National Profile of Internal Displaced Persons (IDPs) in
Afghanistan
Table of Contents
Page
Executive Summary…………………………………………………………………2
I. INTRODUCTION……………..…………………………………………………………5
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
Note about Methodology………………………………………………..5
Background………………………………………………………………6
Major IDP Populations………………………………………………….7
General Findings……………………………………………………….12
Trends………………………………………………………………….………13
II. Numbers – Summary……………………………………………………………17
Annexes……………………………………………………………………………...22
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Displacement in the Southern Region………………………………….24
Displacement in the Western Region…………………………………..29
Displacement in the Central Region…………………………………...35
Displacement in the Eastern Region…………………………………...38
Displacement in the Southeastern Region……………………………..43
Displacement in the Northern and Northeastern Regions……………47
Displacement in the Central Highlands………………………………..51
2
Executive Summary
This report was prepared by UNHCR, under the auspices of the National IDP Task Force
and in close cooperation with the Ministry of Refugees and Repatriation (MoRR), which
endorsed the report on 10 November 2008. The data is valid as of August 2008. The
profiling was undertaken pursuant to a recommendation of the Representative of the
Secretary-General on the Human Rights of Internally Displaced Persons following his
visit to Afghanistan in August 2007.
The purpose of the profiling was:
(1) to know how many people were internally displaced
(2) to know where they were displaced;
(3) to know why they were displaced ;
(4) to better understand their assistance and protection needs;
(5) to better understand displacement trends, so as to assist the government to develop a
comprehensive and integrated national IDP strategy;
(6) to assist the humanitarian community to respond more effectively to IDP assistance
and protection needs.
In preparing the profile, no attempt was made to do any census or re-registriation of
IDPs. Instead, the report pulls together the different surveys that have been done in
different regions of the country, particularly by UNHCR offices in the field, by provincial
Departments of Refugees and Repatriation (DoRRs) of the Ministry of Refugees and
Repatriation (MoRR), and by UNAMA. Often, numbers are estimates rather than firm
figures.
What the profiling makes clear is that Afghanistan is highly complex with different
displacements having occurred at different times, in different parts of the country and for
different reasons. Thus, finding durable solutions will be neither easy nor quick.
The profiling identified 235,833 IDPs nationwide. The bulk of this population is
comprised of a protracted caseload of 166,153 individuals displaced as a result of conflict
in the period prior to and after the fall of the Taliban in 2001, or as a result of drought of
the 1990s which impacted severely on Kuchi (nomads) in the north, the west and the
south. These IDPs are largely living in camp-like settlements in the south (119,958), the
west (29,690) and the southeast (12,341).
In addition, there are 52,422 returnees from Pakistan since 2005 (21,102 in the period
2005-2007 and 31,320 in 2008) who became IDPs upon their return to Afghanistan,
because they are unable to return to their places of origin for security reasons,
landlessness, or lack of basic services or work opportunities. These have largely settled in
spontaneous camps in the Eastern Region. The statistics also include “new conflictaffected” families (9,901 individuals) -- people displaced since 2002 as a result of
conflict (between tribal or ethnic groups, often exacerbated by disputes over land and
3
property or access to scarce resources such as pasture or water), insecurity and human
rights violations.
What the above statistics do not capture are two additional groups. First, those called
“battle-affected” – individuals/families who have been impacted by fighting between the
international forces/Afghan National Army and anti-government elements. These number
in the thousands displaced in 2007 and 2008, but definitive numbers are difficult to
determine because most are short-term IDPs who return to their homes after the fighting
ends, and because insecurity in the "war zones" makes access and verification almost
impossible. The other major group are the persons forced into displacement by the
severity of the continuing drought, coupled with the high cost of food. As displacement in
this case is a traditional coping mechanism, whereby families leave their villages, or send
the men to the cities or the neighbouring countries to work, it is hard to differentiate
between displacement and economic migration.
Certain trends emerge as we look to the future and the type of contingency planning that
is required to address likely IDP scenarios:
• an increase in battle-affected displacement if the fighting continues and the
security situation deteriorates further;
• an increase in displacement if the drought continues and the economic situation
does not improve;
• an increase in secondary displacement by returnees if their return is not
sustainable in their places of origin;
• an increase in IDP populations as a result of conflict over land and resources
unless the issue of land and property is adequately addressed
Lastly, the profile suggests the need to focus on local integration as a durable solution for
the protracted caseload unable to return to their places of origin.
4
I. INTRODUCTION
“internally displaced persons are persons or groups of persons who have been
forced or obliged to free or to leave their homes or places of habitual residence,
in particular as a result of or in order to avoid the effects of armed conflict,
situations of generalized violence, violations of human rights or human-made
disasters, and who have not crossed an internationally recognized State border.”
UN Guiding Principles on Internal Displacement, 19881
A. Note about Methodology
This report was prepared by UNHCR, under the auspices of the National IDP Task Force and in
close cooperation with the Ministry of Refugees and Repatriation (MoRR), which co-Chairs the
National IDP Task Force together with UNHCR. All UNHCR’s Sub-Offices and Field Offices in
Afghanistan, the two Regional IDP Task Forces (one in Hirat for the West and one in Kandahar
for the South), as well as all participants of the National and Regional Task Forces (which include
other UN agencies, international and national NGOs, the Afghan Independent Human Rights
Commission, and interested government/donor agencies) were asked to contribute to and/or to
review the document. The document was then formally adopted by the National IDP Task Force
at its meeting on 10 November 2008. (The numbers are, however, valid as of end August 2008.)
As noted below, the preparation of the report was a direct response to a recommendation of the
Representative of the Secretary General on the Human Rights of Internally Displaced Persons
following his visit to Afghanistan in August 2007.
In preparing this National Profile of Internal Displacement across Afghanistan, it was not possible
– and no attempt was made – to do any census or registration of all IDPs in the country. The last
major data collection on IDPs took place in 2004, when a very detailed profiling of the IDPs
camp population in the camps/settlements of the Southern Region was conducted by UNHCR.
For several years thereafter, the size of the population of the camps/settlements in the South was
calculated by subtracting those who UNHCR assisted to return from the total recorded in 2004.
Since then, there have been a number of surveys in different regions of the country. These,
however, have been performed by different actors, at different times, using different
methodologies. For example, in the Western Region, in one day – on 19 February 2008 – the
Department of Refugees and Repatriation (DoRR) Herat, with assistance from the Deputy
Governor and under instruction of the Minister of MoRR (who was then visiting the Western
region), mobilized some 300 government and other staff from the departments of Education
(DoE), Rural Development (DRRD), Disaster Preparedness (DDP) and Refugees and
Rehabilitation (DoRR) and from the Afghan Red Cresent Society (ARCS) and did an
1
The UN Guiding Principles on Internal Displacement, drafted between 1992 and 1998 when they were
endorsed as a framework by the Commission on Human Rights and the Inter-Agency Standing Committee
(IASC), does not specifically mention displacement as a result of natural disaster. Subsequently, in the
context of the tsunamis, hurricainse and equakes which hit parts of Asia and the Americas in 2004/5, the
IASC supported the development of “Operational Guidelines on Human Rights and Natural Disaster”
(June 2006) which in effect extend the Guiding Principles to victims of natural disasters.
5
unannounced simultaneous blitz survey in the three IDP settlements in Hirat – Maslakh,
Shaodayee and Minarets. The purpose was to see how many families and individuals were living
in the three camps. Subsequently, quite a detailed profiling was done of Minarets, one of the three
camps, with the involvement of both DoRR and UNHCR. In the South, in May-June 2008, DoRR
did a “re-registration” of the IDPs in Zhare Dasht, Maywand and Punjway – to confirm which of
the families who had been profiled in 2004 were still in the settlements, but only registering new
births, not families who had not been registered earlier. Simultaneously, UNHCR’s sub-Office
was conducting a detailed profiling of a small sample of the settlement population to find out
what their intentions were regarding return and what their needs were in displacement. Because
of security concerns, no similar re-counting or profiling was done in Mukhtar IDP settlement in
Hilmand. In the Northern Region, UNHCR’s Sub-Office has very detailed information on all
IDPs from the protracted case load. This is not the case in the Southeast Region because of
insecurity or in the Central Region, because so many IDPs are invisible within informal urban
settlements.
One notable inconsistency in the statistics we have is that for some of the caseload, we know not
only how many families there are but how many individuals. Elsewhere, we have only the
number of families. In the latter case, to determine the total population, we multiple the number
of families by six, assuming each family is comprised of six people, though we know many of the
families are considerably larger.
Therefore, many of our numbers are estimates rather than firm figures. This should not, however,
matter enormously as the purpose of the profiling is to find durable solutions for those in
displacement and, in that case, estimates of the size of a group are often sufficient.
B. Background
In 2002, when the Taliban-regime fell from power, there were approximately 1.2 million
internally displaced Afghans throughout the country. The majority of these IDPs were to return
spontaneously to their places of origin over the course of several years. Some 98,654 families
(489,525 individuals) were assisted by UNHCR from 2002 to October 2007 on the basis of a
Memorandum of Understanding signed between the Government of Afghanistan, UNAMA and
UNHCR which gave UNHCR a lead support role in relation to IDPs2.
In 2005, a National Policy was endorsed by the Consultative Group (CG) on Returnees, Refugees
and IDPs, which placed an increased emphasis on the promotion of durable solutions through
voluntary return and local settlement in accordance with the UN Guiding Principles on Internal
Displacement and affirmed the lead role of the Afghan Government. The 2005 Strategy further
offered a clear delineation of responsibilities: UNHCR would continue to play an active role in
relation to “Protection IDPs” notably in assisting the Government of Afghanistan to address
obstacles to return and to provide assistance for their return to their places of origin, whereas
government authorities would take an increased ownership in identifying solutions for IDPs
victims of natural disasters (floods, drought).
2 The Letter of Understanding was signed on 6 June 6 2002 and stipulated that “the main responsibility of
UNHCR at the national and sub-national level will be to assist the MoRR in ensuring the assistance and
protection needs of all people of concern to the Programme Group (returning refugees, IDPs, and
communities receiving returnees) are adequately met and that solutions to problems of displacement in
Afghanistan are identified and pursued.”
6
Over the next several years, UNHCR continued to assist those IDPs prepared to return to their
places of origin. However, by 2008, it was clear that the return had become a trickle. For a variety
of reasons – including continued insecurity in large areas of the country, inter-tribal and personal
conflict, landlessness, drought, and lack of job opportunities or basic services in rural areas – the
solution for the majority of the protracted caseload of displaced persons would not be the
Government’s preferred solution, i.e., that they “go home”.
In August 2007, the Representative of the Secretary General on the Human Rights of Displaced
Persons, Walter Kälin, conducted a working visit to Afghanistan and made a number of
observations regarding the displacement in Afghanistan. He noted, inter alia, that internal
displacement in Afghanistan is a highly complex phenomenon; its causes include not only armed
conflict and natural disaster such as drought and flood, but also inter-communal tensions and
human rights violations; it has occurred across different periods of time and has been of varying
duration; some people have been displaced because of a combination of factors, and some have
been displaced multiple times; and, because of both the complexity of causes and the limitations
of access to parts of the country affected by armed conflict, no one is entirely sure of the
magnitude of the displacement.
Consequently, one of Walter Kälin’s recommendations was that a national assessment and
profiling of the displacement situation be undertaken. On the basis of this, UNHCR could assist
the Government to develop a comprehensive and integrated national strategy which addresses the
needs of IDPs relating to assistance, protection and durable solutions, with particular attention to
the needs of vulnerable groups. As well, such a profiling could assist the humanitarian
community to respond more effectively to IDP needs.
One must, of course, be pragmatic and realistic: where IDPs are displaced in areas over which the
government has little or no control, or where it is not possible for government or humanitarian
actors to intervene, expectations will need to be tempered by those on-the ground security
realities.
C. Major IDP Populations
In 2008, the internally displaced in Afghanistan can be divided into five major categories:
(1) A protracted caseload of about 166,000 people internally displaced as a result of
conflict in the period prior to and after the fall of the Taliban in 2001, or because of the
intimidation and attacks of the local commanders in the north after the fall of the Taliban,
or as a result of drought which impacted severely on Kuchi (nomads) in the north, the
west and the south. These IDPs are largely living in camp-like settlements in the south,
the west and the southeast.
One particular group merits special mention here – the Kuchi of the Registan desert –
who had lived there with their flocks for centuries. They comprise at least 60% of the
IDPs in Maywand and Punjway in the south, currently estimated at 21,500 individuals.
Now, with 90% of their livestock lost, the water tables drastically low, and no end to the
drought, return is not sustainable, though many continue to ask for assistance to go back.
The humanitarian and protection concerns of the protracted caseload are wide-ranging
and varied and can include: the danger of being evicted from the places in which they are
living (no security of tenure); threats to their safety (as some of the areas in which they
live are only marginally under government control); lack of livelihood opportunities,
7
including lack of affordable public transportation to labor markets; no access or
inadequate access to basic services (especially, education, health, social welfare); at
times lack of enough food and water to cover nutritional needs, especially for children,
lactating women and the elderly; lack of civil documentation and no access to free legal
services.
