Government of Afghanistan
Ministry of Counter Narcotics
Vienna International Centre, PO Box 500, 1400 Vienna, Austria
Tel.: (+43-1) 26060-0, Fax: (+43-1) 26060-5866, www.unodc.org
Survey of Commercial Cannabis
Cultivation and Production 2011
SEPTEMBER 2012
Afghanistan
2011 Survey of Commercial Cannabis Cultivation and Production
ABBREVIATIONS
ANDS
Afghanistan National Development Strategy
AOPS
Annual Opium Poppy Survey
CNPA
Counter Narcotics Police of Afghanistan
ICMP
Illicit Crop Monitoring Programme (UNODC)
MCN
Ministry of Counter-Narcotics
NDCS
National Drug Control Strategy
UNODC United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The following organizations and individuals contributed to the implementation of the 2011 survey of
commercial cannabis cultivation and production and to the preparation of this report:
Ministry of Counter-Narcotics
Mohammad Ibrahim Azhar (Deputy Minister), Mir Abdullah Sadat (Director of Survey and Monitoring
Directorate), Saraj Ahmad (Deputy Director of Survey and Monitoring Directorate), Hamida Hussaini
(Administration Officer).
Survey Coordinators: Eshaq Masumi (Central Region), Abdul Mateen (Eastern Region), Abdul Latif
Ehsan (Western Region), Fida Mohammad (Northern Region), Mohammed Ishaq Anderabi (North-Eastern
Region), Khalil Ahmad (Southern Region), Khiali Jan Mangal (Eradication Verification Reporter), Sayed
Najibullah Ahmadi (Economic specialist), Mohammad Sadiq Rizaee (Remote Sensing), Shiraz Khan
Hadawe (GIS & Remote Sensing Analyst), Mohammad Ajmal (Database Officer), Sahar (Data entry),
Mohammad Hakim Hayat (Data entry).
United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (Kabul)
Jean-Luc Lemahieu (Country Representative), Ashita Mittal (Deputy Representative, Programme),
Devashish Dhar (International Project Coordinator), Ziauddin Zaki (National Project Coordinator), Abdul
Mannan Ahmadzai (Survey Officer), Noor Mohammad Sadiq (Database Developer).
Remote sensing analysts: Ahmad Jawid Ghiasee and Sayed Sadat Mehdi.
Survey Coordinators: Abdul Basir Basiret (Eastern Region), Abdul Jalil (Northern Region), Sayed Ahmad
(Southern Region), Fawad Ahmad Alaie (Western Region), Mohammad Rafi (North-eastern Region),
Rahimullah Omar (Central Region).
Provincial Coordinators: Fazal Mohammad Fazli (Southern Region), Mohammad Alam Ghalib Eastern
Region), Altaf Hussain Joya (Western Region), Lutfurhaman Lutfi (Northern Region).
United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (Vienna)
Sandeep Chawla (Director, Division for Policy Analysis and Public Affairs), Angela Me (Chief, Statistics
and Surveys Section-SASS), Martin Raithelhuber (Programme Officer), Philip Davis (Statistician), Coen
Bussink (GIS & Remote Sensing Expert), Irmgard Zeiler (Research Expert), Suzanne Kunnen (Public
Information Assistant, Studies and Threat Analysis Section), Jonathan Gibbons (Editor).
The implementation of the survey would not have been possible without the dedicated work of the field
surveyors, who often faced difficult security conditions.
The 2011 Survey of Commercial Cannabis Cultivation and Production was financed by the United States
of America. The MCN/UNODC Illicit Crop Monitoring activities in Afghanistan were made possible by
financial contributions from the Governments of Germany, Norway, the United Kingdom and the United
States of America.
2
2011 Survey of Commercial Cannabis Cultivation and Production
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ..........................................................................................................................7 1 INTRODUCTION .....................................................................................................................................9 2 CANNABIS IN AFGHANISTAN 2011: FACTS & FIGURES ...........................................................11 THE SCOPE OF THE SURVEY ..................................................................................................................... 11 THE EXTENT OF COMMERCIAL CANNABIS CULTIVATION IN 2011 ................................................ 11 CANNABIS YIELD AND POTENTIAL PRODUCTION ............................................................................. 17 CANNABIS PRICES ....................................................................................................................................... 18 3 SOCIO-ECONOMIC FACTORS OF CANNABIS CULTIVATION.................................................20 THE SCOPE OF THE SURVEY ..................................................................................................................... 20 CANNABIS GROWING HOUSEHOLDS ...................................................................................................... 20 SELF-REPORTED REASONS FOR CANNABIS CULTIVATION.............................................................. 20 CHARACTERIZING CANNABIS-GROWING VILLAGES......................................................................... 25 THE ROLE OF CANNABIS IN THE HOUSEHOLD ECONOMY ............................................................... 28 4 AFGHANISTAN CANNABIS AGRICULTURE .................................................................................36 THE CANNABIS PLANT ............................................................................................................................... 36 CANNABIS CROP CALENDAR ................................................................................................................... 37 THE PRODUCTION OF CANNABIS RESIN ............................................................................................... 39 5 METHODOLOGY ..................................................................................................................................43 SURVEY COMPONENTS .............................................................................................................................. 43 ESTIMATION METHODS ............................................................................................................................. 47 3
2011 Survey of Commercial Cannabis Cultivation and Production
INDEX OF TABLES__________________________________________________________________
Table 1: Commercial cannabis cultivation by province, 2009 - 2011 ............................................................. 13 Table 2: Cannabis and opium cultivation status, 2010 vs. 2011, by number of provinces (34 provinces) .. 14 Table 3: Cannabis and opium cultivation, by province, 2011 ......................................................................... 15 Table 4: Average cannabis garda yield, by region (kg/ha), 2011 .................................................................... 18 Table 5: Potential commercial cannabis resin garda production, 2011 ......................................................... 18 Table 6: Farm-gate prices of cannabis resin (garda), by region (US$/kg), January 2012 ............................ 18 Table 7: Farm-gate value of commercial cannabis production (US$ million), 2010 and 2011 .................... 19 Table 8: Sample and target provinces, 2011..................................................................................................... 44 Table 9: Distribution of fields, by type in the yield observation study, 2011 ................................................. 47 INDEX OF PHOTOS________________________________________________________________
Photo 1: Cannabis field at flowering stage in Sherzad district of Nangarhar province, 2011 ..................... 14 Photo 2: Cannabis fields at the flowering stage, as seen on a false-colour satellite image in Nangarhar and
Paktya provinces, 2011 ............................................................................................................................. 16 Photo 3: Cannabis at the flowering stage, Ahmad Abad district, Paktya province, 2011 ............................ 17 Photo 4: Mature female cannabis plant with resin glands .............................................................................. 22 Photo 5: Heli-picture of cannabis fields in Paktya province, 2011 ................................................................. 35 Photo 6: Morphological differences between male and female cannabis plants ........................................... 36 Photo 7 Cannabis garda processing in Logar province ................................................................................... 41 Photo 8 Pictures of cannabis fields at flowering stage ..................................................................................... 42 4
2011 Survey of Commercial Cannabis Cultivation and Production
INDEX OF FIGURES__________________________________________________________________
Figure 1 Regional shares of cannabis-growing villages, 2006-2011 ................................................................ 12 Figure 2 Farm-gate value of cannabis resin (US$ million), 2009-2011 .......................................................... 19 Figure 3: Reasons for cultivating cannabis in 2010 and 2011 (n = 410 farmers) .......................................... 20 Figure 4: Reasons for ceasing cannabis cultivation in or before 2011 (n = 696 farmers) ............................. 21 Figure 5: Replacement of cannabis income reported by farmers who ceased cannabis cultivation in or
before 2011 (n = 704 farmers) .................................................................................................................. 22 Figure 6: Conditions for potentially resuming cannabis cultivation in future, reported by farmers who
ceased cultivation (n = 90 farmers) .......................................................................................................... 23 Figure 7: Reasons for never cultivating cannabis (n = 3,403 farmers) .......................................................... 24 Figure 8: Reasons for potentially cultivating cannabis in future, reported by farmers who had never
grown cannabis (n = 47 farmers) ............................................................................................................. 24 Figure 9: Access to schools in the cannabis risk area, by cannabis growing status, 2011 ............................ 25 Figure 10 Access to certain facilities in cannabis-growing villages and cannabis-free villages, 2011 ......... 26 Figure 11: Types of agricultural assistance received in 2011, reported by headmen (n=529 villages) ........ 27 Figure 12: Cannabis cultivation frequency in 2006 to 2011 of cannabis-cultivating farmers in 2011 (n=417
farmers) ...................................................................................................................................................... 28 Figure 13: Years of cannabis cultivation between 2006 and 2011, reported by cannabis-growing farmers
in 2011 (n=417 farmers) ............................................................................................................................ 29 Figure 14 Price data of cannabis and opium, 2005-2012 ................................................................................. 30 Figure 15: Average annual per-hectare income from cannabis and opium (US$/ha), 2011 ........................ 31 Figure 16: Contributions to 2010 income, by type of farmer (data collected in 2011).................................. 32 Figure 17: Distribution of cultivated area under main cash crops for cannabis farmers, 2011 (n = 417
farmers) ...................................................................................................................................................... 33 Figure 18: Payment of usher reported by cannabis farmers in 2011, by region (n = 417 farmers)............. 34 Figure 19: Type of usher payment made by cannabis farmers (n= 43 farmers) ........................................... 34 Figure 20: Recipients of usher payment, reported by cannabis farmers (n = 47 farmers) .......................... 35 Figure 21: Varieties of cannabis cultivated in 2010 and 2011, reported by cannabis farmers .................... 37 Figure 22: Seasonal price index of cannabis..................................................................................................... 38 Figure 23 Scatter plots of household data, village data and population data of the village frame .............. 48 5
2011 Survey of Commercial Cannabis Cultivation and Production
FACT SHEET
2011 Survey of Commercial Cannabis Cultivation and Production
Change
on 2010
2010
Commercial, mono-crop cannabis
cultivation 1
Number of provinces with commercial,
mono-crop cannabis cultivation
Average cannabis resin powder (garda)
yield from cannabis in mono-crop
cultivation
Potential cannabis resin powder (garda)
production 2
Average farm-gate price of cannabis resin
powder at time of resin processing
(January), weighted by production
Total farm-gate value of cannabis resin
production (all garda qualities)
As percentage of GDP 3
12,000 ha
(8,000-17,000 ha)
9,000-29,000 ha
19
First Garda:
Second Garda:
Third Garda:
Total:
+2
63 kg/ha
41 kg/ha
24 kg/ha
128 kg/ha
-13%
21
First Garda:
Second Garda:
Third Garda:
Total:
First Garda:
US$ 95/kg
Second
US$ 63/kg
Garda:
US$ 39/kg
Third Garda:
US$ 95 million
(US$ 78-135 million)
US$ 86/kg
US$ 66/kg
US$ 39/kg
US$ 85-263 million
0.7%-2.0%
0.6%
Cannabis growing households 4
47,000
+38%
65,000
Average cannabis cultivated per cannabis
growing household (all households)
0.33 ha
-12%
0.29 ha
Proportion of cannabis farmers who also
grew opium
61%
Average yearly gross income from cannabis
of cannabis growing households 5
US$ 3,000
51 kg/ha
36 kg/ha
25 kg/ha
112 kg/ha
1,300 tons
(1,000-1,900 tons)
1,200-3,700 tons
First Garda:
Second Garda:
Third Garda:
2011
58%
-20%
US$ 2,400
-10%/
US$ 8,100/7,300
-12%
Note: Numbers in parentheses refer to the lower and upper bounds of the estimation range.
