Start Submission Become a Reviewer

Reading: NGO Presence and Activity in Afghanistan, 2000–2014: A Provincial-Level Dataset

Download

A- A+
Alt. Display

Research Article

NGO Presence and Activity in Afghanistan, 2000–2014: A Provincial-Level Dataset

Author:

David F. Mitchell

Kansas State University, US
About David F.
David F. Mitchell is a recent graduate of the Security Studies PhD program at Kansas State University. His dissertation, entitled 'NGO Insecurity in High-Risk Conflict Zones: The Politicization of Aid and its Impact on "Humanitarian Space,'" is a mixed methods analysis of aid worker insecurity in Afghanistan, Iraq, Somalia, and Colombia. He can be reached via his website: www.davidfmitchell.com.
X close

Abstract

This article introduces a new provincial-level dataset on non-governmental organizations (NGOs) in Afghanistan. The data—which are freely available for download—provide information on the locations and sectors of activity of 891 international and local (Afghan) NGOs that operated in the country between 2000 and 2014. A summary and visualization of the data is presented in the article following a brief historical overview of NGOs in Afghanistan. Links to download the full dataset are provided in the conclusion.

How to Cite: Mitchell, D.F., 2017. NGO Presence and Activity in Afghanistan, 2000–2014: A Provincial-Level Dataset. Stability: International Journal of Security and Development, 6(1), p.5. DOI: http://doi.org/10.5334/sta.497
3797
Views
558
Downloads
1
Twitter
  Published on 13 Jun 2017
 Accepted on 02 May 2017            Submitted on 04 Oct 2016

The importance of non-governmental organizations (NGOs) operating in conflict zones has expanded significantly in recent decades. However, information on the distribution of NGO activity in these regions has been scarce—an issue that both scholars and practitioners have highlighted in recent years (Galway, Corbett & Zeng 2012; Hammond 2008; Schreter & Harmer 2013; Sheik et al. 2000). The dataset introduced in this article helps resolve this issue in the context of Afghanistan by providing information on the sectors of activity and provinces of operation of 891 international and local (Afghan) NGOs between 2000 and 2014.

It is important to acknowledge that there is no agreed upon definition of an NGO. Taken literally, an NGO ‘could describe just about anything from social groups like Mensa to educational institutions like Harvard University to for-profit firms like Wal-Mart’ (Werker & Ahmed 2008: 74). NGOs are defined here as independent, nonprofit organizations engaged in humanitarian, development, human rights, or advocacy work. These organizations are a subset of the broader nonprofit sector that engages specifically in international development. This definition of NGOs excludes professional associations, commercial entities, for-profit development companies, nonprofit research institutions (e.g. universities and think tanks), all United Nations personnel, governmental aid organizations (e.g. United States Agency for International Development and German Technical Cooperation Agency), inter-governmental aid organizations (e.g. International Organization for Migration), and hybrid organizations (e.g. the International Committee of the Red Cross).

This article is divided into two sections. The first is a brief historical overview of NGOs in Afghanistan and the second provides a summary and visualization of the data being introduced. Links to download the full dataset are provided in the conclusion.

A Brief History of NGOs in Afghanistan

NGOs have played an important role in Afghan society since the Soviet invasion in December 1979 (ACBAR 2014: 31). During the initial stages of the Soviet-Afghan War, humanitarian workers provided food, medical care, and shelter to Afghan refugees who had fled to Pakistan. However, NGOs were required to register and coordinate their activities with the mujahedeen’s seven party alliance based in Peshawar (Atmar & Goodhand 2002: 19). The refugee camps became a rear base for the Mujahedeen, and were viewed by many as the non-lethal component of aid to the Afghan resistance (Goodhand 2002: 842). Pakistan was home to 80,000 Afghan refugees in 1979—a figure that drastically increased to 750,000 the following year and to nearly 4 million by 1984 (Runion 2007: 111).

By the early 1980s, organizations had started to implement cross-border programs in Afghanistan to address the basic needs of the population, but these were limited to areas which were not under Soviet control (ACBAR 2014: 31). Although the government allowed a small number of local NGOs to operate in Kabul on a restricted basis, international NGOs were banned from the country (West 2001: 62). During the war, NGOs strictly focused on providing emergency assistance including food distribution, medical care, and shelter (ACBAR 2014: 31). However, many organizations expanded their activities after Soviet withdrawal in 1988 to include the sectors of education, infrastructure, vocational training, and mine clearance. NGOs also began working in regions of Afghanistan previously off-limits due to Soviet control. Eastern Afghanistan was the primary recipient of assistance at this time because of security concerns and the close proximity to Peshawar (Goodhand 2002: 842).

