the most memorable phases from the Incheon Declaration. It states that “[n]o education target should be considered met

unless met by all.” (Ibid, p. 7) and was accompanied by a commitment to focus efforts

on the most disadvantaged, especially those with disabilities. While the 2030 agenda commits to leaving no one behind, the specificity of this wording arguably calls for a much greater scrutiny of the targets and their implementation in relation to inclusion and equity (see chapter 6 for a discussion on SDG4 targets).

The 2015 World Education Meeting in Incheon was the final policy moment in this pathway ahead of the adoption of SDG4 at the UN General Assembly in September of that year. While arguably not shaping the final text of SDG4 itself, Incheon was undoubtedly important in signalling a strong commitment to inclusion and equity, helped further shape the FFA and, importantly, cemented UNESCO’s leadership of SDG4.