As NATO celebrates its 60th anniversary, 11 international aid agencies including Oxfam, ActionAid, CARE Afghanistan and Save the Children UK released a new report, called "Caught in the Conflict," which says NATO and other international military forces must transform the way their soldiers operate in Afghanistan.
In 2008, there were 2,100 civilian casualties, a 30 percent increase on the previous year. Although 55 percent of civilian deaths were caused by militants, there are serious concerns about fatalities caused by air strikes from pro-government forces, which increased by 70 percent to 552.
Matt Waldman, head of policy for Oxfam International on Afghanistan, said: "The troop surge will fail to achieve greater overall security and stability unless the military prioritize the protection of Afghan civilians.
"Despite taking steps to reduce civilian casualties, and repeated calls for restraint, too many military operations by foreign troops involve excessive force, loss of life and damage to property. This is causing anger, fear and resentment among Afghans, and is steadily eroding popular support for the international presence."
The aid agencies are asking for NATO and other military forces in Afghanistan to do far more to reduce civilian casualties, for example by tightening the rules on air strikes, ensuring night raids do not involve excessive force, and subjecting Special Forces operations to rigorous oversight.
Although civilian casualties are rising, the report finds no standardized system of investigation and compensation for Afghan civilians seeking redress for incidents involving loss of life, injury or damage to property caused by military operations.
Palwasha Abed, Protection Officer for Save the Children UK in Afghanistan, said: "The systems for compensating civilians are insufficient, fragmented and inaccessible to most Afghans. There must be a unified national system which ensures that when civilians are harmed during conflict, there is a full investigation where people are held to account and redress is available."
The aid agencies also criticized two programs recently established in the country. The new community defense and tribal empowerment initiatives – the Afghan Social Outreach Program and the Afghan Public Protection Forces – could put Afghan lives at risk, they said. The Afghan Social Outreach Program (ASOP) establishes district councils and part of their role is to inform on the militant activities. The Afghan Public Protection Force (APPF) creates and arms local militias.
Lex Kassenberg, Country Director of CARE in Afghanistan said: "The Afghan Social Outreach Program and the Afghan Public Protection Force are a distraction from essential reforms in security and governance. Currently, an average of three Afghans are executed every four days by insurgents for having any link to the government. In this environment, these programs put Afghans at even greater risk."
The aid agencies are calling for the APPF initiative to be abandoned and for the ASOP to be suspended and reviewed.
The report warns the military are blurring the distinction between aid workers and soldiers by doing extensive humanitarian and assistance work for counter-insurgency purposes, and by using unmarked white vehicles, which are conventionally only used by the UN and aid agencies. This undermines local perceptions of the independence and impartiality of aid agencies and therefore increases the risk to aid workers, and threatens to reduce the areas in which they can safely work.
The agencies also warn that the increasing distortion of humanitarian and development assistance for military aims could undermine long-term stability.
Agencies say that the Provincial Reconstruction Teams (PRTs), the military-led security and reconstruction teams, continue to receive massive amounts of funding: the annual PRT budget for the United States—over $200 million—exceeds the Afghan national budgets for health and education combined. The agencies recommend a phase-out of militarized aid and a substantial increase in development and humanitarian funding for civilian institutions and organizations.
Gyan Bahadur Adhikari, ActionAid’s Country Director in Afghanistan said: "The approach to security and reconstruction in Afghanistan has so far been piecemeal and insufficient—there has been no overall strategy in Afghanistan. But any new strategy has to be devised with the understanding that military solutions alone cannot bring peace and stability to Afghanistan."
Instead of focusing on such military approaches, the report recommends a comprehensive, long-term strategy for Afghanistan which includes greater support for rural development, measures to improve aid effectiveness and an enhanced response to the urgent humanitarian needs in the country.
]]>Oxfam called upon world leaders, meeting in the Netherlands today, to provide more money immediately for humanitarian relief, to radically overhaul the way they give aid to the country, and to prioritize the protection of civilians. The humanitarian emergency appeal launched last year is still less than 50 percent funded.
The health of over a million young children and half a million women is at serious risk due to malnutrition but a humanitarian rescue package is only 42 percent funded, with key sectors such as health and education less than 2 percent funded.