(2) New conflict-affected IDPs. There are new IDPs that have fled their homes as a result
of conflict, insecurity and human rights violations since 2002, especially the past few
years. People here fall into two categories:
(a) Battle-affected
First are those called “battle-affected” who are the individuals and families impacted by
fighting, largely in the southern, but also in the southeastern, central and eastern regions,
between the international coalition forces [i.e., the International Security Assistance
Forces (ISAF) and/or US-led Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF)] and the Afghan
National Army (ANA) on the one hand, and anti-government elements (AGEs) or the
Taliban on the other. Many thousands of “battle-affected” were displaced in 2007 and
additional thousands in 2008.
For example, local officials in the three conflict-affected provinces of Kandahar, Hilmand
and Uruzgan estimated that 80,000 people were displaced due to the conflict in 2007.3
With regard to the June 2008 military operation in the Arghandab district of the
Kandahar, local officials reported 6,973 families who were displaced from their homes to
the outskirts of Kandahar City, where assistance (food and NFIs) was provided to them.
UNAMA reports that for the first 6 months of 2008, 12,646 families of battle-affected
populations in the Southern Region received assistance from UN agencies.
On a smaller scale, we have similar situations in other regions. For example, in the North,
during the first half of July 2008, conflict between AGEs and representatives of the
Naghara Khana village in Qaisar district (Faryab province) caused around 150 families to
leave their village for nearby villages. Through the intervention of government, by
providing greater security in their village of origin and food assistance, these families
returned home during the second half of July.
But many of our numbers are largely estimates and the picture is incomplete. We are
unable to feel confident about the figures we have for those impacted by the fighting
because our limited access to the “war zones” makes verification impossible. We believe
that many of the battle-affected people originally from Punjway, Zhare Dasht, Maywand
etc. remain quite close to their homes (Arghandab is only a few kilometers from
Kandahar City) and that most – though not all -- return after the fighting ends. However,
if the IDPs flee to major city centres, as many have, or if their houses and property have
been destroyed or their land confiscated, they are likely to remain in displacement for
longer periods of time. As well, there are those who have been threatened or targeted as
collaborators by the insurgents and feel too insecure to return.
3
“Afghanistan: Conflict-affected displacement ‘major’ humanitarian challenge - Afghan Red Crescent,”
IRIN, November 2007.
8
The humanitarian and protection concerns of the battle-displaced would include: the
need for water, food, shelter and possibly NFIs (including bedding, clothing, cooking
utensils) as many families flee with few or no possessions; compensation for destroyed
property, crops, irrigation systems and livelihoods so they can restart their lives when the
fighting ends; emergency health care and emergency schooling; possibly tracing of
children separated from parents; protection from attacks by AGEs (who might consider
them collaborators) or by government forces (who might suspect them of being Taliban
sympathizers).
(b) Victims of Inter- or Intra-Tribal Conflict
There are also others who have been forced to leave their homes as a result of conflict
between different tribal or ethnic groups or even conflicts within a single tribe. One
example is the current and long-standing conflict between the Hazara farmers in the
Central Highlands and the Kuchi – largely Pashtun – pastoralists, who have traditionally
taken their flocks to Wardak, Ghazni, Ghor and Bamyan provinces in the summer. The
fighting in June 2008, like the fighting last year, led to deaths and injuries, the destruction
of property, and the displacement of perhaps as many as 7,000 families, some to Kabul
but also within the Central Highlands. Now that the fighting has ended and a peace
Commission has been established, the Kuchi have withdrawn and the IDPs have returned
to their villages. However, there is no assurance that the Commission will negotiate a
solution that is acceptable to both parties and the violence may recur again next year.
There are similar conflicts in other parts of the country.
Part of the protracted caseload, but illustrative of the type of conflict that still manifests
itself, the Gujar IDPs in the northeast (270 families) are displaced because Tajik
commanders are occupying their land and property. Immediately after the fall of the
Taliban, Gujar were displaced mainly to Nangarhar, Baghlan and Kunduz provinces as a
punishment for their support for the Taliban.
Since 2006, 254 returnee families of the Nasir tribe have been living in Paktika province
in the southeast, forced to leave their homes in Zabul province because of a fight over
land ownership with the Shamalzai tribe.
And there are many disputes between sub-groups of the Pashtun, frequently, as with the
cases mentioned above, involving bitter disputes over land, property or access to
resources. Fortunately, however, thus far these have not led to large scale displacements.
The humanitarian and protection needs of such victims of conflict will initially be for
water, food and shelter, as well as possibly for clothing, bedding and other NFIs, for
emergency medical care and health needs, emergency education, tracing of lost children
or other family members. It will, subsequently, be for assistance to return home (i.e., with
transportation costs), to rebuild their homes, damaged irrigation systems, destroyed
livelihoods (possibly need for seeds and tools and to replace livestock); possibly for
programs of dialogue and reconciliation; possibly for free legal assistance.
(3) Returnees and deportees from neighboring countries in secondary displacement.
We have a very large number of Afghan refugees – more than 180,000 individuals between 1
January and 15 July) – who have returned to Afghanistan from Pakistan or Iran this year. While
the 2008 return may not reach the 2007 figure of over 365,000 returns, it is a substantial number
9
for Afghanistan to absorb. Some of these returnees left voluntarily because the cost of living and
food, particularly in urban areas, shot up this year, or because they knew their Proof of
Registration (the basis on which they could stay in Pakistan) would expire in 2009. Many others
were pressured if not forced to return by the closure of camps (notably, Jalozai in Pakistan) or the
clearance of “No-Go-Areas” (in Iran). Many of the returnees have lived abroad in urban
environments for over 20 years, and could not conceive of going to rural Afghanistan, where they
could expect neither job opportunities nor services, and where they may have no land. The return
of some has also been delayed or prevented by the presence of landmines.4
Thus, while the majority of the returnees from Pakistan went back to their areas of origin, a not
inconsiderable portion – more than 5,200 families (approximately 31,200 individuals) of approx.
23% have not done so. Most are in the Eastern Region, where they have created four temporary
settlements in Nangarhar (one of them has been formally recognized as township for land
allocation to returnees) and one in Laghman, assisted by the international community and by the
Government with water, food, health services, non-food items and temporary shelter. The
population in two of these settlements continues to increase daily.
In addition, there are also some 200 Pashtu speaking Baluch families who returned from Jalozai
camp to Sholgara district (Balkh) in late May, but are unable to settle in their area of origin
though they bought land there because of a dispute with the surrounding Khalili (Pashtun sub
tribe) Shia community. They are, consequently, living in a precarious camp-like situation in a
buzkashi field in Sholgara district. The Provincial Governor has sent a governmental delegation in
mid June to verify the land ownership and to mediate on the land dispute should it not belong to
the government.
Serious efforts are on-going to find a durable solution for these returnees, so that they do not
become IDPs in secondary displacement, but for the present, they need to be considered part of
the humanitarian displacement caseload.
In 2005, there were large numbers of Afghans living in the Federally Administered Tribal Areas
(FATA) of Pakistan who were forced to return to Afghanistan (30,792 families – 171,665
individuals5), some after the onset of the winter in November, because the Pakistani authorities
closed the camps in FATA. A substantial number of these were Kuchi who had left Afghanistan
just after the Russian invasion in 1979, who no longer had animals, had no land to return to, and
who consequently ended up in secondary displacement, settling in 11 open-air settlements in
Khost.6
This year, 163 families (851 individuals) who were Amayesh II registered Afghans in Iran
returned from the No-Go-Area of Qazvin to drought affected villages in Shebirghan, provincial
4
According to the Afghanistan: Landmine Monitor Report 2007, the Afghanistan Landmine Impact
Survey (ALIS), completed in 2005, found 2,368 communities and more than four million people affected
by mines, and identified some 715 square kilometers of hazardous areas, concentrated in 12 of
Afghanistan’s 32 provinces. Despite the release of more than 100 square kilometers of land since then, the
estimate of contamination has increased, as a result of new survey and information generated by the return
of refugees to previously unoccupied land. Updated estimates at the end of May 2007 put total
contamination at 778 square kilometers. Moreover, while casualities are down in 2008 to 44 people/month
injured or killed by mines, as against 100/month a year earlier (over 70,000 Afghans were killed or disabled by
landmines in the last two decades of the 20th century), there are also reports now of Taliban remining areas in Hilmand
Province.
5
6
According to UNHCR’s database of returnees from FATA in 2005.
Interviews with Kuchi leaders in Gardez (April 2008) and in Kabul (July 2008).
10
capital of Jawzjan, and in Sare Pul provinces in the north of Afghanistan. One of the villages is
completely destroyed and has been deserted for the last 20 years, forcing returnees to seek
temporary settlement in other villages. None of the returnees have houses and are now being
accommodated by relatives or other members of their communities. One of the three villages they
returned to faces a severe water shortage because of the drought. While most of the returnees
have expressed their intention to stay in Shebirghan, it is likely that many will be obliged to send
male members abroad to secure income. And, if the return proves unsustainable, this population
will be at risk of displacement in the future. Their main problems are destruction of the houses,
landlessness, drought-related problems and lack of job opportunities.
In this regard, one need also to note the large-scale deportation of illegal migrants from Iran this
year, primarily single males, more than 180,000 by late July. While these would be considered
economic migrants and not IDPs, many of the single males will gravitate to the cities in search of
employment and become part of the urban squatters living in informal settlements.
The humanitarian and protection needs of these displaced persons will first and foremost be for
land where they can settle that is safe and where they will not fear eviction (security of tenure)
and for livelihood (job opportunities so they can earn a living to take care of their families). They
will also need access to all basic services (water, health, education, public transportation).
(4) Displacement as a result of Food Insecurity
This past year, Afghanistan has also seen considerable displacement as a result of food insecurity.
The causal factors are clear: a very harsh winter (2007-2008), followed by a drought, particularly
in the north and the west of the country, with severe crop loss, and with hunger and poverty
exacerbated by the unexpected rise in the price of food globally. The Joint Emergency Appeal
launched by the humanitarian community in Afghanistan in July 2008 to address the high food
price and drought crisis notes that the heaviest impact of the food insecurity has been on the
Balkh, Samangan, Sari-Pul and Jawzjan (in the North); Badghis, Nimroz and Ghor (in the West);
Logar (East); Wardak (Central) and Khost (Southeast), where, in each case, more than a quarter
of the population has been significantly affected.
In Balkh province, where a locus infestation threatened the crops in April, large scale
displacement occurred in May. Shortages of food and drinking water resulted in some 2,000
families from the Alborz community of Chimtal district leaving their villages – a movement that
quickly swelled to over 6,000 families – to set up camp beside the river near to Chishma-e-Shefa
but still in Chimtal district not far from Mazar-e-Sharif. The joint strategy of the Government and
the humanitarian community, to forestall the emergence of IDP camps in the province and to
counter those trying to politically exploit the situation, was to deliver food, water and food for
work programs back in their villages, not where the people had pitched tents; and this seems to
have successfully stemmed a large exodus from northern villages.
In the middle of May 2008, around 200 Arab families from Shiram area joined 100 families in
Sangtoda area of Sare Pul province who were displaced also last year due to the food and water
insecurity in their villages of origin. While their needs are great, this type of displacement has
been qualified as seasonal displacement. At the same time in May, some 200 Pashtun/Balooch
people in Sozma Qala District of Sare Pul province started to make a camp due to food insecurity,
but they were encouraged by the provincial government to return to their villages where
assistance (food and NFIs) would be provided. All this caseload returned as requested.
11
However, we are beginning to see considerable displacement now taking place in the West as a
result of both the worsening security and drought, with IDPs moving towards Hirat. These
movements will need to be carefully monitored.
The humanitarian and protection needs are first and foremost water and food – if possible – to
prevent displacement. Once people are displaced, shelter is immediately added to their needs.
And, if they use up the seeds they should have saved for the next year’s planting, they will need
new seed as well. Plus, of course, access to basic services in displacement especially health and
education.
(5)
Internally displaced in Urban Areas
Finally, there are an indeterminate number of internally displaced people living often precariously
with family or friends, or sometimes in squatter settlements that have sprung up around most of
the major cities. These are often difficult to identify as they have blended into the large indistinct
mass of urban poor, generally surviving by doing day labor and other menial tasks. We do know
that there are substantial numbers of IDPs living in Kabul, which is a magnet attracting people
from across the country, though we have only identified some of them. One should note that the
population of Kabul has increased from 1.5 million in 2001 to 4.5 million in 2007, and other
cities such as Kandahar, Hirat and Khost have also seen IDP influxes. As the Representative on
Internally Displaced Persons noted in his August 2007 report, the extent of urban displacement is
difficult to pinpoint because many IDPs have partially integrated, more than 50% of urban Kabul
consists of irregular settlements,7 and who an IDP is depends in part on self-identification,
particularly where such persons are living individually as opposed to collective groups.