Income from cannabis per ha (gross/net)
US$ 9,000/8,300
1
Refers to the area with commercial, mono-crop cultivation in the cannabis risk area (23 out of 34 provinces of
Afghanistan). Small-scale cannabis cultivation in kitchen gardens, lines of cannabis around fields (bund cultivation) and
fields of cannabis mixed with other crops are not considered in this area estimate.
2
Refers to air-dried cannabis powder (not adjusted for moisture). Includes estimated potential production from fields of
cannabis mixed with other crops and from bunds (about 2% of total production). Production from other cultivation types e.g.
in kitchen gardens could not be estimated.
3
Nominal GDP for the respective year. Source: Government of Afghanistan.
4
The estimate is based on headmen interviews from the village survey. It comprises all cannabis-growing households
reported by headmen, i.e. possibly also households with only small-scale cannabis cultivation. The contribution of such
households to the total cannabis cultivation area and cannabis production could not be estimated.
5
6
Income figures are indicative only; they do not include all expenditure and income components associated with cultivation.
2011 Survey of Commercial Cannabis Cultivation and Production
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The 2011 Survey of Commercial Cannabis Cultivation and Production estimated the total area under
cultivation in 2011 at 12,000 hectares and a potential production of 1,300 tons. These figures only include
commercial, mono-crop cannabis cultivation as the survey tool cannot capture small-scale “kitchen
garden” cultivation of cannabis, which is often for localized and/or personal use and is only thought to
account for a small percentage of total production.
Afghanistan’s importance as a producer of cannabis resin does not necessarily mean that it is the principal
supplier of the world’s big cannabis resin markets in North Africa, Europe and South-West Asia, but its
relative importance may be growing whereas that of Morocco, though still very considerable, may be on
the decline. 6 Likewise, seizure data imply that not even all the cannabis resin trafficked in South-West
Asia originates in Afghanistan.
Signs of both stabilisation and change
In 2011, cultivation and production of cannabis resin in Afghanistan appeared stable and there was no
evidence of substantive change in comparison to the previous UNODC cannabis surveys of 2009 and
2010. Nevertheless, the number of cannabis-growing households in Afghanistan increased by 38 per cent,
from 47,000 in 2010 to 65,000 in 2011, virtually all of whom were sporadic growers who had chosen that
year to cultivate cannabis once again, while only a small amount were first-time cannabis growers.
Moreover, commercial cannabis resin cultivation has spread to more and more provinces, being cultivated
in almost two thirds of them (21 provinces) in 2011 as opposed to in only half (17 out of 34) in 2009.
Principal among the numerous contributing factors to the spread of cannabis cultivation in Afghanistan is
the fact that the price of cannabis has increased dramatically in the past few years, with best quality resin
rising from US$ 35/kg to US$ 95/kg since 2009. UNODC price monitoring shows that the cannabis price
rise has developed in parallel with the opium price hike caused by the opium crop failure in 2010, making
its per-hectare income similar to that of opium and thus financially very attractive to farmers. But because
cannabis cultivation is less labour intensive — less weeding is involved and the extraction of “garda”
(powdered cannabis resin) can be done at home in a matter of weeks with the help of family members
instead of hired labour — it is actually more cost-effective than opium.
A lucrative sideline
Such advantages contribute to the status of cannabis as a lucrative cash crop. Yet the average area
cultivated dropped from 0.4 ha (2009) to 0.29 ha (2011), thus although more households grew cannabis in
2011 they actually cultivated a smaller area than previously, while the per-hectare yield also decreased by
25 per cent from its 2009 level, especially for best quality resin. The increase in the number of households
cultivating cannabis may mean that there are more, if smaller scale, cannabis growers who benefit from
cannabis as a lucrative sideline on an opportunistic basis. Indeed, the majority of farmers interviewed do
not grow cannabis every year, some grow every other year and some do so even less frequently. To a
certain extent, the cultivation of cannabis in Afghanistan thus appears to be self limiting — but why?
Cannabis is a summer crop and the agricultural area available is much reduced in summer. Indeed, in the
south, west and east of the country winter/spring cultivation is predominant, which is when most arable
land is available. Cannabis needs irrigation water, which decreases with the arrival of summer and is only
sufficient for a partial summer crop. Farmers have to balance different requirements, such as the provision
of fodder for livestock, and have risk-minimizing strategies, meaning that they always grow some staple
crops and hesitate to devote all their available land to just one crop. Cannabis has a long vegetation period
lasting into October/November so no winter crop can be planted on a harvested cannabis field, which must
then remain fallow, leading to a loss of income and all the subsequent ramifications.
6
World Drug Report, 2011 UNODC
7
2011 Survey of Commercial Cannabis Cultivation and Production
The links between poppy and cannabis
A certain portion of farmers do not engage in cannabis cultivation at all because it is forbidden in Islam.
The same is true for opium, which, while it is grown by many more households, on much more land and to
a far greater extent, often co-exists with cannabis in Afghanistan. For example, commercial cannabis
cultivation has shifted over the past half decade from the north to the more insecure south of the country
and its cultivation is geographically associated with that of opium. Most cannabis-cultivating provinces
also produced poppy in 2011 (15 out of 21 provinces), with the increase in cannabis-cultivating provinces
since 2009 mainly being due to poppy provinces commencing commercial cannabis cultivation, to the
extent that all major poppy-cultivating provinces also contained cannabis cultivation, while provinces free
of poppy and cannabis continued to remain so. Furthermore, to a large extent those involved in cannabis
and opium cultivation are actually the same people, even if opium growing households do not grow
cannabis every year: in 2011, a large majority of cannabis farmers in Afghanistan (58%) also grew poppy,
but only 6% of poppy farmers grew cannabis in that year. Moreover, many opium traffickers also trade in
cannabis resin and there seems to be a striking correlation between opium and cannabis farm-gate prices,
suggesting a considerable degree of market integration.
Another of the principal similarities between poppy and commercial cannabis cultivation is that
households growing illicit crops have a much smaller share of remittances than non-growing households,
meaning that one or more members of the household works abroad. Cannabis-growing households often do
not have to send members abroad as they can earn the necessary cash component by growing cannabis. A
similar pattern exists for poppy-growing households.
However, there are also some important differences between opium and cannabis production. For example,
cannabis garda quality reportedly deteriorates after a couple of months so most farmers sell the complete
harvest before that happens (represented by the strong post-harvest dip in prices in the months of January
to March). Processing garda into hashish can increase storability but the process is time consuming and
adds little value for farmers, who already make a tidy profit by producing garda. Opium, on the other hand,
can be stored for years without losing quality, and can be used as a store of value (effectively a bank
account), while cannabis, though undoubtedly an attractive cash crop, cannot.
The future
Another important difference between cannabis and poppy is that there is increasing Government pressure
to eradicate poppy cultivation in Afghanistan whereas eradication of cannabis is not underpinned by
systematic programmes for eradication and alternative development, nor by the support of financial
donors. In addition, the associated lower cost of cannabis cultivation in comparison to poppy cultivation
(estimated at 10% and 40% of gross income, respectively) makes it more profitable than opium. The
possibility of the commercial production of cannabis gradually playing a much bigger role in the illicit
Afghan economy, and eventually replacing opium, is unlikely, but still possible.
The huge disparity between the current size of areas under cultivation of the two drugs means that ― even
if that were possible ― it would not happen in the short term, while the aforementioned environmental and
agricultural limitations of cannabis cultivation would make it difficult. But shedding light on price trend
coincidence between opium and cannabis farm-gate prices, cannabis trafficking and export, and cannabis
cultivation in neighbouring countries would certainly help understand the future of commercial cannabis
cultivation in Afghanistan.
Any policy aimed at reducing cannabis production in Afghanistan should, however, take into account the
links between the two illicit crops and that there is a large pool of sporadic commercial cannabis farmers
who may be prepared to cultivate cannabis more frequently should farm-gate prices remain high. The
challenge to policymakers is to understand the decision-making process at the household level regarding
the sporadic nature of cannabis cultivation and to develop strategies accordingly.
8
2011 Survey of Commercial Cannabis Cultivation and Production
1 INTRODUCTION
This report presents the results of the third dedicated Afghanistan Cannabis Survey implemented by
UNODC and the Ministry of Counter Narcotics (MCN). The first survey was carried out in 2009, as
evidence from cannabis resin seizures had long pointed to Afghanistan as one of the world’s main
producers of the drug.
The 2011 cannabis survey covered the “cannabis risk area” in Afghanistan, i.e. 23 provinces in which
commercial cannabis cultivation had been observed or reported in past surveys. Field information from the
county’s other 11 provinces indicated that cannabis cultivation either did not exist or was limited to
kitchen gardens or other forms of small-scale, non-commercial cultivation, which are out of the scope of
this research.
Based on the evidence gathered over three consecutive years and due to methodological improvements, in
2011, it was possible to provide point estimates for the area under cannabis cultivation, potential resin
powder production, and the farm-gate value of production for the first time. In addition, it was possible to
assess the production of cannabis from mixed-crop fields and on bunds around fields.
The survey consisted of village level interviews with farmers and headmen in over 1,500 villages, yield
studies and satellite image interpretation. The main village survey with headmen and farmer interviews
was implemented between July and September 2011. Cannabis resin yield was investigated through the
information provided by headmen and farmers during the village survey and a yield observation study
undertaken in December 2011-January 2012, when the processing of cannabis resin production took place.
The overall cannabis area estimate is based on the interpretation of 155 very high-resolution satellite
images and village survey estimation for the provinces not covered in satellite imagery.
The 2011 Survey of Commercial Cannabis Cultivation and Production has been implemented within the
technical framework of UNODC’s Illicit Crop Monitoring Programme (ICMP) under the project
AD/AFG/F98. The objective of ICMP is to assist the international community in monitoring the extent and
evolution of illicit crops within the context of the Political Declaration and Plan of Action on International
Cooperation towards an Integrated and Balanced Strategy to Counter the World Drug Problem, adopted by
Member States in 2009 7 .
7
E/2009/28, E/CN.7/2009/12, Political Declaration and Plan of Action on International Cooperation towards an
Integrated and Balanced Strategy to Counter the World Drug Problem.
9
36° N
33° N
IRAN
Nimroz
Farah
Hirat
63° E
Faryab
Ghor
Hilmand
Badghis
TURKMEN ISTAN
63° E
66° E
Kandahar
Uruzgan
Zabul
Day kundi
0
Parwan
Nuristan
Khost
200
300
km
PA K I S TA N
Paktiya
¯
Paktika
100
Panjshir
Badakhshan
Kapisa
Kunar
Laghman
Kabul
Nangarhar
Logar
Baghlan
Takhar
69° E
Geographic Projection Datum: WGS 84
50
Ghazni
69° E
Kunduz
Wardak
Samangan
Bamyan
Balkh
UZBE KISTAN
Sari Pul
Jawzjan
66° E
Source: MCN - UNO DC Afghani stan Cannab is Survey, 20 11
Note: The bo undari es and na me s shown and th e d esig nations u sed on this map do no t imply officia l e ndorsement or a cceptance by the United Na tion s.
