Afghanistan: Exclusionary Humanitarian Aid Practices Hitting Hearts and Minds

The governor of Balkh, a northern Afghan province bordering Uzbekistan, is a smooth-talking, dapper former mujaheddin commander, Atta Mohammad. During a recent interview, he repeatedly expressed frustration with the international approach to Afghanistan. His chief complaint: Despite totally eradicating poppy cultivation in 2007, his province is being ignored by the international aid community.

Atta expressed pride in achieving a measure of security and stability in Balkh. Crime is low and anti-government insurgents are not posing a particular problem. But endemic poverty and a critical humanitarian situation, he said, are threatening to reverse these fragile gains. Under current conditions aid agencies are finding it increasingly difficult to meet the population's needs. The reason, many say: donors predominantly fund political and military objectives.

Balkh's plight seems to be connected in large part to this competition for resources. Dependent on rain-fed agriculture, the province was devastated by severe drought in 2008, crippling a region without substantial access to ground water. Yet despite the security and the need, Balkh's overwhelming needs have largely gone unaddressed.

If the issue was one of scarce funds thinly spread between competing emergencies, the Balkh governor would perhaps not be complaining. The reason for his resentment, though, is that there seems to be plenty of money available -- so much that some donors have been "throwing it at NGOs" says one aid worker. Money is available for the asking, if aid agencies and NGOs are willing to work for projects when and where the donors dictate.

"We have no problems getting funds for conflict areas," says Dave Hampson of Save the Children, "but it is a struggle to continue excellent work in the non-conflict areas. The interest of donors is quite often in the areas where they have troops. It is understandable for them as a country, but it is not a division of resources based on humanitarian aid needs."

Mudasser Hussain Siddiqui, Manager of Policy Advocacy and Research of Action Aid Afghanistan, concurs. "Aid is tied to locations where [a donor's] troops are based. Some countries preference them through PRTs," he says, referring to the controversial civil-military provincial reconstruction teams. ECHO, the European Commission's Humanitarian Aid Office, is the only donor giving independent funding to NGOs now, he says.

Humanitarian aid, intended for basic survival and emergencies, is under pressure. On a visit to Afghanistan in early April, Esko Kentrschynskyj, the Head of Unit for Asia and Latin America of ECHO, emphasized that despite the huge commitment for development and reconstruction in Afghanistan, humanitarian aid had been very limited. "One should not lose sight of significant humanitarian needs that remain in this country," he told journalists in Kabul.

ECHO's acting country director, Luc Verna, says the humanitarian needs in Afghanistan "are so huge that it will take years and years to cover them all." While he and other aid workers caution that reliable and comprehensive estimates are hard to measure as large swathes of Afghanistan are out of bounds even for assessment, he affirms that anecdotal evidence from the field suggests malnutrition is again on the rise. "The trends are not very good," he says.

The Humanitarian Action Plan appeal launched by the United Nations in February points out that "extreme poverty and lack of development have also left the population more susceptible during times of crisis and emergency, limiting their coping strategies and draining contingency reserves."

"People are resorting to negative coping mechanisms," such as selling off their livestock, says another aid worker who asked to remain anonymous. "The lack of humanitarian funding is a huge issue. All the funding we get is development funding. The humanitarian funding that is offered is linked to political objectives."

This linkage can vary vastly. "We are constantly being pushed to take up projects in areas where the major donors have their troops. They are throwing money at those projects even though the complete push on the south has not prevented the insecurity from spreading," says the aid worker. Other linkages include contractual obligations on the NGOs to build strong ties with military PRTs, or, in the most blatant cases, stipulations that the NGO beneficiary may be asked to do "post battlefield clean-up." "We are forced to reject many projects because of the stipulations," she says.

"After 2001, there was significant involvement of the international community in humanitarian aid that was replaced step-by-step by a trend towards the development of political assets or infrastructure," says Verna of ECHO. He feels that this was probably because of the initial security improvements, but the practice is continuing, despite a drastic change in the situation.

"Independent and flexible humanitarian funding has not been a priority of the donor community in Afghanistan," says Ingrid Macdonald, the Regional Protection and Advocacy Adviser of the Norwegian Refugee Council. "The tendency has been to fund large scale and high-value development and reconstruction projects. Often these projects are implemented through large for-profit private companies, linked to military and political priorities, and targeting geographic areas where the donors have a military presence or political interest. The humanitarian needs of the Afghan people are not being met, despite significant donor funding to Afghanistan," she says.

In an interview with EurasiaNet in August last year, then-UNODC country chief, Christina Oguz, warned that provinces like Balkh, which had suffered severely from drought, might slip back into poppy cultivation unless steps were taken to redress the unfolding humanitarian crises. If the province does slip from its current position as a secure and stable province, Governor Atta's angry message may become prophetic.