Afghanistan adrift in misplaced aid

Afghanistan adrift in misplaced aid

Asia Times/March 29,2008

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 .)