30° N
TA J I K I S TA N
75° E
72° E
Provincial Boundary
International Boundary
75° E
No commercial cannabis
Outside surveyed cannabis risk area
(no cultivation reported)
Commercial cannabis
Commercial cannabis cultivation status
Legend
72° E
36° N
33° N
10
30° N
Map1: Commercial cannabis cultivation status, by province, 2011
2011 Survey of Commercial Cannabis Cultivation and Production
2011 Survey of Commercial Cannabis Cultivation and Production
2 CANNABIS IN AFGHANISTAN 2011: FACTS & FIGURES
The scope of the survey
The 2011 cannabis survey covered the “cannabis risk area” in Afghanistan, which consists of 23 provinces
where commercial cannabis cultivation had been observed or reported in past surveys. On the basis of
reports and observations from regional and provincial survey coordinators it was concluded that in the
other 11 provinces cannabis cultivation either did not exist or was limited to kitchen gardens or other forms
of small-scale, non-commercial cultivation. To optimize the allocation of resources it was therefore
decided to concentrate efforts on the 23 of the 34 provinces of Afghanistan that make up the cannabis risk
area.
The main components of the survey were a socio-economic survey conducted in 1,509 villages in the risk
area, which included interviews with village headman and individual interviews with three farmers per
village. In addition to this “village survey”, 155 high-resolution satellite images of 14 provinces were
obtained and analysed. This “satellite survey” covered only fields with mono-crop cannabis but in some
provinces cannabis is intercropped with licit crops, making the interpretation of satellite images and
responses from farmers difficult. Such mixed fields, which do not show a typical cannabis reflectance
pattern in images, cannot be identified with current remote-sensing methodology. Thus, the area estimate
from the remote sensing survey refers only to mono-crop cannabis fields and does not consider cannabis in
kitchen-gardens, along field boundaries and in mixed fields. Results from the village survey were used to
complement the satellite survey estimates in provinces not covered by the satellite imagery.
The extent of commercial cannabis cultivation in 2011
The area under cannabis cultivation in Afghanistan in 2011 was estimated to be 12,000 ha (8,000 – 17,000
ha). Due to the experience gained in the preceding years, it was possible to provide a point estimate with a
range for the first time. The results are therefore not directly comparable to the 2010 estimate, which was
9,000-29,000 ha, but lie well within its range.
The area estimate covers only fields with mono-crop cannabis and is therefore an estimate of large-scale,
“commercial” production. That is to say that small-scale cultivation, such as in kitchen gardens, flower
pots, along the walls of compounds, along the boundaries of fields, “wild cannabis” or cannabis intercropped with other crops in the same field at the same time, is not part of the area estimates of this survey.
In 21 out of 23 provinces in the cannabis risk area, the drug was found to be cultivated. Out of those 21
provinces, 14 were covered by high-resolution satellite images, while the remaining 7 provinces were
covered by the village survey only (see table 1). The area estimate is a combined estimate for all 21
provinces (see Methodology section).
The survey found that roughly 40% of cannabis cultivation in 2011 was in the Southern region (a separate
estimate cannot be provided because the survey was not designed for providing estimates with sufficient
accuracy at the provincial level), a regional disparity that, by and large, reflects the current pattern of
opium cultivation, though cannabis was also found in several poppy-free provinces. However, there is a
clear geographic association between opium and cannabis cultivation at the provincial level.
Regional trends in commercial cannabis cultivation
A dedicated annual survey for measuring the extent of cannabis cultivation and production in Afghanistan
was undertaken by UNODC in each of the three years, 2009-2011. However, information on cannabis
cultivation was also collected during the Annual Opium Surveys from 2005 to 2011 in which information
was collected on farmers’ intentions to cultivate cannabis in each of those years. Some information on
trends over that period can be drawn from those sources, although there are some limitations. The village
level interviews undertaken during the opium survey were conducted during the opium cultivation period
(spring) before cannabis, a summer crop, was planted. Thus, reporting was based on farmers’ intentions
rather than actual cultivation as farmers could subsequently change their decision regarding summer
cultivation. Furthermore, the existence of cannabis cultivation could not be verified by the surveyors
during the opium surveys since the crop was not yet visible in fields. Given those limitations, an accurate
area estimate of cannabis cultivation could not be made on the basis of interviews carried out during the
opium poppy survey, but some conclusions can be drawn from it:
11
2011 Survey of Commercial Cannabis Cultivation and Production
•
During the period under review (2005-2011), the proportion of villages reporting cannabis
cultivation was always much smaller than the proportion of opium-cultivating villages. Typically,
the samples showed about two to four times more opium-cultivating than cannabis-cultivating
villages.
•
The lower proportion of cannabis-cultivating villages and the smaller area of cannabis cultivated
per village compared to opium cultivation, indicate that the level of cannabis cultivation in the
years 2005 to 2011 was well below the level of opium cultivation in the same period.
•
The proportion of villages in the sample reporting cannabis cultivation in the Southern region
dramatically increased between 2005 and 2009 and slightly decreased in 2010 and 2011. The
number of cannabis-cultivating villages in the Northern region decreased between 2005 and 2009,
and slightly increased in 2010 and 2011. Due to the low number of cannabis villages found in all
of those years, it is difficult to assess whether such proportional changes indicate a change in
cannabis cultivation in absolute terms in those regions.
The information on cannabis collected through the Annual Opium Surveys cannot be directly compared
with the information collected during the three cannabis surveys as the opium surveys cover all provinces
of Afghanistan, whereas the cannabis surveys cover only provinces identified as the cannabis risk area. In
addition, only a small proportion of villages included in the opium surveys reported cannabis cultivation
and that limited the reliability of the information collected on cannabis.
Figure 1 Regional shares of cannabis-growing villages, 2006-2011
Cannabis villages in AOPS as % of total villages
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Central
Eastern
2006
North eastern
2007
2008
2009
Northern
2010
Southern
2011
Source: MCNUNODC: Annual Opium Surveys 2006-2011
12
Western
2011 Survey of Commercial Cannabis Cultivation and Production
Table 1: Commercial cannabis cultivation by province, 2009 - 2011
PROVINCE
Kabul***
Khost
Logar**
Paktya**
Panjshir
Parwan
Wardak
Ghazni
Paktika***
Central Region
Kapisa***
Kunar
Laghman
Nangarhar**
Nuristan
Eastern Region
Badakhshan**
Takhar***
Kunduz***
North-eastern Region
Baghlan**
Balkh**
Bamyan
Faryab***
Jawzjan***
Samangan
Sari Pul***
Northern Region
Hilmand**
Kandahar**
Uruzgan**
Zabul**
Day Kundi**
Southern Region
Badghis***
Farah**
Ghor
Hirat**
Nimroz**
Western Region
Cannabis cultivation
2009
Not in risk area*
Not in risk area*
Yes
Yes
Not in risk area*
Not in risk area*
Not in risk area*
Not in risk area*
Not in risk area*
Yes
Not in risk area*
Not in risk area*
Not in risk area*
Yes
Not in risk area*
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Insignificant
Yes
Not in risk area*
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Not in risk area*
Yes
Yes
Yes
Not in risk area*
Yes
Yes
Yes
Cannabis cultivation
2010
Not in risk area*
Yes
Yes
Yes
Not in risk area*
Not in risk area*
Not in risk area*
Not in risk area*
Not in risk area*
Yes
Not in risk area*
Not in risk area*
Not in risk area*
Yes
Not in risk area*
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
No
Not in risk area*
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Not in risk area*
Yes
Yes
Yes
Cannabis cultivation
2011
Yes
Not in risk area*
Yes
Yes
Not in risk area*
Not in risk area*
Not in risk area*
Not in risk area*
Yes
Yes
Yes
Not in risk area*
Not in risk area*
Yes
Not in risk area*
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Not in risk area*
Yes
No
Not in risk area*
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Not in risk area*
Yes
Yes
Yes
Total (rounded)
10,000-24,000
9,000-29,000
12,000
* Provinces not in the cannabis risk area as defined for the cannabis survey of the given year.
** Estimates 2011 based on satellite images. *** Estimates 2011 based on village survey.
13
2011 Survey of Commercial Cannabis Cultivation and Production
Geographical distribution of commercial cannabis and opium cultivation
As in 2009 and 2010, most commercial cannabis cultivation in 2011 occurred in the Southern region,
where most opium cultivation (78%) was also found. Cannabis was cultivated in all five Southern
provinces (Day Kundi, Hilmand, Kandahar, Uruzgan, and Zabul) and there is a clear geographical
association between opium and cannabis cultivation at the provincial level. That association exists at a
household level, too, with almost two thirds of cannabis-growing households (58%) also reporting poppy
cultivation in the preceding season.
Table 2: Cannabis and opium cultivation status, 2010 vs. 2011, by number of provinces (34 provinces)
Illicit cultivation status
Cannabis only
Opium poppy only
Cannabis and opium poppy
Neither cannabis nor opium poppy
2009
2010
2011
7
10
4
13
8
3
11
12
6
2
15
11
Note: Provinces with less than 100 ha of poppy cultivation are considered to be “poppy-free”. For cannabis, no
such threshold was applied as only commercial production was considered.
Photo 1: Cannabis field at flowering stage in Sherzad district of Nangarhar province, 2011
14
2011 Survey of Commercial Cannabis Cultivation and Production
Table 3: Cannabis and opium cultivation, by province, 2011
Opium cultivation
2011 (ha)**
Commercial cannabis
cultivation 2011
Kabul
Khost
Logar
Paktya
Panjshir
Parwan
Wardak
Ghazni
Paktika
Central Region
220
Poppy-free
Poppy-free
Poppy-free
Poppy-free
Poppy-free
Poppy-free
Poppy-free
Poppy-free
220
Kapisa
Kunar
Laghman
Nangarhar
Nuristan
Eastern Region
181
578
624
2,700
Poppy-free
4,082
Badakhshan
Takhar
Kunduz
North-eastern Region
1,705
Poppy-free
Poppy-free
1,705
Baghlan
Balkh
Bamyan
Faryab
Jawzjan
Samangan
Sari Pul
Northern Region
161
Poppy-free
Poppy-free
145
Poppy-free
Poppy-free
Poppy-free
305
Hilmand
Kandahar
Uruzgan
Zabul
Day Kundi
Southern Region
63,307
27,213
10,620
262
1,003
102,405
Yes
Not in risk area*
Yes
Yes
Not in risk area*
Not in risk area*
Not in risk area*
Not in risk area*
Yes
Yes
Yes
Not in risk area*
Not in risk area*
Yes
Not in risk area*
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Not in risk area*
Yes
No
Not in risk area*
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Not in risk area*
Yes
Yes
Yes
12,000
PROVINCE
Badghis
Farah
Ghor
Hirat
Nimroz
Western Region
Total (rounded)
1,990
17,499
Poppy-free
366
2,493
22,348
131,000
* Provinces not in the cannabis risk area as defined for the 2011 cannabis survey.
** See Afghanistan Opium Survey 2011, UNODC and MCN Afghanistan. Provinces with less than 100 ha of
poppy cultivation are considered to be “poppy-free”.
15
2011 Survey of Commercial Cannabis Cultivation and Production
Photo 2: Cannabis fields at the flowering stage, as seen on a false-colour satellite image in Nangarhar
province, 2011
Cannabis fields at the flowering stage, as seen on a false-colour satellite image
Cannabis fields at the flowering stage, as seen on heli-picture
16
2011 Survey of Commercial Cannabis Cultivation and Production
Photo 3: Cannabis at the flowering stage, Ahmad Abad district, Paktya province, 2011
Cannabis yield and potential production
The product sold by cannabis farmers is a powdery substance called “garda” obtained by threshing and
sieving dried cannabis plants. In a process of repeated sieving, farmers produce graded qualities that
contain different concentrations of cannabis resin (first, second and third garda). Research indicates that
regional differences exist in processing cannabis into garda, which are also reflected in the prices of its
different qualities (see also section on Afghanistan Cannabis Agriculture).