In a certain sense, if these people had originally left their homes as a result of insecurity,
persecution or man-made disasters – and many did -- they have found their own solution to
displacement – i.e., they have locally integrated, without assistance, albeit often at a very low
level of subsistence. Others, who have migrated from the rural to the urban areas, attracted by the
prospects of more economic opportunity and services, would be considered economic migrants
and not IDPs, though the distinction is often a difficult one to make. While not part of the IDP
profiling, they certainly are part of the humanitarian problematique and difficult to disentangle
from the displacement picture.
The humanitarian and protection concerns regarding displaced persons in urban situations are
wide-ranging and will vary on whether they are squatting on land that is not theirs or living with
host families. As with the protracted caseload, there is a concern that these people not be evicted;
that their shelters are adequate, and they have adequate fuel, clothing and bedding, especially
where winter is harsh; that they have access to clean water and to latrines, to reduce the risk of
epidemic diseases; that their children are vaccinated for measles and polio; that they have
adequate food; access to basic health and educational services.
D. General Findings
What the profiling of the populations internally displaced makes clear is that we have highly
complex phenomena – with different displacements having occurred at different times, in
7
Anuj Chopra , “Afghanistan Faced with Severe Housing Shortage,” World Politics Review, 18 October
2007.
12
different parts of the country and for different reasons -- and finding durable solutions will be
neither easy nor quick.
One enormous obstacle to addressing displacement is land and property claims/disputes and,
relatedly, the fact that many of the IDPs are landless, and that the value of land, especially in and
around urban centres, has skyrocketed in the past few years. Another, is a mindset or worldview
held by many Afghan leaders – both in national and local government (and partially reflected in
Afghan law) -- that if you were not born in a province, district, town or village, then you really
don’t belong there, even though the Afghan Constitution (article 39) recognizes that Afghans
have a right travel or settle in any part of the country (except in regions forbidden by law). Hence,
for example, Presidential Decree 104 “On Land Distribution for Settlement to Eligible Returnees
and IDPs” makes entitlement to receive a plot of land in a specific province dependent upon the
individual/family originating from that province.8 And hence the view of many Governors that
IDPs can stay “temporarily” in their province if they cannot return to their places of origin
because of security considerations, but that local integration should not be considered a
permanent solution. Ethnicity is clearly a factor in many situations, with local authorities afraid
that by letting people from other ethnic groups settle, they may be changing the demographic –
and hence the political -- balance of the area.
Another enormous obstacle to finding durable solutions for those in displacement is the lack of
job or livelihood opportunities, and basic services (notably, water and sanitation, education and
health) in large areas of the country. While this is a challenge faced by all Afghans, it is
particularly daunting for people who have been uprooted and lived in exile for long periods of
time. It is therefore, vital that development and poverty reduction programs take special account
of IDPs and returnees when they are drafted.
Of course the issue of security remains a paramount concern, and if hostilities continue to
escalate, displacement may not only dramatically increase, it may take on new dimensions.
Particularly linked to insecurity is the fact that large areas of the country – not only in the south,
but also in the west, the southeast, the east and even areas of the north, are now becoming no-go
areas where humanitarian access is effectively denied. Not only is access denied by AGEs or the
Taliban, it may also be blocked by local commanders and warlords, whose private militias – and
not the police or the Afghan National Army – hold sway in the area.
E. Trends
As one looks to the future and to the type of contingency planning that should be done to address
the likely IDP scenarios over the coming year, several trends are evident.
First, as documented in UNDSS and UNAMA reports, we are likely to see more displacement as
a result of fighting between international and Afghan government forces on the one hand and
insurgents (Taliban and other AGEs) on the other, not only in the Southern Region, but also in the
West (in Bakwa, Gulistan and Pur Chaman districts of Farah and possibly in Nimroz where the
level of violence has recently increased), in Badghis (especially Murghab district) in the North,
and in all the provinces in the East bordering the tribal areas with Pakistan, but especially
Nuristan, Kunar and Khost. There will probably also be displacement as a consequence of the
8
The one exception to this general rule is that someone might get land in a neighboring province if there is
none available in their province of origin and the neighboring province has the absorptive capacity.
13
Taliban’s growing strength in certain areas of the central region: the past month, we saw the first
displacement from Parwan to Kabul city as a result of an increased Taliban presence, and a
vicious attack in which the Taliban targeted and killed four international aid workers from the
International Rescue Committee, in broad daylight, in Logar, on the main road to Kabul. There
have also been a heightened number of incidents in Kapisa..
Humanitarian access to much of the country has deteriorated dramatically and many, notably the
ICRC,9 believe that access has never been worse, including in the 1992-1993 period when you
could at least negotiate with Commanders who had an understanding of what a humanitarian
response meant. Now, the nature of the insurgency is very different. As the Special Rapporteur on
Education to the Human Rights Council said in the statement he issued (on 15 August) following
the killing of the IRC workers who had been supporting education in Afghanistan: “Their [the
Taliban’s] attacks on schools, teachers and others working on education are systematic, not
random. They are part of a deliberate attack on human rights, on equality for women and on any
attempt by their fellow citizens to control their own destiny.”
Not surprisingly, as the conflict has intensified, we have seen more and more civilian casualties.
According to UNAMA’s figures, during 2007, there were more than 1,500 non-combatants killed
as a result of fighting between Anti-Government Elements (AGE’s) and government forces in
2007. In the first four months of 2008 UNAMA Human Rights Team documented over 500
civilian deaths as a direct result of insurgency and counter-insurgency operations, which
represents an increase of almost 80 per cent compared with the same period last year. This
undoubtedly affects people’s perceptions about their safety. Thus, the assumption that we have
made, that most “battle-affected” IDPs do not move too far from their homes and rapidly return
home once the fighting has ended is likely to be seriously challenged. Already, we are seeing
groups of “battle-displaced” from Hilmand in the South and from other provinces in the Central
region going to live in and around Kabul City, either with friends and family or in squatter
settlements.
Secondly, the displacement as a result of the drought – in both the West and the North -- needs to
be carefully monitored. While, thus far, it appears that this displacement has been kept in check
by the Government policy, largely supported by the international humanitarian community, of
providing food and water in the affected villages to those who are most vulnerable, if this aid
does not reach people fast enough, or if the aid pipeline is interrupted for any reason, we are
likely to see people leaving their homes and drawn to where they believe they will more readily
get assistance. IDP camps, which we have largely been able to avoid thus far, may be something
we will need to contend with in the future, meaning that shelter – as well as water and food – will
need to be provided and a Camp Management Cluster may need to be created.
What we already see, in both the North and the West, is the phenomenon of families sending their
male members – fathers and sons – either to the larger cities in Afghanistan or to Pakistan or Iran.
While this economic migration is a traditional coping mechanism, the numbers climb when the
challenges to survival increase. However, the higher cost of living in Pakistan (that has actually
contributed to raising the numbers of refugees voluntarily returning to Afghanistan) and Iran’s
announcement, that it is going to cut its food and other commodity subsidies and replace them
with cash transfers to the very poor in Iran, will impact significantly on Afghan workers there,
who will not be eligible for the cash transfers. Essentially, it means that the remittances that the
9
See, e.g., IRIN, “Humanitarian Needs Growing as Conflict Spreads – ICRC,” 8 April 2008, where ICRC
is quoted as expressing deep concern about the intensification and spreading of armed conflict in
Afghanistan.
14
Afghan workers abroad are able to send home to their families will be substantially lower. This
may greatly increase the vulnerability of the many households in Afghanistan who are heavily
dependent on these remittances.
As regards the major population return of refugees from Pakistan back to Afghanistan following
the closure the last two years of two major camps in the Northwest Frontier Province (NWFP),
Jalozai and Kachagari, in 2007, returns from Pakistan topped 357,000. While the number in 2008
will probably be somewhat lower, returns as of mid August, has already reached the figure of
210,000 and there has been little slowing of the rate of approximately 1,000 per day crossing the
border. With approximately 23% of the returnees not returning home but settling into temporary
settlements (and a current returnee caseload of over 30,000 from this year and 20,000 who
returned between 2005 and 2007), we are likely to face serious overcrowding and shelter
problems which will need to be addressed before the winter.
It is also important to follow the extent to which returns which are on-going, largely with respect
to the repatriation from Pakistan, but also the deportations from Iran (over 180,000 by beginning
of August 2008), largely of single males who go back to their families – are sustainable. The
absorptive capacity of Afghanistan’s rural areas has probably not only been reached but surpassed
in many areas. The consequences of this are likely to be an outflow from the villages to the urban
centers. And while these people would be considered as economic migrants rather than IDPs, they
are certain to inter-mingle with and impact on the IDP humanitarian caseload.
As well, we are likely to see increasing conflict over land and resources (especially water) that
may lead both to violence and to displacement unless more comprehensive measures are taken to
improve land use management. The fighting between Kuchi and Hazara over pasturelands in the
Central Highlands is perhaps the most prominent example, but certainly not the only one.
Thus, as work begins to focus on finding durable solutions for the protracted caseload, the IDP
Task Force and other coordination mechanisms for dealing with displacement will need to
continually and carefully monitor new and potential displacements.
15
IDP Consultation in Herat
16
III.
Numbers: Summary (all numbers are approximations)
Southern*
Protracted caseload
22,841
22,841
119,958
119,958
5,925
1,083
7,008
29,690
6,598
36,288
427
2,321
918
4,915
1,345
7,236
New conflict-affected
2008 Returnees
2005-07 Returnees
577
5,220
3,517
9,314
3,462
31,320
21,102
55,884
Protracted caseload+
New conflict-affected*
Battle-affected
1,943
254
127
2,324
12,341
1,524
759
14,624
365
365
1,843
1,843
0
0
43,197
235,833
Total:
Western**
Protracted caseload
New Drought-affected
Total
Central
Protracted caseload
New conflictaffected***
Total
Eastern
Total
Southeastern*
Total
North and Northeastern++
Protracted caseload
Total
Central Highlands+++
TOTAL
* without battle-affected IDPs
** without battle-affected IDPs and without deportees from Iran
*** does not include the Hazara IDPs in Kabul as a result of the June-July 2008 fighting in the
Central Highlands
+ does not include data on the Mullah Khel IDPs because of a lack clarity about those figures
++ does not include drought-affected and other small groups for which we do not have accurate
information
+++
does
not
include
recent
conflict
IDPs
as
they
have
all
returned
17
home
The chart above estimates, conservatively, that there are approximately 235,000 internally
displaced persons in Afghanistan, of which of which about 132,000 are the protracted case load.
However, the total does not include most of those who are “battle-affected” or many of those who
are “drought-affected”. Nor do the numbers reflect whatever “invisible” IDPs there are in the
large urban concentrations who have not self-identified as displaced persons, or who have not
been identified through other means, or any of those deported from Iran, some of whom
inevitably end up in displacement. In the latter two cases, both of these are considered more as
economic migrants than as IDPs. The humanitarian caseload that displacement poses in
Afghanistan may, therefore, be substantially larger than the above numbers suggest.
If one looks at number of IDPs by reason for the displacement across the country, one gets the
following chart. They, of course, do not capture either the recent battle-affected or droughtaffected caseload.
Reason for Displacement
Protracted Caseload
New Drought-affected*
New conflict-affected
Returnees in displacement
Battle-affected*
Total
No. of Families
31,501
1,083
1,749
8,737
127
43,197
No. of Individuals
166,153
6,598
9,901
52,422
759
235,833
These numbers are clearly unreflective of the real caseload, which amounts to many thousands of people.
Reasons for displacement
180,000
166,153
Individuals
120,000
52,422
60,000
6,598
9,901
New Droughtaffected*
New conflict-affected
759
0
Protracted Cas eload
18
Returnees in
dis placem ent
Battle-affected*
Internally Displace Persons (IDPs) Caseload by District of Displacement - end Aug 2008
FAM = Families
Region
North
North
North
North
North
North
North
North
North
North Total
South
South
South
South
South
South Total
Southeast
Southeast
Southeast
Southeast Total
East
East
East
East
East
East
East
East
East
East
East
East
East
East Total
M = Males
F = Females
IND = Individuals
Location of Displacement
Province
District
Balkh
Nar-e-Shahi
Balkh
Balkh
Faryab
Almar
Faryab
Maimana
Kunduz
Kunduz
Kunduz
Kunduz (Bagh-e-Sherkat Sett.)
Takhar
Baharak
Takhar
Iskamish
Takhar
Kalafgan
FAM
Hilmand
Kandahar
Kandahar
Kandahar
Kandahar
Lashkargah (Mukhtar Sett.)
Kandahar (Kuchi sett.)
