Humanitarian and Reconstruction Assistance to Afghanistan - OECD

216 Pages·2005·4.28 MB·English

A
J
o
i
n
t
E
v
a
l
u
a
t A Joint Evaluation
i
o
n
Afghanistan was a troubled country in 2001. Not only is Afghanistan one of the poorest H HUMANITARIAN AND
countries in the world, but protracted armed confl ict since 1978 had forced 6 million U
M
out of a population of some 25 million people to fl ee to neighbouring countries, caused RECONSTRUCTION ASSISTANCE
A
massive destruction of infrastructure and paved the way for warlords to rule over large N
I
parts of the country. The 2001 11 September attack by Al Qaeda placed Afghanistan at the T
A TO AFGHANISTAN, 2001-05
centre of international politics and provoked the US-led ‘Coalition of the Willing’s attack R
on 7 October on Al Qaeda bases in Afghanistan in collaboration with a loose alliance of IA
N
Northern Afghan groups and the subsequent overthrow of the Taliban regime.

A
N FROM DENMARK, IRELAND, THE NETHERLANDS, SWEDEN
After the international military operation and up to mid-2004 Afghanistan received close D

to Euro 3.2 billion in total of humanitarian and development aid to rebuild the country. R AND THE UNITED KINGDOM
E
Of this, 25 % - Euro 791 billion came from fi ve bilateral donors: the United Kingdom, C
O
the Netherlands, Sweden, Denmark and Ireland. In 2004 the fi ve donors decided to
N
commission a joint evaluation of their aid programmes 2001-2005. The evaluation was S
T
carried out by a consortium led by Chr. Michelsen Institute, Bergen, Norway, contracted by R
Danida’s Evaluation Department on behalf of the fi ve donors. U
C
T
I
The donors’ support to Afghanistan was not just another humanitarian operation. It was O
N
a multi-dimensional intervention combining the objectives of development co-operation

A
with broad foreign and domestic policy objectives, where the donors – of whom some had S
taken an active part in ousting the old regime – also aimed at supporting Afghanistan’s S
I
S
new start through putting into place a new and democratically elected government and
T
market economy. Bosnia, Kosovo, Cambodia, East Timor and Iraq have seen similar A
N
interventions and more are likely to follow. Evidently such interventions have to cope with C
E
novel problems, for which ready answers are as yet scarce. The fi ndings of this evaluation

T
regarding a range of central issues can serve as lessons learnt in the process of developing O

adequate answers to the new challenges. A
F
G
H
A
N
I
S
T
A
N
,

2
0
0
1
-
0
5

(cid:12)(cid:105)(cid:219)(cid:105)(cid:143)(cid:156)(cid:171)(cid:147)(cid:105)(cid:152)(cid:204)(cid:202)
(cid:10)(cid:156)(cid:156)(cid:171)(cid:105)(cid:192)(cid:62)(cid:204)(cid:136)(cid:156)(cid:152)(cid:202)
(cid:22)(cid:192)(cid:105)(cid:143)(cid:62)(cid:152)(cid:96)
OOmmssllaagg__EEvvaalluuaattiioonn__AA44..iinndddd 11 1100//1100//0055 1166::1199::1144
Humanitarian and
Reconstruction Assistance
to Afghanistan 2001-05
From Denmark, Ireland, the Netherlands,
Sweden and the United Kingdom.
A Joint Evaluation

Main Report
Chr. Michelsen Institute (Lead Agency), Copenhagen
Development Consulting and German Association of
October 2005 Development Consultants

© Ministry of Foreign Affairs
October 005
Production: Evaluation Department, Ministry of Foreign Affairs
Cover photo: Open air school in Surkh Rod District, Nangarhar Province (Holger Munsch),
other photos by Merete Taksdal, Gunnar Olesen and Holger Munsch..
Graphic production: Scanprint A/S, Aarhus, Denmark
ISBN (report): 87-7667-310-3
e-ISBN (report): 87-7667-311-1
ISBN (Summary): 87-7667-313-8
ISSN: 1399-497
This report can be obtained free of charge by ordering on www.evaluation.dk or from
DKB Logistik Service
Mimersvej 4
DK - 4600 Koege
Denmark
Phone + 45 3697788
The report can be downloaded through the Ministry of Foreign Affairs’ homepage www.um.dk or directly from
the Evaluation Department’s homepage www.evaluation.dk
Contact: [email protected]