The agency also asked the international community to follow long-term strategies, which put the needs and wellbeing of Afghan civilians first.
Raymond C. Offenheiser, President of Oxfam America, said: "Today ministers will spend hours debating security and counter-terrorism, but the conflict is only part of the problem. The living conditions of many Afghans are deteriorating.
"Stability and prosperity will only occur if there are immediate efforts to improve the lives of ordinary Afghans. So far, the results have been inadequate.
"The response to the ongoing humanitarian situation has been slow, fragmented and insufficient. Aid has been ineffective, with too much money spent on foreign contractors or on projects that don't benefit the most vulnerable Afghans.
"If this international conference is to avert a crisis and create a workable solution, it must start by putting the future of the Afghans at the center of its agenda."
More money must go to agriculture and rural development to deal with the long-term causes of the current food crisis. For example, in Daikundi province, where half-a-million people are dependent on agriculture, the Afghan Department of Agriculture in 2007 had a budget of only $2,400 to improve farming in the area.
Offenheiser said: "Most Afghans depend on agriculture to feed their families or to make a living, but only a tiny fraction of international aid supports farming. More aid to agriculture will make Afghanistan less vulnerable to future food shortages and provide real alternatives to opium poppy cultivation."
There should also be a national strategy for ground-level peace-building and conflict resolution to make daily life safer for Afghans, Oxfam said. Peace processes must be developed at all levels, from the local and national right through to the regional.
]]>Global aid levels—published today by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development in London—are also minimal in comparison to the $8.4 trillion mobilized to bailout ailing banks, Oxfam said. At $173 billion, the American Insurance Group (AIG) alone has received $50 billion more than total global aid levels.
"Despite this welcome increase, aid levels remain tiny compared to the economies of rich countries—just 0.3 percent," said Max Lawson, head of development finance for Oxfam. "That is the same as it was in 1993. They have found 70 times more, $8.4 trillion, to save banks. Aid is an absolutely vital lifeline for the poorest people, especially in these brutal economic times. Far more is needed, and needed now."
"While aid alone is not enough for the poorest countries to escape the poverty trap—quality, long-term aid does make a huge difference. Poor country governments have used aid to scale up spending on education and health to help fight poverty," said Lawson. "The Tanzanian government used its aid income to offer free schooling to its primary-aged children—and now 3.5 million more children are now in school. Tanzania also used aid to strengthen its health services, helping to reduce the number of children dying in their first year of life by almost a third."
"Rich countries can come up with the money when they want to. AIG's executive bonuses alone could have paid for enough teachers for 7 million children in Africa. We need to see the G-20 move fast in London this week to rescue babies not just bankers," Lawson said.
Foreign direct investment into developing countries has collapsed by more than $700 billion since 2007—more than six times total aid levels. Remittances are also falling rapidly as unemployment rises in the rich world. Global trade has ground to a virtual halt. Aid is needed now more than ever to help the poorest countries weather the economic tsunami.
The OECD's figures show that aid has increased by 10 percent in real terms in 2008 to $120 billion. However, Sub-Saharan Africa—despite being the poorest region on earth—only saw a tiny increase of just 0.4 percent to $22.5 billion.
Most rich nations still have a mountain to climb to meet their 2005 promises to increase global aid by $50 billion by 2010, with half of this going to Africa. Italy, the G8 chair in 2009, is the worst offender. The OECD calculates that Italy will need to increase its aid spending by 145 percent to meet its promise. The shortfalls must be acknowledged and a clear timetable set to increase aid to meet pledges.
]]>"President Obama has said that promoting development is an essential part of the strategy for Afghanistan. But our development tools need major reform if we want them to deliver results," said Raymond C. Offenheiser, president of Oxfam America.
"Our foreign aid must focus on poverty reduction and empowering Afghans to lead their own development, which is the surest way of meeting Afghan needs," said Offenheiser. "The Obama Administration has an important opportunity to enhance the effectiveness of US aid to Afghanistan—and other countries—by creating a US national strategy to support global development.
"The strategy must have clear objectives for all US foreign aid: focus on fighting poverty, streamline and coordinate all sources of US funding, and give recipients the lead in determining the needs of their communities."