The 2009 and 2010 surveys showed that in the Northern and North-eastern region processing methods used
to result in a better quality but smaller quantity of first garda, whereas in the Southern, Eastern, Western
and Central regions a larger proportion of first garda was obtained but of a poorer quality (less resin and
more other plant material). Garda from the Northern and North-eastern regions (Mazari or Balkhi garda)
contained more resin and no cannabis leaves, in contrast to garda from other regions where farmers mixed
the resin with cannabis leaves during the processing of first garda. Different qualities of garda are also
reflected in different prices since the higher its resin content, the higher the price that garda fetches.
In 2011, the regional differences in garda yield and quality were much less pronounced than in 2009 and
2010. That could be due to a change in garda processing in the Northern region, where the best first garda
quality was previously produced. Towards the end of 2011, price monitoring reports indicated that the
quality of first garda from Balkh (Northern region) was lower than usual, which was also reflected in lower
prices. Thus, yield data no longer show big regional differences in garda quality, but in order to maintain
consistency the same yield regions were used in the 2011 survey as in the two preceding cannabis surveys.
If the reported change in the pattern of regional garda quality continues, the current yield regions may be
revised in subsequent surveys.
For the same reasons of consistency the provinces also continue to be grouped into a Northern/Northeastern (N/NE) region and a Southern, Eastern, Western and Central (S-E-W-C) region.
17
2011 Survey of Commercial Cannabis Cultivation and Production
Table 4: Average cannabis garda yield, by region (kg/ha), 2011
1st garda
(kg/ha)
2nd garda
(kg/ha)
3rd garda
(kg/ha)
Total yield
(kg/ha)
N/NE (n=21)
47
35
32
113
S-E-W-C (n=26)
52
36
23
111
Weighted average*
51
36
25
112
Region
* Weighted by cannabis area, n refers to number of surveyed fields.
The village survey showed that cannabis cultivation on the boundaries of fields and mixed-crop cultivation
in the same field occurred almost exclusively in the Central and Eastern region. Due to the nature of those
cultivation methods the estimate of a per-hectare yield did not seem to be useful and the production
estimates for those types of cultivation were not calculated by multiplying the area estimate with the yield
estimate, but rather by using an estimate of the number and size of fields with cultivation on boundaries
and mixed-crop cultivation for estimating total production. The share of garda produced by those methods
was revealed to be relatively small, amounting to about 2% of total production.
Table 5 shows estimates of potential garda production in the Northern and North-eastern region, the other
regions and for mixed-crop cultivation and cultivation on bunds. As a reference, the 2010 production
estimate was 1,200-3,700 tons.
Table 5: Potential commercial cannabis resin garda production, 2011
N/NE
S-E-W-C
Mixed-crop/bunds
1st garda
(tons)
116
471
10
Total production
597
2nd garda
(tons)
86
329
6
421
3rd garda
(tons)
79
212
4
295
Rounded total
(tons)
281
1012
20
1,300
(1,000-1,900)
2010 rounded
(tons)
1,200-3,700
Cannabis prices
Farm-gate prices of cannabis garda
Differences in the farm-gate price of cannabis resin (garda) reflect different garda qualities and regional
differences. Prices reported by farmers during the survey are referred to as first, second and third garda.
Since most farmers sell their cannabis garda soon after harvest (in January), the January 2012 prices
reported through the monthly price monitoring system were used to calculate farmers’ income and the
farm-gate value of cannabis production in 2011.
The national estimate presented was calculated by taking the average price weighted by production in each
respective region. That average therefore represents the average “value” of 1 kg of each type of garda.
Table 6: Farm-gate prices of cannabis resin (garda), by region (US$/kg), January 2012
Region
1st garda
(US$/kg)
2nd garda
(US$/kg)
3rd garda
(US$/kg)
N/NE*
170
108
64
S-E-W-C *
77
51
30
Average (weighted) **
95
63
39
* Simple average of provincial averages in this region. ** Average weighted by estimated cannabis production.
Source: First garda prices: MCN/UNODC monthly price monitoring report, January 2012. Second and third
garda prices: own calculations based on the cannabis survey 2011.
18
2011 Survey of Commercial Cannabis Cultivation and Production
Farm-gate value of commercial cannabis resin production
The farm-gate value of commercial cannabis garda production in Afghanistan was calculated on the basis
of production estimates and farm-gate price calculations. The total farm-gate value of cannabis resin
(garda) in 2011 was US$ 95 million (US$ 78-135 million) and corresponded to 0.6% of the licit GDP of
Afghanistan in that year.
Table 7: Farm-gate value of commercial cannabis production (US$ million), 2010 and 2011
1st garda
(US$million)
2nd garda
(US$million)
3rd garda
(US$million)
Total (US$)
Total (US$)
2010
57
26
12
95
(78-135)
85-263
Farm-gate value
Figure 2 Farm-gate value of cannabis resin (US$ million), 2009-2011
300
263
US$ million
250
200
150
100
135
94
85
78
50
39
0
2009
2010
2011
Note: The bars indicate the upper and lower bound of the estimation range.
Source: MCN/UNODC Afghanistan Cannabis Survey 2009, 2010.
19
2011 Survey of Commercial Cannabis Cultivation and Production
3 SOCIO-ECONOMIC FACTORS OF CANNABIS CULTIVATION
The scope of the survey
The cannabis village survey more specifically targets the cannabis risk area and collects information at the
time when cannabis is cultivated. All results are based on interviews with farmers and village headmen
conducted by specially trained surveyors.
Cannabis growing households
Based on headmen interviews, the number of cannabis-growing households in Afghanistan in 2011 was
estimated at 65,000 households, 8 an increase of 38% on 2010 (47,000 households). Since the number is
based on headmen interviews it may also include households growing on a small-scale such as in kitchen
gardens.
The average cannabis area cultivated per household is based on headmen interviews. At 0.29 ha the
average area in 2011 was lower than the 2010 average of 0.33 ha, thus, while there were more cannabis
cultivating households in 2011, on average, each household cultivated a smaller area of cannabis.
Self-reported reasons for cannabis cultivation
Cannabis-cultivating farmers were asked about the most important reasons why they cultivate cannabis.
The most frequently reported reason in 2011 was the high sales price of cannabis (74%), followed by
personal consumption and poverty alleviation (11% and 9%, respectively). The large increase in the
proportion of farmers mentioning “High sale price” as their main reason for cultivating cannabis in 2011 in
comparison to in 2010 reflects the increase in the cannabis price.
Figure 3: Reasons for cultivating cannabis in 2010 and 2011 (n = 410 farmers)
74%
High s ale price
56%
11%
For personal consumption
6%
9%
Poverty alleviation
31%
3%
1%
Sufficient yield
2%
0.2%
Eas y/experienced to grow
Other
1%
0%
High income from little land
1%
1%
High demand
0%
6%
0%
40%
2011
8
80%
2010
This estimate was calculated based on the village frame that is used for inferring from a ratio estimate to the
total estimated number. When looking at the village data some inconsistencies appear. The explanation of origin
or clarification of inconsistencies is beyond the scope of this report, but they should be borne in mind when
interpreting results from the village survey. For a discussion on the village frame see the Methodology section.
20
2011 Survey of Commercial Cannabis Cultivation and Production
Reasons for ceasing cannabis cultivation
Like opium poppy, cannabis is an illicit crop in Afghanistan and the possession of cannabis products is
illegal. Many farmers who had ceased cannabis cultivation in or before 2011 reported that they had not
cultivated cannabis in 2011 because it is forbidden (haraam) in Islam (21%). The other important reasons
were lack of water and/or land (15%), its negative impact on human beings (10%) and because it is banned
by the Government (8%). Other reasons included fear of eradication, decisions of elders and Shura, low
sale price, resin processing is too long, unsuitable land and climate conditions, lack of experience, and
sufficient income from other crops or sources.
In 2011, a much smaller proportion of farmers than in 2010 mentioned the Government ban on cannabis
cultivation as their main reason for having ceased cultivation.
Figure 4: Reasons for ceasing cannabis cultivation in or before 2011 (n = 696 farmers)
Against Islam
Lack of water/land
8%
Negative human impact
Banned by Government
8%
Fear of eradication
8%
8%
7%
6%
6%
7%
Elders and Shura decision
Low sale price
Landowner does not allow
5%
0%
Lack of experience
2%
Land/climate conditions not…
Other
Support from Government
0.1%
Poor yield
Income from other source
Because of drought
Government campaign
Sufficient income from other crops
Fear of imprisonment
3%
2%
1%
0.2%
1%
0%
1%
0.4%
1%
1%
0.3%
0.4%
0%
18%
21%
10%
10%
19%
3%
3%
3%
3%
2%
3%
Resin processing is too long
15%
6%
7%
12%
2011
24%
2010
21
2011 Survey of Commercial Cannabis Cultivation and Production
Replacement of cannabis income reported by farmers who ceased cannabis cultivation
Farmers who used to cultivate cannabis but ceased cannabis cultivation in or before 2011 were asked what
they did to compensate for their lost income from cannabis. About 64% reported that they cultivated other
crops, 16% that they were involved in off-farm employment and 9% that they were involved in business.
Income from livestock accounted for 4% of respondents, cope with situation for 3% and receiving money
from abroad for 2%, while only 1% of farmers reported that they replaced their cannabis income by
cultivating opium poppy.
Figure 5: Replacement of cannabis income reported by farmers who ceased cannabis cultivation in or
before 2011 (n = 704 farmers)
Cultivating other crops
64%
Off-farm employment
16%
Involved in business
9%
Income from livestock
4%
Coping with situation
3%
Receiving money from abroad
2%
Cultivating poppy
1%
Received loan
1%
Other
1%
Income from orchard
0.4%
0%
35%
Photo 4: Mature female cannabis plant with resin glands
Mature female cannabis plant with buds cultivated in
Northern Afghanistan
22
70%
2011 Survey of Commercial Cannabis Cultivation and Production
Conditions for potentially resuming cannabis cultivation in future
Those farmers who ceased cannabis cultivation were asked under what conditions they would recommence
its cultivation. Only 13% of all farmers responded that they would grow cannabis again in future, with the
main reason for doing so being its high sale price (87%). Few farmers (6%) responded that they would
grow cannabis again if they received no support from the Government, while only (2%) of farmers
reported that they would recommence cannabis cultivation because of poverty.
Figure 6: Conditions for potentially resuming cannabis cultivation in future, reported by farmers
who ceased cultivation (n = 90 farmers)
87%
High sale price
67%
If no support from
Government
6%
3%
Other
2%
6%
2%
Poverty alleviation
9%
Sufficient yield
2%
0%
If Elders and Shura allow
0.3%
2%
If price rises
If more water available
For personal consumption
0%
3%
0%
8%
0%
2%
0%
45%
2011
90%
2010
Reasons for never cultivating cannabis
Farmers who had never grown cannabis were asked for the most important reasons why they had never
done so. The most frequently mentioned reason for never growing cannabis by those questioned in 2011
was that it is forbidden in Islam (57%). The second most frequently mentioned reason was the Government
ban on cannabis cultivation (13%), followed by the negative impact of cannabis on human beings (7%) and
because it is not a custom (6%). In addition, farmers said they had never grown cannabis because of their
lack of experience (5%), lack of water and/or land on which to cultivate cannabis (5%), the decision made
by elders and Shura (2%) and poor yield (1%).
