Connect with us

New Social Compact

Don’t Blame Migratory Birds But centre-State Legal Mechanism in India

Published

on

Authors: Partha Pratim Mitra and Prakash Sharma*

Post 2003-04 bird flu outbreak, migratory birds have become the soft target for spreading of avian influenza or contiguous diseases. The geneses of this thought emerge from the year 1996, which continuous to re-emerged thereafter on regular basis and spread from Asia to Europe and Africa, resulting in several hundred human deaths. The occurrence of avian influenza ((H5N1, H5N2, H5N8, H7N8, H7N9 etc.)has captured global attention too. There are studies that suggest, “avian influenza may be the most likely candidate for the next influenza pandemic”. At the same time, several scientific research claim that migratory birds are not always liable for spreading avian flu among local birds and domestic birds.

Robert Boardman of Dalhousie University opines “birds are also vulnerable and may spread disease, as in the effects in the early 2000s of the adenovirus on the Alaskan oldsquaw or long-tailed duck and deaths of kakapo parrots on some New Zealand islands resulting from soil bacteria”. Birds too like other species compete for resources. Nevertheless, there are factors other than migratory birdsthat can be associated for the spread, for instance the H5N1 avian flu virus in Japan, China, Indonesia and other countries in 2005–2006 had analogous connection with the environmental factors. Others factors can be the anthropogenic changes in land use and agriculture, movement of people, etc.

Talking about the global attention, perhaps the major concern emerges when avian outbreak affects several species of food producing birds, for e.g. chickens, turkeys, quails, guinea fowl, etc. resulting in “global public health concern”. The present article examines the current international as well as national laws governing the arena of migratory birds and their affect on food producing birds and poultry products.

Role of the World Organisation for Animal Health

The World Organisation for Animal Health, formerly the Office International des Epizooties (OIE) is an intergovernmental organization coordinating, supporting and promoting animal disease control. It is recognized as a reference organisation by the World Trade Organization (WTO) and had a total of 182 member states. The OIE’s objectives is to promote transparency and understanding of the “global animal disease situation” to protect “public health, and to ensure the safety of world trade in animals and animal products”. “The science-based standards, guidelines and recommendations issued by the OIE are designated as the international reference in dealing with avian influenza”.

Over the years, OIE has strengthened international coordination and cooperation in the control of avian influenza through joint collaboration with other global organization, namely the World Health Organization (WHO), and the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO). These organizations exchange follow-up information on three priorities areas including the global zoonotic influenza situation.

India is a member country of the OIE, and abides by the International Animal Health Code (Code). The Code provides standards for the improvement of animal health and welfare and veterinary public health worldwide, including through standards for safe international trade in terrestrial animals (mammals, reptiles, birds and bees) and their products. Interestingly, the Code demands that veterinary authorities of importing and exporting countries to provide for early detection, reporting and control agents that are pathogenic to animals or humans, and to prevent their transfer via international trade in animals and animal products.

Whereas People’s Republic of China has failed to provide correct information and take necessary measures to curb the spread of deadly COVID-19 to the world. India out rightly informed that there was no risk of coronavirus spreading through migratory birds. Without going into the intent, no doubt there was lack of performance of legitimate duty on part of People’s Republic of China (and it is a matter of further revelations), however the pertinent concern is: doesn’t COVID-19 experience undermines OIE’s importance?

Impact over poultry farming in India

India’s poultry farming industry operates under the unhygienic conditions and become common victim at the time of outbreak of avian flu. Poultry is one of the fastest growing sectors in India, being world’s 5th larg­est egg producer and 18th largest producer of broilers. Economic losses due to infectious and contagious diseases of animals could be enormous besides posses serious threat to the public.

The Indian Constitution deals with protection of animals from diseases under Entry 15 (State List) relating to animal within the territory of state and Entry 29 (Concurrent List) about moving animals extending from one state to another state. Again Entry 29 (Concurrent List) is more widely applicable to ani­mals including men and plants. The same item was also under ‘Provincial Legislature List’ of the Government of India Act, 1935 under Entry 20 with wider subject. However, neither the Centre nor many State governments do have adequate law to regulate these sectors. Only two States in India have enacted statutes concerning poultry production, namely Punjab Poultry Production Act, 2016 (apart from the Punjab Livestock and Bird Diseases Act, 1948) and Gujarat Poultry Farm Registration and Regulatory Authority Act, 2007.