Maywand (Qala-i- Shamir)
Panjwai (Mushan&Kuluqan)
Zhari Dasht
Khost
Paktika
Paktya
Khost (Matun), Terzai & Bak
Terwi
Gardez
Kunar
Kunar
Laghman
Laghman
Nangarhar
Nangarhar
Nangarhar
Nangarhar
Nangarhar
Nangarhar
Nangarhar
Nangarhar
Nangarhar
Asad Abad
Sirkany, Khas Kunar, Shigal, Marwara & Asad Abad
Mihterlam
Qarghai
Surkh Rod
Surkh Rod
Khohgyani / Surkh Rod
Kuzkunar/Behsud
Jalalabad
Surkh Rod (Upper & Middle SM
Samarkhel
Surkh Rod (Lower SM)
Unknown (Jamaly)
19
20
17
10
17
24
171
70
12
24
365
4,705
5,500
1,745
5,418
5,473
22,841
1,943
254
127
2,324
577
1,321
730
96
80
64
3,589
757
516
700
30
696
158
9,314
TOTAL
M
51
57
26
39
61
436
179
31
61
940
11,988
16,830
3,977
14,438
13,946
61,179
6,294
777
387
7,458
1,766
4,042
2,234
294
245
196
10,982
2,316
1,579
2,142
92
2,130
483
28,501
IDPs Caseload
F
IND
49
100
54
111
25
50
38
77
59
120
419
855
172
350
29
60
59
120
903
1,843
11,518
23,506
16,170
33,000
3,821
7,798
13,871
28,309
13,399
27,345
58,779
119,958
6,047
12,341
747
1,524
372
759
7,166
14,624
1,696
3,462
3,884
7,926
2,146
4,380
282
576
235
480
188
384
10,552
21,534
2,226
4,542
1,517
3,096
2,058
4,200
88
180
2,046
4,176
465
948
27,383
55,884
IND%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
1%
10%
14%
3%
12%
12%
51%
5%
1%
0%
6%
1%
3%
2%
0%
0%
0%
9%
2%
1%
2%
0%
2%
0%
24%
West
West
West
West
West Total
Central
Central
Central
Central Total
Totals
Hirat
Hirat
Hirat
Hirat
Hirat (Maslakh)
Hirat (Shaydaee)
Hirat (Minarat)
Unknown
Kabul
Kabul
Ghazni
Kabul
Paghman
Ghazni
2,866
1,636
447
1,083
6,032
910
18
417
1,345
42,221
8,769
5,005
1,367
3,365
18,507
2,581
46
1,063
3,690
120,275
8,426
4,809
1,314
3,233
17,781
2,480
44
1,022
3,546
115,558
17,195
9,814
2,681
6,598
36,288
5,061
90
2,085
7,236
235,833
7%
4%
1%
3%
15%
2%
0%
1%
3%
100%
IDPs Sex
Breakdown of IDPs by Region of Displacement - as of end Aug 2008
Number of Individuals
150,000
Individulas
119,958
100,000
Females,
115,558,
49%
55,884
50,000
36,288
14,624
7,236
1,843
0
North
South
Southeast
East
West
20
Central
Males,
120,275,
51%
Afghanistan IDPs - Caseload by Region & District - No. of Individuals in Displacement - 10 Aug 08
UZBEKISTAN
TURKMENISTAN
Branch Office Kabul
Geographic Information and Mapping Unit
Operational Information Section
TAJIKISTAN
CHINA
Nahri Shahi
Balkh
Baharak
Kunduz
Kalfagan
Ishkamish
North
1,843
Almar
Maymana
East
55,884
Paghman
Kabul
Hi
gh
la
nd
Hirat
Central
7,236
0
Ce
nt
ra
l
West
36,288
Asadabad
Mihtarlam
Kuz Kunar
Qarghayi
Jalalabad
Surkh
Rod
INDIA
Khogayani
No Window
PAKISTAN
Gardiz
Ghazni
South
119,958
Maywand
Lashkar Gah
ISLAMIC
REPUBLIC
OF IRAN
Waza Khwa
Boundaries
International
Region
Province
Zhari
District
Kandahar
Number of Individuals
By District of Displacement
Panjwayi
Note: This map does not reflect the full extend of IDPs displaced
as result of recent battle or drought
Page 21
20,001 to 33,000
10,001 to 20,000
1,001 to 10,000
351 to 1,000
50 to
350
(6)
(2)
(8)
(3)
(8)
Data Date & Source: UNHCR sub/filed offices Jan - 10 Aug 2008
So
ut
14 heas
,62
t
4
Khost(Matun)
Annexes
22
IDPs from Helmand – in Chahari Qambar, Kabul
23
ANNEX 1.
DISPLACEMENT IN THE SOUTHERN REGION
The Southern Region has the largest protracted caseload of IDPs in the country – an estimated
22,841 families and 119,958 individuals. In the four main camps (i.e., excluding the Kuchi living
in and around Kandahar), approx. 66% are Pashtun and about 31% are Baluch (largely Kuchi or
semi-Kuchi). The numbers are as follows:
District/Province
Zhari, Kandahar
Maywand, Kandahar
Punjway, Kandahar
Kandahar City, Kandahar
Lashkar Gar, Hilmand
Total
Settlement
Zhari Dasht
Qala Shamir
Koloqan & Moshan
Kuchi settlements
Mukhtar
Families
5,473
1,745
5,418
5,500
4,705
22,841
Individuals
27,345
7,798
28,309
33,000
23,506
119,958
a. Zhari Dasht IDP Camp, Kandahar: located some 14 kilometers outside of Kandahar
city in Zhari district, houses 5,473 families (27,345 individuals) who are registered as
IDPs with the DoRR. This is the number that confirmed by a re-registration conducted by
DoRR in May 2008, adjusted to take into account the 171 families who had decided to
return to their places of origin in July 2008.
Many of these people were initially displaced at the end of 2001, from areas in the north
and the west, to the Chaman waiting area – a no-man’s land between Afghanistan and
Pakistan -- and then relocated in Zhari Dasht in 2002, 2003 and 2004. Currently, the
camp has IDPs displaced from the west (Hirat, Farah and Badghis), the north (Balkh,
Saripol, Faryab and Jawzjan), the northeast (Takhar), the southeast (Paktika) and the
South (Kandahar, Uruzgan , Zabul). Of these, 97% are Pashtuns, 2% Baluch, and 1%
other.
b. Qala Shamir Camp, Maywand: has a population of approximately 1,745 families, as of
DoRR re-registration in June/July 2008 (approx. 7,798 individuals), which includes
approximately 550 families who moved there in 2007 from Marghar in Punjway when
that area became too dangerous. The population is about 73% Baluch, 26% Pashtun and
1% other. Many of the inhabitants, including those from Marghar, are Kuchi or semiKuchi, uprooted between 1999 and 2003 because of drought in the Reg desert and the
consequent death of their livestock. In 2001 (??) the situation of some of the Kuchi in
Registan, particularly those living in remote areas, reached a critical point and some were
airlifted and others evacuated by heavy trucks provided the Talaiban authorities. They
were then settled in Maywand or Punjway districts of Kandahar. In 2002, as a result of
intervention by UNHCR, their settlements were recognized as IDP camps. While many of
the Kuchi elders say that they would like to return to Registan, such a return is not
currently sustainable, given the continuation of the drought.
c. Punjway (Koloqan and Moshan) IDP Camps: 5,415 families, as of DoRR reregistration in June/July 2008 (approx. 28,309 individuals), of whom 35% are Pashtun,
64% Baluch, and 1% other. Most of the population originates from the Reg and
24
Punjaway districts of Kandahar province and were displaced between 1999 and 2003 by
the drought and the death of their livestock. Many are Kuchi or semi-Kuchi.
d. Kuchi camped outside Kandahar City: According to a survey conducted by the
Government (DRRD, Kuchi Directorate and Economy Department of Kandahar) and
WFP (via its International Partner IP HAPA) in August 2007, there are some 5,500 Kuchi
families (about 33,000 individuals) living in 51 settlements on the outskirts of Kandahar
city and the surrounding villages. These people had been nomadic and had moved with
their animals (sheep, goats, camels and donkeys), migrating in the summer to the districts
of Sahjoy (Zabul Province) and Muqur (Gazni Province) and in the winter to Registan
and other districts in Kandahar province. Some families are reported to come from
Badghis Province. After seven years of drought and the loss of their animals, these Kuchi
are more or less settled and earn their living as day laborers in Kandahar City, and with
some elderly men and women reduced to begging in the streets. The needs assessment
conducted in 2008 underscored their need for food, drinking water and better shelter, and
for educational and health facilities to which they have very limited access.
e. Mukhtar Camp, Hilmand: in Lashkar Gar district, 4,705 families (23,506 individuals).
There has not been any recent re-registration of the population in Mukhtar. Data from
2006 indicates that 91% of the population is Pashtun, 6% Tajik, 2% Baluch and 1%
Hazara. They were displaced between 2001 and 2003, with the fall of the Taliban, from
the west (Badghis, Hirat, Ghor), the north (Faryab, Jawzjan, Saripul), the East (Kapisa,
Laghman), the southeast (Ghazni), the south (Hilmand, Uruzgan, Kandahar) and some
from the center (Kabul, Logar). Many fled because of security issues, threats, the
occupation of their land by armed groups, and the breakdown of law and order while
other fled because of the drought, the loss of their livestock, and food shortages.
In the Southern Region, we also have the largest number of battle-affected IDPs though, as noted
above, most of these do not travel far from their homes and return home when the battle moves
elsewhere. We have the data compiled by UNAMA, which reports that, in 2007, over 40,000
families (i.e., upwards of 240,000 individuals) were assisted in the Southern provinces of
Kandahar, Hilmand and Uruzgan with food aid and non-food assistance by UN agencies, largely
at the request of, and on the basis of numbers reported by, Government offices and verified (to
the extent possible) by implementing partners of the UN. For 2008, reporting for the first 6
months found that a total of 12,646 families (or over 75,000 individuals) were assisted by UN
agencies in the Southern region. These numbers do not take into account the battle-affected
families assisted directly by PRTs or the international forces, which often provide food and nonfood items as well as pay compensation to people for damaged property or loss of life. Nor does
this factor in those displaced families which are assisted by the International Committee of the
Red Cross – often the first assistance people fleeing fighting are able to receive. The UNAMA
data is as follows:
Date
Assistance requested for this displaced by battle
January 2007 and later
10,136 families from Panjway and Zhari took shelter
in Kandahar and 4,876 displaced in various villages
Families in Lashkar Gar, Hilmand, displaced from
Sangin, Musa Qaka, Garmser, Nahri Serat and other
districts
Displaced to Tirin Kot, Uruzgan
January 2007 and later
January 2007 and later
25
No. of
families
affected
15,003
6,847
720
February 2007
18 February 2007
27 February 2007
13 May 2007
23 May 2007
June 2007
September 2007
26 September 2007
2 October 2007
4 November
4 November 2007
4 November 2007
4 November 2007
20 November 2007
Assistance requested for families displaced from
Musa Qala, Hilmand
Request to assist 3,200 families displaced from
Sangeen and Kajaki districts of Hilmand
Displaced from Nawzad district living in Gereshk and
Lashkar Gar, Hilmand
Request for assistance for 2,050 families displaced in
April-May by fighting in Sangeen, living in Lashkar
Gar and Grishk districts.