Responsibility for the content and presentation of findings and recommendations rests with the authors.
The views and opinions expressed in the report do not necessarily correspond to the views of the Danish and
Dutch Ministries of Foreign Affairs, the Development Cooperation of Ireland (DCI), the Swedish International
Development Agency (Sida), and the United Kingdom’s Department for International Development (DfID), the
recipient government, or the implementing organisations.
The report is printed on Multi Fine and the cover is printed on Invercote.

Preface
Preface
The international assistance to Afghanistan following the ousting of the Taliban-regime
at the end of 001 has in many ways been unique. First, it has sought to combine the
immediate humanitarian and rehabilitation efforts with a longer-term post-conflict
reconstruction and development perspective. Secondly, the donor countries at a very
early stage attempted to coordinate a joint strategic approach of harmonised efforts,
including prioritisation of a limited number of selected sector interventions by each
donor. Finally, by focusing on capacity building of the new Afghan government aligning
the donor assistance mainly through the government-administered programmes, a new
agenda of post-conflict assistance has been set.
The evaluation of the assistance to Afghanistan has also set new standards of collabora-
tion. Even before the new government had been elected, representatives of the evalu-
ation departments of the five donor organisations, the Danish and Dutch Ministries
of Foreign Affairs, the Development Cooperation of Ireland (DCI), the Swedish
International Development Agency (Sida), and the United Kingdom’s Department for
International Development (DfID), in 003 agreed to undertake a joint evaluation of
the Afghanistan humanitarian and reconstruction assistance. The Evaluation aimed at
assessing the relevance, effectiveness, efficiency, impact, coherence and connectedness
of the assistance identifying lessons for improving the response by donor organisations
in future complex security, humanitarian, rehabilitation and development situations.
In addition, a special focus within the evaluation was also to assess the degree to which
the assistance responded to the needs of internally displaced persons (IDPs) within
Afghanistan.
The preparation of the Evaluation has been quite extensive. The approach was discussed
at a workshop at King’s College, London, in the summer 003, and several pre-studies
were undertaken. Peter Marsden and David Turton, Refugee Council, UK, produced
a preliminary study of assistance to IDPs in Afghanistan, and John Cosgrave and Rie
Andersen, Channel Research, collected and analysed the information of the aid flows
to Afghanistan from the five bilateral donors. Moreover, the Public Expenditure Review
made for DCI, has also been available.
The evaluation was commissioned by Danida in December 004 on behalf of the five
donors to a consultant consortium led by Christian Michelsen Institute, Bergen. After
visits to the partners’ headquarters, the extensive field work in Afghanistan was under-
taken in March-April, completed with a workshop in Kabul with participation of key
Afghan stakeholders. Finally, the draft reports have been submitted to the reference
group, and commented upon by all involved through June-August.
A number of key recommendations and lessons learnt are highlighted by the Evaluation
as undertaken by the international consultant team. It should be noted that while the
draft reports have been commented upon by the five donors the responsibility of the
analysis and the conclusions of the evaluation rests with the Evaluation team. However,
we would like to express our thanks to all individuals and officials involved for the sup-
port and valuable information which the team received and which highly facilitated the
work of the Evaluation.