The Oxfam report, Smart Development In Practice—Field Report from Afghanistan, is based on a series of interviews in Kabul with individuals involved in the delivery of US aid, including employees of the US Agency for International Development (USAID), other foreign donor contractors, consulting companies, Afghan and international nongovernmental organizations, as well as Afghan government officials.
According to interviewees, there has been limited success in part because the US uses foreign aid to achieve short-term or security objectives. The report also identifies insufficient US support for long-term capacity building and an excessive volume of funds absorbed by private contractors. Agriculture and rural trade sectors, which are critical to the daily lives of Afghans, have not received the focus and resources they require.
However, the report also highlights success stories, where development initiatives have had clear development objectives and a high level of local ownership. One example is the Afghanistan community midwifery program, started in 2002 by the government of Afghanistan, which USAID is funding.
The program, trains women as midwives to improve chances of both mother and child surviving childbirth, and has begun to reduce some of world's highest maternal and neonatal mortality rates. With the help of the program, the number of facilities with skilled female health workers increased from 39 percent in 2004 to 76 percent in 2006.
The real success of the program can be seen in the active participation of individuals and communities: there were huge number of female volunteers for the program, often supported by their fathers and husbands; and women who are trained by this program can go on to earn good salaries in health clinics around the country.
"Programs like this show how critical local ownership and engagement are to the success of foreign aid projects. If we work closely with Afghans, and ultimately give them more control over their own development initiatives, we dramatically improve the chances of achieving positive change," said Offenheiser.
]]>"The number of people on this planet who suffer from chronic hunger has climbed to almost one billion—one in every six—and it's likely to get worse because of the global economic crisis and climate change," said Raymond C. Offenheiser, president of Oxfam America. "Congress should urgently pass this bill to not only address the ongoing humanitarian crisis, but also lay out long term responses that will reduce the vulnerability of poor people to the kinds of food price shocks we've seen in the last year."
The US approach to food security abroad has been uncoordinated across US agencies. The Global Food Security Act is the first attempt to provide a more comprehensive strategy for the US to address food insecurity abroad, make emergency responses more effective and build long-term food security by investing in agriculture. The legislation improves our emergency response to food crises and provides funding to assist poor countries promote food security and stimulate their rural economies.
"The spotlight may currently be on the financial crisis, but the food crisis is still very real and needs an urgent and coordinated response," said Offenheiser. "Once the world recovers from the global recession, commodity prices will skyrocket again, increasing the ranks of those who go hungry on a daily basis. This legislation begins the process of forging an effective strategy for fighting hunger and poverty."
Food prices on international markets rose dramatically last year and have eased in recent few months, but prices in most developing countries have remained high or continue to increase. For example, five million people are acutely affected by rising food prices in Afghanistan. The cost of cereal in Ethiopia remains drastically higher than at this time last year, and in Zimbabwe, five million people, almost half the country's population, are dependent on food aid.
The Lugar-Casey Global Food Security Act would create a new food security emergency fund for rapid response during crises. The bill also delivers on new investments and partnerships in research and development in agriculture. Perhaps most important, the bill begins to address the lack of clear mission, strategy and coordination among US agencies that has hampered our efforts of fighting poverty and hunger.
"With billions injected into the financial sector over the past few months, the donor community is drawing on empty pockets, but we must see investing in agriculture as part of the long-term solution to food, financial and climate crises," said Offenheiser. "Congress should urgently pass this bill to help us prepare to deal with another major spike in food prices, as well investing in long-term efforts to fight poverty."
]]>Up to five million Afghans are struggling to meet their immediate needs, and the health of over a million young children and half a million women are at serious risk due to malnutrition, yet the United Nations emergency appeal to feed Afghans is only half-funded.
Raymond C. Offenheiser, President of Oxfam America said: "With spreading insecurity, and civilians facing critical needs, the United States must take a leading role in protecting civilians and forging a new international approach to Afghanistan."
In a memo sent to President Obama, in addition to humanitarian needs, Oxfam America raised concerns that events have reached a critical juncture in Afghanistan and that conditions could deteriorate further unless the United States takes a lead in addressing failures in governance, aid and reconstruction, and protecting civilians. In the memo, Oxfam America outlined ten essential steps to change the course in Afghanistan.
