Afghanistan adrift in misplaced
aid By Aunohita Mojumdar
KABUL - A map of Afghanistan dotted with
colorful pins adorned the wall in the office of
the aid agency official. Looking with relish at
the embellished map, the official stuck in a
handful more, noting with a sigh of satisfaction
the increase in the number of "projects
completed".
For several years,
reconstruction in Afghanistan has been a "drawing
board and drawing pin" approach, with aid delivery
overwhelmingly focused on numbers, quick delivery,
high visibility, meeting benchmarks, a production
line approach to the rebuilding of a nation.
However, the short-term, low-cost approach
of the donor community is coming under increasing
criticism from development
experts, reputed international
non-governmental organization (NGOs) and civil
society.
In a report released this week by
ACBAR, (an umbrella organization for NGOs working
in Afghanistan), Oxfam, a member of ACBAR, called
for a change of approach saying "too much of aid
has been prescriptive and driven by donor
priorities - rather than responsive to evident
Afghan needs and preferences".
While
Afghanistan has received nearly US$15 billion in
the period from 2002-2008, Oxfam points out that
in the first two years after the ouster of the
Taliban the per capita expenditure on rebuilding
the shattered country was $57 per capita compared
to $679 per capita in Bosnia. Even this money does
not come without strings attached. Half of it is
"tied aid" which refers to the aid that has to be
spent in the purchase of goods and services from
the donor country.
"Preferenced aid"
delineates the select areas - both in terms of
sector and geography that the donor selects. An
estimated 40% has returned to the donor country in
the form of corporate profits and consultant
salaries.
A Corpwatch report in 2006
stated "many development experts find the process
by which aid contracts and loans are awarded to be
counterproductive. International and national aid
agencies - including the World Bank, the
International Monetary Fund and USAID - that
distribute aid money to developing countries have,
in effect, designed a system that is efficient in
funneling money back to the wealthy donor
countries, without providing sustainable
development in poor states." Oxfam states that
vast sums of the aid money are lost in corporate
profits of contractors and sub-contractors, which
can be as high as 50% on a single contract.
Only approximately 25-30% of all aid
coming into the country is routed through the
government, eroding its legitimacy, planning
capacity and authority. Donor funding is also
usually premised on an annual cycle making it
impossible for the government and the NGOs to
undertake multi-year planning, a necessary
concomitant for sustainable development.
"The nature of our funding in Afghanistan
is such that we survive on a cycle of a few
months. Once the funding comes in, it takes time
for the project to be started up and then it's
time to do the donor reporting and raise money for
the next year," said the head of an established
NGO in Afghanistan.
Criticism of donors
has seen a shift in recent months. Whereas most of
the earlier censure was limited to scrutiny of the
efficiency of donor organizations, recent
criticism has questioned the underpinnings of the
aid paradigm. Noting the links between development
and security Oxfam notes "thus far aid has been
insufficient and in many cases wasteful or
ineffective" pointing out that "most Afghans still
endure conditions of hardship and millions live in
extreme poverty".
The perception of the
sporadic and patchy nature of economic development
is also captured in a 2007 public opinion survey
conducted by the Asia Foundation. While 49% of
people thought they were more prosperous than
under the Taliban, the number was down from the
54% who thought so in 2006. Those who thought they
were less prosperous had increased by 2%.
According to the National Risk and Vulnerability
Assessment, 30% of the population was below the
minimum level of dietary energy consumption.
The Oxfam report points out that despite
an overwhelming dependence of the country's
population on agriculture (70% directly or
indirectly), the sector has received only $400-500
million since 2001. International spending in
Afghanistan is focussed overwhelmingly on military
operations. The US military alone spends nearly
$100 million a day on Afghanistan while the
combined donor funding on aid is only $7 million
of which a bulk goes to those provinces and areas
where donors have their troops.
Disbursement is often very slow, making
the projects ineffective. A study of the National
Solidarity Program by ELBAG (an Action Aid
initiative in evolving accountability through
civil society participation in budgetary analysis)
found that the program, considered one of the most
effective aid delivery projects in Afghanistan was
facing not just a shortfall of funds but also huge
delays in disbursement, leading to problems in
implementation.
The ELBAG report called
for "greater emphasis in looking at Afghan
priorities rather than donor priorities" and
"reducing the amount of preferenced aid, reducing
the gap between donor commitment and disbursement
and routing more of the external budget trough the
Afghan government".
It is not just the
delivery mechanisms of aid that are faulty.
Coordination among donors is almost non-existent
leading to overlapping projects and waste. "Donors
are failing to coordinate between themselves and
with the government," Oxfam states. A recent
report by the Brussels-based International Crisis
Group stated "disunity in Afghanistan is about not
just structural issues or coordination but also
priorities and preferences, goals, means and
increasingly endgames, exit strategies and perhaps
more importantly the reasons for being in the
country".
Donors and donor countries have
so far avoided any scrutiny of their effectiveness
and aid delivery strategies. Oxfam points out that
while there are 77 indicators for the government's
performance in the London Compact, a joint Afghan
international partnership, there are no benchmarks
for the international community. "A national
independent commission for aid effectiveness
should be established to monitor aid practices,
identify deficiencies and make recommendations."
While aid has made a significant
difference to Afghan lives, Oxfam believes "major
weaknesses have severely constrained its capacity
to reduce poverty". Donors, the NGO argues, must
take urgent steps to increase and improve their
assistance to Afghanistan.
Aunohita
Mojumdar is an Indian journalist who is
currently based in Kabul. She has reported on the
South Asian region for 16 years and has covered
the Kashmir conflict and post-conflict situation
in Punjab extensively.
(Copyright 2008
Asia Times Online Ltd. All rights reserved. Please
contact us about sales, syndication and republishing .)
Head
Office: Unit B, 16/F, Li Dong Building, No. 9 Li Yuen Street East,
Central, Hong Kong Thailand Bureau:
11/13 Petchkasem Road, Hua Hin, Prachuab Kirikhan, Thailand 77110