In the absence of any specific legislation, and Central regulation to deal with the issue of disease in poultry related birds and products, theLaw Commission of India has recommended to government of India in its 269th Report for making of rules for protection of hens and broiler chickens according to section 38 of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960. Besides, in Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972, section 33A was inserted after the Amendment Act of 1991,which gives legal obligation to Chief Wildlife Warden to take action for immunization of cattle in or within 5 km of sanctuary. Government through notification of byelaws is required to prescribe the measures of such immunization process. But till date no regulation has been framed in this regard.

Legislative initiatives to combat with the situation

Certain earlier legislations were present to control diseases of animals and birds. Currently, two laws, the Destructive Insects and Pests Act, 1914, and the Livestock Importation Act, 1898, regulate the import and export of plants and animals with a view to control pests and diseases.  Under these laws, the authorities are required to ensure that infectious diseases and pests do not cause widespread damage to the environment, crops, agricultural produce and human beings, i.e. the agricultural biosecurity of a country. Both the laws (the Act of 1914 and the Act, 1898) has been proposed to be repealed and replaced by the Agricultural Biosecurity Bill, 2013.The Bill aimed to establish an “integrated national biosecurity system covering plant, animal and marine issues to combat threats of bio- terrorism from pests and weeds”.

Apart from this, the Insecticides Act, 1968 was passed to regulate manufacture, sale, transport, import, distribution and use of insecticides with a view to prevent risk to human beings as well as animals. The Act of 1968 constituted the ‘Central Insecticide Board’ to register insecticides after thorough examination for safety and efficacy. Further, the Customs Act, 1962 empowers the Central Government to prohibit or regulate the import or export of goods of any specified description for the purpose of, inter alia, protection of human, animal or plant life or health. The Prevention and Control of Infectious and Contagious Diseases in Animals Act, 2009was passed by Indian Parliament after repealing two old statutes the Dourine Act, 1910 and the Glanders and Farcy Act, 1899. The Act of 2009 seeks to provide prevention, control and eradication of infectious and contagious diseases affecting animals for pre­vention of outbreak or spreading of such diseases from one State to another. The Act of 2009deals with the control of scheduled diseases and a Schedule of the statute mentioned several types of infectious and contagious diseases.

Concluding remarks

The present structure of multilateral organizational control is faulty. This has been revealed harshly by the COVID-19 experience. There are gaps in the existing enforcement mechanisms, which do as much of damage to the health of birds as it does to the other living beings on earth. Of course, the spreading of infectious diseases must be prevented and strict measures should be adopted under contrasting levels of governance. However, given the intricacies involved it is perhaps suggested that nation-states must sit together and construct an international policy on conservation efforts concerning migratory birds during emergence of unscientifically drawn potential role of migratory birds in the dispersal of the viruses. To this extend, all efforts must be made towards timely dissemination of information which is crucial to containing outbreaks.

* Prakash Sharma, Assistant Professor, VSLLS, Vivekananda Institute of Professional Studies, New Delhi.

Continue Reading
Comments

New Social Compact

Misinformation Backfire on the COVID-19 Vaccine – Exposed

Avatar photo

Published

on

A seven-year-old child looks out the window in Istanbul, Turkey, during the COVID-19 emergency. Closure of schools, disruption of health services and suspension of nutrition programmes, due to the coronavirus pandemic, have affected hundreds of millions of children globally. Photo: UNICEF

The Government of Canada continues a relentless effort to denigrate opposition to COVID-19 vaccines by sourcing The Council of Canadian Academies (CCA) to report on misinformation or supposed ‘bad actors’ contributing to a lack of adherence to public health measures and to vaccine hesitancy.  The analysis, released on January 26th, suggests exaggerations or hoaxes led up to 2.3 million people delaying or refusing to get vaccinated and an estimated cost of $300 million to the Canadian healthcare system during 2021.   

The CCA report states that ‘Given the importance of this issue, it is imperative that we invest in understanding the sources and consequences of misinformation, and the strategies being used to combat it…’. What does that really mean? Alex Himmelfarb, Chair of the expert panel seemed to be clear when he stated the unchecked threat of “Misinformation has become a global problem and a defining issue of our time”. It would seem the council may be giving cover for governments to act upon the findings in the report.  

It is not uncommon for those pointing fingers to be doing the things they are accusing others of doing. This is evident in this report that states misinformation ‘can leave us vulnerable to baseless fears… and exploitation by those who promote misinformation for profit or power. On a collective level, it erodes trust, fosters hate, undermines social cohesion, and diminishes our capacity for collective action’. The audacity of their claims is becoming more evident over time when contrary vaccine information comes to light.    