In 2008, security conditions reached their worst levels since the intervention in 2001. Civilian casualties caused by all side have continued to increase, with over 2,000 civilian deaths over the past year, including nearly 800 from operations by international and Afghan government forces. Half of the country cannot be accessed by the United Nations and attacks on aid workers continue to increase, hampering the delivery of development and humanitarian assistance.
Matt Waldman, Oxfam International's head of policy in Afghanistan, said: "The only way address the worsening conditions for civilians and stem the tide of violence, is a concerted international effort, which prioritizes the safety and livelihoods of Afghan communities."
Oxfam America's memo to President Obama outlines a plan for a better humanitarian response to the crisis, major improvements in aid effectiveness, increased support for agriculture and the rural economy, action on peace-building, regional cooperation, governance reform, and new measures to protect civilians.
View Oxfam America's memo to President Obama: Ten Point Plan to Change Course in Afghanistan.
]]>Well, the US is by far the largest donor to Afghanistan—and we must acknowledge and credit the US with this generosity. Without US support, it is difficult to envisage Afghanistan achieving stability in the near future.
I think it's clear that not all of America's pledges to Afghanistan have been fulfilled. Of course, there are reasons why—partly due to the lack of capacity on the part of Afghan ministries and the security environment. But I think there is a clear need for efforts by donors, first of all, to fulfill their aid pledges wherever possible, and second, to focus on building the capacity of the government both at a central and a local level.
We also need to bear in mind, regardless of pledges, the levels of aid. The average level of US aid in Afghanistan for the last six years has been around $7 million a day, compared to the fact that the US military spends around $100 million a day in the country. Now, we can't immediately put that right, because a large of influx of aid would be a dangerous thing—it could lead to waste or corruption. What we need to do is incrementally increase the level of aid.
This brings me to perhaps the most important point: the way aid is spent is crucial. There are a number of ways in which aid is failing to maximize its potential.
For example, efficiency: too much aid is wasted on large contractors who make significant profits. Large numbers of expatriate consultants absorb a lot of the aid in high salaries. Now, we're not saying that you don't need consultants or contractors in Afghanistan—you do. But you've got to rigorously assess the extent to which they are providing value for money, in each case and in every program. And around half of aid is “tied”: donors require the procurement of goods or services from their own states. This is inefficient, and as a result we estimate 40 percent of international aid goes back to donor countries.
Also, we have been looking at the ways aid is delivered. In many cases, donors fail to ensure that aid is addressing Afghan needs, rather than being supply-driven and prescriptive according to donor preferences. In many cases there has not been an even distribution of aid. Aid has been used to achieve military and political objectives, rather than for the fundamental priority of reducing poverty. It's been urbanized, rather than prioritizing rural areas where the vast majority of Afghans live. Some two-thirds of aid bypasses the government, and only half of aid is actually in agreement with the government. Then there are problems with coordination: of all technical assistance, only about one-third is coordinated, and there is a clear lack of coherence among the donors in a number of areas.
Aid is essential to Afghanistan, and it actually needs more aid, but at the same time there have to be concerted efforts to improve aid's impact and its efficiency and its effectiveness. Donors need to provide full transparency about what they're doing, what they're spending their funds on, and how they're spending them. We need to establish indicators of aid effectiveness, tracking impact, efficiency, relevance, sustainability, accountability, ownership, and use of Afghan resources.
There should be a separate, independent body—which could even be located within an existing institution—which monitors aid delivery, evaluates aid, identifies bad practices, and issues recommendations as to how they can be put right. Donors should take steps to improve coordination, which will require efforts by each individual donor, as well as a strengthened UN and Joint Coordinating Monitoring Board in Afghanistan.
I've seen local NGOs working at grassroots level with simple projects that are according to Afghan preferences and Afghan needs; they're often led and actually implemented by Afghans. Even if it's just a simple water supply project or irrigation project, I've seen some really impressive results that benefit an entire community. And I've been impressed with the commitment of the people at these kinds of NGOs. They're really hard-working, dedicated to what they do. Of course we do need the big infrastructure projects, but the ones that strike me as particularly well-done have been these small-scale projects.
