To the Editor: in Eurasianet.org’s recent story, “Afghanistan: There's No Way to Follow Taliban Reintegration Money [4]," there are several errors that I’d like to address. Your reporter, Deirdre Tynan, asked for an accounting of money being paid to former insurgents who renounce violence and join the peace process, and that is the question to which I responded. I'm generally quoted correctly, however the context is very misleading.
The Afghanistan Peace and Reintegration Program (APRP) is new, which allowed the Afghans to create a funding mechanism for their own program. In order to make the underlying procedures actionable, accountable and transparent, financial procedures are still being refined, and most of the international donors’ money (including U.S. money) is still “in the bank.” Saying "no one appears to be keeping track of how the money is being spent" is grossly false.
A US military team of highly qualified specialists is tracking the budgets, policies and training needed to properly implement the $50 million USD US Afghanistan Reintegration Program (ARP). This is being done in accordance with applicable federal rules and regulations. Separately, the Afghanistan Reconstruction Trust Fund is being funded by various nations of the international community and is monitored and controlled by international financial experts and an oversight committee whose membership includes representatives from donor nations.
The ARP is a flexible, modified form of the US Department of Defense Commander’s Emergency Response Program, commonly referred to as CERP. These funds are used specifically to support reintegration activities conducted under the APRP.
For background, in fiscal year 2010, the US, Congress authorized $100 million USD in CERP funding to be used for reintegration under the ARP. Only about $359,000 was disbursed. This funding was reauthorized for $50 million USD for Fiscal Year 2011. The intent is for this money to bridge the current gap between the immediate need to respond to reintegration opportunities that arise and Afghan capability to provide funding.
Provincial Reconstruction Teams and other units in the field may use these ARP funds to jump-start reintegration in their provinces. Of $50 million USD available, approximately $4.8 million USD has been disbursed through March 15. Projects supported include provincial governor outreach efforts in Ghazni, establishment of Provincial and District Reintegration Support teams in Helmand, events where detainees held in US operated facilities are released and returned to their communities, literacy training in Badghis, support to the national-level High Peace Council, and construction of a reintegration center in Faryab.
Outside of notional transition packages, which include food, clothing, and a small stipend, reintegration candidates, that is, individuals who have formally expressed their intent to join the peace process and have been registered in the APRP, receive no direct support. Programs and projects are directed to benefit and enhance community needs. This is a major change from previous reintegration programs.
I hope this provides a better understanding of the funding used to support reintegration and the peace process in Afghanistan.
Gary Younger
Public Affairs Officer
ISAF
Kabul, Afghanistan
EurasiaNet.org’s response: EurasiaNet stands by the integrity of it reporting on this story. Our initial inquiries with the US Department of Defense regarding the use of the Commander’s Emergency Response Program (CERP) funds for Taliban reintegration were not answered. Instead, a Pentagon representative referred us to the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF). CERP has been “plagued” by oversight flaws, according to a report prepared by the Special Inspector General for Afghan Reconstruction (SIGAR). One SIGAR inspection, Audit #09-05, completed in September 2009, cited a need for more “monitoring and planning” for CERP projects in Afghanistan. “Although DOD [the Pentagon] has established procedures to ensure control and accountability for CERP funds, we identified weaknesses in monitoring and execution procedures,” the audit stated. “We found that management has limited visibility over CERP projects, due, in part, to a lack of centrally retained physical project files and incomplete or absent electronic project records.” [To see the full SIGAR report click here [5]].
The Afghan Peace and Reintegration Program (APRP) appears to have oversight procedures that are embryonic. The program may be in its early phase, but it was nevertheless launched with a financial structure that “is still being constructed.” This indicates that SIGAR’s recommendations have yet to be fully implemented into CERP-related projects. The Afghan working environment, where corruption is endemic, demands robust, mature and public oversight and accounting practices. EurasiaNet’s reporting did not find evidence of this. Hence we stand by the assertion, with particular regard to CERP, that reintegration money in Afghanistan is not being adequately tracked.