Did it ever dawn on these experts to consider the actions by those in authority, whether government, big pharma, and health officials, caused fear of death and pushed many over the ‘coercion cliff’ to inject an experimental jab? Public trust waned when leaders said the vaccine prevents Covid-19; yet many who are vaccinated were infected with the virus and yet; boosters continue to be mandated in perpetuity. What about the lack of transparency on adverse effects and deaths following an emergency injection. Leaders ostracized vaccine hesitancy, yet governments allowed the makers of the vaccine to seal their mRNA documentation from the public for decades. All this while people lost their job over mandates, forced to wear masks, schools were closed, and businesses were shuttered. These actions by leaders caused significant fears of control over one’s own body and livelihood. In turn, governments and the media leveraged the hesitancy by mockingly denouncing outlandish conspiracies rather than addressing substantiative questions.  

Well, who were the some of the bad actors providing misinformation who were in some cases removed or banned on social media platforms and search engines.   

Dr. Robert Malone, an internationally recognized 30-year vaccinologist and original inventor of mRNA vaccination technology and the mRNA platform delivery technologies, including holding numerous patents in these fields with over 100 scientific publications and 12,000 citations, questioned the safety and bioethics of how the COVID-19 genetic vaccines were developed and forced upon the world. 

Malone discovered many short-cuts, database issues, issues in the developments of the Spike protein-based genetic vaccines; while advocating for drug repurposing and the rights of physicians, and finally the unethical mandates for administering experimental vaccines to adults and children by authoritarian governments being manipulated by large corporations to such an extent that they no longer represent what is in the best interest of humanity. This once acclaimed doctor has been attacked, censored, and was suspended from Twitter for dissenting.  

Dr. Angelique Coetzee, the South African doctor who informed the world of a new coronavirus variant, was bewildered to see the world turned upside down over a virus where no one dying, mild symptoms, and those already vaccinated being infected. Coetzee said, “I have been stunned at the response. No one in South Africa has been hospitalized with the omicron variant, nor has anyone believed to have fallen seriously ill with it.” 

An analysis by Luc Montagnier, a world top virologist and Nobel Prize winner for his work in discovering HIV as the cause of AIDs. He said the world is silent about Antibody-Dependant Enhancement (ADE) where the vaccine is creating the variants by forcing the virus to find a way to stay alive and mutate. We just don’t know the extent of the vaccine’s ability to manipulate variants.  

Two of the FDA’s top regulators, Marion Gruber, director of the FDA’s Office of Vaccines Research and Review (OVRR), and OVRR Deputy Director Phil Krause, resigned as increased pressure mounted to authorize vaccine booster shots and doses for young children under the age of 12. Gruber had been with the FDA for more than 30 years, and Krause has been at the agency for more than a decade. Their departure is a huge loss for the agency with key roles in addressing critical vaccine-related issues and side-effects. 

Retsef Levi, the Professor of Operations Management at MIT, whose expertise includes analytics and risk management in health systems, shared the harm mRNA vaccines are causing in young people. “The evidence is mounting and indisputable that mRNA vaccines cause serious harm including death, especially among young people. We must stop giving them immediately!” 

Levi conducted an analysis of EMS calls and diagnosis data that revealed some very concerning signals. “We detected an increase of 25% in the cause with cardiac arrest diagnosis among ages 16 to 39. In the first half of 2021, exactly when the vaccination campaign in Israel was launched.” Apparently, Levi detected statistically significant temporal correlation between the number of the Pfizer vaccine doses administered to this population and the number of EMS calls with cardiac arrest diagnosis. Levi elaborated on similar data found in numerous countries that indicated the rates of heart damage following the vaccine are likely to be significantly higher than the rates detected by clinical diagnosis. 

Can we conclusively infer that the mRNA inventor, a Nobel Prize winner, an esteemed doctor who accurately assessed the Omicron variant, two FDA top regulators, and a MIT expert are some how less informed than a panel of academia? It is now clear that social media, specifically the Twitter police, censored critical voices that would have allowed for opposing transparency to that of government or Big Pharma churning out a singular narrative to mandate a vaccine that they claim is safe.   