I think this is actually at the heart of effective aid. In order to have a project that is really relevant to the lives of ordinary people living in difficult circumstances, you have to ensure that they are fully engaged, fully involved, and if possible leading projects. And then indeed they will make sure—because this is of direct relevance to their lives—they will make sure that the project is addressing their needs, and in the future they will fully use it and ensure that they get the benefits from it.
Let's face it: nobody wants to feel anything is imposed on them. Communities in the developing world are no different. We cannot impose solutions; we have to really make strenuous efforts in terms of engaging people. There may be some trade-offs in terms of efficiency, but it's worth it to ensure that what we do is effective.
There has been insufficient coordination between the government and the donors. I think there is now recognition of this problem, and there will be efforts to improve and address this. It's crucial that there is a strong partnership, and wherever possible, the Afghan government takes the lead.
But at the same time there is no doubt that there have to be efforts to improve the capacity of the Afghan government, to improve its public administration, to increase transparency, to build accountability, and to reduce corruption. Donors should be conscious of this; it requires considerable efforts on their part to help the Afghan government address some of these problems.
Certainly there is significant scope for USAID to improve its aid delivery in Afghanistan. There should be efforts made to increase the amount of aid that goes to the Afghan government, and this can be done through international trust funds, which offer a means of protecting against corruption or waste. Britain and Canada both devote the vast bulk of their funds to the Afghan government through these trust funds, and we would encourage the US to do likewise. Right now, only 6 percent of US aid goes to the Afghan government. It's hard to see a sustainable government in the future if we're not building up its capacities.
USAID should ensure that all its projects are in alignment with national or provincial plans, and fully engaged with government or local authorities. It should ensure that it is reducing the amount of aid that is delivered through military teams, and increasing aid to civilian-led development processes. It should attempt to ensure real transparency in the activities of the large contracting firms, and ensure that their profit margins are fully justified. It should ensure that there is a proper assessment of whether consultants are fully justifying their considerable salaries. It should reduce tied aid requirements, so that projects do not require the use of American firms of materials. It should seek to increase the extent to which it coordinates with other donors and the Afghan government.
We would also encourage USAID to support the call for the establishment of indicators of aid effectiveness, and support an independent mechanism for monitoring the performance of donors. We believe it's in everybody's interest to identify where aid could be better spent, and how it could be better spent, which ultimately will lead to stability and allow the US to over time reduce its commitments in Afghanistan.
There is undoubtedly a link between insecurity and persistent poverty in Afghanistan. If aid is effectively delivered, and there is strong rural development, I can guarantee that is the best foundation for a future of peace in Afghanistan. There no shortcuts, no quick deals that will lead to a lasting peace. An essential component of peace is strong development, which we can achieve if we increase the level of aid and use it well.
Although violence has been increasing in recent years, there is a real prospect of achieving more peace in Afghanistan. The international community needs to recognize that a major change of direction is required. They, together with the Afghan government, need to take a number of steps. They need to support the proposals we have made and other NGOs have made about humanitarian priorities, development, peace-building, and aid effectiveness, and there needs to be a sense of urgency in order to put things on the right track. I am cautiously optimistic, primarily because of the sheer resilience and determination of the Afghans to achieve peace and development. But we have to raise our game in order to help them to achieve that.
]]>Waldman's assessment will reinforce what many Americans believe: that long years of struggle have put the Afghan people in a position of hopelessness. But when Waldman talks about the people he has met in the course of his work, what he emphasizes most is their strength and resilience.
"The Afghan people have a great strength; a dignity in their lives, and a pride in their culture....In many ways, I'm impressed by their determination to make the best of the situations they live in."
Waldman himself is British, a former foreign affairs advisor for the UK Parliament. He is in the midst of a whirlwind US trip to promote Falling Short, a report he wrote exposing the $15 billion international aid shortfall in Afghanistan.
He looks a little weary, but speaks calmly and assuredly about leading a team of Oxfam policy and advocacy specialists who work both in the capital city of Kabul and in rural areas of Afghanistan. Their job: to listen to people's concerns, conduct research, and advocate for change at the national and international level.