The Afghan government ratified a law in January 1990 that formally allowed NGOs to operate within the country (Rubin 1995: 167–168; West 2001: 62). NGOs soon received substantial funding from international organizations and governments such as the United States Agency for International Development (USAID), UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), and World Food Program (WFP) (Oliker et al. 2004: 34). The growing number of organizations and activities resulted in the formation of multiple NGO coordination bodies to increase professionalism and accountability within the community (ACBAR 2014: 31; Atmar & Goodhand 2002: 24). The most noteworthy of these is the Agency Coordinating Body for Afghan Relief and Development (ACBAR), founded in 1988 and still active today.

Although NGOs enjoyed relative freedom of action between 1990 and 1995, this changed after the Taliban solidified control of the country. Several organizations were forced to retreat to Pakistan during the Taliban period (1996–2001), while those that remained had significant restrictions placed on their activities. Consistent with their broader constraints on women’s rights, the Taliban government issued an edict banning all females from working for NGOs (McDonald 2000), a move that severely limited Afghan women’s access to humanitarian relief. Organizations were also restricted from providing assistance to females, including a total ban on education for girls.

The Taliban further prohibited NGOs from engaging in “political” activity, which they believed posed a threat to their strict Islamic vision of society. Although a few advocacy organizations attempted to work in the sectors of human rights and peacebuilding during this period, the vast majority of NGOs focused their efforts on relief programs. A report by the Organization for Economic Co-Operation and Development (OECD 2002: 5) noted that the aid community during the Taliban period was ‘stuck in the dilemma of a development crisis and a human rights crisis’.

Although several NGOs claimed to be committed to the promotion of human rights, conflict resolution, and peacebuilding, this was rarely put into action under Taliban rule. Rieff (2002: 249–250) believes these claims were ‘pure rhetoric, designed, it seemed, to make aid workers, their donors, and the general public feel better’. Writing shortly before the fall of the Taliban in 2001, Atmar and Goodhand (2002: 62–63) observed that the perception that aid had shifted toward greater political action was false. Rather, the vast majority of funding provided to Afghanistan went to life saving, relief programs.

The Taliban government was wary of advocacy NGOs engaged in political activity, but they were especially suspicious of international organizations because of their predominantly Western origin. In 1998, 38 international NGOs were expelled from the country, while many others withdrew because of the harsh restrictions imposed on their activities (Josselin & Wallace 2001: 10; Monshipouri 2003: 140; West 2001: 131). In 1997 Oxfam suspended a water-supply project in Logar Province to protest the Taliban’s policies toward women (Oxfam 1997). In addition to Taliban expulsions and voluntary withdrawals from the country, NGO financers also called for disengagement during this period. Following US airstrikes in 1998 in retaliation for the East African embassy bombings, the European Commission’s Humanitarian Aid and Civil Protection Department (ECHO) ceased assistance to NGOs in Afghanistan while the United Kingdom ruled that any international NGO sending expatriate staff to the country would automatically be disqualified from government funding (Atmar 2001: 2; Marsden 2009: 93).

The Taliban was particularly restrictive on international organizations adhering to the Christian faith. However, crackdowns did not become commonplace until 2001 (prior to the US-led invasion). For example, in August 2001, 16 national and 8 international employees of Shelter Now International were arrested by the Taliban for distributing ‘Christian propaganda’ (Guardian 2001). In a separate instance a month later, the Taliban raided the offices of two Christian organizations—International Assistance Mission (IAM) and Serve International—and arrested several of their employees. These NGOs were then ordered to close their offices and leave the country (Salahuddin 2001).

Although a limited number of international workers continued to operate in Afghanistan in 2001, virtually all relocated to Pakistan following the 11 September 2001 attacks in anticipation of retaliatory military action (Oliker et al. 2004: 37). Most international organizations transferred their projects to local Afghan employees at this time. The flight of these organizations in September 2001, coupled with the mass exodus of NGOs from Afghanistan over the previous six years, meant that the primary distribution network for humanitarian assistance was essentially nonfunctional once Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF) commenced on 7 October (Oliker et al. 2004: 26). In response to the need for assistance, the US military began to build its own systems for aid delivery. Simultaneously engaging in relief and development operations during major combat operations was a unique endeavor for military forces, as civil affairs units typically did not enter the theater until the post-conflict phase (Oliker et al. 2004: 48). However, a shortage of NGOs in Afghanistan in late 2001 meant that the US military was one of the few entities capable of providing humanitarian relief to conflict-ridden areas of the country.

The US civil affairs mission began in December 2001 with the creation of the Combined Joint Civil-Military Operations Task Force (CJCMOTF) in Kabul (Neumann, Mundey & Mikolashek 2005: 32). Coalition Humanitarian Liaison Cells (CHLCs) and Joint Regional Teams (JRTs) were formed to provide relief to Afghan communities in need (Neumann, Mundey & Mikolashek 2005; Stewart 2004; Wright et al. 2010). These were the precursors to the Provincial Reconstruction Team (PRT) initiative, which took the lead in military development operations in 2003.1 NGOs began a piecemeal return to Afghanistan in late 2001 and early 2002 as the security situation allowed (Wright et al. 2010: 194).