Governor of Khandahar requested food for 500
families of Sangeen district, Hilmand – 300 of which
fled to Arghandab, 100 to Ghorak and 100 to
Kandahar City
Families displaced to Chora, Uruzgan
DRRD requests assistance for 1,744b battle affected
families from Garmser, Hilmand but only 722 verified
DRRD requested assistance for families displaced
from Dihrawoud, 220 of whom had moved to Trinkot
and the rests in various villages
DRRD reported on families displaced from Nahr-isaraj district to Bazar Grishk and outher surrounding
areas of Lashkar Gar, Hilmand
ANDMA requests assistance for 421 families
displaced from Kajaki, Hilmand to Arghandab,
Kandahar
ANDMA reports families displaced from Sangeen
district, Hilmand living in Arghandab, Kandahar
ANDMA reported families displaced from Musa Qala,
Hilmand, living in Arghandab, Kandahar
ANDMA reported 223 families displaced from
Dihrawud, Uruzgan, living in Arghandab, Kandahar
Request for assistance for additional families from
Garmser, Hilmand
Total Number
reported in 2007
January/February 2008
March/April 2008
March/April 2008
March/April 2008
May/June 2008
May/June 2008
Total assisted in
first 6 months of 2008
1,600
3,200
2,960
2,050
500
817
722
1,600
554
421
101
298
2,110
540
40,043
Families of Sangeen and Sarwan Qala assisted in
Khandahar
Families of Musa Qala district, Hilmand assisted
Families of Derhrawood district assisted in
Derhrawood, Uruzgan
Families of Dehrawood district assisted in Terinkot,
Uruzgan
Families in Arghandab district, Hilmand, assisted in
Arghandab
Families of Garmser district, Hilmand, assisted
26
673
2,000
1,150
350
6,973
1,500
12,646
Battle displaced Families in the Southern Region who received assistance in 2007/2008
45,000
40,043
40,000
35,000
30,330
30,000
25,000
20,000
15,000
12,646
10,000
8,473
5,000
3,367
0
2,876
3,470
3,500
673
0
0
Jan/Feb 07 Mar/Apr 07 May/Jun 07 Jul/A ug 07 Sep/Oct 07
Nov/Dec
07
27
Total 07
Jan/Feb 08 Mar/A pr 08 May/Jun 08
Total 08
Branch Office Kabul
Afghanistan IDPs - Southern Region Protracted Caseload No. of Individuals in Displacement - 14 Aug 08
Geographic Information and Mapping Unit
Operational Information Section
Baghran
Chora
Shahidi Hassas
Kakar
Khas Uruzgan
Uruzgan
Tirin Kot
Uruzgan
Daychopan
Dihrawud
Zabul
Musa Qala
Arghandab
Kajaki
Naw Zad
HilmandKandahar
Shahjoy
Miya Nishin
Nesh
Zabul
Washer
Mizan
Sangin
Khakrez
Shah Wali Kot
Nahri Sarraj
Tarnak Wa Jaldak
Qalat
Atghar
Arghandab
Zhari
Nad Ali
Lashkar Gah
Shamulzayi
Shinkay
:
Maywand
Zehray Dhast
27,345
:
Ghorak
Mukhtar
23,506
Naw Bahar
Arghistan
:
Kandahar
Maruf
No Window
Nawa-I- Barak Zayi
:
Kuchi Camped outside
Kandahar city
33000
Kandahar
Maiwand (Qala-i- Shamir)
7,798
Panjwayi
Daman
Garmser
Spin Boldak
Panjwayi (Mushan&Kuluqan)
28,309
Reg(Khanshin)
Registan
Shorabak
Dishu
Boundaries
Province
District
Province center
Page 28
: IDP Settlement/Camp
Data Date & Source: UNHCR sub/filed offices Jan - 10 Aug 2008
Hilmand
ANNEX 2
DISPLACEMENT IN THE WESTERN REGION
(1) Protracted Caseload
The protracted caseload in the Western Region of Afghanistan is largely concentrated in three
settlements around Hirat city. These were surveyed by the DoRR in February 2008, and found to
comprise nearly 6,000 families with a population of close to 30,000, as follows:
Settlement
Maslakh
Shaydayee
Minarets
Total
Number of Families
Number of Individuals
3,465
1,938
522
5,925
17,195
9,814
2,681
29,690
Since the first IDP camp was established in Hirat in 1992, there have been six IDP camps or
settlements in the Western Region. Three still exist today: Maslakh (set up in 1998), the largest of
the settlements, housing 12,000 families at its peak occupancy in 2000; Shaydayee (established in
1994), housing 4,500 families in 2000; and Minarets (established in 1994), with a population of
7,779 in 2002; and City Transit Centre (CTC), Rawzabagh and Rawashan (which no longer
exist). These sites were often the first place of choice for people displaced as a result of conflict,
drought or other disasters not only from Hirat province but from the neighboring provinces
including Faryab, Badghis, Ghor and Farah, even attracting people from as far as Hilmand,
Bamyan and Uruzgan. Hirat city was the magnet as it offered security, job opportunities for both
skilled and unskilled labor, and access to services with aid agencies concentrated there.
As conditions improved in their places of origin, the displaced began to return to their homes,
with the first organized and assisted voluntary return in the Western region beginning 25
February 2002. A total of over 98,350 individuals went back home that year. In 2003, the trend
continued with more than 48,000 returning voluntarily with assistance in the form of both food
and non-food items (NFIs) from WFP and UNHCR. Thereafter, assisted return slowed to a
trickle, with only 107 individuals recorded as being assisted to voluntarily return in 2007 and only
80 families (who went back to Murqab in Badghis) in 2008. In a survey conducted in Minarets in
April, 97% of the population stated they had no intention of returning and IDPs in Maslakh
expressed similar views when informally interviewed in February.
Those who remain in these settlements - the protracted caseload – can be divided into three
groups:
(a) families unable to return because of the drought and the loss of their livestock, primarily
Kuchi from the north (from Badghis and Faryab), or from the south and the central
highlands;
(b) families – a mixture of Hazara, Tajik, and Pashtun – who are landless and have nowhere
to return to; some of them are from Ghor, Bamyan and Uruzgan and some from
neighboring villages around Herat city; and
(c) families unable to return because of the continuation of the ethnic/tribal or personal
conflict that led to their initial displacement, most of them Pashtun from the north
29
(Badghis and Faryab). Frequently, these Pashtuns, who lived as a minority in Tajik or
Uzbek areas, were considered to have supported or collaborated with the Taliban, were
then targeted by Northern commanders, and are still not welcome back in their areas of
origin.
(2) New Displacement
In addition to this protracted caseload, the Western Region has seen substantial new population
movements. These include three major groups: battle-affected, drought-affected and deportees
from Iran, although this latter group are not be considered as IDPs, and are not profiled here.
Recently, the DoRR Offices in the Western Region issued the following chart regarding
displacements for the first seven months of 2008 – 1 January to 6 August 2008.
Province
of origin
Nimrooz
Ghor
Herat
Farah
Badghis
Total
Province
of origin
Farah
Farah *
Herat
Badghis
Total
Province
of origin
Badghis
Badghis
Total
Province
of origin
Ghor
Ghor
Total
Province
of orgin
Nimrooz
Nimrooz
Total
Province of
displacement
Herat
Herat
Herat
Herat
Herat
Province of
displacement
Farah
Herat and other provinces
Farah
Farah
Province of
displacement
Badghis
Herat & other provinces
Province of
displacement
Ghor
Other provinces
Province of
displacement
Nimrooz
Other provinces
Family
Individual
1
29
79
21
20
150
8
144
560
114
111
937
Family
Individual
169
460
10
53
692
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Family
Individual
255
145
400
1469
868
2337
Family
Individual
313
0
313
1467
0
1467
Family
Individual
0
0
0
0
0
0
* 50% went to Iran, 50% have been displaced within Farah province, or have gone to Hirat and other
provinces. The source of information for DoRR Farah is the district governors. Given the limited access to
most of the areas where IDPs have reportedly been displaced to, it is difficult to confirm the displacement.
30
Afghanistan IDPs - Western Region Protracted Caseload No. of Individuals in Displacement - 14 Aug 08
Branch Office Kabul
Geographic Information and Mapping Unit
Operational Information Section
Ghormach
Bala Murghab
Badghis
Farah
Muqur
Gulran
Ghor
Charsada
Ab Kamari
Koshk
Maslakh
17,195
Koshki Kohna
Nimroz
Shaidayee
9,814
Badghis
Qala-I- Naw
Jawand
Chaghcharan
Qadis
Zanda
Jan
Kohsan
:
Dawlat Yar
Hirat
:
Ghoryan
Karukh
Ghor
Chishti Sharif
:
Injil
Obe
Pashtun Zarghun
Shahrak
Guzara
Du Layna
Tulak
Minarets
2,681
Farsi
Adraskan
Hirat
Saghar
Pasaband
Taywara
Shindand
Pur Chaman
Anar Dara
Bala Buluk
No Window
Khaki Safed
Farah
Gulistan
Pusht Rod
Qala Ka
Farah
Bakwa
Shib Koh
Dilaram
Lash Wa Juwayn
Khash Rod
Kang
Chakhansur
Zaranj
Nimroz
Chahar Burjak
Boundaries
Province
District
Province center
Page 31
: IDP Settlement/Camp
Data Date & Source: UNHCR sub/filed offices Jan - 10 Aug 2008
Hirat
(a) Battle-affected displacement
While not on the same order of magnitude as the battle-affected displacement in the Southern
Region, it is estimated that more than 3,000 families (approx. 18,000 individuals) were forced to
leave their homes in 2007 as a result of insurgency and counter-insurgency operations. Ten such
movements were identified of which three are most significant:
•
The displacement of some 8,500 persons in Shindand district of southern Hirat, due to
Coalition aerial bombing. This area has been affected by criminality, insurgency and
inter-tribal warfare for a number of years and produced a mass displacement to Hirat in
2004.
•
The displacement of approximately 3,900 persons from the centre of Badghis province
(largely ethnic Pashtuns from Murghab and Ghormach), due to a combination of ethnic
tensions and maltreatment by Uzbek police in the context of an armed operation, and
pressures and maltreatment by insurgents. While most families fled to surrounding
villages, over 300 came to Hirat. The movement is reminiscent of a similar mass
uprooting from Badghis and Faryab in 2002. In April 2008, 80 families of these families
who were living in Shaidayee settlement and in Nawabad requested – and received
assistance from the IDP Task Force -- to return to Murghab. Another 268 families from
that area have also indicated an interest in returning but have not yet done so.
•
A displacement of an indeterminate number of persons from northern Hilmand to western
Farah, allegedly due to a poppy eradication operation, and/or conflict between insurgents
and government/international forces. There were also reports in November 2007 of
insurgent activity in Farah causing displacement of dozens of families to Hilmand. These
areas are no-go areas for UN staff and confirmation of populations movements, or
assessments of needs there, is difficult.
Regarding causes of new displacement, an analysis by UNHCR field staff suggests that, of the
newly displaced, 93% are Pashtuns, 5% are Tajik and 2% other. Regarding the reasons for
displacement:
• 54% were displaced as a result of combat or attacks initiated by governmental or
international forces;
• 25% were displaced as a result of violations of human rights or infractions of
International Humanitarian Law by governmental or international forces;
• 6% of displacement was caused by inter-ethnic/inter-communal violence or by combat or
attacks initiated by armed groups other than insurgents or government/international
forces;
• 5% of displacement was caused by pressure from criminal groups and violations of
human rights or infractions of International Humanitarian Law by insurgents;
• 10% various other reasons.
In 2008, battle-affected displacement has again been recorded, though at somewhat lower levels,
as well as displacement resulting from tribal conflict and land disputes, including the following:
ƒ
ƒ
a large number of families displaced as a result of air-raids in July on Zirkoh, in Shindand
district of Hirat province, of whom some 300 have come to Shindand center.
15 families displaced from Khust village of Khak-Safeed district to the city of Farah as a
result of aerial bombing.
32
ƒ
28 families displaced to the Gorgi area of Farah, having fled their homes in Shiwan, Bala
Buluk district, due to insecurity
214 IDP families living in Cheghcharan district of Ghor, due to land disputes and other
problems in their related areas
45 families displaced from Khak-Safeed district of Farah province to Farah city as a
result of a tribal dispute
172 families from the Tulak district of Ghor, displaced two years ago to Shindand in
Hirat because of a land dispute with another tribe
100 Hazara families displaced from Ghorak village, of whom 30 are living in the vicinity
of Chackcharan city, 20 went to Mazar-i-Sharif, 8 to Kabul and 42 to Hirat and Sangtakht
wa Bandar in Day Kundi.
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
It is also the general understanding of authorities in Farah that an estimated 50-100 families are
leaving the province on a daily basis, heading to Hirat, Nimroz and Iran because of general
insecurity and drought.
(b) Displacement due to Drought
In the Western Region, the provinces of Ghor and Badghis have been severely affected by
drought, which followed last year’s harsh winter, as well as a locust infestation. In Ghor, the rain
that arrived late was limited so that even irrigated lands did not produce a good harvest. In June,
an initial assessment conducted jointly by Central Disaster Management Team (CDMT) and
NGOs working in the area concluded that, as a result of the drought, 22,550 families were
vulnerable and at risk in 351 villages in 10 districts of the province. An assessment in Badghis
in July found that 80% of the farmers failed to harvest their cereal crops. Too little rain which
came too late, locusts, and a lack of improved water management have created a humanitarian
situation, with the area suffering from a shortage of drinking water, food, fodder, and
employment opportunities.
Information provided by the DoRR in Ghor is that there are families that have been in
displacement for the past two to three years as a result of drought (compounded by poverty, lack
of employment, the harsh winter and scarcity of drinking water). This “old caseload” comprises
583 families displaced to Chakhcharan center. The majority of these – 359 families – come from
various villages in Chakhcharan; 96 families from Daulatiyar district, 47 from Charsada, and the
remaining from the Taiwara, Pasaband, Lal Sarjangal and Dolina districts of Ghor.
