October 21, 2010

Afghan aid risks militarisation

In Afghanistan, humanitarian crises stem from chronic vulnerabilities whose origins are found in more than 30 years of war and conflict, poor governance, recurrent natural disasters and critically low levels of social and economic development. The year 2009 was marked by growing violence and insecurity. The spread of the conflict has had consequences on the humanitarian situation, creating displacements, destruction of houses and crops, violations of civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights, and a shrinking of humanitarian access.

Fifty to 60 percent of the country is under uncertain control, and humanitarian access continues to deteriorate. The country presents an insecure environment for the implementation of aid programmes, and a number of aid workers, mostly Afghans, have been killed, kidnapped and intimidated. A deadly, targeted attack on a United Nations guesthouse in Kabul in October 2009 forced aid organizations to review security arrangements and to reassess the impact and criticality of their programmes. Conflict-affected areas of the country are virtual no-go zones, and information on the scope of needs is vague, if not null.

As a consequence, there is no humanitarian consensus nor comprehensive analysis of the conflict-related human suffering and of the effects of recurrent natural disasters among the population, and how both affect the vulnerability and coping mechanisms of Afghan communities.

Afghans face a deepening humanitarian crisis

Since the fall of the Taliban regime in 2001, Afghanistan has received a massive injection of money. However, the infant mortality rate is 13%. Seventy-seven percent of the population lacks access to safe drinking water, 88% lacks access to sanitation and 54% of all children are considered chronically malnourished. One of the greatest concerns is the situation of Internally Displaced Persons (IDPs). The exact number is disputed, but the UNHCR estimates that there are 235,000.

Despite international laws and massive international presence, Afghan people are not protected. The year 2009 registered the highest number of civil casualties since the fall of the Taliban. In terms of protection, women and children are particularly at risk and neglected by international donors.

Militarisation of aid hinders humanitarian efforts

Afghanistan is the only complex emergency where almost all major donors –with the exception of Switzerland, Ireland and India – are also military actors in the conflict. In the field, military actors are engaged in assistance activities, mainly through the so-called Provincial Reconstruction Teams (PRT). The PRTs are units comprised of military officers and private contractors working to support stabilization efforts. Militaries commonly undertake activities that include “winning hearts and minds” operations intended to gain support from local communities that will enhance their military operations. These are conducted without necessarily adhering to core humanitarian principles of independence and impartiality.

For NGOs, this situation creates confusion, compromises their activities and puts their staff and beneficiaries in danger of possible retaliations from insurgents. The “militarisation” of aid means that many NGOs refuse to work with donors that have troops on the ground. The combination of military and humanitarian action is also seen by humanitarian organizations as detrimental to the future of humanitarian aid.

Good Humanitarian Donorship principles remain a key challenge for donors

The international community’s original, basic premise of intervention in Afghanistan was the country’s post-conflict situation. Thus, the emphasis was placed on development and reconstruction in detriment of humanitarian assistance. ECHO (European Commission Humanitarian Aid) had a 2009 budget of €35 million, OFDA (Office of U.S. Foreign Disaster Assistance) had a budget of $30 million. In comparison, USAID (United States Agency for International Development) had a budget of more than $2,5 billion for 2009.

Nevertheless, the humanitarian appeal of $665 million is well funded at 78%. However, a few NGOs and donors interviewed by the HRI team argued that the OCHA Humanitarian Action Plan (HAP) is more a Development Action Plan, which is partly a reflection of the intervention scope granted to the humanitarian space. Humanitarian actors recognized that chronic vulnerability should be addressed with a long-term developmental strategy, but warned that it might not save the lives currently at risk.

As far as Good Humanitarian Donorship principles are concerned, in Afghanistan they have been seriously compromised. Some donors, especially those most involved in combat operations, have assumed and acknowledged the intrinsic link between military and humanitarian aid objectives. Donors are facing dificulties in detaching their humanitarian from their military agendas, with military interests often defining humanitarian actions.

General recommendations

In Afghanistan there is a general agreement among humanitarian actors interviewed for the HRI mission that aid has not delivered the expected results. Most recently, there have been concerns that funds have been misspent due to corruption, mismanagement and poor targetting. An in-depth dialogue between donors and humanitarian actors exploring future scenarios, such as the humanitarian consequences of a progressive withdrawal of ISAF (NATO-led forces), could be a major step in the right direction and would allow agencies to address urgent humanitarian needs in an effective manner.

Specific recommendations

• Donors should direct attention to GHD principles. Initially, this could be done by selecting a number of relevant, key GHD indicators (i.e. neutrality, protection, access and independence) and develop strategies that will pursue acceptance of these principles from all actors of the conflict.
• Donors should recognize that aid must be allocated based on a thorough analysis of community needs and capacities. Aid must be needs-based, as opposed to area-based. Therefore donors should promote the separation of military activities from humanitarian aid, and in this way empower national and international NGOs, as well as the Afghan Civil Society.
• Donors must integrate the protection of civilians, particularly of women and children, as an essential part of humanitarian assistance and of the reconstruction of Afghanistan.
• Donors should advocate that Office for Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) play an independent, neutral and impartial role. Donors should promote data collection and analysis that assess conflict-related assistance and humanitarian needs of the population.