In the mountain provinces of Badakhshan and Daikundi, Waldman and his team visited families who survive long, harsh winters on a diet of mainly dried bread and tea; communities where the life expectancy hovers around 44 years old; places where children and pregnant women often die due to malnutrition and a lack of medical care.
In other regions, thousands of civilians have fallen victim to acts of violence by militants and criminal groups. Oxfam and local NGOs are implementing peace-building programs to end violence at the local level.
Despite the obstacles, many Afghan people are determined to build a secure future for their country and their families. "I know of individuals working for human rights, who have been subject to considerable pressures, who nonetheless continue their fight," notes Waldman. "And ordinary Afghans who work long and hard to ensure their families are well kept and their children can attend school."
The US also plays a role in securing Afghanistan's future. "The US is by far the largest aid donor to Afghanistan," Waldman says. "Without US support, it is difficult to envisage Afghanistan achieving stability in the near future."
Right now, though, US support for Afghanistan is not living up to its promises. US military spending there far exceeds spending on aid—and the US has only delivered half of the $10.4 billion in aid it committed between 2002 and 2008. To achieve real change in Afghanistan, Waldman says, the US must increase funding for aid projects that lift people out of poverty.
And effective aid is about more than just dollar amounts. "The way aid is spent is crucial," says Waldman. "Right now, there are a number of ways aid is failing to maximize its potential."
To live up to this potential, the US needs to approach aid differently in Afghanistan:
It's essential, Waldman says, that local people are the owners and leaders of the aid projects that affect their lives. "Let's face it: nobody wants to feel that anything is imposed on them. Communities in the developing world are no different. In order to have a project that is really relevant to the lives of ordinary people living in difficult circumstances, you have to ensure that they are fully involved."
If we take these steps, Waldman says, we can build on the strength of the Afghan people and help bring peace after decades of conflict.
"I am cautiously optimistic," he says, "primarily because of the sheer resilience and determination of the Afghans to achieve peace and development. But there are no shortcuts, no quick deals that will lead to a lasting peace."
Even one event like this—and there are others including flash floods, shortages of fodder, drought—can have devastating consequences on the availability of food, especially for people who depend heavily on their animals and agriculture. Decades of conflict have prevented many of them from being able to strengthen or diversify their means of making a living.
It is harsh realities like these that a $250,000 Oxfam program has helped to remedy for 2,000 families in 40 villages scattered through the Daikundi and Bamiyan provinces. With high-quality seeds, some technical training, and a boost from a supply of fertilizer, families were able to grow a whole range of produce.
"This is the first time in my life that I have eaten these vegetables," said one 65-year-old resident of Jingan village, showing off a pumpkin plucked from a garden that also produced lettuce, cabbage, cauliflower, carrots, and tomatoes. "We now save money and have a better diet."
But the program has done more than just help people produce new harvests. It has planted the seeds for their future development, too. Literacy classes for women, construction of a pair of greenhouses, and training in animal breeding to improve local herds were also among the projects initiated in this remote region.
Though a great deal remains to be done before villages can wrench themselves free of crippling poverty, projects that help people improve their standard of living have fed the aspirations of many.
"I hope that one day I will be able to read and write and will know what is happening the world around us," said a young mother named Razia, who brings her one-year-old daughter to the literacy classes sponsored by Oxfam in the village of Gochan.
The literacy classes, held in 20 communities, have been so popular that villagers have asked Oxfam to offer them for men as well. For girls who have never had the opportunity to go to school, the classes give them the basics in reading and writing—with the hope that some students will be able to continue with their educations in nearby schools.
Education, in fact, is the basis for much of this rural development initiative—from villagers learning about new seeds to improved husbandry practices. The ultimate goal is to help make sure that food is more readily available for many of the people in these rugged communities. Families chosen to participate include those caring for handicapped children, ones headed by women, and households without land and little opportunity to earn an income. All told, about 14,000 people have indirectly benefitted from the program.
With basic diets of bread, tea, and only occasionally a bit of mutton, villagers showed particular interest in learning about vegetable gardening. In separate classes for men and women, participants learned how to cultivate an array of new seeds, how to fertilize the soil, and when to harvest the vegetables and process them, too.