As a strategy to prevent large-scale displacement, the Western Region (like the Northern one) has
opted to provide assistance to those in need in their home villages. New displacements have
nonetheless occurred, with initial reports indicating that an estimated 500 families have become
IDPs as a result of the drought this year. Reports at the end of July are suggesting that several
hundred families are leaving Ghor daily for Farah and Hirat as a result of the rise in the price of
food and the drought. What information we have of displaced communities is the following:
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
91 families (64 from Charsada and 27 from Pasaband) in Ghor displaced to
Chackcharan center during the past 4-5 months
most families from three Charsada villages who have moved to neighboring villages
because of a lack of drinking water and food
60 families arriving in Herat, 29 from Ghor province, 21 from Purchman district of
Farah province, and 10 from Murghab district of Badghis province
92 families displaced by drought from various districts of Badghis to Qala-e-Naw in the
centre of the province
33
ƒ
ƒ
2 families displaced from Daulatyar district of Ghor to Chakhcharan
53 families displaced from Gunbad village of Qadis district in Badghis province to DehNaw village of Khak-Safeed district in Farah province
It is also expected that people engaged in the pistachio harvest in Badghis, which will shortly end,
are likely to move towards Hirat, as these families are economically among the worst off in
Badghis and their harvest income is very small.
If enough assistance is unable to reach people in their villages, it is likely that the numbers
displaced will be significantly higher. An assessment made by the Sub-Office of UNHCR in Hirat
on 7 July, was that, if food and assistance does not arrive soon, at least 300,000 people (approx.
50,000 families) could be affected in various districts of Ghor.
Kuchi in Maslakh Settlement, Hirat
34
ANNEX 3
DISPLACEMENT IN THE CENTRAL REGION
The Central Region, which comprises the provinces of Kabul, Kapisa, Panjshir, Parwan, Wardak,
Logar and Ghazni provinces, contain a number of IDP communities that we have been able to
profile, including some living in and around Kabul city. There are also others in areas that are not
accessible to UNHCR such as Ghazni and parts of Wardak. The caseload includes both IDPs of
long-standing and also new IDPs, forced to leave their places of origin for a range of reasons
ranging from conflict and protection reasons such as commanderism and local enmities. (The
focus of UNHCR Sub Office Kabul’s attention are these populations who have been displaced for
conflict and protection reasons, rather than those who have relocated because of natural disasters
or for socio-economic reasons.)
(a) The protracted caseload
The protracted caseload, as detailed below, adds up to some 427 families (2,321 individuals),
which is certainly an underestimate of the number of long-standing IDPs in Kabul City.
Screening exercises of squatter settlements have been conducted in the past to assess which
persons have been displaced for protection reasons. In situations where it is difficult to locate and
identify individuals (as opposed to groups) as IDPs in a large city, such individuals are likely to
fall out of the IDP statistics. Many are, undoubtedly, living under very difficult economic
circumstances – on the margins of the city and of society -- part of the undifferentiated urban
poor, and often without the social safety net they had in their places of origin. Those groups
which have been profiled include 369 Pashtun families (2,031 individuals), 18 Tajik families (90
individuals), and 40 Hazara families (200 individuals) as follows:
ƒ
186 Pashtun families (1,116) displaced from the Tagab district of Kapisa province and
the Sarobi district of Kabul province, currently settled in District 9 in Kabul City. Of
these, 170 families originally fled to Pakistan in 1998; they returned to Afghanistan in
2004, but could not go back to their place of origin because of insecurity, and were joined
in 2008 by 16 families newly displaced from Tagab.
ƒ
18 Tajik families (90 individuals) who came from Taibuti, Bamyan in 1993 and currently
live in Paghman district of Kabul Province.
ƒ
40 Hazara families (200 individuals) displaced from Daykundi province to Kabul City in
2002 and 2003.
ƒ
150 Pashtun families (750 individuals) who fled from Guldara district of Kabul Province
to Kabul City in 1998 as a result of fighting between Taliban and the Northern Alliance,
and currently live in Districts 16, 8 and 5. They are unable to return because of the
hostility of local commanders, as well as water diversion and property occupation.
ƒ
33 Pashtun families (165 individuals) who arrived in 1998 in Kabul City from Siman
Niyazi village, Charikar, Parwan province, then the frontline of fighting between the
Taliban and the Northern Alliance. Their land was subsequently occupied by local armed
commanders.
35
(b) Recent conflict-affected IDPs
In addition, there are IDPs in the Central Region displaced by recent conflict (at least 918
families and 4,915 individuals), whether as a result of insurgency and counter-insurgency,
ethnic/tribal fighting, or because of conflict over resources or property.
This number does not include the Hazara IDPs from the recent fighting in Behsud I and II of
Wardak province (see under the section for the Central Highlands) who are living in private
houses and with relatives in Kabul city, as that number has not been verified and information
provided by community leaders has proved unreliable. Spontaneous returns to Behsud from
Kabul have already started. There are also unknown numbers of IDPs living in villages in
Wardak who fled insurgency and counter-insurgency operations, Taliban threats and most
recently the Behsud conflict. It has not been possible to profile such groups because of
UNHCR’s lack of access to areas of displacement due to security.
The following groups have been profiled.
Displaced Living in Kabul
ƒ
150 Pashtun families (750 individuals), from Kote Ashro village, Maidan Shahr center,
Maidan Wardak province, who fled the insurgency and counter insurgency operations
that began mid-September 2007.
ƒ
20 families (100 individuals), Pashtun, from Bodrab village, Tagab district, Kapisa, who
fled in 2006 and are now in Bagrami district, Kabul province.
ƒ
Approximately 280 families from Sangeen district of Hilmand who fled insurgency and
counter-insurgency fighting that started in December 2007, currently living in SubDistrict 5, Kabul City. From an earlier group of 229 families (1,145 individuals), a few
families returned but others came to join them in April-May 2008. In July 2008 about 50
more families who are related to the community leader arrived (the latest additions have
not yet been profiled).
ƒ
6 Hazara families (30 individuals) who fled insurgency in Gizab, currently living in
District 5 in Kabul City.
ƒ
40–50 families from Kohi Safi district of Parwan Province who moved to Ghazi Abad
main village and surrounding sub-villages in Dehsabz district of Kabul Province in July
2008, as a result of growing insecurity in Kohi Safi and AGE infiltration from Tagab.
Twelve of the families in Ghazi Abad were interviewed by UNHCR.
Living in Ghazni
ƒ
352 Hazara families (1,760 individuals) who fled fighting in Uruzgan Khas district of
Uruzgan Province in November 2007 and are settled in the Nawabad area of Ghazni City.
ƒ
65 Pashtun families (325 individuals) who fled insurgency in the Qarabagh district of
Ghazni province in December 2007 and are in displacement in Ghazni Centre.
36
Afghanistan IDPs - Central Region IDPs Caseload No. of Individuals in Displacement - 14 Aug 08
Branch Office Kabul
Geographic Information and Mapping Unit
Operational Information Section
Paryan
Panjsher
Parwan
Kapisa
Kabul
Wardak
Logar
Khenj (Hese- Awal)
Bazarak
Panjsher
Shutul
Salang
Ghazni
Rukha
Unaba
Shinwari
Hisa-i-Awali Kohistan
Kapisa
Koh Band
Hisa-i-Duwumi Kohistan
Mahmudi Raqi Nijrab
Sia Gird ( Ghorbund)
Chaharikar
Shekh Ali
Parwan
Surkhi Parsa
Istalif
Farza
Kohi Safi
Kalakan
Guldara
Paghman
Tagab
Dih Sabz
Kabul
Kabul
Jalrez
Alasay
Bagram
Qarabagh
Shakardara
Wardak
Dara
Surobi
Bagrami
Maydan Shahr
Chahar Asyab
Khaki Jabbar
Nirkh
Day Mirdad
Mohammad Agha
Chaki Wardak
Puli Alam
Logar
Azra
Khoshi
No Window
Baraki Barak
Jaghatu
Rashidan
Saydabad
Khwaja Umari Zana Khan
Wali Muhammadi Shahid
Ghazni
Bahrami Shahid (Jaghatu)
Ajristan
Dih Yak
Charkh
Kharwar
Recent conflict affected
2085
Waghaz
Malistan
Andar
Qarabagh
Jaghuri
Giro
Muqur
Ab Band
Gelan
Boundaries
Province
Nawa
District
Province center
Page 37
: IDP Settlement/Camp
Data Date & Source: UNHCR sub/filed offices Jan - 10 Aug 2008
Ghazni
Nawur
Protracted caseload
2321
Recent conflict affected
2740
ANNEX 4
DISPLACEMENT IN THE EASTERN REGION
The Eastern Region includes the Provinces of Nuristan, Kunar, Laghman, and Nangarhar. There
is no documented protracted caseload in the region, although there are IDPs who settled in
Jalalabad in the Russian period. What we know is that there are approximately 3,000 families in
Farm Hade, 4,000 families in Herarshai, and an indeterminate number in Samarkhel. But these
groups have not been profiled and are not considered part of the humanitarian caseload.
There are, however, some new conflict-affected IDPs and there is a now a large number of
returnees from Pakistan who have not returned to their places of origin, but have set up temporary
settlements in Nangarhar and Laghman.
Type of IDP
New Conflict-affected
2008 Returnees from Pakistan
2005-07 Returnees from Pakistan
Total
Families
577
5,220
3,517
9,314
Individuals
3,462
31,320
21,102
55,884
IDP caseload in East
35,000
31,320
Individuals
28,000
21,102
21,000
(a)
14,000
7,000
3,462
0
New Conflict-affected
2008 Returnees from Pakis tan
2005-07 Returnees from
Pakis tan
New Conflict-affected
There are 577 families (approx 3,462 individuals) from Nuristan who were displaced to Kunar
Province at the end of December 2007/beginning January 2008 as a result of insurgency
operations. These include Nuristanis, a tribe perceived as being affiliated with the Coalition and
labeled “Government spies” by the insurgents. While the Coalition has three bases in Nuristan,
this is a Taliban stronghold and the AGEs control all the access roads. Those who fled received
death threats from the AGEs. The IDPs have received food and NFIs from a variety of sources
including Government, PRT and UNHCR. Most of the displaced have gone to villages in Nari
and Barikot districts of Kunar where they are living in rented houses, or in tents and improvised
shelters, or with relatives. Some have gone to Jalalabad and Beshud district and others to the
38
Chitral area of Pakistan. It is unlikely that they will be able to return home in the near future as
the security situation is getting worse.
(b) 2008 Returnees from Pakistan
In the Eastern Region, in the first seven months of 2008 (until 2 August), a total of 22,638
families (125,531 individuals) were repatriated to the Eastern Region of Afghanistan from
Pakistan. A substantial number of them came from Jalozai camp which was closed by the
Pakistani authorities following the Tripartite agreement with the Government of Afghanistan and
UNHCR. While most of the returnees have been able to return to their places of origin, a
significant portion (about 23%) –more than 5,200 families and approximately 31,200 individuals
– have not been able to do so, either for security reasons, or because of landlessness, or for
economic or other reasons, and remain in secondary displacement. The numbers are as follows:
Place
Families
Chamtala
Lower Shek Mesri
Mihterlam Desert
Siasang
Tangi 2
Total
Individuals
3,589
80
730
64
757
5,220
21,534
480
4,380
384
4,542
31,320
They include the following people in the following settlements:
i. Chamtala Desert, Nangarhar
The settlement is located 26 kilometers west of Jalalabad, bordering Surkhrod and Khogyani
districts. According to an assessment made 30 June 2008, there are 3,589 families residing in
Chamtala, including 275 families who were transferred from Farm Hada in mid-June. The
majority of them are 2008 returnees from Jalozai camp who originate from Khogyani,
Hisarak and Sherzad districts. They have built make-shift shelters and are living with their
family members. Before the war, many of these returnees were “hamsaya”10 who either
farmed the land or tended the animals of landlords.
Chamtala settlement was officially designated as a Land Allocation Site on 5 June by the
Governor and the Minister of Refugees and Repatriation. Elders claim that there are more
people in the settlement than the estimates show – i.e., some 4,500 families – and that more
will be coming. No doubt, the prospect of being allocated land is serving as a magnet,
although the Land Allocation Committee (LAC), which has started short listing applicants
for beneficiary selection.ots in Chamtala. (There are 6,300 plots available in Chamtala, to be
allocated to eligible applicants in accordance with Presidential Decree 104. The plan is to
allocate 3,000 plots to the current residents.
10
“Hamsaya” is one of the three pillars of Pashtunwali – the rules and regulations of the Pashtun tribes –
and refers to an informal system of power similar to the relationship between lord and vassal (or clientism).
The word “hamsaya” means friend is Pashto, but the term is applied to a man who abandons his home
because of poverty or a blood feud and seeks the protection of an elder in another village.
39
In addition to these returnees, there are also 200 families of disabled people who had
previously been living at Farm Had and were transferred to Chamtala in mid-June. These
200 families will also be receiving plots in Chamtala.
ii. Lower Shek Mesri, Surkhord, Nangorhar.
This is a temporary settlement of 80 families (480 individuals) all from one clan from the
Torghar area of Khogyani district, whose village of origin is in a remote mountain between
Nangarhar and Laghman province. They are unable to return because they lack land, living
conditions there are very severe, and there is no access road. A homogenous community, the
group has squeezed themselves onto a strip of land adjacent to the old Lower Sheik Mesri
settlement. DoRR Nangarhar has confirmed that the families are permitted to remain in the
site.
iii. Mihterlam Desert, Laghman
This settlement is 7 kilometres from Mithterlam town. While this land is hot, sandy and
subjected to strong stormy winds, a total of 579 returnee families (559 from Jalozai camp)
have settled there. In addition, there are 11 families who returned in previous years.