The strategies that the panel may be suggesting in combatting misinformation became dangerously clear when Dr. Scott Gottlieb, the former commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration and now a member of Pfizer’s Board of Directors may have breached a conflict of interest. Gottlieb emailed Twitter’s Washington office, after seeing a tweet disapproving the Covid vaccines. The tweet was posted by Dr Brett Giroir, the former assistant secretary of health and four-star admiral in the U.S. Public Health Service Commission Corps, who touted the superiority of natural immunity over vaccine-conferred immunity.  

While Gottlieb never demanded the tweet be labeled as misleading, just by bemoaning the message as corrosive and potentially driving negative news coverage seemed to be enough to move Twitter to act on its violation of its misinformation policy against Giroir’s tweet. Another expert shot down. With Pfizer’s mRNA-related drugs making up most of its record $100 billion revenue this past year, and Gottlieb making a reported $365,000, who can blame him for his effort.   

In a rare moment as it becomes less comfortable in a shrinking box to get out from the downplaying of adverse reactions people are suffering from the vaccinations, CDC Deputy Director Tom Shimabukuro admitted during a meeting with various federal health officials that the CDC is aware of some individuals suffering “debilitating illnesses” following receipt of the mRNA shots sometimes described as COVID-19 vaccinations. “We are aware of these reports of people experiencing long-lasting health problems following COVID vaccination.” Shimabukuro also presented information during the presentation that suggested individuals who get the common influenza vaccination at the same time as the mRNA shots may be at higher risk of stroke. It is important to notice that Shimabukuro said the vaccine are shots and only described as vaccines. Amazing admission, finally.   

In another alarming development, during a sting operation by Project Veritas, they caught the apparent director of science and development for Pfizer claiming the company ‘directed evolution’ research to make the virus more potent. Pfizer, in response to the undercover video, admitted they engineered Covid viruses and tested new mutations against Covid antiviral drugs. Considering the lab leak of the coronavirus from the Wuhan Institute of Virology in China that turned our world upside down, this practice by Pfizer to experiment on the virus could very well result in a greater catastrophe. Did government know and approve of this apparent risky ‘gain of function-type’ research, and would Pfizer reap even greater profits with enhanced pathogens to treat a mutated or manufactured variant?       

The fear for many continues.  The World Health Organization chief, Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus warned the world on January 30th, to keep getting vaccinated and boosted. With an increasing global resistance to compulsory vaccination regimes, the WHO chief called for a fight against “misinformation” from contrary sources about the pandemic. The meeting ended with a statement urging States Parties to monitor individual and public response to the implementation of Public Health and Social Measures on the acceptability of COVID-19 vaccines and implement measures….   

The pandemic has created the misinformation blueprint for future emergencies to lockdown, censor, spy, and detain those who do not fall in line or oppose the regime. The persecution begins with the likes of Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla when he said people who spread misinformation about his company’s profitable Covid-19 vaccines are criminals. Then, at the direction of the powerful, comes censoring and shadow banning opposing expert opinions.   

If you are a real thorn in the side of the government’s narrative, targeted surveillance will take place as it was discovered on January 29th when military operatives in the UK’s “information warfare” 77 Brigade pursued and monitored social media posts of politicians, journalists, and ordinary people who dissented or were simply scared about the official pandemic response. Lastly, if you are on the front lines demonstrating against lockdowns or failing to take the jab, you are apprehended and sequestered or jailed as was the case in China, Australia, and Canada during the Freedom Convoy demonstrations.  

What have we learned? When actions and comments result in fear, it becomes the motivating tool to absolve you from the fear by those who created the distress and handed the power to find a way to control your fear. The deceit is like the tossing sea filled with destruction, which can not rest, whose waves turn up mire and mud.  

What is the next chapter in the fallout of the pandemic? Excess mortality rates across the world.

Continue Reading

New Social Compact

Delivering On Our Promise of Universal Education

Avatar photo

Published

on

A young girl studies at home in Gujarat, India. © UNICEF/Panjwani

Our investment in education – especially for children caught in crisis and conflict – is our investment in a better future.

Co-Signed by: Federal Councillor of the Swiss Confederation, Ignazio Cassis; Federal Minister for Economic Cooperation and Development, Germany, Svenja Schulze; Minister of Education, Niger, Ibrahim Natatou; Minister of International Development, Norway, Anne Beathe Tvinnereim; Minister of General Education and Instruction, South Sudan, Awut Deng Acuil; Minister of Education, Colombia, Alejandro Gaviria; Former UK Prime Minister, UN Special Envoy for Global Education and Chair of ECW’s High-Level Steering Group The Rt. Hon. Gordon Brown

As we mark the International Day of Education, world leaders must make good on their promise of providing quality education for all by 2030.