23
2011 Survey of Commercial Cannabis Cultivation and Production
Figure 7: Reasons for never cultivating cannabis (n = 3,403 farmers)
57%
55%
Against Islam
Banned by Government
11%
Not a custom
7%
Negative human impact
6%
6%
5%
6%
5%
Lack of experience
Lack of water/land
Elders and Shura decision
Poor yield
Low sale price
Fear of eradication
Land/climate conditions not suitable
Other
Sufficient income from other crops
Fear of imprisonment
More efforts to cultivate cannabis
Income from other source
Support from Government/NGOs
Lack of market
Support from abroad
Government control
13%
9%
3%
2%
2%
1%
2%
1%
0.5%
1%
0.3%
1%
3%
0.5%
0.5%
0.4%
1%
0.2%
0.0%
0.1%
0.3%
0.1%
0.2%
0.1%
0.1%
0.03%
0.3%
0.01%
0.0%
0%
0.0%
0%
30%
2011
60%
2010
Conditions that would lead farmers who had never grown cannabis to start cultivating it
Farmers who had never grown cannabis were asked under what conditions they would start cultivating
cannabis. They included the high sale price of cannabis (63%), more income from little land (15%), if
there was a lack of support from the Government (10%) and poverty alleviation (9%). Few farmers
reported that they would start cannabis cultivation for personal consumption.
Figure 8: Reasons for potentially cultivating cannabis in future, reported by farmers who had never
grown cannabis (n = 47 farmers)
63%
66%
High sale price
More income from little land
15%
0%
10%
If no support from Government
Poverty alleviation
4%
Other
2%
1%
For personal consumption
1%
0%
If Elders and Shura allow
0%
If more land available
0%
If I gain experience of cannabis cultivation
0%
If it becoms a custom
16%
9%
5%
3%
3%
0%
2%
0%
35%
2011
24
70%
2010
2011 Survey of Commercial Cannabis Cultivation and Production
Characterizing cannabis-growing villages
Cannabis cultivation is strongly related to agricultural assistance and access to facilities
When comparing cannabis-free villages with cannabis-cultivating villages several differences can be
noted. Testing for statistical significance reveals that certain facilities (such as schools) are more likely to
be found in villages without cannabis cultivation than in villages with cannabis cultivation.
All village headmen were interviewed on the status and availability of basic development facilities in their
villages. 9 Information was gathered about access to credit, electricity, irrigation, markets for agricultural
products, medical facilities, off-farm employment opportunities, telephones, drinking water, road and
transportation, school, vocational skills training and access to TV/radio.
According to the information provided by headmen, about (49%) of all villages surveyed had no access to
credit, electricity, markets for agricultural products, off-farm employment opportunities and vocational
skills training, while 39% of villages had access to drinkable water, irrigation water, road and
transportation, school and TV/radio, 68% of villages had access to telephones and less than half of villages
had access to a medical centre.
Statistically, a significant correlation exists between access to schools and the absence of cannabis, a
connection that was already established in the 2010 cannabis survey. One of the most interesting
discoveries of the 2011 survey is the correlation between cannabis and irrigation, which shows that
villages with access to irrigation are more likely to grow cannabis than villages without it. This could be
due to the fact that cannabis is more likely to be grown in summer when water is scarce and irrigation
necessary.
However, even if access to certain facilities is more common in cannabis-free villages, the role played by
other explanatory factors (e.g. centrality) cannot be excluded.
Figure 9: Access to schools in the cannabis risk area, by cannabis growing status, 2011
100%
90%
80%
51%
% of villages
70%
60%
81%
50%
40%
30%
49%
20%
10%
19%
0%
Cannabis free
No access to schools
9
Cannabis
Access to schools
Surveyors did not formally verify the information provided by headmen or farmers.
25
2011 Survey of Commercial Cannabis Cultivation and Production
Figure 10 Access to certain facilities in cannabis-growing villages and cannabis-free villages, 2011
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
Cannabis and TV/radio*
12%
88%
14%
86%
79%
21%
69%
31%
61%
39%
Cannabis and phones*
71%
29%
81%
19%
28%
72%
Cannabis and medical centre*
No cannabis and medical centre*
51%
49%
Cannabis and school*
No cannabis and school*
100%
81%
19%
No cannabis and TV/radio*
No cannabis and phones*
90%
97%
Cannabis and drinkable water*
No cannabis and road and transportation
80%
76%
24%
No cannabis and irrigation water*
Cannabis and road and transportation
70%
97%
Cannabis and irrigation water*
No cannabis and drinkable water*
60%
46%
54%
19%
81%
Cannabis and market for agricultural products*
31%
69%
No cannabis and market for agricultural products*
16%
84%
Cannabis and electricity*
27%
73%
No cannabis and electricity*
89%
Cannabis and off-farm employment opportunities*
11%
22%
78%
No cannabis and off-farm employment opportunities*
93%
Cannabis and credit
90%
No cannabis and credit
97%
Cannabis and training on vocational skills*
92%
No cannabis and training on vocational skills*
Village without access
7%
10%
3%
8%
Village with access
Note: Each first bar shows the percentages of villages with access and without out access among cannabis
growing villages; the second bar shows the percentages among cannabis free villages.
* The Chi-square statistic is significant at the 0.05 level, which means that the difference between
cannabis-growing and cannabis-free villages is significant.
26
2011 Survey of Commercial Cannabis Cultivation and Production
Agricultural assistance reduces the likelihood of cannabis cultivation
The association between cannabis cultivation and a lack of agricultural assistance was statistically
significant and suggested that, at the village level, the provision of agricultural assistance may have
influenced the decision to cultivate cannabis in 2011. Villages that received some kind of agricultural
assistance were less likely to grow cannabis than villages that did not, but other factors may also have
played a role. For instance, the security situation may influence the delivery of agricultural assistance,
particularly in the Southern region where most cannabis cultivation occurs, but whether or not there is a
causality needs to be determined by other means.
Less than half of villages in the cannabis risk area (35%) reported having received agricultural assistance
and types of assistance varied. They included improved seeds (47%), fertilizers (45%), agricultural tools
such as tractors (4%), and irrigation system improvements such as karez and stream cleaning, dam
construction or well digging (4%). Support in the form of agro-chemicals and saplings were minimal.
Figure 11: Types of agricultural assistance received in 2011, reported by headmen (n=529 villages)
47%
Improved seeds
54%
45%
Fertilizers
39%
Irrigation system
4%
2%
Agricultural tools (like
tractor etc)
4%
3%
Saplings
1%
1%
Agro chemicals
0.5%
1%
Insecticide
0%
0.3%
0%
30%
2010
60%
2011
27
2011 Survey of Commercial Cannabis Cultivation and Production
The role of cannabis in the household economy
Farmers cultivate cannabis infrequently, but do so more often in the South
In the village survey, farmers who grew cannabis in 2011 (n=417) were asked if and in which years they
cultivated cannabis in the preceding five years (since 2006). Only a small proportion of farmers (4%) were
new cannabis farmers, meaning that they had commenced cannabis cultivation in 2011. Just over half of
cannabis farmers (51%) had cultivated cannabis, on average, every second year or less in the period in
question. Less than a third of farmers (32%) cultivating cannabis in 2011 reported cannabis cultivation in
most of those years but only (14%) had cultivated it in every year of the observation period (2006-2011).
Farmers in the Southern region who cultivated cannabis in 2011 cultivated cannabis during the six year
observation period more frequently than those in the other regions of Afghanistan, with 44% of them also
growing cannabis in three or four other years between 2006-2011, while in the other regions the figure was
only 14%. About 35% of farmers in the Southern region had also cultivated cannabis in 2011 as well as in
one or two other years between 2006-2011, while that was true also for over two thirds (74%) of farmers in
other regions.
Figure 12: Cannabis cultivation frequency in 2006 to 2011 of cannabis-cultivating farmers in 2011 (n=417
farmers)
Only in 2011
4%
Every year
14%
Frequent (in 2011 and
3 or 4 previous years)
32%
28
Infrequent (in 2011
and up to 2 previous
years )
51%
2011 Survey of Commercial Cannabis Cultivation and Production
Figure 13: Years of cannabis cultivation between 2006 and 2011, reported by cannabis-growing farmers
in 2011 (n=417 farmers)
100%
7%
90%
19%
14%
80%
70%
60%
44%
50%
74%
40%
30%
20%
35%
10%
0%
2%
5%
Southern region
Other regions
Started 2011
2011 and 1 or 2 more years since 2006
2011 and 3 or 4 more years since 2006
2011 and every year since 2006
Commercial cannabis farmers are also poppy farmers
Previous reports on cannabis and opium poppy cultivation have shown a clear connection between
growing opium poppy and cannabis, both at the household and village level. The 2011 cannabis village
survey shows that almost 58% of cannabis-growing households also cultivated poppy in the preceding
season. In the Southern (69%) and Western regions (67%) it was even more pronounced, with almost
seven out of ten cannabis farmers also cultivating opium poppy.
The connection was also very obvious at the village level: in 51% of all poppy-cultivating villages (Opium
Survey 2011) cannabis was also grown, whereas only 5% of non-poppy-cultivating villages cultivated
cannabis. It is therefore safe to say that the majority of cannabis-cultivating households are involved in
poppy cultivation.
The Opium Survey 2011 revealed that poppy-growing farmers are more likely to cultivate cannabis than
non-poppy-growing farmers although the connection is less apparent. 6% of surveyed poppy-growing
households cultivated cannabis in 2011 and the proportion among non-poppy growers was only half of that
(3%). Why are these proportions so small?
The mere fact that the number of poppy-cultivating households is roughly 4-6 times greater than the
number of cannabis-cultivating households (depending on which years are compared) explains to a large
extent why, percentagewise, fewer poppy famers grow cannabis in a specific year than vice versa. Another
argument explaining the relatively small percentage is that only a portion of cannabis farmers show up as
such in a specific survey year because many of them grow cannabis only sporadically. Indeed, 86% of
commercial cannabis-growing households have not actually cultivated it every year since 2006. It is thus
very likely that, when monitored over several years, a much larger proportion of poppy growers (than the
6% mentioned above) would be seen to have grown cannabis on occasion and that there is a close link
between poppy and cannabis, in both directions.
It seems that the link between cannabis and opium cultivation also exists at the trade level: information
gathered during the 2011 surveyor debriefings indicates that a large proportion of cannabis traders also
trade in opium, thus many households have the opportunity to sell both illicit crops relatively easily.
Moreover, price developments in recent years substantiate the hypothesis of two closely integrated
29
2011 Survey of Commercial Cannabis Cultivation and Production
markets: both price time series have shown a high correlation 10 since December 2005 when the collection
of cannabis prices began (see figure 14).
Figure 14 Price data of cannabis and opium, 2005-2012
300
Price per kg ($)
250
200
150
100
50
0
Dec-05 May-06 Oct-06 Mar-07 Aug-07 Jan-08 Jun-08 Nov-08 Apr-09 Sep-09 Feb-10 Jul-10 Dec-10 May-11 Oct-11
Moving average opium
Moving average cannabis
Cannabis prices
Opium prices
Source: Monthly price monitoring system, UNDOC.
Net income from cannabis cultivation is higher than from opium cultivation
Based on average prices at harvest time and the average 2011 resin yield, farmers achieved a gross cash
income 11 of US$ 8,100/ha from cannabis resin in 2011, which is slightly less than the gross income from
opium (US$ 10,700/ha). With an average under cannabis cultivation of 0.29 ha per household, the average
gross income per household from cannabis in 2011 thus amounted to US$ 2,400. In 2010 the average gross
income of cannabis growing households was US$ 3000/ha; the reduction comes from the reduced average
area per household and smaller yield (-12%) in 2011.