According to the DoRR of Laghman, the number has actually increased to 730 families.
They are mainly poor people from the Andror, Badpakh and Garoch areas of Mihterlam and
claim they cannot return to their places of origin due to tribal conflicts, very difficult access
to the area or landlessness. The Provincial Government has started to complete the works
needed to convert the site as regular settlement for returnees with a potential capacity of
4,000 plots. So far DoRR has demarcated 200 plots. The Provincial Governor has requested
one-room-shelter assistance for eligible families living at this site.
iv. Siasang, Surkhrod, Nangarhar
There are 64 families on this disputed site which the provincial authorities maintain is
government property. The families have been asked to leave but refuse to do so. This
includes 21 families originating from Qarghaee, Laghman who claim to have received land
in the area from their tribal elder (Nasier). Another 2 families, from Sherzad district, claim to
have purchased the land and/or that it was given to them by the elders of their Saak tribe. As
well, 42 Kuchi families have settled in this area and claim to be landless in their place of
origin.
v. Tangi 2, Kuz Kunar/Behsud, Nangarhar
As per an assessment carried out on 21-22 July, there is one group of 307 families who
initially settled in Tangi 2, of whom 39 families were absent during the assessment. All these
settlers are from Kunar province: i.e., from Pech Valley, Chapa Dara, Watapur, Shigal and
Khas Kunar districts. They claim that they cannot go back to their places of origin because of
security concerns and landlessness. The Provincial Government has agreed to allow this
group to stay in Tangi 2 on a temporary basis. The site where they are staying has been
demarcated, and regular two-room shelters will be constructed for eligible families.
There is also second group of around 450 families, who returned to Afghanistan in April
2008, but who only recently arrived in Tangi 2. These families had first gone to various
40
villages in Behsud, Chaparhar and Jalalabad. However, as they do not own land where they
first settled, they decided to relocate to Tangi 2. After several discussions with the Kuz Kunar
community, the latter agreed to allow this second group to remain in Tangi 2 in a site
adjacent to the first group; and the district and provincial authorities have agreed to the
delivery of water to the community. While DoRR Kunar had offered this group an alternative
site for temporary settlement with possible land distribution in Kunar in the near future, the
returnees did not accept this offer because they had security concerns about the return area.
If land allocation proceeds apace, a durable solution will be found for a substantial portion of this
caseload, and others that arrive, if they find they are not eligible for land allocation, may
eventually return to their places of origin. Some portion of this caseload will, however, find
themselves in secondary displacement in Afghanistan.
(c) Returnees from Pakistan between 2005-2007
In addition to those who have returned to Afghanistan from Pakistan in 2008, there are 3,517
families who returned from Pakistan between 2005 and 2007 who are still living in temporary
settlements. These include the following:
Province
Nangarhar
Laghman
Kunar
Total
Families
Individuals
2,100
96
1.321
3,517
12,600
576
7,926
21,102
i. Nangharar
516 Kunari families, repatriated from FATA camps in 2005, staying in Saracha,
Samarkhel, Ada Akhunzada, Lajigar, Samarkhel and Hesarsha
400 Kuchi families, repatriated from FATA camps in 2005, staying in Samarkhel, Upper
Sheik Mesri and Barikab
300 Kuchi families repatriated from Katchagari in 2007, staying in Middle Sheik Mesri
30 Arab families repatriated from Katchagari in 2007, staying in Samarkhel
696 families (different tribes), repatriated from FATA camps in 2005, staying in Lower
Sheik Mesri
158 families repatriated in 2006 and staying in Jamaly
ii. Laghman
96 families who returned in 2005 and 2006, staying in Zangir, Quargai
iii. Kunar
1,321 families repatriated in 2005 form FATA camps who are staying in Sirkanay, Khas
Kunar, Shigal, Marawara and Asadabad
41
Afghanistan IDPs - Eastern Region Returnees from Pakistan 2005 - 2008 & New Conflict Affected IDPs
No. of Individuals in Displacement - 14 Aug 08
Branch Office Kabul
Geographic Information and Mapping Unit
Operational Information Section
Bargi Matal
Nuristan
Kunar
Laghman
Nangarhar
Kamdesh
Mandol
Parun
Nuristan
Du Ab
Waygal
Ghaziabad
Nari
Shaygal wa shital
Wama
Daulatshahi
Nurgaram
Chapa Dara
No Window
Dara-I-Pech
Bar Kunar
Dangam
Wata Pur
Kunar
Asadabad
Marawara
Alingar
Alishing
Narang
Laghman
Sarkani
Returnees 2005 - 2007
7926
New conflict affected
3462
Dara-I-Nur
:
Mihtarlam
Nurgal
Khas Kunar
Kuz Kunar
Qarghayi
Surkh Rod
:
Siasang - Returnees 2008
384
Bihsud
:
:
Kama
Goshta
Jalalabad
:
Lower Shikh Mesri - Returnees 2008
480
Nangarhar
Lal Por
Bati Kot
Hesarak
Khogayani
Chaparhar
Rodat
Muhmand Dara
Shinwar
Shirzad
Kot
Dur Baba
Pachier Agam
Deh Bala
Returnees 2005 - 2007
576
Returnees 2008
4380
Acheen
Nazyan
Page 42
Returnees 2005 - 2007
12600
Tangi 2 - Returnees 2008
4542
Chamtala - Returnees 2008
21534
Boundaries
Province
District
Province center
: IDP Settlement/Camp
Data Date & Source: UNHCR sub/filed offices Jan - 10 Aug 2008
Chawkay
ANNEX 5
DISPLACEMENT IN THE SOUTHEASTERN REGION
The Southeastern Region of the country, addressed by UNHCR’s office in Gardez, covers the
provinces of Paktya, Khost and Paktika . The SE is a very conservative area in which the Taliban
have a great deal of power; in September 2006, the Governor of Paktya was killed by a suicide
bomber. The area is also extremely poor, politics is in the hands of tribal groups, there is a lot of
intra-tribal conflict (Pashtun against Pashtun) and the reach of government is limited. Paktika
and Khost are difficult to access, although there is a regular UNAMA helicopter flight to Khost
city, and UNAMA and UNHCR have a small presence there. There is a protracted caseload of
approximately nearly 2,000 families and a small case load of new conflict-affected families and
battle-affected IDPs.
a. The protracted case load
The protracted caseload is comprised of 1,943 families (12,341 individuals) – according to a
survey conducted in July 2008 by WFP. 11 These are people who “voluntarily” returned to
Afghanistan from the FATA (Federally Administered Tribal Area) of Pakistan when the camps
there were closed in late 2005. Most of them were Kuchi who had migrated with their cattle
between Pakistan (where they wintered) and Afghanistan (walking between Khost, Paktya and
Logar in the summer). When the Russians invaded, this group left Afghanistan on a more
permanent basis to escape the fighting and bombing and were forced to give up their cattle and
their nomadic way of life. When they returned in 2005, their population had expanded by more
than 300 percent and they did not have land in their place of origin or houses to support this
enlarged community. They, therefore, settled in Khost where they were able to find work. (Khost
is warmer than in Patkya, agriculture is more substantial, and there is the poppy cultivation to
provide a seasonal income.)
These IDPs initially lived in 13 open-air settlements in Khost Centre, Terizai and Bak districts of
Khost province, though only 8 of these settlements still exist, and they are no longer “open-air” as
the IDPs have build more permanent shelters on these sites. They are the following:
Settlement
1. Khani Khwar
2. Kundi Sahara
3. Farm Bagh
4. Chargoti
5. Kaga Zawar
6. Mangas
7. Wacha Khwara
8. Badam Bagh
TOTAL
Families
257
14
280
138
78
14
868
294
1,943
Individuals
1,472
98
1,668
902
515
95
5,539
2,052
12,341
Of the groups documented in the Chart above, we have more detailed information about the
population in some of the settlements listed. In Badam Bagh, for example, of a group of 232
families (1,376) who are being asked to relocate because the area where they live is to be
redeveloped, we have data that 170 families originate in Khost, 9 families are from Paktya, 76
from Paktika, 2 from Kabul, 7 from Kapisa and 2 from Kunduz. Those families who originate
from Khost are being evaluated by the Land Allocation Committee to see if they are eligible to
11
In 2006, when this group was initially surveyed, there were 2,292 families totally 12,402 individuals.
43
receive a plot under Presidential Edict 104. For the rest, some other solution will need to be found
as there is very strong resistance to the idea of allocating scarce land to people who do not
originate from Khost. A similar situation has emerged for the Wacha Khwara settlement, where
some of the IDPs will have to relocate.
There are, however, certain elements of the protracted caseload about which our information is
poor or confusing. For example, one of the original open-air settlements – Bak (Ghasho Sam) -was on a piece of land which both the Kuchi IDPs and the Babakar Khel tribe claimed. There
were 380 Kuchi families (1,949 individuals) living in the settlement in 2006. Several fights broke
out between the protagonists, the last of which took place in 2006 and led the Kuchi to leave.
When they evacuated Bak, they went initially to the Sorwai Pan area and later scattered to various
locations. Apparently, they have now regrouped and settled in a valley on the western side of
Khai Khwar, almost 10 km from Khost City. But they have not been assessed and are not in the
above statistics.
Also not in the statistics are 7 families (49 individuals) in another of the “closed” settlements,
Babrak Tana, and 9 families (59 individuals) who had lived a settlement called Sarkay Teega. In
both cases, it is suggested that these families may have moved to Logar province, but also that
they may return to Khost for the winter.
More puzzling yet, however, is the situation of a group that identify themselves as the Mullachel
(or Mullah Khel) tribe, part of the 2005 FATA return. In this case, they were forced back to
Afghanistan in November 2005 after the onset of winter, their homes bulldozed by Pakistani
security forces, and without Voluntary Repatriation Forms (VRFs). The leaders of this group
claim that their community is comprised of 2,222 families and that they are living in 6 villages in
Ali Shir district, a highly insecure area which abuts Pakistan. Others suggest that many of them
actually live in the 8 settlements described above, and that others may be living on the Pakistani
side of the border, or migrating. It is, however, impossible to get better information because of the
insecurity of the area. They are also not included in the statistics presented here.
(b) New-conflict IDPs
There is group of IDPs who are living in the Terwi district of Paktika, comprised of 254 families
(about 1,524 individuals). These IDPs are from the Nasir tribe who are originally from the
Shamalzai district in Zabul. After they returned to from Pakistan in 2005, they went back to their
area of origin but were chased away by Shamalzai tribesmen because of an old property dispute.
(c) Battle-affected IDPs
Beyond this, there are other people affected by fighting who become IDPs in the Southeast,
though we have little information about their numbers or their condition. What we know is as
follows:
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
26 March 2008, DoRR Gardez informed UNHCR of the arrival of 5 IDP families (27
individuals) from Mirman Daw village in Greghk District, Hilmand Province, fleeing
conflict there.
35 families who originate from Gardi Seri, Paktya province, living in Gardez town,
having fled fighting between Coalition Forces and insurgents, air strikes and insecurity
87 families from Paktya, also fleeing fighting and insecurity, living in several villages
(Sahak, Tameer and Ghandak) near Gardez.
44
Branch Office Kabul
Afghanistan IDPs - Southeast Region IDPs Caseload No. of Individuals in Displacement - 14 Aug 08
Geographic Information and Mapping Unit
Operational Information Section
Ali Khail (Jaji)
Battle affected
759
Laja Ahmad Khail
Chamkani
Paktya
Ahmad Abad
Dand Patan
Khani Khwar
1472
Sayed Karam
Paktya
Khost
Jani Khail
Jaji Maidan
Paktika
Gardiz
Mosa Khail
Sabri
Bak
Qalandar
Shawak
Zurmat
Nadir Shah Kot
Mata Khan
:::
:
:: :
:
Khost(Matun)
Zadran
Shamal
Mando Zayi
Khost
Nika
Sharan
Gurbuz
Ziruk
Spira
Tani
Sar Hawza
Yosuf Khel
Urgun
Gayan
Yahya Khel
Badam Bagh
2052
Omna
Tere Zayi
Kundi Sahara
98
Farm Bagh
1668
Chargoti
902
Kaga Zawar
515
Mangas
95
Wacha Khawa
5539
No Window
Zarghun Shahr
Sarobi
Jani Khel
Barmal
Paktika
Gomal
Waza Khwa
New conflict affected
1524
Wor Mayi
Turwo
Boundaries
Province
District
Province center
Page 45
: IDP Settlement/Camp
Data Date & Source: UNHCR sub/filed offices Jan - 10 Aug 2008
Dila
IDPs in Kabul
46
ANNEX 6
DISPLACEMENT IN THE NORTHERN AND NORTHEASTERN REGIONS
Although there are people from northern provinces living in displacement in both the Western
and Southern Regions unwilling or unable to return, the Northern and Northeast Regions do not
themselves have a large protracted IDP population. There have, however, been recent
displacements because of the continuing drought. And, while these displacements have been
relatively small scale the past few years, this year threatened a different situation. According to
the Ministry of Rural Rehabilitation and Development, based on a survey across 500 locations in
the north, the drought has resulted in the almost total failure of the wheat crop in rain fed areas
and a 50% failure in irrigated areas. Coupled with the sharp rise in the cost of food, an alarming
food security situation emerged.
