So Many Miles To Go

Times of India/ June 2008

KABUL: A new blueprint for the development and reconstruction of Afghanistan is expected to be finalised at the international conference in Paris today, a meeting between the inter-national donor community and the Afghan government.

The Afghan government will unveil its Afghanistan National Developments Strategy (ANDS), the equivalent of a five-year plan, and seek to raise $50 billion in donor commitment, more than three times the amount that has been disbursed by donors in Afghanistan since 2001.

Paris will certainly raise more money. However, will it answer critical questions on aid delivery and effectiveness?
Nearly seven years into the reconstruction of the country and $15 billion later, there is increasing criticism of the approach of the international community over the priorities of the aid regime. Though donor aid is inevitably tied to the interests of donor nations, it must also reflect the priorities of the recipient country. In Afghanistan, however, the pursuance of donor politics has often come at the cost of the welfare of Afghan citizens, something that long-term aid workers and organisations are increasingly articulating.

Consider the facts. While the enrolment in schools (six million children), increase of medical services, return of refugees and rebuilding of roads have been put forward as major achievements, the quality of life for the majority of Afghans has not improved to an extent commensurate with hopes, promises and expenditure.

The most recent National Human Development Report showed that literacy (23.5 per cent) and life expectancy (43.1 years) of Afghans were lower than what had been estimated at the time that the reconstruction was begun.

The country's current ranking in the Human Development Index remains one of the lowest anywhere in the world with an estimated ranking of 174, only above four other African nations.

The Human Poverty Index places it lowest while the Gender Development Index places it only above Niger. Estimates show that the amount of money spent in Afghanistan per capita has been a fraction of what was spent in rebuilding Kosovo and Timor, as the international community tried to do Afghanistan on the cheap even though the decimation of human and physical infrastructure here was much more devastating.

However, the 'cut-price' reconstruction has not been just about money. International efforts have been found lacking in terms of time and attention.

With an eye on taxpayers back home, donors have tended to focus on short-term projects with quick delivery and visible impact.

At best these projects are economically unsustainable while at worst the quick execution is often shoddy, lasting only long enough to give project implementers and donors their mandatory photo-op.

A critical example is the agriculture sector. In the past six and a half years, the sector has received only an estimated $400-500 million in donor funding.

This, despite the fact that an estimated 70 per cent of the country's population is dependant on agriculture for a livelihood and that development of ‘alternative livelihoods' has been identified as a key to weaning the country's farmers off poppy cultivation.