The expenditure per hectare on cannabis cultivation was estimated at US$ 800/ha or 10% of gross income.
The relatively low proportion of expenditure compared with gross income is due to the massive increase in
cannabis farm-gate prices between 2009 and 2011 and the relatively small increase in the prices of
agricultural inputs.
The associated cost of cannabis cultivation was much lower than the cost of opium cultivation in 2011,
which was estimated at US$ 4,300/ha or 40% of gross income from opium per hectare. The combination of
its relatively high gross income per hectare and its relatively low cultivation cost makes cannabis a more
profitable crop than opium poppy. Despite that, a much smaller number of households is involved in
cannabis cultivation and the average area cultivated with cannabis per household is smaller than the
average area per household cultivated with opium poppy. In addition, mixed cropping with cannabis
cultivation is common in some regions but very rare in opium cultivation.
10
Pearson Correlation 0.893 significant at 0.01 level.
11
The gross income from cannabis resin does not take into account the potential value of cannabis by-products
such as cannabis seeds or stalks.
30
2011 Survey of Commercial Cannabis Cultivation and Production
Figure 15: Average annual per-hectare income from cannabis and opium (US$/ha), 2011
12,000
10,000
4,300
$/ha
8,000
800
6,000
4,000
7,300
6,400
2,000
0
Opium
Cannabis
Net income
Expenditure
Nevertheless, cannabis seems to be an important cash crop. When comparing data on sources of income
for 2010 (collected in 2011) for all three types of farmers — cannabis-cultivating farmers, farmers who
ceased cultivating cannabis in 2011 or before, and farmers who had never grown cannabis — it can be seen
that the average reported income of cannabis-cultivating farmers was higher than the income of farmers
who ceased cultivation and farmers who had never cultivated cannabis.
Moreover, the main income sources for farmers who cultivated cannabis were cannabis (34%), wheat
(23%) and poppy (18%). For farmers who ceased cannabis cultivation in 2011 or before the main sources
were wheat (29%), opium poppy (13%), cannabis (9%) and other crops (12%). For farmers who had never
grown cannabis the main income sources were wheat (36%), other crops (17%), livestock (15%) and
remittances (15%).
With infrequent patterns of cannabis cultivation, cannabis farmers who had ceased cannabis cultivation did
not necessarily do so permanently as it is perfectly possible that the majority of them will start to cultivate
cannabis again in the future.
Poppy, then, does play an important role in the incomes of current and former cannabis farmers — another
indication of the strong interrelationship between the cultivation of cannabis and poppy. Furthermore,
remittances represent a much higher proportion of income in households that never cultivate cannabis
(15%) compared to households that grow cannabis (4%). A similar pattern was observed in UNODC’s
opium surveys in which it was seen that households not growing poppy had a higher proportion of income
from remittances, which may indicate that households without income from illicit cash crops can or need
to rely more on remittances from abroad as they may not earn an equivalent income from other cash crops
or income strategies.
31
2011 Survey of Commercial Cannabis Cultivation and Production
29%
9%
Wheat
12%
Other crops
Lives tock
15%
Remittances
7%
11%
12%
17%
36%
Cannabis
9%
23%
34%
Never grown
Ceased growing
Cannabis growing
Figure 16: Contributions to 2010 income, by type of farmer (data collected in 2011)
4%2%
5%
15%
Daily/Monthly wages
18%
4%
10%
13%
7%
Poppy
8%
Other
Cannabis and other cash crops
In 2011, farmers who cultivated cannabis also cultivated several other cash crops, such as cotton, poppy
and vegetables, indicating that cannabis is not the only cash crop that cannabis farmers plant, but is
typically one of several cash crops that make up a diversified cash crop strategy.
There is a clear difference between the Southern region and other regions in how farmers divide the area
dedicated to cash crops. Overall in the Southern region, 22% of the area cultivated with cash crops was
cultivated with cannabis and 19% with opium poppy in 2011, while other important cash crops were wheat
(36%) and “other crops” (22%). This confirms the close link between cannabis and poppy cultivation in
that region, as well as the fact that poppy was still the dominant illicit crop.
In other regions, wheat took up 62% of the cultivated area, followed by cannabis (14%), poppy (10%) and
other crops (14%). Cannabis was only cultivated on 18% of the area utilized for cash crops, which
indicates that cannabis-growing farmers in those regions have other cash crop options in addition to
cannabis. There is currently no detailed information available on what kind of crops the “other crops”
category included, but since it made up a large percentage of the available cultivated area more detailed
research is required.
32
2011 Survey of Commercial Cannabis Cultivation and Production
Figure 17: Distribution of cultivated area under main cash crops for cannabis farmers, 2011 (n = 417
farmers)
100%
90%
Other
22%
Other
14%
80%
70%
60%
W heat
36%
50%
Wheat
62%
40%
30%
Poppy
19%
20%
10%
Cannabis
22%
Poppy
10%
Cannabis
14%
0%
Southern region
Other regions
Possible explanations why cannabis is cultivated to a lesser extent than opium
Economic logic would suggest that if a farmer gets involved in illicit crop cultivation the crop of choice
would be cannabis as it promises a higher net income. Furthermore, cannabis is less labour intensive as it
needs less weeding and its harvest is easier than poppy lancing. However, UNODC’s recent cannabis and
opium surveys reveal that poppy is cultivated more frequently, by more households and over larger areas
than cannabis.
There are several possible explanations why cannabis is a less attractive cash crop than poppy:
•
Cannabis can be cultivated in summer only, which is when there is less land available for
cultivation due to the decrease in the availability of water for irrigation. Conversely, during the
main poppy and wheat season at the beginning of the year there is much more land available
because of water released during snowmelt.
•
Cannabis cultivation is particularly dependent on irrigation: there was a clear positive relationship
between the availability of irrigation and cannabis cultivation at the village level.
•
In subsistence agriculture, food crops and fodder are to a certain extent indispensable and may
compete with cannabis for scarce land during summer.
•
Cannabis has a comparatively long vegetation cycle. In other words, the field is “blocked” for an
extended time when farmers could possibly grow several short-cycle crops such as vegetables.
Furthermore, cultivating winter crops might not be possible on a former cannabis field because of
its late harvest.
To fully understand the decision-making process of illicit crop farmers more detailed research on crop
rotation, multi-period costs of cultivation and the agricultural conditions necessary for various crops is
needed. Other important aspects are options for substitution: it seems that cannabis and opium are more
complementary crops (farmers choose to cultivate both crops) than substitutes for each other (an either/or
situation). But this only reflects the current situation since, with increasing pressure on poppy cultivation
through eradication and other measures, the possibility of the commercial production of cannabis gradually
playing a much bigger role in the illicit economy of Afghanistan is not beyond the realms of imagination.
33
2011 Survey of Commercial Cannabis Cultivation and Production
Payment of tax on cannabis (Usher)
Usher is an informal tax of about 10% of the value of agricultural products paid by farmers to groups that
control territories in rural Afghanistan. In 2011, few cannabis farmers (10%) reported paying usher on their
cannabis production but there were strong regional differences between the Central and other regions, with
more than 50% of cannabis farmers in the central region reporting the payment of usher, while few farmers
in the Eastern, Northern, Southern and Western regions reported paying it. In the North-eastern region, no
farmer reported paying usher in respect of their cannabis production.
Roughly two thirds of cannabis farmers reported paying usher in cash only (64%), while 33% reported
paying usher in cash as well as in kind, and 3% reported paying it only in kind. Slightly more than a third
of cannabis farmers (38%) reported paying usher to Mullah, 35% to Taliban, 26% to poor people and only
1% to Government officials.
Figure 18: Payment of usher reported by cannabis farmers in 2011, by region (n = 417 farmers)
100%
Percentage of cannabis farmers
90%
26%
80%
70%
60%
85%
50%
40%
100%
99%
0%
1%
North-eastern
Northern
Usher paid
No usher paid
93%
95%
7%
5%
Southern
Western
74%
30%
20%
10%
15%
0%
Central
Eastern
Figure 19: Type of usher payment made by cannabis farmers (n= 43 farmers)
Usher paid
only in kind
3%
Usher paid
in cash and in kind
33%
Usher paid
only in cash
64%
34
2011 Survey of Commercial Cannabis Cultivation and Production
Figure 20: Recipients of usher payment, reported by cannabis farmers (n = 47 farmers)
Precentage of responses
40%
20%
0%
Taliban
Mullah
Poor people
Government officials
Usher paid to
Photo 5: Heli-picture of cannabis fields in Paktya province, 2011
35
2011 Survey of Commercial Cannabis Cultivation and Production
4 AFGHANISTAN CANNABIS AGRICULTURE
The cannabis plant 12
Cannabis (also known as marijuana or “marihuana”) is a plant belonging to the Cannabaceae family. It is a
dioecious plant, meaning that the male and female flowers develop on separate plants, although
monoecious examples with both sexes on one plant are also found. The development of branches
containing flowering organs varies greatly between male and female plants. Female flowers are tightly
crowded between small leaves while male flowers hang in long, loose, multi-branched, clustered limbs up
to 30 centimetres (12 inches) long and shed their pollen before dying several weeks prior to seed ripening
on the female plant. Female plants tend to be shorter and have more branches than male pants and are leafy
to the top with many leaves surrounding the flowers, while male plants have fewer leaves near the top,
with few if any leaves along the extended flowering limbs, and can produce hundreds of seeds. Stems are
erect, green and hollow and longitudinally grooved. It has been noted that cannabis plants can grow from 1
to 3 metres in height in different parts of Afghanistan.
Cannabis normally matures annually and timing is influenced by the age of the plant, changes in the photoperiod (length of daylight) and other environmental conditions. Flowering usually starts when darkness
exceeds 11 hours per day, and the flowering cycle lasts between 4 and 12 weeks, depending on
environmental conditions.
Floral clusters should be harvested when resin secretion and associated terpenoid and cannabinoid
biosynthesis are at their peak, which is just after the pistils have begun to turn brown but before the calyx
stops growing. Floral clusters are responsible for the production of seeds, drugs and aromatic resins.
Yield varies across the different regions of the country. The product obtained from the dried cannabis plant
through threshing and sieving is a powdery substance with varying proportions of resin and other plant
matter, known locally as “garda”. Further processing is required to turn garda into hashish (or “charas” as
it is called in the local language), the consumable form of cannabis resin.
Photo 6: Morphological differences between male and female cannabis plants
Female cannabis plant in Dand district (Kandahar)
Cannabis varieties in Afghanistan
There has never been a comprehensive botanical study on cannabis varieties cultivated in Afghanistan.
Information on varieties stems from farmers’ responses, reflects their naming conventions and it is possible
that the same varieties are known by different local names or that the same name is used for different
varieties.
12
Information from David T. Brown (1998): Cannabis, the Genus Cannabis. Amsterdam; Robert C. Clarke
(1981): Marijuana Botany, Oakland; and from UNODC internal reports on cannabis in Afghanistan.
36
2011 Survey of Commercial Cannabis Cultivation and Production
The most widely cultivated cannabis variety in Afghanistan reported in both 2010 and 2011 was Mazari
(Balkhi), at 51% and 47%, respectively, followed by Watani (14% and 35%, respectively). Mazari (Balkhi)
was the most commonly reported variety in the Southern, Western, Northern and North-eastern regions
(52%, 72%, 83% and 74%, respectively). In the Eastern region, Azraki Shadani was the most commonly
cultivated cannabis variety (36%), while Logari Shadani was the most cultivated variety in the Central
region (33%).
