Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs Individual question scores Relevance: How well did the UK aid portfolio respond to Afghanistan’s humanitarian and development needs and the UK’s strategic objectives?Įffectiveness: How effectively did the UK aid portfolio deliver against its strategic objectives in Afghanistan?Ĭoherence: How internally and externally coherent has the UK’s work been in Afghanistan?Īgency Coordinating Body for Afghan Relief and Developmentįoreign, Commonwealth and Development Office The review awards an overall amber-red score for UK aid to Afghanistan, on the basis of unrealistic objectives, flawed approaches and limited evidence of progress towards its strategic objectives. Over the period, the UK increased its levels of humanitarian support, helping large numbers of people, but there was limited investment in building resilience in the face of recurrent humanitarian crises. While significant numbers of girls and women benefited directly, progress in tackling gender inequality was still at an early stage. There were successful pilots on attracting excluded girls back into education and providing services to victims and survivors of gender-based violence, as well as efforts to reform restrictive laws and social norms. Empowering women and girls was a strong focus for UK aid. However, deteriorating economic conditions, declining security and recurrent drought over the period resulted in increased poverty and food insecurity. Large numbers of Afghans benefited directly, and there were some improvements in health outcomes, literacy and other development indicators. This improved access to health services and education (including for girls), expanded infrastructure (for example, power, electricity and irrigation), and promoted agriculture and livelihoods. The UK also supported the delivery of basic services and development programmes to the Afghan population, mainly through multilateral partners. This did not improve the quality of civilian policing, and implicated the UK aid programme in criminality and human rights abuses. The UK government provided over £400 million in aid over six years to fund the Afghan security services, including paying the salaries of the Afghanistan National Police, who were engaged primarily in counter-insurgency operations against the Taliban. The creation of a parallel institutional structure to manage international aid drew capacity away from the Afghan administration. Channelling funding in such high volumes through weak state institutions distorted the political process and contributed to entrenched corruption. The UK’s first priority was to support the US in its military campaign, which led to poor choices on the use of aid. It did not rest on a viable and inclusive political settlement, resulting in a long-running counter-insurgency campaign against the Taliban that undermined the legitimacy of the state-building process. We find that the UK’s approach contained a number of flaws. Over two decades, the UK disbursed nearly £3.5 billion in aid to stabilise Afghanistan and build a functional state. While it provided valuable support to Afghan citizens, including women and girls, it failed to make substantial progress towards its strategic objectives. UK aid to Afghanistan lacked a credible and realistic approach to its central goal of building a viable Afghan state.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |