A/HRC/8/10 page 15 narrow view of quantifiable access to a full primary education that is free, compulsory and of good quality by the year 2015 (Goal 2) and the promotion of gender parity by the year 2005 (Goal 3), has also had the effect of diverting attention from other educational goals, which are of crucial importance in emergency situations. 62. Political commitments on education are welcome. A commitment to long-term development goals is not effective, however, in prioritizing education as a human right in emergencies, or in holding States accountable. 63. In emergency situations States still have the obligation to ensure the right to education, but they may not have the capacity they need to do so. A variety of actors have tried to pick up this responsibility in Governments’ stead, such as international NGOs, national and international agencies and some donors, all of whom act in accordance with their own particular views. 64. The recognition of the growing coordination among all the actors involved in education in emergencies, with delimited responsibilities and shared examples of best practices, has resulted in the creation of qualitative standards and indicators which, among other effects, broaden the legal and political framework in which these actors are expected to operate. 65. More specifically, the Minimum Standards for Education in Emergencies, Chronic Crises and Early Reconstruction were developed starting in 2004 by the Inter-Agency Network for Education in Emergencies (INEE), as a result of the fact that international humanitarian responses were neglecting education. Even the “Sphere Standards”, which had codified a system of principles of humanitarian aid, referred to human rights but left out education. 66. The INEE Minimum Standards offer a harmonized framework of principles and paths of action to all actors who may be involved in the provision of education during emergencies, for them to coordinate their educational activities and, even more importantly, to promote the acceptance of responsibilities. These Minimum Standards need to be strengthened in this latter aspect, and the Special Rapporteur urges the international community to redouble its efforts in working towards this goal. 67. Despite the growing awareness of the need for delivery of education in emergencies and the progress made in doing so, there still remains an enormous gap between the legal and political responsibilities of the international community and its action and funding priorities. The reasons for and consequences of this gap will be considered in the following section. III. DONORS’ ACTION AND PRIORITIES 68. The Special Rapporteur has observed that, with notable exceptions, the international community is tolerant of violations of the right to education in emergencies. This is clear from the priorities for action and from the perception, which here we challenge, that education is a facet of development rather than a humanitarian activity, and even less a human right. By operating on that basis, countries have fallen short of the responsibility enshrined in the international instruments which define the nature and the content of the right to education.