The survey did not investigate THC content or other chemical properties of garda produced in
Afghanistan, hence the potency and other properties of its different varieties are unknown.
Figure 21: Varieties of cannabis cultivated in 2010 and 2011, reported by cannabis farmers
Mazari (Balkhi)
47%
14%
Watani
Kharwari Shadani
Surkhabi Shadani
9%
1%
6%
2%
4%
3%
Azraki Shadani
3%
Logari Shadani
Sra Chars
1%
1%
Chaghali Tukhom
0.1%
0%
Speen Bang
0.02%
0%
Gard Lemanay
0%
2%
Kandahari
35%
13%
3%
Machalgho Shadani
51%
6%
0%
0.1%
0%
30%
2010
60%
2011
Cannabis crop calendar
Typically, the planting season for cannabis in Afghanistan is between March and May. The stem
elongation stage of cannabis is between July and August and the crop is in full bloom from September to
October. In 2011, in most areas cannabis plants were fully matured and harvested from the field by the end
of December. The resin was extracted between December 2011 and January 2012.
Results of the village survey show that the cannabis crop cultivation cycle differs slightly across the
country due to variations in climatic conditions:
•
Cultivation in the Southern region starts between March and June. Harvesting is done between
September and December.
•
Cultivation in the Central region starts between early April and May. Harvesting is done in
October and November.
•
Cultivation in the Northern region starts between April and May. Harvesting is done in November
and December.
•
Cultivation in the North-eastern region starts between March and April. Harvesting is done in
October and November.
•
Cultivation in the Western region starts between March and June. Harvesting is done in October
and November.
•
Cultivation in the Eastern region starts between May and June. Harvesting is done between
October and December.
37
2011 Survey of Commercial Cannabis Cultivation and Production
Seasonal price patterns of cannabis
Agricultural commodities most often exhibit seasonal price movements that are tied to the annual nature of
the crop cycle. Crop prices are usually at their lowest near harvest due to supply pressure and are usually at
their highest near the end of the crop year when supplies are less abundant.
With the help of a seasonal price index representing average price movements over a number of years, a
distribution of prices during the crop year can be calculated. The most commonly used technique for
calculating a seasonal price index is the moving average, which isolates seasonal patterns from long-term
trends.
By analysing the cannabis garda prices from the monthly price monitoring system (available since 2005)
one can show that cannabis prices behave just like many other commodities: prices are lowest during and
immediately after harvest (around December and January) and are highest at the end of the production
cycle (around August or September).
Figure 23 shows the seasonal price index for cannabis. In August, for example, the cannabis price is, on
average, 109% of the moving annual average for August. For a more detailed description see the
Methodology section of this survey.
This kind of analysis of long-term data collection can be used for several applications, such as for
determining if current price developments follow an already established pattern or if a new or at least
unexpected market dynamics is in place. However, at present, too little is known about the pricing and
trading strategies of cannabis traders and farmers to fully exploit information of that nature.
Figure 22: Seasonal price index of cannabis
115.00%
110.00%
105.00%
100.00%
95.00%
90.00%
85.00%
80.00%
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Index cannabis
38
36° N
Faryab
66° E
U Z B E K I S TA N
Kunduz
69° E
Takhar
Khw a ha n
Kuf Ab
Eastern region
Shi ki Da rwa z-i Pay in ( mam ay )
Da rwa z-i - Ba la (n e say )
72° E
TAJIKISTAN
75° E
IRAN
63° E
Di shu
Re g-i -Kh an Ni sh in
Ga rm S er
Hilmand
Ghor
Re g
Da ma n
Spi n Bo ld ak
66° E
Sho ra ba k
Kandahar
Pan jw a yee
Uruzgan
Zabul
Baghlan
0
Ghazni
100
200
300
km
69° E
Geographic ProjectionDatum: WGS 84
50
¯
PA K I S TA N
Paktika
Paktya
Khost
Surubi
Spera
Tanay
72°Gurbuz
E
INDIA
Mehtar Lam (Provincial Center)
Khas Kunar
Kuzkunar
Qarghayee
Goshta
Behsud
Kama
Surkh Rud
Lalpoor
Hesarak
Chaparhar RodatBati Kot
Mohmand Dara
Sherzad Khugyani
Kot Shinwar
Azra
Dur
Baba
Pachir wagamDeh Bala
Achin Nazyan
Jaji
Planting calendar
Legend
Badakhshan
Laja Ahmad Khel
Samkani Dand Patan
Sayyid Karam
Musa Khel (Mangal) Jaji Maidan
Sabari (Yaqubi) Bak
Zurmat Qalandar
Woza Jadran NadirShah Kot Terayzai (Ali Sher)
Khost Matun (Provincial Center)
Khoshi
Musahi
Bagrami
Panjshir
Nuristan
Parwan Kapisa
Kunar
Laghman
Kabul
Wardak
Nangarhar
Logar
Samangan
Bamyan
Balkh
Day Kundi
Sari Pul
Jawzjan
Source:MCN - UNODC Afgha nistan Cann abis S urvey, 2011
Note: The bo undari es and na me s shown and th e d esig nations u sed on this map do no t imply officia l e ndorsement or a cceptance by the United Na tion s.
Ch ah ar B urj ak
Nimroz
Za ra nj ( Pro vin cia l C en ter)
Asl- i-C ha kh an su r
Farah
Hirat
Badghis
T U R K M E N I S TA N
Ra gh ista n
Shi gh na n
Ya wa n
Da rqa d Ch ah ab
Koh is ta n
Ya ng i Qa la Sha hr i Bu zur g
Kha mya b Qa rq in
Argh
a
nj
K
hw ah
Sho rTe pa Sha hr ak- i-H ai rata n
Ya fta l- i-Su fla
Da shti Qal a
Shu ha d a
Kha ni Ch ah a rBa gh
Kal da r
Ru staq
Ha zra ti Im am S ah ib
Argo
Min ga ji k Mar dya n Do wl at ab a d
Bah ar ak
Qu rg ha n
Da shti -i-A rch i Khw a ja Gh ar
Qa la -i -Zal
Khw a ja h Du Ko h
Kha sh
Wa kh an
Bal kh
Da ray im
Bah ar ak Kal afg an
Esh kas hi m
And kh oy
Na hr- i-Sh ah i Khu lm
Qa ra m Qul
Kish im Tash ka n
Jurm Wa rd oo j
Ch ah ar D ar ah
She be rg ha n (P rov inc ia l C en te r) Fa iz ab ad
Mar
mul
De hd ad i
Kha na b ad Ban gi
Do wl at ab a d
Fa yro z Na kh ch ee r
Ch imta l
Ali Ab ad
Ch al Fa rkh ar
Tag ab
Ya mg an
Za yb ak
Ch ah ar K en t
Ha zra t- i-Su lta n
Esh kam ish Na ma k Ab
Bag hl an -i -Jad e ed
Sari Pu l (Pro vin ci al C e nte r) Sho lg ar ah
Shi rin Tag ab
Fi rin g w a Gh ar u
Ayba k (Pr ovi nci al Ce nte r)
Qu sh Tep ah
Burk a Khw a ja h Hi jra n ( Jal ga h)
Say yad
Da rah -i -Suf-i -Pa yin Khu ra m wa Sa r B ag h
Go za rg ah -i-N o or Wa rsa j
Soz ma Qa la
Sar- i-Po l
Kish in d eh
Na hre e n
Alm ar
Mai ma na h
San gc ha rak Za ri
Kho st wa Firi ng
Bil C h ira gh
Kira n w a M un ja n
Da ha na -i - Gh u ri De h Sa la h
Pas htun Ko t
Go sfa nd i
Barg -i -Ma ta l
Gh o rma ch
Pul -i-H i sar
Da rah -i -Soo f-i- Bal aRo i-D o- Ab
Pary an
Gu rzi wa n
And ar ab
Qa is ar
Du shi
Kam de sh
Bal a Mu rg ha b
Khi
nj
an
Man
d
ol
Bal kh ab
Koh is ta na t
Kah ma rd
Du Ab Nu rista n Pa ro on (Pro vin ci al C en ter )
Koh is ta n
Sal an gShu tul
Tal ah wa Bar fa k
Na ri
Wa yg al
Shi nw a ri
Un ab a Da rah
Gu lr an
Muq u r
Gh a zi Ab ad
Ni jra b
Sai gh an
Ch ah ar S ad ah
Da ra- i-Pe ch Da ng am
No or Gra m
Kus hk (R ab a t-i -Sa ng i)
Ya ka wl an g
Jaw an d
She ba r
Shi ga l w a Sh el tan
Ab
Ka
ma
ri
Ali
she
n
g
Ali
ng
ar
Sha ykh A li Estal ef Bag ra m
Kus k-i-K oh na h
Bam yan (Pro vi nci al C e nte r)
Sar K an i
Qa la -i -No w (P rov in cia l C en ter) Qa d is
Surk h-i -Pa rsa Gu la ra Koh -i- Safi Tag ab
Ch ag hc ha ran (Pro vin ci al C e nte r)
No or g al Ch ow ke y
De hS ab z
Pag hm an
La l wa Sa rja ng al
Koh sa n
Kha s Ku na r
Kam a
Hi sah -i- Awa l Be h sud Jal rez
Karr ukh
Qa
rg
ha
ye
e
Do wl atya r
Suru b i
Enj il
Ch ii sht-i -Sh ari f
Beh su d Go sh ta
Pan ja b
Kab ul Mus ah i
Mar kaz -i- Be hs ud
Ob e
Ze n da h Ja n Hi rat
La lp oo r
Ne rkh Kha k-i -Ja ba r He sar ak Khu gy an i Ro da t
She rza d
Sha hr ak
San g- i-Ta kh t
Shi nw a r
Pas htun Zarg h un
Gh o rya n
Da imi rd ad
Wa ra s
Do L a in ah
Azra
No data
Du r Bab a
