Source: APPRO
BACKGROUND
In June 2005 President Karzai signed the new Law on Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) to replace the Taliban-era regulation on NGOs. Under the Taliban-era law the many private sector contractors delivering services and humanitarian aid were listed as among some 2,400 NGOs. The new law, still pending approval from the Afghan National Assembly but remaining in full force and effect, redefines NGOs as non-profit / non-commercial entities.
All I/NGOs had to first qualify and then re-register with the Ministry of Economy from 2005 onward. A wide range of programmes and services are provided by Afghanistan’s estimated 1,500 – 2,000 NGOs. Among these there is a small number of faith-based NGOs. The majority of the NGOs are national while the large development and humanitarian programs are implemented by long-established international relief and development NGOs, sometimes working with smaller Afghan national NGOs. The main services provided by NGOs are in the health, education, agriculture, community development, and humanitarian sectors while a very small number conduct research and advocacy. Progressively, since around 2006, Afghanistan has become more and more dangerous for NGOs to operate with an increasing number of casualties from NGO workers, either targeted or as collateral victims. The response to these developments by many of the NGOs delivering humanitarian aid has been to work more closely with local elders and even negotiating and
gaining permission from Armed Opposition Groups (AOGs) in the more remote areas. International NGOs with a long presence in Afghanistan are no longer able to reach some of the areas where they have been active since the early 1990s. These developments have forcedmany NGOs to stop operations in the most dangerous areas altogether and reduce operations in riskier areas, the net result of which has been the deprivation of many communities of essential services such as basic health. As early as 2005, a survey of NGOs active in Afghanistan reported that 30% of the NGOs had experienced attacks on their staff members. There is strong sentiment among NGOs and observers that a major contributing factor to the currently high level of threat toward NGOs is the militarization of aid in Afghanistan. The initial ideas and plans to include in military campaigns such approaches as “clear, hold, and stabilize” or “winning hearts and minds” and reliance on the heavily militarized Provincial Reconstruction Teams (PRTs) have led to many NGOs being closely associated with the military. Some NGOs, due to the need for funds but also because of initial naïveté took funds from and interacted with military and other staff in PRTs. With the military coming increasingly under attack by AOGs and disliked by vast swathes of the population, it is inevitable that NGOs – and Afghans working for them – are increasingly looked upon unfavorably if they are perceived to have had a close association with the military.
NGOs have a mixed reputation in Afghanistan. While some are poorly regarded and viewed only as fronts to tap into donor aid funding, others are highly valued and offer humanitarian and development programmes with a variety of other much-needed services. INGOs’ work in Afghanistan since around 2005 has also been associated with the presence of the international military forces, resulting in a lack of recognition of their contributions to reconstruction since before 2001 and doubts over their future role in the post-2014 period. In Afghanistan the general view of I/NGOs is often so negative that of late a distinction has had to be made between I/NGOs and CSOs to separate for-profit commercial entities from I/NGOs and CSOs.
The phrase NGO has been used interchangeably by some to describe organizations including the UN, private sector companies as well as traditional non-profit aid agencies. This confusion has meant that “NGO” is frequently used, erroneously, to describe for-profit commercial entities that receive donor funds to implement services, particularly in health and education but also in other areas including infrastructure development. CSOs, some of which are also registered as NGOs, can be more organic and made up of a wide range of individuals from citizenry, operating as non-profit entities. The CSO category includes organizations that provide commentary and insight on the development process, conduct research, and undertake advocacy aimed at the Government of Afghanistan and the international donor community.
The concern about the perceived loss of independence in activities and approach of NGOs has been a topic of debate between civil society and humanitarian aid organizations on the one hand and the NATO mission in Afghanistan on the other. A statement by Anders Fogh Rasmussen, the NATO Secretary General in 2010, on NGOs being the “soft power” side of foreign intervention in Afghanistan led to a fierce rebuttal by over one hundred largely international NGOs who wished to disclaim the suggested linkages by Rasmussen between the military and NGOs. The ground for concern by the NGOs was that such statements by NATO and other military entities would only contribute to the already existing confusion about the role of NGOs and “puts at risk the lives of civilians affected by conflict and those delivering assistance to the people of Afghanistan.”
Download Full Publication HERE: 205810034-Transition-and-NGOs-in-Afghanistan-An-Assessment-and-Prospects