Education is our investment in peace where there is war, our investment in equality where there is injustice, our investment in prosperity where there is poverty.

Make no mistake about it, there is a global education crisis that threatens to unravel decades of development gains, spur new conflicts, and upend economic and social progress across the globe.  

As UN Secretary-General António Guterres highlighted at last year’s Transforming Education Summit: “If we are to transform our world by 2030 as envisaged by the Sustainable Development Goals, then the international community must give this (education) crisis the attention it deserves.”

When Education Cannot Wait (ECW), the United Nations global fund for education in emergencies and protracted crises, was founded in 2016, we estimated that 75 million crisis-impacted children required education support. Today, that number has tripled to 222 million.

Of the 222 million children whose right to an education has been ripped from their hands by the multiplying impacts of conflict, climate change and other protracted crises, an estimated 78 million are out of school all together – more than the total populations of France, Italy or the United Kingdom.

Even when they are in school, many are not achieving minimum proficiencies in reading or math. Think about this terrifying statistic: 671 million children and adolescents worldwide cannot read. That’s more than 8% of the world’s total population. That’s an entire generation at risk of being lost  

As we have seen from the war in Ukraine, the challenges of the Venezuelan  migration to Colombia and South America, the unforgiveable denial of education for girls in Afghanistan, and a devastating climate change-driven drought in the Horn of Africa that has created a severe hunger crisis for 22 million people, we are living in an interconnected world. The problems of Africa, the Middle East, South America, and beyond are the problems of the world that we share together   

Every minute of every day, children are fleeing violence and persecution in places like Myanmar, the Sahel, South America and the Middle East. Every minute of every day, boys are being recruited as child soldiers in Somalia, the Central African Republic and beyond. Every minute of every day, the climate crisis brings us closer to the end of times, and children go hungry because they are denied their right to go to school, where they might just have their only meal of the day. And amid conflict, migration and climate change, governments like Colombia are struggling to secure the most basic living and education conditions for children in hard-to-reach borders.

It’s an assault on our humanity, a moral affront to the binding promises outlined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and a giant step backwards in our persistent efforts – against all odds – to find peace in our times.

There is hope. By embracing a new way of working and delivering with humanitarian speed and development depth, ECW and its strategic partners have reached 7 million children in just five years, with plans to reach 20 million more over the next four years.

Imagine what an education can mean for a child of war? In the Democratic Republic of the Congo, 13-year-old Nyota lost her father and brothers in a brutal attack on her village. Her family’s home was burnt to the ground.

In a country where 3.2 million children are out of school, Nyota’s future was bleak. Would she be a child bride, the victim of sexual violence, another tragic statistic in a forgotten crisis?

No. She did not give up. With the support of an innovative programme funded by ECW, Nyota is back in school. “When I have completed my studies, I dream of becoming the President of my country to end the war here. That will allow children to study in peace and not endure the same horrible things that I have.”

Nyota is not alone: we have received inspiring letters from girls and boys in over 20 crisis-affected countries across the world that underscore the amazing value of education in transforming lives and creating a better future for generations to come.

On February 16, world leaders are gathering for the Education Cannot Wait High-Level Financing Conference in Geneva. Hosted by ECW and Switzerland – and co-convened by Colombia, Germany, Niger, Norway and South Sudan – the conference provides world leaders, businesses, foundations and high-net-worth individuals with the opportunity to deliver on our promise of education for all. The aim is to raise US$1.5 billion for the next four years.

As the co-conveners of this seminal event, we are calling on the people of the world to invest in the promise of an education. It’s the best investment we could make in delivering on the Sustainable Development Goals.

Nyota and millions like her are not giving up on their dream, and we shouldn’t give up on them. We have promises to keep. 

Continue Reading

New Social Compact

Education starts early – or it should

Avatar photo

Published

on

Authors: Manos Antoninis and Silvia Montoya*

When children attend early childhood education, they are not just learning their ABCs and 123s, they are learning how to solve problems, live in harmony with others and communicate effectively. Going to pre-primary education increases the  chance to grow and flourish in a nurturing and stimulating environment. It is an opportunity to provide children with the skills they need to succeed in school and in life.

