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."
Tahmina clung to a tree throughout the night.
"The wind sounded like a killer, and the waves ate too high," she said. "I was on a coconut tree. The wave took me there. I had no clothes on me when the sea was gone."
When dawn broke, Tahmina discovered that her sons Masum, 17, and Monir, 13, were both dead. In her village in the southern Barguna region of Bangladesh many people lost their lives.
The people of Bangladesh are still picking up the pieces after their country was battered by Sidr. The intense storm killed more than 3,000 people, wrecked hundreds of thousands of homes, and caused massive loss and damage to crops. In total the storm is thought to have affected more than eight million people.
In another village, a boy named Rahim and his family have started rebuilding their home, which was destroyed in the cyclone. But great uncertainty lies ahead.
"Father can't go to the sea now," Rahim said, "because the boat he works in is lost and the nets are on top of the tree, tangled and torn. Some people are giving us cooked lunch every day in the cyclone shelter."
Oxfam has created cash for work programs in cyclone-affected villages so that people can earn a living while they recover from the storm. To support her family, Rahim's mother has taken a job in one of these programs, clearing the village pond for 100 taka a day, or about $1.50.
Women and men in the cash for work programs clear ponds of trees, branches, and other debris tossed there by the cyclone's winds. Since salinity is high on the coastal area, these ponds are often only source of drinking water for an entire village. The workers also remove trees from roads that were blocked by the storm.
Bangladesh is one of the world's most vulnerable countries to the impacts of climate change. This is both because its population is so poor and because its low-lying geography on the Bay of Bengal makes it especially vulnerable to ocean-borne weather events.
Climate scientists forecast global warming will cause storms of increased intensity like Sidr, and that rainfall patterns will become more variable, leading to more floods and droughts. The sea level rise associated with global warming is also predicted to cause increasing salt content in the soil. These effects present a devastating challenge for a country where 70 percent of people rely on farming for their livelihoods.
]]>The human drama of climate change will largely be played out in Asia, where over 60 per cent of the world's population, around four billion people, live. The latest global scientific consensus from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) indicates that all of Asia is very likely to warm during this century. Warming will be accompanied by less predictable and more extreme patterns of rainfall. Tropical cyclones are projected to increase in magnitude and frequency, while monsoons, around which farming systems are designed, are expected to become more temperamental in their strength and time of onset. This report asks, will global warming send Asia and the Pacific 'up in smoke'?
]]>For hundreds of people who lost their limbs as a result of injuries suffered in the devastating 2005 earthquake, the future looked grim—until one of Oxfam's partners, the National Rural Support Program, or NRSP, set up shop in a giant tent on the outskirts of Islamabad and offered amputees something almost as precious as life: artificial limbs.
"In a poor country, the loss of a leg can mean the difference between being able to make a living and being a beggar," said Kenny Rae, Oxfam America's humanitarian response specialist who recently returned from a field visit to Pakistan. "The workshop was an inspiring thing to see."
For two weeks in August, technicians worked amid the roar of generators and the buzz of saws to outfit nearly 300 people with new legs. Others received leg supports, known as calipers, some got crutches, and a few got new hands. All told 403 patients, about 20 percent of whom were women, received free prosthetic treatment during the workshop. Amputees made their way to the tent courtesy of NRSP, which had ferried people over the rugged terrain from villages as far as 100 miles away.
The star of the initiative was the Jaipur foot, a world-renowned type of artificial limb developed in India that can be made for a fraction of the cost of western prosthetics ($30 per limb versus $2,000). It uses locally available materials, and allows people to live the kind of life they always have—squatting with ease and sitting cross-legged.
"The limbs were made totally on site, starting off with commercially available plastic pipes," said Rae. "The body of the leg is plastic and the joint is metal and rubber. They're very robust. One of the great things about these limbs is that people who get them can walk on steep and uneven surfaces easily."
To prove just how sturdy the devices can be, and how nimble their owners become, Sudam Ray, an amputee, and one of the 18 Indian technicians running the workshop, climbed up on a table—and leapt. He landed without a hitch, and with a hint of a smile, smack in front of Rae's video camera.
The World Health Organization has estimated that more than 700 people lost their limbs as a consequence of the earthquake. Slightly more than half of them were women. Without mobility in this poor and mountainous region, amputees are looked upon as burdens to their families.
"One man told me his new Jaipur foot would change his life," said Rae. "He said now he will be able to work again and provide for his family."
It's that kind of outcome that Oxfam and NRSP would like to see repeated many times over across the earthquake-ravaged region and beyond—toward the borders of Pakistan where landmines have ruined many lives. To that end, Oxfam has given NRSP a $25,000 grant toward the establishment of a permanent prosthetic center. Oxfam's contribution will fund training for seven new technicians who will travel to Jaipur, India, for a three-month course on limb construction. On their return, they'll train others in Pakistan. The funds will also assist the center in buying a multi-purpose ambulance.
"We're taking this world-renowned Indian technology and using it to benefit Pakistanis," said Rae. "It's so encouraging to see this wonderful collaboration between people of two countries which historically have been at odds with each other."
]]>Household contributions to education are steep and deter new entrants. Those in schools are faced with inadequate educational materials, textbooks, and teachers. Budget allocation and spending in the education sector by various stakeholders remain largely uncoordinated and opaque.
This briefing paper outlines some of the key concerns, and proposes a plan for not only increased funding, but also reforming budget allocation and planning within the Ministry of Education and amongst other actors in the education sector.
]]>The report card (for grades 1-9) recognizes that Afghanistan has made progress in enrollment, but finds key gaps in school completion rates, policy management, quality of education and available resources.
Despite the increase in school enrollment, more than half of Afghanistan's children don't attend primary school. Less than 34% of those enrolled are girls.
Drop-out rates are high, particularly among girls. Of those attending primary school, only 9% go on to secondary school.
Female teachers are scarce. In one province there is one female teacher for every 152 male teachers. Increasing the number of female teachers is essential to increase the enrollment of girls.
HRRAC recommends that international donors honor their commitments to provide sufficient and long-term funding for Afghanistan and ensure adequate steps are taken to increase the enrollment of girls and improve the quality of education.
The Human Rights Research and Advocacy Consortium is a group of Afghan and international organizations working in the fields of humanitarian relief, reconstruction, human and women's rights, peace promotion, research, and advocacy. It was established in early 2003 to engage in proactive research and advocacy on human rights issues over a sustained period.
Consortium Members
Afghan organizations
Afghan Development Association
Afghan Independent Human Rights Commission
Agency Coordinating Body for Afghan Relief (advisory organization)
Agency for Rehabilitation and Energy-conservation in Afghanistan
Afghanistan Research and Evaluation Unit (advisory organization)
Coordination of Humanitarian Assistance
Cooperation for Peace and Unity
International organizations
Oxfam International
Mercy Corps
Ockenden International
CARE International
Rights and Democracy
Save the Children Federation, Inc.
When's the last time a small-farm family called it quits and had to sell their land for development? Probably yesterday or the day before.
There's no coincidence here. The loss of truly fresh fruits and vegetables, grown for their taste, and the loss of farmland and small-scale farmers are two faces of the same coin. In this issue of EXCHANGE, we meet Michael Rozyne, founder and managing director of Oxfam partner Red Tomato.
Also in this issue, ethnic discrimination in Guatemala—and the Mayan defense. Plus, how community radio is engaging Senegal's youth, and the humanitarian imperative of land mine clearance in war-torn Afghanistan.
]]>