However, many NGO activities during this period were constrained by the UN. UN-funded NGOs are often required to take guidance on security and movements from the Office of the UN Security Coordinator (UNSECOORD) as a condition for acquiring insurance for their organizations, and several international NGOs that reentered Afghanistan were initially restricted by the UN to operating in less hostile regions of the country (Oliker et al. 2004: 54–55). Although their physical presence was largely restricted in 2001 and early 2002, several NGOs expanded the scope of their projects at this time. Multiple organizations began to couple their traditional relief activities with broader development initiatives and advocacy work (ACBAR 2014: 32). These included governance, conflict resolution, human rights, and peacebuilding—actions that many NGOs were restricted from engaging in during the Taliban era. As some have noted (Rieff 2002: 250–251), the NGO community would not have expanded into these sectors of activity if not for the US-led invasion of Afghanistan and toppling of the Taliban regime.

The shift to greater political action and advocacy work by NGOs in Afghanistan was also donor-driven. In an effort to help rebuild the country, governments and international organizations increased funds for projects related to nation-building. In the early stages of the conflict, the Asian Development Bank (ADB), United Nations Development Program (UNDP), and World Bank conducted a joint needs assessment in Afghanistan. In part, this report called for a ‘moderate scaling up of NGO programs, while achieving a phased change in the role of NGOs from implementing agencies to facilitators of participatory community development, clearly accountable to government and/or communities’ (ADB, UNDP & World Bank 2002: 19). Similarly, USAID claimed that it would ‘work with Afghan NGOs to help build a dynamic Afghan civil society that can hold policy makers accountable, promote democratic principles, and engage as full partners with the government and the private sector in the economic and political development of Afghanistan’ (USAID 2005: 10). Afghan President Hamid Karzai supported these initiatives, claiming in a January 2003 interview that he would ‘like to concentrate more on removing the causes of humanitarian difficulties rather than treating the symptoms’ (IRIN 2003).

Although the size and scope of NGO activity expanded during the years following the US-led invasion, Afghanistan soon became the most volatile country in the world for humanitarians to operate in following the resurgence of the Taliban (see Humanitarian Outcomes 2017). Nonetheless, as is detailed in the following section, the total number of NGOs active in Afghanistan continued to increase year-to-year in spite of the deteriorating security situation.

Description and Summary of Data

The following section provides a visual overview and summary of the dataset. In an effort to enhance existing information on NGOs in Afghanistan, data on NGO activities and locations were collected and coded through research and correspondence with organizations operating in the field. Although the Afghan government publishes a registration list of organizations, the list includes only limited information. For example, only 315 organizations are listed in the most recent publicly-available registration list (Afghanistan Ministry of Economy 2015). Research also revealed that many of these organizations were local contractors or ‘for-profit’ firms that did not fit the definition presented in the introduction. Moreover, simply because an organization is registered with the government does not necessarily mean they are active in the field. Furthermore, directories such as ACBAR’s NGO Profiles and the Afghanistan Research and Evaluation Unit’s (AREU) A to Z Guide to Afghanistan Assistance, while useful, also provide information for only a portion of NGOs in the country.

Using these publications as a starting point, an online search using Google, Facebook, LinkedIn, Twitter, and LexisNexis was then conducted to identify additional organizations. Information was collected on approximately 1,200 NGOs that operated in Afghanistan between 2000 and 2014, followed by a review of each organization’s website and social media pages to determine the years and provinces in which they worked, along with their sectors of activity. To enhance the reliability and validity of the data, e-mails were sent and phone calls were made to each organization for confirmation.2 Data collection began in mid-2015 and took approximately six months to complete. A total of 891 international and local NGOs made the final list.

Table 1 provides the number of NGOs operative in Afghanistan by year and nationality between 2000 and 2014. The lowest number of organizations active in a given year was 158 in 2000 and the highest was 701 in 2012. The nationality of 828 of the 891 NGOs in the dataset were identified. As Figure 1 highlights, 478 of those 828 organizations were local (58 percent) and 350 were international (42 percent). Figure 2 reveals that international NGOs were the majority during the first five years after the invasion, but local NGOs made up the bulk of organizations in the pre-invasion period and after 2006. There was a consistent annual increase in NGOs until 2011–2012, after which the number slightly dropped. This coincides with the withdrawal of US troops from the country beginning in June 2011.

Figure 1 

NGOs by Nationality, 2000–2014*.

Figure 2 

NGOs Active by Year, 2000–2014.