Thankfully, early childhood education is something that more and more children are accessing: over the past two decades, the rates of those attending rose from 65% to 75%. Countries have put pen to paper, committing to taking this up a level. As part of a multi-year exercise, they have set national benchmarks for the progress they feel they can make between now and 2030 on helping more young children start their education in their early years, alongside other objectives. On the occasion of the 2023 International Day of Education, UNESCO published a global report, the 2023 SDG4 Scorecard showing how fast countries are progressing towards their national benchmarks on Sustainable Development Goal 4 (quality education). These benchmarks commit countries to together open school doors to 95% of five-year-olds by the 2030 deadline for the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals.

These ambitions are not messing around. Conversely to what you might expect, countries have actually set their targets far higher than one might expect considering how they’ve done in the past. Even if they managed to improve at the rate of the historically fastest-improving quarter of countries, they would only manage to reach the stage where 83% of children were going to early childhood education. At present, therefore, barely one in three countries is on track with their self-set targets. How can we help them speed up? 

Having monitored education for the past 20 years, a few clear lessons jump out that can help countries break the speed barriers we’re keen to impart. While simple education reform is not very common, this first example is at least compact. Our recommendation is for countries to legislate and provide for free and compulsory education, which about a half of countries have done so far. Since 2015, for example, the introduction of three years of free education in Armenia, four years in Uzbekistan and three – and later five – years in Azerbaijan is associated with a large increase in participation rates.  While one policy change cannot be assessed out of context, there is a clear jump in children’s early education access across these countries post the new legislation.

Where we see these laws lagging is in low income and, more generally, sub-Saharan African countries. For all those who join us in believing in the importance of the foundations that early childhood can bring, Sub-Saharan Africa should be a region where we direct our support over the coming years. Not only are fewer than half of children starting school early, but its population prospects will make the challenge harder over time. It is projected that sub-Saharan Africa will surpass Central and Southern Asia by 2026 as the region with the largest number of 4-5 year olds in the world. This cohort will grow by 1 million on average in the next 20 years. Population growth will slow down but will still reach 100 million in 2069. The region will be the home to a staggering 43% of all five-year-olds on planet earth by the end of the century.

The second recommendation we believe can make a difference is also a governance issue, and relates to the fact that the first education experiences of 40% of children in the world today is with private providers. Much of this trend can be linked to the fact that there was not enough supply related to demand, and private providers grew to fill the gap.

This phenomenon can’t be ignored in some areas of the world. In Oceania, for example, some countries have close to 100% of preschool students enrolled in non-state institutions. These can be for-profit and non-profit organizations, such as child-care centers, preschools, and home-based childcare providers, for example.  Their presence can bring significant financial implications, and therefore, barriers, to families, and detract from the original reason they exist in the first place: to increase education for all.  With the provision part removed from government’s control, it means that their ability to regulate the quality and equity of the myriad of alternative early childhood education providers – and monitor them – is vital.

For much of the pandemic, the GEM Report team at UNESCO mapped over 200 country profiles on its PEER website to look further into the regulations countries currently have for private providers in early childhood education. What we found is that those covering equity are in the minority: only 26% of countries support specific vulnerable populations’ tuition fee payments and just 15% prohibit non-state providers from operating for profit.  On the positive side, however, we also found that turning these numbers on their head could also see a huge surge in participation rates. When governments have regulations in place helping out some of the most marginalized groups with tuition fees, for instance, the percentage of children who participate in organized learning one year before entry to primary school is higher by 13 percentage points, whereas countries with fee-setting regulations have a 7 percentage-point higher participation.

Our third but equally critical recommendation covers the extent to which governments prioritise education in the early years in their spending. We looked at the countries with data from the last two years and found they were spending just 0.43% of GDP on pre-primary education – pittance in comparison to the benefits an early education can bring. There is a clear correlation between how much was spent on public education and the rise of participation rates as a result. Doubling spending from 0.25 to 0.50 of GDP, we found, triples participation rates in public preschools from 20% to 60% on average, and is a clear win for improving progress on this issue.

As any education policy maker will tell you, there is no one easy fix for system reform. Sadly, this is the reason the sector fails to attach the funding it needs to transform and deliver to match our expectations. But, where there are lessons that our past mistakes and successes have taught us, we should take them, and not waste further time. Education can and should start early. If we legislate, regulate and finance appropriately, we can help countries’ ambitions to make that happen a reality.

*Silvia Montoya, Director of UNESCO Institute of Statistics

Continue Reading

Publications

Latest

Trending