(a) Protracted Caseload
At the present time, the protracted caseload in the North and Northeaster Regions, the numbers
are as follows:
Province
Balk
Faryab
Kunduz
Takhar
TOTAL
Number of Families
37
27
195
106
365
Number of Individuals
211
127
975
530
1,843
In Balkh Province:
ƒ
Protracted IDPs in Nahrshahi district. Around 20 Pashtun families (100 individuals) in
Shahrak-e-Afghania village, the remaining part of a group of around 300 Pashtun
families from the remote and arid Omakai village of Zare district in Balkh province. A
semi-nomadic group, whose winter home was in Omakai, they left Zare in 2001, after the
collapse of the Taliban, accused by Uzbek commanders of collaborating with the Taliban,
and sought shelter in villages around Mazar and in surrounding districts. In 2006-2007,
UNHCR assisted 220 of these families to return home, while some others repatriated by
themselves or locally settled. The remaining 20 are unwilling to return because they have
personal security concerns. Unfortunately, those who have returned to Omakai and those
who have settled in Boybachaqaq village in Sholgara district are both facing legal
challenges to their right to settle on land they considered to be theirs. As well, in June
2008, it was clear that are both in serious need of water and food assistance.
ƒ
Protracted IDPs in Balkh district: 17 Pashtun families (111 individuals) in the centre
of Balkh district, the remaining part of a group of around 100 IDP families who originate
from Dawatabad and Sherintagab districts of Faryab province, displaced in 2001-2002 for
security, drought and economic reasons. In 2007, UNHCR assisted 43 families from the
group to return home and others have repatriated or relocated by themselves. These few
remaining families do not wish to return for security or other reasons.
47
ƒ
Balochi returnees from Jalozai (in Pakistan) – 200 families (1,200 individuals) who
returned to Sholgara district on 23 May and who are residing temporarily in a Buzkashi
stadium in Sholgara pending solution of their land issue. Government efforts to find a
durable solution for their settlement is going on and for the time being this group is
considered a caseload which is temporarily displaced and in need of assistance.
In Sare Pul Province:
ƒ
In Sayeed Aabad district: 25 Pashtun families in Zaka village who returned from
Kandahar 2-3 years ago and who are unable/unwilling to return to their remote village
because of a land dispute and insecurity. They hope to have land allocated to them in
Zaka. According to the Head of DoRR in Sare Pul, this caseload has no security problem
and they could return to their places of origin in Sayad District or they can stay in the
present area which they have purchased. Some of them requested DoRR/NRC to help
them with shelters in the places of origin and some on their purchased land in Zaka
village.
ƒ
In Sozma Qala district: 30 Aimaq families (Dari speaking) in Qala Qala village,
originating from Dara Zamchi/Awqaf village in Sancharak district. There is no confirmed
information about them.
ƒ
In Kohistanat District: 10 Aimaq families in Kalakhana village originally from Ghor who
left their place of origin in 2006 because of economic/drought problems; and 20 Aimaq
families in Chiras area who left Ghor in 2005 for similar reasons. They have not yet been
assessed.
ƒ
In Sare Pul Center: 100 Arab (Dari speaking) families in Sang Toda area who came in
2007 from their homes in Shiram area of Sare Pul because of drought. In 2008, around
200 more families have come to the same area again due to the drought and for economic
reasons.
In Faryab Province:
ƒ
Battle-affected IDPs in Maimana: 17 families (77 individuals) out of some 300 families
who had been displaced from the Pashtun Kot district in July 2006 by military fighting;
while the rest have returned, these prefer to remain in Maimana city and the surrounding
villages for economic reasons. Field Unit Maimana and DoRR state that these displaced
people can go back to their places of origin if they want to as they is no longer a security
problem there.
ƒ
Protracted IDPs in Almar district: 10 Tajik/Uzbek families (50 individuals) in Biglar
Village and Qaraye valley, originally from Quzat village of Kohistan district, displaced
more than 20 years ago after brutal killings between the families of two commanders.
ƒ
Protracted IDPs in Khohistan district: 15 families (75 individuals) displaced from villages
in the Gurziwan area by a local commander with security or economic reasons for not
returning. As per UNHCR’s assessment in June 2008, these displaced people have
already managed to return to their places of origin on their own.
48
In Samangan Province:
ƒ
About 75 families behind Karta-e-Khorasan village of Aybak city, from various districts
of Samangan, who came there two years ago primarily for economic reasons and are
living in makeshift shelters on government land. These are considered economic
migrants rather than IDPs.
ƒ
About 20 families in Shahikhail village of Aybak from Dara Payan district, who came in
2007, also for economic reasons, are living with family or friends and are considered
economic migrants.
In Kunduz Province:
ƒ
Protracted IDPs in Bagh-e-Shirkat area of Kunduz. 171 Gujor IDP families (855
individuals), part of a group of 277 Gujor families displaced in 2001/2002 from Farkhar
district of Takhar province and unable to return because of security issues.
ƒ
Protracted IDPs in villages around Kunduz city. 24 Pashtun families (120 individuals)
displaced in 2001 from Bolak Jalyer village in Bangi district of Takhar province, unable
to return because of security concerns.
In Takhar Province:
ƒ
Protracted Conflict IDPs – from the 277 Gujor families displaced from Farkhar district in
2001-2002, and unable to return for security reasons: 70 Gujor families (350 individuals)
in Baharak district; 24 Gujor families (120 individuals) in Chenar Village of Kalafgan
district, and 12 families (60 individuals) in Ishkashim district.
There are no known IDP groups in Baghlan or Jawzjan provinces.
(b) Drought affected
In 2008, the first concrete manifestation of displacement as a result of drought in the north
occurred in early June as some 2,000 families left their villages in the Alburz area of Chemtal
district, Balkh Province and trekked towards Mazar, setting ups shelters near Chesma e Shafa
area, still in Chimtal district. The number of families rose to over 6,129 in late June. Most of
those displaced were Arab and the displacement may, in part, have been motivated by an attempt
to stake out a land claim in Chimtal; the movement was also, undoubtedly, motivated by the hope
that the displaced would be in a better position to make the case for assistance.
The response of both Government and UN agencies was to offer assistance, but to help transport
the families from Alburz back to their homes -- to provide water and food there, not in the places
of displacement. The strategy, which was largely successful, was to avoid assistance in
displacement serving as a magnet for further displacement. This notwithstanding, there was – and
continues to be – displacement from villages Darzab to Jawzjan Center, to Kunduz, to Sari Pul
and to Pakistan. There has also been displacement from Mainmana to Pakistan. We are here
seeing traditional mechanisms for coping with seasonal drought. The numbers are difficult to
calculate with any precision as reports are sporadic: e.g., reports of 1,636 families displaced from
3 districts in Faryab or 500 families displaced from Qush Tepa district in Jawzjan. This year, to
more systematically address the humanitarian challenge that the drought posed, a Water and
Sanitation (WASH) Cluster and a Food and Agriculture Cluster were established in the North.
49
Branch Office Kabul
Afghanistan IDPs - Northern Region Protracted Caseload No. of Individuals in Displacement - 14 Aug 08
Geographic Information and Mapping Unit
Operational Information Section
JawzjanBalkh Kunduz
Badakhshan
Takhar
FaryabSari PulSamangan
Baghlan
Shaki
Darwazbala
Takhar
530
Balkh
211
Faryab
127
Jawzjan
No Window
Baghi Shirkat
Darqad Chah Ab
855
Yangi Qala
Imam Sahib
Khwaja Ghar
Mardyan
Balkh
Aqcha
Chimtal
Khulm
Qalay-I- Zal
Kunduz
Kunduz
Baharak
:
Chahar Dara
Hazrati Sultan
Dara-I-Sufi Payin
Almar
Sangcharak
Wakhan
Darayim
Kishim
Tashkan
Jurm
Warduj Ishkashiem
Tagab (Kishmi Bala)
Yamgan (Girwan)
Zebak
Ishkamish
Aybak
Kishindih
Namak Ab
Chal
Baghlani Jadid
Burka
Sayyad
Gosfandi
Baharak
Bangi
Sholgara
Sari Pul
Khwaja Sabz Posh Darzab
Maymana
Bilchiragh
Shahada
Khash
Kalfagan
Taluqan
Aliabad Khanabad
Feroz Nakhchir
Chahar Kint
Argo
Rustaq
Dashte Archi
Hazar Sumuch
Chahar Bolak
Nahri Shahi
Balkh
Khaniqa
Fayzabad
Mazari Sharif
Marmul
Shibirghan
Qush Tepa
Badakhshan
Kohistan
Shahri Buzurg
Yaftal Sufla
Fayzabad
Dashti Qala Takhar
Arghanj Khaw
Dawlatabad
Dawlatabad
Shirin Tagab
Yawan
Zari
Baghlan
Puli Khumri Khwaja
Nahrin Hijran (Jilga Nahrin)
Kuran Wa Munjan
Khost Wa Firing
Dahana-I- Ghuri
Pashtun Kot
Warsaj
Farang Wa Gharu
Khuram Wa Sarbagh
Samangan
Guzargahi Nur
Dih Salah
Dara-I-Sufi Bala
Faryab
Gurziwan
Sari Pul
Dushi
Ruyi Du Ab
Andarab
Puli Hisar
Qaysar
Kohistanat
Khinjan
Balkhab
Kohistan
Tala Wa Barfak
Boundaries
Province
District
Province center
Page 50
: IDP Settlement/Camp
Data Date & Source: UNHCR sub/filed offices Jan - 10 Aug 2008
Andkhoy
Shighnan
Raghistan
Sharak Hairatan
Kaldar
Khwaja Du Koh
Qaramqol
Kunduz city
120
Shortepa
Kham Ab
Mangajek
Kuf Ab
Khwahan
Khwaja Bahawuddin
Qarqin
Khani Chahar Bagh
Darwaz
ANNEX 7
DISPLACEMENT IN THE CENTRAL HIGHLANDS
This Region includes two Provinces – Bamyan and Daykundi. In addition to this, Lal wa Sargenal
district of Ghor and Behsuds I & II districts of Maidan Wardak province also fall under the
UNHCR Area of Operation for the Central Highlands.
There is no protracted case load in this region. However, there are some 20 IDP families from
Kijran and Gizab districts living in Nili Centre in Daykundi Province. These are political IDPs
who were driven out of their homes because of their political affiliation with and support for the
Government. These IDPs are extremely vulnerable and live in a precarious situation as they can
be targeted by AGEs even in Nili.
As well, in the past two months, the region has seen substantial displacement as a result of the
outbreak of fighting between Hazara farmers and Kuchi nomads in Bihsud I and II, districts of
Wardak Province. The fighting intensified in July as a result of which 20 Hazaras and 9 Kuchi
were killed, dozens wounded on both sides, and thousands of families displaced. This is a conflict
that has gone on for years between these two communities: the Kuchi (predominantly Pashtun)
who in summer travel with their flocks to the pasturelands of the Central Highlands, and the
Hazara, Afghanistan’s third largest ethnic group, the dominant group in the Central Highlands.
The conflict is in part over the rights to grazing land but it is also political. Kuchi elders complain
that since the overthrow of the Taliban government in 2001, Hazaras have enjoyed strong
international support and been given opportunities in government and other decision-making
bodies, while the Kuchi have been marginalized. For their part, Hazara elders believe the Kuchi
to have been collaborators of the mainly Pashtun Taliban and feel that they should be held
accountable for that. They also argue that the laws (both national and Shari’a) on the basis of
which the Kuchi claim pasture rights are being misinterpreted: that pasture land close to a village
belongs to that village and land usage cannot be given away to others without the consent of those
villagers.
Thousands of families were displaced internally from Behsuds I & II to the outskirts of the Baba
mountains and to the areas of Beshud II where there was no fighting. The displacements were not
only from the conflict zones, but also from surrounding areas, as families who feared that the
fighting might reach them also fled. As of the 28 July, 403 families were displaced from Behsud
to Bamyan Center or to the Kalo valley of Shiber district, while there were more Harzara families
who fled to Kabul
The conflict was mediated by a Presidential Commission and the Kuchi were asked to leave the
area; they only did so only at the end of August, when they normally leave the Highlands. The
situation will be clearer after the result of a Governmental assessment mission and a separate
inter-agency assessment mission are completed.
51