Table 1

NGOs Active by Year, 2000–2014.

Total NGOs International NGOs Local NGOs N/A

2000 158 53 103 2
2001 210 90 116 4
2002 359 188 164 7
2003 397 215 176 6
2004 432 229 197 6
2005 451 234 212 5
2006 480 241 233 6
2007 528 252 268 8
2008 544 255 279 10
2009 583 263 305 15
2010 640 272 341 27
2011 686 269 372 45
2012 701 268 388 45
2013 606 262 337 7
2014 617 263 347 7

Figure 3 maps the NGO presence throughout Afghanistan during the 2000 to 2014 period. The total number of NGOs operative in each province per year is detailed in Table 2.3 On average, each individual NGO was active in five different provinces. The province of Kabul had the most organizations active within its borders during the period with a high of 492 in a given year, followed by Nangarhar with a high of 194 and Balkh with a high of 182. The provinces with the fewest NGOs were Nuristan with a high of 33 in a given year and Paktika and Zabul, both with highs of 37, and as expected, NGO presence was found to be significantly related to provincial population. Kabul (4.2 million people), Nangarhar (1.5 million people), and Balkh (1.3 million people) are three of the four most populated provinces in the country, while relatively few people live in Nuristan (146,000 people), Paktika (428,000 people), and Zabul (299,000 people) (ACSO 2015).

Figure 3 

Map of Total NGO Presence, 2000–2014.

Table 2

Total NGOs by Province per Year, 2000–2014.


Badakhshan 12 15 27 32 43 42 51 61 62 74 81 91 106 95 100
Badghis 8 12 25 19 25 24 27 30 30 33 41 49 52 51 46
Baghlan 8 13 27 26 32 38 43 48 50 61 67 78 80 67 70
Balkh 25 36 69 74 86 74 95 118 117 133 151 173 182 148 154
Bamyan 13 18 40 33 43 45 54 66 68 74 85 102 105 96 96
Daykundi 10 15 17 27 25 32 35 40 46 44 47
Farah 13 12 27 24 28 27 30 34 34 40 43 49 47 46 48
Faryab 11 13 23 22 28 30 37 41 44 51 61 74 81 71 73
Ghazni 27 30 45 44 48 52 54 71 63 66 80 89 88 71 69
Ghor 12 17 27 25 28 30 33 30 39 46 54 67 60 59 58
Helmand 12 13 23 20 24 25 26 29 34 40 50 60 62 59 58
Herat 29 37 70 69 79 81 92 106 106 114 130 151 166 152 156
Jowzjan 9 13 26 23 27 30 32 42 44 52 58 67 70 70 75
Kabul 106 141 263 300 331 357 376 420 422 445 472 492 488 444 455
Kandahar 30 35 57 60 65 68 76 83 85 81 94 100 101 96 103
Kapisa 12 12 27 20 31 33 36 47 49 54 67 72 73 66 64
Khost 13 16 23 19 25 28 31 45 40 44 46 51 54 49 56
Kunar 15 15 23 23 31 36 41 48 43 47 52 70 73 62 71
Kunduz 10 17 29 32 36 40 47 59 57 73 84 94 99 98 94
Laghman 19 21 35 29 35 39 43 57 50 57 61 70 77 77 86
Logar 17 21 39 27 34 36 41 51 51 51 62 72 73 57 63
Nangarhar 47 57 102 97 115 114 120 150 147 151 162 187 194 168 172
Nimroz 7 9 16 15 18 20 20 23 25 31 36 42 42 42 40
Nuristan 8 8 13 9 16 18 19 22 21 25 26 32 33 27 32
Paktika 7 9 19 12 16 23 23 32 25 31 33 37 37 33 37
Paktya 14 15 29 26 26 30 29 47 39 43 49 53 54 57 66
Panjshir 17 20 22 25 32 38 41 48 50 44 49
Parwan 19 26 47 38 46 50 53 65 62 71 82 101 102 91 93
Samangan 9 11 26 20 22 29 34 38 40 50 60 70 72 68 70
Sar-e Pul 8 12 14 13 17 19 21 25 26 31 38 49 55 54 51
Takhar 8 15 29 32 37 41 45 51 50 60 69 76 82 72 70
Uruzgan 7 9 14 11 13 17 17 20 24 35 42 52 49 46 47
Wardak 25 30 42 36 44 46 51 58 55 56 68 77 81 69 68
Zabul 9 10 17 13 15 18 17 20 24 26 31 35 36 34 37
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

Figure 4 and Figure 5 map the local and international NGO presence respectively. The total number of local NGOs operative in each province per year is detailed in Table 3 and the total number of international NGOs is detailed in Table 4.

Figure 4 

Map of Local NGO Presence, 2000–2014.

