09/22/2004

The overthrow of the Taliban regime by Coalition and Afghan forces in November 2001 led to a commitment by the international community to assist Afghanistan in rebuilding its economy and fostering a decent, democratic government committed to improving the lot of its 22 million people. This challenge is especially difficult as the Afghan government has effective control over only a minority of its territory and its authority is challenged by illegal armed elements such as the Taliban, Al Qaeda, regional warlords, and local commanders.

On an assessment mission to Afghanistan in June 2004, Refugees International had the opportunity to examine local development projects and reflect on the types of projects that are most appropriate to the current Afghan context. In selecting development projects we thought were worthy of recognition, we used four criteria which we believe are crucial:

1. Afghan government commitment, demonstrated by allocation of resources and personnel to the project.  Too often aid donors decide what development activities they will finance without reference to national wishes and priorities.  Those projects usually fail through lack of local interest.
2. Participation and benefits for people at the grassroots, especially vulnerable people such as former refugees and displaced persons, female headed households, disabled, and minority groups.   Too often aid projects consist of high-level planning by high-priced consultants and too few benefits trickle down to the supposed beneficiaries.
3. Long-term commitments and impact.  Many economic development projects  have early termination dates dictated by the budget cycle of the donor.  Too often quality and durable accomplishments become secondary to the need to shovel money out the door to meet an artificially set deadline for completion of the project.
4. Local capacity development. Too often foreign-financed economic development projects fall apart when the foreign advisors and technicians go home or withdraw from the project.   
   

The three projects currently on-going in Afghanistan that RI believes are worthy of recognition are the following:  

• Micro-Finance and Investment Support Facility (MISFA).   According to the World Bank, this project is the “first of its kind,” bringing together a coalition of donors to implement a nation-wide micro-credit program.  The project funding is $25 million and a large increase in funding is proposed in 2005 as demands for small loans have been higher than expected.  Nine NGOs are among the implementing partners for MISFA and they have made 32,000 loans averaging several hundred dollars each.  The repayment rate has been 98 percent.  Women make up a large percentage of the borrowers, and MISFA is now looking to focus more on loans to vulnerable groups such as nomads, ex-combatants, and the disabled. A few examples of the businesses supported by loans from MISFA include chicken raising, small generators to produce power for sale, kite making, and manufacture of spoons.    

• National Solidarity Program (NSP).   One of the most complex programs ever attempted in a war-torn, fragmented country, the NSP has surprised most experts with the success it has achieved in less than one year of operation.   A $100 million program, the NSP plans to provide cash grants to each of the more than 20,000 communities in Afghanistan.  To receive a grant the community must elect a Community Development Council, prepare a development plan, and propose a project for funding by the NSP.    Community projects funded thus far include public baths, schools, roads, and water supply systems.  About 3,400 development plans have been completed and several hundred projects are underway.  NSP works best in areas in which the populace is not under the control of warlords or commanders.  NSP is criticized for moving too fast with too little quality control, so both donors and the Afghan government need to be patient and maintain the integrity of the program.                

• National Emergency Employment Program (NEEP).  NEEP provides employment through public works to poor Afghans, especially in rural areas and among vulnerable groups such as ex-refugees, women, ex-combatants, and the disabled.  Occasional wage employment aids the survival of many rural Afghans who are unable to support themselves solely through agriculture. In reconstructing irrigation systems and repairing about 7,500 kilometers of roads, NEEP has provided 7.2 million person-days of employment.  Workers are paid $2-$3 per day and 45 percent of the cost of any project must be spent on wages.  About $6 million in projects are now underway.  NEEP’s problems include bureaucratic complexities and finding enough engineers and contractors to supervise and manage projects and maintain quality.  
  

The early accomplishments and promise for the future of the above programs notwithstanding, other priorities for Afghanistan’s future success have been neglected by the government and foreign aid donors.  Two of these areas are:

• Rule of Law.  Afghanistan has only the semblance of a legal system.  While human rights commissions have been formed in many regions, little progress has been made in improving the administration of justice or assisting the Ministry of Justice to meet its responsibilities.
• Land Issues.  Prominent development economists such as Hernando De Soto have highlighted the importance of a secure, honest property rights system for economic and social progress.  In Afghanistan, armed elements are grabbing land from poor farmers and many poor people are unable to build houses because of lack of land or the insecurity of their tenure.  Land rights, according to the Norwegian Refugee Council, are the biggest single source of conflict in Afghanistan.  Despite proposals by the Afghan Research Unit (AREU) and others, little action has been taken by the government and donors to deal with land issues in a systematic way.

The success of the development programs outlined above is by no means ensured.  Corruption is a problem, and the most potent constraint in Afghanistan is the deteriorating security situation in much of the country, which seriously hinders efforts of positive elements of the government and international community to bring peace, progress, and justice to the long- beleaguered people of Afghanistan.

Senior Advocate Larry Thompson has frequently visited Afghanistan, most recently in June 2004.