33
Preface
This report is the Main Evaluation Report of the findings and recommendations of
the Evaluation. A short version, intended for a wider audience, the additional Sector
Studies, and the pre-studies are available from the website of Danida’s Evaluation
Department www.evaluation.dk
Danida’s Evaluation Department
October 2005
4
TableofContents
Table of Contents
Preface 3
Table of Contents 5
Abbreviations, Acronyms and Afghan Terms 8
Executive Summary 13
1. Introduction and Methodology 13
. The Afghan Context for Aid Provision 14
3. Main Findings 16
4. Main Recommendations 4
5. Lessons Learned 5
1. Introduction 27
2. Methodology 31
.1 The Evaluation Process 31
. Clarification of the Terms of Reference 3
.3 Team Composition and Limitations for its Work 3
.4 Field Methodology 34
3. The Afghan Context for Aid Provision 37
3.1 Introduction 37
3. The Humanitarian Situation 39
3.3 Nation and State-Building – the Challenges 41
3.4 National Programmes and Migration 4
4. Deciding and Designing the Five Donors’ Interventions 45
4.1 Factors Informing and Influencing Decisions 45
4. The Approaches of the Donors 49
4.3 Donors’ Perceptions of the Results 51
4.4 Conclusion 53
5. Nation-building, State-building and Stabilisation 55
5.1 Introduction 55
5. Methodology 55
5.3 Nation-building 56
5.4 State-building 60
5.5 The Afghan Independent Human Rights Commission 70
5.6 The Disarmament, Demobilisation and
Reintegration Programme 71
5.7 The Provincial Reconstruction Teams 74
5.8 Conclusions Related to the Evaluation Criteria 83
5
TableofContents
6. Asylum Seekers, Refugees and Internally Displaced Persons 87
6.1 Introduction 87
6. Volunteer Returnees and Rejected Asylum Seekers 87
6.3 Refugees 88
6.4 Internally Displaced Persons 9
6.5 The Lead Agency Role 97
6.6 Conclusions Related to the Evaluation Criteria 98
7. Meeting Basic Needs and Securing Livelihoods 101
7.1 The Afghan Reconstruction Trust Fund 101
7. The Agricultural Sector and Mine Action 10
7.3 Education 104
7.4 Health 109
7.5 Water and Sanitation 11
7.6 Livelihoods 115
7.7 Conclusions Related to the Evaluation Criteria 119
8. Cross-Cutting Issues 127
8.1 Gender 17
8. Environment 131
8.3 Needs Assessment, Monitoring and Evaluation 133
8.4 Good Humanitarian Donorship 135
9. Assessment of Main Implementing Channels 137
9.1 Introduction 137
9. Afghanistan Reconstruction Trust Fund 137
9.3 The Government of Afghanistan 138
9.4 The United Nations Agencies 138
9.5 International Organisations 139
9.6 Non-Governmental Organisations 139
9.7 Cost effectiveness 140
9.8 Interaction with and Support for the Indigenous
Recovery Processes 140
10. Conclusions 143
10.1 Related to the Evaluation Criteria 143
10. Comparative Conclusions Regarding Sectors 145
10.3 Comparative Conclusions Regarding Individual Donors 148
10.4 Overall Conclusions 150
6
TableofContents
11. Recommendations 155
11.1 Overall Recommendations for Complex Emergencies,
including Afghanistan 155
11. General Recommendations Regarding the Afghanistan
Intervention 156
11.3 Cross-cutting Sector Recommendations 157
11.4 Nation- and State-building and Stabilisation 158
11.5 Refugees and Internally Displaced Persons 159
11.6 The Education Sector 160
11.7 The Health Sector 160
11.8 The Water and Sanitation Sector 161
11.9 The Livelihood Sector 161
11.10 Suggested Issues for Further Study and Consideration 16
12. Towards a New Paradigm: Lessons Learned 163
Annexes 169
ANNEX I: Terms of Reference – A Scope of Service 169
ANNEX II: Key Concepts 188
ANNEX III: Contrasting Security Perceptions 189
ANNEX IV: Suggested Issues for Further Study and Consideration 190
ANNEX V: Interview List 19
ANNEX VI: References 03
7
Abbreviations,AcronymsandAfghanTerms
Abbreviations, Acronyms and Afghan Terms
AACA Afghanistan Assistance Co-ordination Authority
AHDAA Agency for Humanitarian Development Assistance for Afghanistan
AHDS Afghan Health and Development Services