Figure 5 

Map of International NGO Presence, 2000–2014.

Table 3

Local NGOs by Province per Year, 2000–2014.


Badakhshan 4 5 11 10 16 19 24 34 33 39 47 56 62 60 63
Badghis 5 5 12 9 13 14 15 20 19 21 29 36 38 33 33
Baghlan 6 8 13 11 19 23 26 31 30 39 42 55 55 46 45
Balkh IS 22 35 31 40 46 50 70 64 72 83 101 107 95 94
Bamyan 10 13 19 15 24 24 27 38 38 43 51 60 65 60 60
Daykundi 8 10 12 20 19 24 27 30 32 26 31
Farah 8 8 18 16 20 18 20 25 25 29 34 37 35 35 35
Faryab 7 8 13 12 15 17 23 27 28 34 42 51 55 49 47
Ghazni 21 23 29 27 32 37 42 54 44 47 60 68 69 56 53
Ghor 6 9 14 14 17 IS 19 23 24 29 36 44 47 41 41
Helmand 8 8 15 13 16 16 17 21 24 29 35 44 45 44 41
Herat 19 21 35 34 40 44 49 63 59 66 77 94 102 95 99
Jowzjan 6 7 12 9 11 14 16 26 27 31 38 48 49 50 53
Kabul 73 79 116 130 150 167 180 213 212 231 249 264 266 242 250
Kandahar 21 22 29 29 32 32 39 46 46 48 58 65 67 65 72
Kapisa 8 8 17 12 15 16 20 30 30 33 43 47 47 39 38
Khost 9 12 14 10 14 16 20 31 27 28 31 35 36 31 36
Kunar 8 7 11 13 18 22 27 33 27 31 37 50 51 43 50
Kunduz 7 8 11 11 17 21 25 36 33 45 53 60 63 63 60
Laghman 13 14 22 19 24 26 28 39 31 39 45 53 55 57 66
Logar 13 17 26 16 23 23 26 35 37 39 45 50 53 40 43
Nangarhar 36 39 60 56 70 70 76 98 92 97 102 119 123 109 116
Nimroz 5 5 9 9 12 13 13 16 18 23 27 33 33 31 31
Nuristan 2 2 6 4 11 12 13 15 13 16 17 24 24 21 24
Paktika 5 7 14 8 10 15 15 22 18 21 23 26 27 23 26
Paktya 11 12 15 15 18 20 19 31 24 28 36 37 37 40 47
Panjshir 11 13 15 17 21 26 29 35 35 28 32
Parwan 13 14 27 15 21 24 27 40 39 43 52 68 69 62 64
Samangan 6 7 15 11 13 17 21 25 25 32 41 52 50 47 47
Sar-e Pul 6 6 7 6 11 12 14 17 17 20 26 34 35 36 35
Takhar 4 6 10 9 14 16 19 26 26 31 41 47 49 43 43
Umzgan 5 6 9 9 11 14 13 16 20 27 31 39 36 32 33
Wardak 16 18 25 21 27 28 31 38 34 36 43 49 53 45 45
Zabul 7 8 13 11 13 15 14 16 18 20 25 30 30 27 29
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

Table 4

International NGOs by Province per Year, 2000–2014.


Badakhshan 7 9 15 22 27 23 27 27 29 34 32 38 39 35 37
Badghis 3 6 12 10 12 10 12 10 11 11 11 12 13 13 13
Baghlan 2 5 14 15 13 15 17 17 20 21 23 20 22 21 25
Balkh 7 14 34 43 46 41 45 46 52 61 65 68 69 62 60
Bamyan 3 5 21 18 19 21 27 28 30 32 34 41 38 37 36
Daykundi 2 5 6 7 6 8 8 10 14 11 16
Farah 5 4 9 8 8 9 10 9 9 9 8 10 10 11 12
Faryab 4 5 10 10 13 13 14 14 16 17 18 21 23 22 26
Ghazni 5 5 14 16 15 13 12 17 19 18 18 18 16 15 17
Ghor 5 7 11 11 11 12 14 16 15 16 17 22 21 17 17
Helmand 4 5 8 7 8 8 8 7 9 10 13 12 13 15 17
Herat 9 14 31 34 38 36 42 42 45 45 50 52 60 56 56
Jowzjan 3 6 14 14 16 16 16 16 17 21 20 19 21 20 22
Kabul 33 60 143 166 177 189 192 201 203 207 210 207 198 198 200
Kandahar 8 12 27 32 34 36 37 37 39 33 35 32 32 32 32
Kapisa 4 4 10 8 16 17 16 16 19 21 24 25 26 27 26
Khost 4 4 9 9 11 12 11 14 13 16 15 16 18 18 20
Kunar 7 8 12 10 13 14 14 14 16 16 15 16 18 19 21
Kunduz 3 9 18 21 19 19 22 23 24 28 31 33 35 35 34
Laghman 6 7 13 10 11 13 15 18 19 18 16 15 20 20 20
Logar 4 4 13 11 11 13 15 15 14 12 16 20 18 17 20
Nangarhar 9 16 40 41 44 44 44 50 53 53 58 61 63 59 56
Nimroz 2 4 7 6 6 6 6 6 6 7 8 8 8 7 9
Nuristan 5 5 6 5 5 6 6 7 8 9 9 7 8 9 8
Paktika 2 2 5 4 6 8 8 10 8 10 10 10 9 10 11
Paktya 3 3 9 11 8 10 10 15 14 15 13 15 16 17 19
Panjshir 6 7 7 8 11 12 12 13 15 15 17
Parwan 6 12 20 23 25 26 26 25 22 27 28 31 30 29 29
Samangan 3 4 11 9 9 12 13 13 15 18 19 18 21 21 23
Sar-e Pul 2 6 7 7 6 7 7 8 9 11 12 14 19 18 16
Takhar 4 9 19 23 23 25 26 25 24 25 26 26 30 29 27
Uruzgan 2 3 5 2 2 3 4 4 4 8 10 12 13 14 14
Wardak 9 12 17 14 16 17 20 20 21 20 25 26 24 24 23
Zabul 2 2 4 2 2 2 2 3 5 5 5 4 5 7 8
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

