Afghanistan: Armed conflict forces increasing numbers of Afghans to flee their homes

Download pdf version (210 kb)
^{31 December 2009}

Internal displacement increased in 2009 following the intensification of armed conflict in many parts of Afghanistan. 6,000 or more civilians were killed or injured in 2009, the highest number of casualties recorded since the fall of the Taliban regime in 2001. UN estimates suggest that 297,000 people were internally displaced at the end of 2009. Of these, 199,000 had been displaced since 2003.

While the lack of access to conflict zones made it impossible to verify the exact numbers, conflict between armed opposition groups and pro-government forces in the south, south-east and east of the country remained the primary source of displacement in 2009. Lack of livelihoods opportunities coupled with general insecurity often resulted in further displacement for returning refugees. Local conflicts over access to pasture and arable land further contributed to new displacements.

Some civilians who had been forced to flee were able to return after fighting around their home areas had ended, but many people in 2009 had been displaced for several years. Out of the 135,000 IDPs who had been displaced before 2002 and who lived in camp-like settlements in the south, the west and the south-east, only 7,000 were able to return to their places of origin within a planned and supported process. Others, such as Pashtun IDPs who had returned to provinces in the north, found that the discrimination which had contributed to their displacement in the first place continued to prevent their reintegration into their home communities.

Security and logistical constraints continued to hinder national authorities and international humanitarian agencies seeking to distribute emergency assistance to IDPs displaced by the armed conflict. Many IDPs mainly relied on their savings, informal day labour or the support of extended social networks for their survival; many, after an initial period of displacement near their home areas, chose to search for new livelihood opportunities in urban areas, a decision shared by many economic migrants. An unknown number had by 2009 ended up in slums in and around Kabul, despite the lack of infrastructure and services there.

IDP protection concerns should be seen against a national context of widespread poverty and insecurity. Nonetheless, IDPs faced particular threats in 2009, as they were reportedly targeted by armed groups suspecting them of collaboration with the enemy. Others were evicted from the places in which they had sought temporary shelter. While many Afghans have experienced the destruction of their property, lack of access to basic services and to livelihood opportunities have disproportionally affected IDPs, particularly women and children.

Militants continued to target girls’ schools and dissuaded female staff from returning to their work, thereby increasing their poverty. The influential cultural norms of seclusion were strictly imposed for displaced women and girls in unfamiliar environments and impeded their access to aid delivered by conventional means, particularly health care services and sanitation.

Internally displaced men were often required to provide for increased numbers of dependents in impoverished circumstances, but displaced women also found themselves filling new roles as family providers. Female-headed households, widows, orphaned and separated children had the greatest difficulty in accessing relief supplies and services.

Insecurity, landlessness, a lack of shelter, and an absence of livelihood opportunities or basic services deterred many IDPs from returning to rural areas. Some would be able to return if the conflict were to end, while others would still be barred by disputes with those who have occupied their property in their absence. However, the economic recession affecting many parts of the country increased pressure on host communities and, in the absence of targeted support, made it harder for IDPs to resettle elsewhere or integrate locally.

In 2009, international assistance constituted around 90 per cent of public expenditure in Afghanistan. While UNHCR and the Government of Afghanistan have sponsored a national IDP policy which promotes durable solutions through voluntary return and local integration, relief and development assistance has continued to be seen as a means to achieve counter-insurgency objectives.

Many donor countries in 2009 continued to fund reconstruction projects in areas where their national troops were deployed; these were coordinated by civilian-military Provincial Reconstruction Teams (PRTs), a concept developed in 2001. Aid delivered through civil-military structures in Afghanistan has in certain cases contributed to the spread of corruption and the intensification of local conflicts. Moreover, it has blurred the distinction between military and humanitarian actors, thus undermining the perceived neutrality and impartiality of humanitarians, increasing security risks for aid workers, and reducing their capacity to deliver assistance according to need.

Afghanistan: IDPs returning to Marjah struggle to return to normality (March 19th)

As ISAF is struggling to build trust with the local population, the Taliban are waging an intimidation campaign in their former stronghold of Marjah in Helmand Province south of Kabul, which residents say has intensified in the past two weeks. 4,000 families who fled Marjah town in February during the offensive, which drove Taliban fighters out of the town, have now returned but face uncertainty about their future.

Afghanistan: UN rejects militarisation of aid for IDPs (February 25th)

As the United Nations appealed for nearly $900 million to assist Afghanistan’s most vulnerable communities, UN officials made clear that humanitarian agencies would not participate in the armed forces’ reconstruction strategy for Marjah following the current offensive there.  

While the fighting continues in the region, civilians leaders confined to Marjah city have expressed doubts over the capacity of the new mayor to bring about positive change and ensure the protection of civilians. On 14 February ISAF confirmed that 12 civilians were killed by rockets, while civilian deaths reached 19 by 16 February, according to a national human rights organisation. 9,600 people have been registered as internally displaced in the district capital Lashkar Gha and 2,500 in nearby towns, where national NGOs provide humanitarian aid. The government decided not to set up a camp to receive them, in order to encourage IDPs to return home once the fighting stops.

Afghanistan: Thousands flee Marjah before NATO forces enter again (February 11th)

Thousands of civilians are fleeing parts of Helmand Province, southern Afghanistan, ahead of a major military operation pre-publicised by foreign and Afghan forces. The goal of the operation is to take back the farming community of Marjah with an estimated population of 80,000 people, and the surrounding area. It is the fourth time since 2007 that the area will be taken by coalition forces.

The NATO-led coalition has advised villagers not to flee and has refuted a growing number of reports that thousands, perhaps as many as 35,000 people, have managed to flee to nearby areas, many of them to the provincial capital Lashkargah. Aid organisations say they are prepared to feed up to 15,000 internally displaced families until they return home, but war-weary locals say they plan to move elsewhere to protect their families. Other civilians may be confined in Marjah and the insurgents have been accused of preventing them from leaving in order to use them as human shields.     

After large, and mostly spontaneous, return movements following the ousting of the Taliban regime in 2002, internal displacement is again on the rise, with new displacements as a result of the intensification of fighting in many regions. The latest estimates indicate that 240,000 persons are currently internally displaced due to armed conflict and insecurity. Data-tracking and the provision of humanitarian aid is inordinately difficult due to security and logistical constraints, particularly where displacement serves as a short-term coping mechanism.

IDPs in Afghanistan suffer from lack of access to basic services and legal protection mechanisms, including lack of access to land (repossession of land and landlessness), absence of livelihoods, additional risks due to the minority status of some and political and ethnic dynamics in places of displacement. (...)

Download full overview (479 KB)
^{15 April 2010}