But challenges remain. Adverse weather and limited water often add up to small harvests. And farmers need more training on sustainable approaches to agriculture, such as through the creation of seed banks.
The establishment of orchards—a new activity for many people—also sparked interest. Thirty farmers each received 100 saplings including walnuts, pears, apples, almonds, apricots, and peaches. And 10 farmers also got the tools needed to graft fruit trees to aid in the creation of new orchards. Courses offered farmers training on the establishment and management of nurseries and garden design.
Oxfam also provided training on animal breeding and livestock management. A total of 26 new calves were born under the program and 20,000 animals received vaccinations against a host of ills including parasites and liver worms.
"Given the multi-dimensional nature of poverty and the past decades of conflict and insecurity, the local communities still have a long way to go in establishing sustainable community structures, livelihoods and environmental protection," said a final report on the project.
What's the answer? Oxfam sees the need for a long-term commitment to these villages so that local people can become empowered to undertake development initiatives that would ensure greater food security for everyone.
]]>The report was released a day ahead of a NATO summit in Latvia to review progress in Afghanistan.
Girls are particularly losing out, with just one in five girls in primary education and one in 20 attending secondary school.
The report, entitled “Free, Quality Education for Every Afghan Child,” says that aid from rich countries is not being delivered, meaning millions of children are being denied an education.
Seven million Afghan children are currently out of school, while five million children attend school - up from 3.1 million in 2003 and around 1 million in 2001,when the Taliban were in power.
Many of those lucky enough to be in school are being taught by untrained teachers: a survey in northern Afghanistan revealed only five percent of primary school teachers could pass the exams that their pupils must take.
“Educating Afghanistan’s children is crucial in improving their lives and in the rebuilding and development of the country. But poverty, crippling fees, and huge distances to the nearest schools prevent parents from sending their children to school. Those children who are lucky enough to be in school must endure untrained teachers, inadequate school buildings, and poor textbooks. If Afghanistan is to meet its ambitious aims for primary and secondary education, there must be a dramatic increase in aid to the government from rich countries,” says Grace Ommer, head of Oxfam Great Britain in Afghanistan.
Oxfam’s report shows that extra investment in school buildings is desperately needed. More than half of pupils do not go to school because there is no school nearby. More than half of Afghanistan’s schools need major repairs, the majority are without clean drinking water or toilet facilities, and two million children study in tents or the open air. Oxfam calls on the international community to invest US$563 million to rebuild 7,800 schools across the country. Rich countries are not providing nearly enough aid to Afghanistan, despite their many promises. So far they contribute only $126 million a year.
Oxfam estimates Afghanistan needs nearly 53,000 trained primary school teachers immediately and a further 64,000 teachers in the next five years. There is also a distinct shortage of female teachers, as currently less than three in 10 teachers are female.
Recruiting these new teachers will be difficult given the low level of morale among Afghanistan’s existing teachers. Their pay is very poor: in Daikundi province in central Afghanistan, most teachers are only paid US$38 per month, and many teachers have to pay a bribe before they are given their salaries.
There are also up to 20,000 “ghost teachers” who collect their salaries but don’t go to work, or who collect more than one salary. Oxfam is calling for better budgeting systems, more consultation, and the creation of a national database of teachers to stamp out corruption in the education system.
Schools are supposed to be free, but in some areas up to 85 percent of schools charge fees. The average fee per student is $6 per year; the average Afghan income is only $293 per year.
To ensure that the Afghan government meets its Millennium Development Goals, Oxfam is calling for:
It is two years since the international community and Afghan government launched the ‘Afghanistan Compact’, in which donors pledged over $10bn of aid to the country. They resolved ‘to overcome the legacy of conflict’ by promoting development, security, governance, the rule of law and human rights.
It must now be acknowledged that many of the Compact’s targets are not being met, and that too many of the commitments made remain unfulfilled.
There has been undoubted social and economic progress in Afghanistan, but it has been slow and is being undermined by increasing insecurity.
Oxfam, which has had operations and supported partners in Afghanistan for nearly twenty years, wants world leaders to support a major change of direction in order to reduce suffering and avert a humanitarian disaster.
Oxfam believes there are five guiding principles which should underpin this change of course.