A review of projects carried out by NGOs revealed 24 frequent sectors of activity. Figure 6 provides the number of organizations active in each of these sectors. Education (primary and secondary) was the most popular with 424 NGOs active in the sector, followed by health and vocational training with 376 NGOs and 276 NGOs respectively. The sectors with the least engagement were energy with 9 NGOs active in the sector and animal health with 12 NGOs. Of the 891 NGOs identified in the dataset, only 191 were single-mandate while 700 engaged in multi-sectoral activity. On average, an individual NGO operative in Afghanistan was found to be simultaneously active in three different sectors. NGO-specific information is available in the dataset.

Figure 6 

NGOs by Sector of Activity, 2000–2014.

As noted in the previous section, a shift toward more politically-oriented advocacy work by NGOs was observed following the US-led invasion. However, although several scholars and practitioners have attempted to categorize aid activity in recent years (Atmar & Goodhand 2002; Barnett 2011; Barnett & Snyder 2008; Calhoun 2008; Fast 2014; Goodhand 2006; Leader 2000; Weiss 1999) there is no agreed upon definition of what constitutes an “advocacy” or “political” NGO. For example, Atmar and Goodhand (2002: 11) distinguish between organizations working in conflict and working on conflict. While the former refers to NGOs engaged in a principled (independent, impartial, and neutral) approach to delivering aid, the latter refers to those with a conflict reduction or peacebuilding agenda. Others have categorized organizations as minimalists—those seeking to alleviate suffering—and consequentialists—those wanting to improve the human condition through social transformation (Calhoun 2008: 73–74). Barnett and Snyder (2008: 145–146) differentiate humanitarian action into apolitical and political categories. They define apolitical humanitarian activities as those not intended to alter governance arrangements that are assumed to be the cause of suffering, and political activities as those that are intended to do so.

This article has divided the sectors of NGO activity presented in Figure 6 into separate “apolitical” and “political” categories to further assess NGO action in Afghanistan. Guided by the aforementioned conceptualizations, political NGOs are operationalized here as those working in the sectors of conflict resolution, governance, human rights, peacebuilding, and women’s rights, while apolitical NGOs are operationalized as those not working in these sectors of activity.4

Using these operational definitions, the data reveal that 595 (67 percent) of the NGOs that were active in Afghanistan between 2000 and 2014 were apolitical, while 296 (33 percent) were political. This is highlighted in Figure 7. Furthermore, of the 296 political NGOs, 215 (73 percent) were simultaneously engaged in apolitical sectors of activity, while only 81 (27 percent) were solely working in the political sectors of governance, conflict resolution, human rights, peacebuilding, and/or women’s rights. This finding reveals that there was a considerable overlap between apolitical and political NGO activity in Afghanistan during the period under analysis.

Figure 7 

Apolitical and Political NGOs, 2000–2014.

Conclusion

Previous information on international and local NGO activity in Afghanistan has been limited and scarce, especially at the subnational-level. The dataset introduced in this article helps to fill this gap by providing information on 891 NGOs that were active in the country between 2000 and 2014. It is hoped that the data and information presented will be of use to academics, practitioners, and policymakers working on issues pertaining to international development. The author encourages the dissemination and use of the data for research purposes, and requests that this article be cited as the source of information. The complete dataset with provincial- and NGO-specific information is available for download at the Humanitarian Data Exchange (HDX)5 website: https://data.humdata.org/dataset/afghanistan-ngo-presence-between-the-years-2000-and-2014.