AIA Afghan Interim Authority
AIHRC Afghanistan Independent Human Rights Commission
AKDN Aga Khan Development Network
ANA Afghanistan National Army
ANBP Afghanistan New Beginning Programme
ANGO Afghan Non-Governmental Organisations
ANSO Afghanistan NGO Security Office
ARCS Afghanistan Red Cross Society
AREU Afghanistan Research and Evaluation Unit
ARTF Afghanistan Reconstruction Trust Fund
ASP Afghanistan Stabilisation Programme
ATA Afghan Transitional Authority
AWSDC Afghan Women Skills and Development Centre
BAAG British Agencies Afghanistan Group
BPHS Basic Package of Health Services
BRAC Bangladesh Rural Assistance Committee
CAWC Central Afghanistan Welfare Centre
CBS Community Based Schools
CDC Community Development Council
CG Consultative Group
CHAD Conflict and Humanitarian Affairs Department (DFiD)
CIC Center for International Cooperation, New York University
CLJ Constitutional Loya Jirga
CoAR Coordination of Afghan Relief
Concern Concern Worldwide, Irish NGO
CPAU Council for Peace and Unity
DAC Danish Afghanistan Committee
DACAAR Danish Committee for Aid to Afghan Refugees
Danida Danish International Development Assistance
DAARTT Danish Assistance to Afghan Rehabilitation and Technical Training
DCI Development Cooperation Ireland
DDR Disarmament, Demobilization and Reintegration Program
DFID Department for International Development (UK)
DIAG Demobilisation of Illegally Armed Groups
DoRR Department of Refugees and Repatriation
DOWA Departments of Women Affairs
DRRD Department of Rural Rehabilitation and Development
EC European Commission
ECHO European Commission Humanitarian Office
EO/CA Ecumenic Office/Christian Aid
EU European Union
EVT Education and Vocational Training
FAO Food and Agricultural Organization
GoA Government of Afghanistan
GoAl Irish International Humanitarian NGO
8
Abbreviations,AcronymsandAfghanTerms
GTZ Gesellschaft für Technische Zusammenarbeit
GAA German Agro Action
HRAG Human Rights Advisory Group
ICRC International Committee of the Red Cross
IDP Internally Displaced Person
ILO International Labour Organization
INGO International Non-Governmental Organisation
IO International Organization
IOM International Organization of Migration
ISAF International Security Assistance Forces
JICA Japan International Cooperation Agency
JRC Judicial Reform Commission
MAPA Mine Action Programme for Afghanistan
M&E Monitoring and Evaluation
MDG Millennium Development Goals
MFA Ministry of Foreign Affairs
MICS Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey (UNICEF)
MISFA Microfinance Investment Support Facility
MoA Ministry of Agriculture
MoE Ministry of Education/Ministry of Economy
MoF Ministry of Finance
MoJ Ministry of Justice
MoPH Ministry of Public Health
MoPW Ministry of Public Works
MoRR Ministry of Refugees and Repatriation
MoWA Ministry of Women’s Affairs
MRRD Ministry of Rural Rehabilitation and Development
NATO North Atlantic Treaty Organisation
NDB National Development Budget
NDF National Development Frame Work
NEEP National Emergency Employment Programme
NGO Non-Governmental Organisation
NPO/RRAA Norwegian Project Office/Rural Rehabilitation Association of Afghanistan
NRC Norwegian Refugee Council
NSD National Security Directorate
NSP National Solidarity Program
OCHA (UN) Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs
OEF Operation Enduring Freedom
OHCHR Office of the High Commission for Human Rights
Oxfam Oxford Committee on Famine Relief
PIP Public Investment Program
PPA Performance Based Partnership Agreement
PRR Priority Reform and Reconstruction
PRT Provincial Reconstruction Team
RANA Reception and Reintegration of Afghan Nationals to Afghanistan
SC Supreme Court
SCA Swedish Committee for Afghanistan
SDF Sanayee Development Foundation
Sida Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency
SWABAC South West Afghanistan and Balouchistan Association for Coordination
TOR Terms of Reference
9