Notes

1Several NGOs were critical of the PRT initiative in Afghanistan, claiming that the mixture of military and humanitarian operations had a negative impact on their security. However, recent empirical studies have called into question the validity of this argument (see Mitchell 2015). 

2Of the NGOs that were contacted, 54 percent did not respond, 20 percent were no longer active, 17 percent provided confirmation, 8 percent of messages bounced, and one percent refused to provide a response because of security concerns. 

3Daykundi and Panjshir provinces were first established in 2004. Hence, Table 2, Table 3, and Table 4 do not include data for these provinces prior to this period. 

4The author acknowledges the somewhat contentious debate surrounding how to define “apolitical” and “political” NGO activity. Discussions with academics, humanitarians, and colleagues revealed little agreement on how certain sectors should be classified—specifically education, legal aid, and media—which many believed could fall into either category. However, the sectors of conflict resolution, governance, human rights, peacebuilding, and women’s rights were largely agreed upon as being consistent with how “political” activity has been conceptually defined in extant literature. 

5HDX is managed by the United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA). Launched in July 2014, the goal of HDX is to make humanitarian data easy to find and use for analysis. 

Competing Interests

The author has no competing interests to declare.

References

  1. Afghanistan Central Statistics Organization (ACSO) (2015). Afghanistan Statistical Yearbook, 2014–2015. Kabul: ACSO. Available at: http://www.cso.gov.af/en/page/1500/4722/2014-2015 [last accessed 1 January 2017]. 

  2. Afghanistan Ministry of Economy (2015). NGO Department: Public Data.  Available at: http://ngos.moec.gov.af/Public/Default.aspx [last accessed 4 October 2016]. 

  3. Afghanistan Research and Evaluation Unit (AREU) (2002–2015). A to Z Guides to Assistance in Afghanistan. Kabul: Afghanistan Research and Evaluation Unit.  

  4. Agency Coordinating Body for Afghan Relief (ACBAR) (2014). The ACBAR Guide for NGOs: A Comprehensive Guide for NGOs in Afghanistan. 3rd ed. Kabul: ACBAR. Available at: http://www.acbar.org/upload/1459866254994.pdf [last accessed 4 October 2016]. 

  5. Asian Development Bank (ADB), United Nations Development Program (UNDP) and World Bank (2002). Afghanistan: preliminary needs assessment for recovery and reconstruction.  Available at: http://reliefweb.int/report/afghanistan/afghanistan-preliminary-needs-assessment-recovery-and-reconstruction [last accessed 4 October 2016]. 

  6. Atmar, H and Goodhand, J (2002). Aid, conflict and peacebuilding in Afghanistan: what lessons can be learned?.  Available at: http://reliefweb.int/report/afghanistan/aid-conflict-and-peacebuilding-afghanistan-what-lessons-can-be-learned [last accessed 4 October 2016]. 

  7. Atmar, M H (2001). The politicisation of humanitarian aid and its consequences for Afghans. Humanitarian Exchange, September 2–3 2001 

  8. Barnett, M (2011). Empire of Humanity: A History of Humanitarianism. Ithaca and London: Cornell University Press.  

  9. Barnett, M and Snyder, J (2008). The grand strategies of humanitarianism In: Michael, B and Weiss, T G eds.  Humanitarianism in Question: Politics, Power, Ethics. Ithaca and London: Cornell University Press, pp. 143–171.  

  10. Calhoun, C (2008). The imperative to reduce suffering: Charity, progress, and emergencies in the field of humanitarian action In: Michael, B and Weiss, T G eds.  Humanitarianism in Question: Politics, Power, Ethics. Ithaca and London: Cornell University Press, pp. 73–97.  

  11. Fast, L (2014). Aid in danger: The perils and promise of humanitarianism. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, DOI: https://doi.org/10.9783/9780812209631 

  12. Galway, L P, Corbett, K K and Zeng, L (2012). Where are the NGOs and why? The distribution of health and development NGOs in Bolivia. Globalization and Health 8(38)DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/1744-8603-8-38 

  13. Goodhand, J (2002). Aiding violence or building peace? The role of international aid in Afghanistan. Third World Quarterly 23(5): 837–859, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/0143659022000028620 

  14. Goodhand, J (2006). Aiding peace? The role of NGOs in armed conflict. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner Publishers, DOI: https://doi.org/10.3362/9781780441467 

  15. Guardian (2001). Freed aid workers describe Taliban jail rescue.  Available at: http://www.theguardian.com/world/2001/nov/16/afghanistan.terrorism16 [last accessed 4 October 2016]. 

  16. Hammond, L (2008). The power of holding humanitarianism hostage and the myth of protective principles In: Michael, B and Weiss, T G eds.  Humanitarianism in Question: Politics, Power, Ethics. Ithaca and London: Cornell University Press, pp. 172–195.  

  17. Humanitarian Outcomes (2017). Aid worker security database.  Available at: https://aidworkersecurity.org/ [last accessed 3 January 2017]. 

  18. Integrated Regional Information Networks (IRIN) (2003). Interview with Afghan President Hamid Karzai.  Available at: http://www.irinnews.org/q-and/2003/01/28/interview-afghan-president-hamid-karzai [last accessed 4 October 2016]. 

  19. Josselin, D and Wallace, W (2001). Non-state actors in world politics: a framework In: Daphné, J and William, W eds.  Non-state actors in world politics. New York: Palgrave Publishers, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/9781403900906_1 

  20. Leader, N (2000). The politics of principle: The principles of humanitarian action in practice In: London: Overseas Development Institute.  

  21. Marsden, P (2009). Afghanistan: aid, armies and empires. New York: I.B. Tauris.  

  22. McDonald, S (2000). Taleban ban women from working for aid groups.  Available at: http://www.rawa.org/ban-wo.htm [last accessed 4 October 2016]. 

  23. Mitchell, D F (2015). Blurred lines? Provincial reconstruction teams and NGO insecurity in Afghanistan, 2010–2011. Stability: International Journal of Security and Development 4(1): 1–18, DOI: https://doi.org/10.5334/sta.ev 

  24. Monshipouri, M (2003). NGOs and peacebuilding in Afghanistan In: Carey, H F and Richmond, O P eds.  Mitigating Conflict: The Role of NGOs. London: Frank Cass Publishers, pp. 138–155, DOI: https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203503898.ch9 

  25. Neumann, B F, Mundey, L and Mikolashek, J (2005). The United States army in Afghanistan: operation enduring freedom: March 2002–April 2005. Washington, DC: US Army Center of Military History.  

  26. Oliker, O, Kauzlarich, R, Dobbins, J, Basseuner, K W, Sampler, D L, McGinn, J G, Dziedzic, M J, Grissom, A, Pirnie, B, Bensahel, N and Guven, A I (2004). Aid during conflict: interaction between military and civilian assistance providers in Afghanistan, September 2001–June 2002. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation.  

  27. Organization for Economic Co-Operation and Development (OECD) (2002). the limits and scope for the use of development assistance incentives and disincentives for influencing conflict situations: case study: Afghanistan (1999).  

  28. Rieff, D (2002). A Bed for the Night: Humanitarianism in Crisis. New York: Simon and Schuster.  

  29. Rubin, B R (1995). The fragmentation of Afghanistan: state formation and collapse in the international system. New Haven: Yale University Press.  

  30. Runion, M L (2007). The History of Afghanistan. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.  

  31. Salahuddin, S (2001). Christian aid workers quit Afghanistan. Reuters, September 1 2001 

  32. Schreter, L and Harmer, A (2013). Delivering aid in highly insecure environments: a critical review of the literature, 2007–2012.  Available at: http://r4d.dfid.gov.uk/pdf/outputs/Hum_Response/60995-Delivering_aid_in_highly_insecure_environments_final_report.pdf [last accessed 4 October 2016]. 

  33. Sheik, M, Gutierrez, M I, Bolton, P, Spiegel, P, Thieren, M and Burnham, G (2000). Deaths among humanitarian workers. British Medical Journal 321: 166–168, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.321.7254.166 

  34. Stewart, R W (2004). The United States army in Afghanistan: Operation enduring freedom: October 2001–March 2002. Washington, DC: US Army Center of Military History.  

  35. United States Agency for International Development (USAID) (2005). USAID/Afghanistan strategic plan: 2005–2010.  Available at: http://pdf.usaid.gov/pdf_docs/Pdacf119.pdf [last accessed 4 October 2016]. 

  36. Weiss, T G (1999). Principles, politics, and humanitarian action. Ethics and International Affairs 13(1): 1–22, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1747-7093.1999.tb00322.x 

  37. Werker, E and Ahmed, F Z (2008). What do nongovernmental organizations do?. Journal of Economic Perspectives 22(2): 73–92, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1257/jep.22.2.73 

  38. West, K (2001). Agents of altruism: The expansion of humanitarian NGOs in Rwanda and Afghanistan. Burlington, VT: Ashgate.  

  39. Wright, D P, Bird, J R, Clay, S E, Connors, P W, Farquhar, S C, Garcia, L C and Van Wey, D F (2010). A different kind of war: The United States army in operation enduring freedom: October 2001–September 2005. Fort Leavenworth, KS: Combat Studies Institute Press, US Army Combined Arms Center.  

comments powered by Disqus