Ch ak- i-Wa rda k
Ni iza m-i -Sh ah id (Guza ra h)
Ish tar la y
De h Ba la KotAch in Na zya n
Tu la k
Jaj i
Pac hi r w a ga m
Say yid ab ad Pul -i-A la m Kho sh i
April/May
Khe di r
MirA mo r
Fe rsi
Jag ha tu
Ch ark h
Sam kan i
Na wu r
Jun/July
Ra shi da n
Kha rw ar
Jaj i Ma id an
Adra ska n
Ni li (P rovi nc ia l C en te r) Sha hr ista n
Za
Bak
akh
an
n
Ahm
ad
ab
ad
Pas ab an d
Sag ha r
Kiti
Ajri stan Bah ra m-e S ha hi d (Ja g ha tu)
March/April/May
Tayw a ra
Kho st Ma tu n (P rov in cia l C en te r)
De h Yak
Wa gh a z
Zu rma t Shw a k
Gi za b
Tera
yza
i
(A
li
Sh
e
r)
Mal ista n
And ar
March/April/May/Jun/July
Mata Kha n Wo za Jad ra n
Shi nd an d
Kaj ran
Gu rb uz
Tan
ay
Zi ru kSpe ra
Pur C ha ma n
Jag hu ri
Qa ra Bag h
May/Jun/July
Sar R ow za
Gi ro
Ana r Da ra h
Ch ora h Kha s U ruzg a n
Gi
ya
n
Urg
un
Sha hi di Ha sa s
Yo su f Kh el
Muq u r
Om na
Bag hr an
Ab Ba n d
Kak ar Ka k-e Afg ha n
International boundaries
Za rg hu n Sh a hr Suru b i
Bal
a
Bu
lu
k
Kha k-i -Sa fe d
Ge la n
Barm al
Jan i Kh el
Prov incial boundaries
Gu li stan
Di hra wu d
Da ych op an
Di la h w a Kh wo sh am an d
Ti rin Kot (Pro vi nci al Ce nte r)
Pus htR od
Argh a nd ab Sha h Jo i
No wz ad Mus a Qal aKaj ak i
Qa la -i -Ka h
Miya Ne sh in
Ne sh
Na wa
Go ma l
Fa ra h (Pr ovi nc ia l Ce nte r) Bak wa h
Wa za hkh w ah
Na w Ba ha r
Miza n
San gi n Qa la
Wa sh er
Shi b Ko h
Sha h Wa li K ot
Qa la t (Pro vin ci al C en ter )
Kha kre z
Gh o rak
De la ram
Tu rw o
Wo r Ma ma y
Tarn a k wa J al da k Shi nk ai
She me l za i
Na he r-i -Sar aj
Argh a nd ab
La sh- i-Ju wa yn
Atgh ar
Watahpoor
Bagram
AlaSai
Kha sh R o d
Zh ir e
Chapa Dara Dara-i-Pech
Na d Ali
Mai wa n d
Mara warah
La shk arg ah (Pro vi nci al C e nte r)
Argh is ta n
Alingar
Alisheng
Kan da h ar (Pr ovi nc la l Ce n te r)
Tagab
Mar uf
Chowkey Sar Kani
Koh-i-Safi
Darah-iNoor
Na wa -i- Bar ukz ai
Noor gal
Kan g
DehSabz
63° E
33° N
75° E
30° N
33° N
30° N
36° N
Afghanistan Calendar of cannabis planting, 2011
2011 Survey of Commercial Cannabis Cultivation and Production
39
36° N
33° N
Ghor
66° E
UZBE KISTAN
Kunduz
69° E
Nuristan
Kuf A b
Shi ki Da rwa z-i P ayi n (m ama y)
Da rwa z-i - Bal a (n esa y)
Khw ah a n
72° E
TA J I K I S TA N
75° E
IRAN
Ch ah ar Bu rja k
Nimroz
63° E
Di shu
Asl-i -C ha kha n sur
Za ra nj (P rov in cia l Ce n te r)
Kan g
Hirat
Na wa -i-B aru kza i
Re g-i -Kh an N i shi n
Ga rm Se r
Hilma n d
Badghis
TURKMEN ISTAN
Re g
Pan jw ay ee
Da man
66° E
Sho ra ba k
Spi n Bo ld ak
Kan da ha r (Pro vi ncl al C e nter ) Argh is ta n
Kandarhar
Uruzgan
Day Kundi
Zabul
Maru f
0
Samangan
Balkh
100
¯
200
300
km
PA K I S TA N
Paktya
69° E
Legend
International boundaries
Provincial boundaries
District Boundaries
September
October/November
December
November
October
No Data
Harvest Calendar
ya
Laja Ahmad Khel Dand Patan
Samkani
Ahmadabad
Sayyid Karam Jani KhelKhost
Jaji Maidan
Musa Khel (Mangal)
Sabari (Yaqubi) Bak
Shwak Qalandar
NadirShah
72° EKot Terayzai (Ali Sher)
Woza JadranKhost Matun (Provincial Center)
Paktiya
DehSabz
Kapisa
Alisheng
Alingar Narang wa Badil
ChowkeySar Kani
Darah-i- Noor Noor gal
Kunar
Mehtar Lam (Provincial Center)
Khas Kunar
Kuzkunar
Kabul Surubi Qarghayee
Goshta
Bagrami
Behsud
Kama
Surkh Rud
Khak-i-Jabar
Lalpoor
Hesarak
Chaparhar Rodat Bati Kot
Khugyani
Shinwar Mohmand Dara
Muhammad Aghah Sherzad
Kot
Dur Baba
Pachir wagamDeh Bala
Logar Azra
AchinNazyan
Khoshi
Nangarhar
Jaji
Laghman
Eastern region
Qara Bagh
Tagab
Koh-i-Safi
Kunar
Nangarhar
Kapisa
Laghman
Geographic Projection Datum: WGS 84
50
Wardak
Kabul
Ra gh ista n
Shi gh na n
Ya wa n
Da rqa d Ch ah ab
Koh ista n
Ya ng i Qa la Sha hr i Buz urg
Kha mya b Qa rq in
Sho rTe pa Sha hr ak-i -Ha ir atan
Ya fta l-i -Su fla Argh a nj Kh w ah
Da shti Qala
Shu ha da
Kha ni Ch ah arB ag h
Kal da r
Ru staq
Ha zrati Im am Sa hi b
Argo
Bah ar ak
Wa kh an
Min ga ji k Mard ya n Do wl at ab ad
Qu rg ha n
Khw aj a Gh ar
Kha sh
Da shti -i-Ar chi
Khw aj ah Du Ko h Aqch a h Ch ah ar Bo la k
Qa la -i- Zal
Kal afg an
Da rayi m
Eshk ash im
And kh oy
Bah
ar
ak
Bal
kh
Khu
lm
Na
hr-i
-Sh
ah
i
Kha na qa
Qa ra m Qul
Takh ar
Jurm Wa rdo o j
Kish im Tash ka n
Fa iz ab ad
Khan
Ch ah ar D ara h
Ba da ksha n
She be rg ha n (Pro vi nci al Ce nte r)
De hd ad i Marm ul
Abad Ban gi Tal oq an (Pro vin cia l C en ter)
Do wl at ab ad
Ali Ab ad Kha na ba d
Fa yro z Na kh che er
Ch imta l
Ch al
Tag ab
Fa rkh ar
Ja wzja n
Ya mg an
Za yb ak
Ch ah ar Ke n t
Ha zrat-i -Su ltan
Eshk am ish Na mak Ab
Bag
hl
an
-iJad
ee
d
Sho
lg
ara
h
Sari Pul (Pro vin cia l C en ter)
Farya b
Fi rin g w a Gh aru
Ayba k (Pro vi nci al C e nter )
Burk aKhw aj ah Hi jra n (Ja lg ah )
Shi rin Tag ab Qu sh Tep ah Sayy ad
Da rah -i- Suf-i -Pa yin Pul -i-K hu mri (P rov in cia l Ce n te r)
Go za rga h- i-N oo r Wa rsa j
Sozm a Qa la
Sar- i-Po l
Kish in de h
Khu ra m wa S ar Ba g h
Na hre en
Alma r
Mai ma na h
San gc ha rak Za ri
Bil C hi ra gh
Kho st wa Fi rin g
Kira n w a Mu nj an
Pash tun Kot
Da ha na -i- Gh uri
Go sfan d i
Barg -i- Mata l
De h Sa la h
Gh o rma ch
Da rah -i- Soo f-i-B ala
Ba gh la n
Pary an
Gu rzi wa n
Qa is ar
Nu rista n Pa roo n (P rov inc ia l Ce n te r)
Ro i-D o-A b
Sa ri P ul
And ar ab Pul -i-H is ar
Du shi
Kam de sh
Bal a Mu rg ha b
Bal kha b
Khi nj an
Hi ssa- i-Aw al (Kh in j) Man do l
Koh ista na t
Kah ma rd
Koh ista n
Sal an g Panjsher
Tal ah wa B arfa k
Na ri
Shu tul
Da rah
Du Ab
Shi nw ar i
Gu lr an
Wa ma Wa yg al Gh a zi Aba d
Muq ur
Ch ah ar Sa d ah
Jabaluss araj
Sai gh an
Syah g ird ( Gh o rba nd ) Chaharik ar
Ni jra bAla Sa i
Jaw an d
No or Gra m Ch ap a D ara Shi ga l w a Sh el ta n
Kush k (R ab at-i -Sa ng i)
Ya ka wl an g
Da ng am
She ba r
Bag ra m
Ali ng ar
Pa rwa n
Kusk -i-K oh na h Ab Ka ma ri
Sha
ykh
Al
i
Guldara
Da ra-i -Pe chSar Ka n i
Qa la -i- No w (P rovi nc ial Ce nte r) Qa d is
Ba mya n
Koh -i-S afiTag ab
Surk h-i -Pa rsa
Ch ag hch a ran (Pro vin cia l C en ter)
No or g al Ch ow ke y
Ali she ng
De hSa b z
Bam yan (Pro vin cia l C en ter)
Pag hm an
Koh sa n
Enj il
La l wa Sar ja ng al
Surobi Qa rg ha yee
Kam aKha s Ku na r
Hi sah -i-A wa l Be hsu d Jal rez
Karr ukh
Do wl atya r
Kab ul
Suru
b
i
Beh su d Go sh ta
Ch iis ht-i -Sha ri f
Mus ah i
Pan ja b
Mark az- i- Be hsu d
Ob e
Surk h R ud
Nirk hMuh am ma d Agh ah
La lp oo r
Da imi rda d
Ze nd a h Ja n Hi rat
He sara k
Ro da t
Kha k-i -Jab a r
Ne rkh
Khu gy an i
Kot Shi nw ar
San g- i-Ta kh t
Gh o ryan
Pash tun Zarg hu n
Do L ai na h
Wa ras
Azra Azra She rza d
Sha hr ak
Du r Bab a
Ch
ak-i
-Ward
a
k
Lo
ga
r
Ish tarl ay
Ni iza m-i -Sha h id (Gu za rah )
Tu la k
Jaji Jaj i
De h Ba la Achi n Na zya n
Sayy id ab ad Baraki B arak
Khe di r
Lij a Mangal Sam kan i
Fe rsi
Jag ha tu Ch arkh Pul -i-A la m
Ni li (Pr ovi nci al Ce nte r) MirA mor
Na wu r
Chakm ani Da nd P ata n
Sha hr istan
Ra shi da n
Kha rw ar
Adra ska n
Jaj i Ma id an
Jani K hel
Zana Khan
Pasa b an d
Sag ha r
Musa K hel
Kiti
Ajri stan
Bak
Bah ra m-e Sh a hi d (Ja gh atu )
Tayw a ra
De h Yak
Shw ak
Wa gh az
Nadir Shah K Sab ar i (Yaq ub i)
Gi za b
Mal ista n
Zu
rma
t
Mando Zay iTera yza i (Al i Sh er)
Gh azn i And ar Mata K ha n NiZikaruk Kh ost
Shi nd an d
Kaj ran
Gu rb uzKho st Matu n (Pr ovi nci al Ce nte r)
Pur C ha ma n
Jag hu ri
Qa ra B ag h
Spe ra Tan ay
Gi ro
Sar R ow za
Bag hr an
Ana r Da ra h
Kha s Ur uzg an
Yo suf Kh el
Urg un Gi ya n
Muq ur
Ch ora h
Sha hi di Ha sas
Om na
Ab Ba nd
Kaka r Ka k-e Afg ha n
Za rg hu n Sh ah r Suru b i
Ti rin K ot (Pro vin ci al C en ter)
Kha k-i -Safe d Bal a Bu lu k
Ge la n
Barm al
Jan i Kh el
Gu li stan
Di hra wu d
Da ych op an Argh a nd ab
Di lah wa Khw o sha ma nd Go ma l
Push tRo d
Sha h Jo i
No wza d Mus a Qal aKaj aki
Qa la -i- Kah
Miya Ne sh in
Ne sh
Pa kti ka
Na wa
Qa la t ( Pro vin cia l C en te r)
Fa ra h (Pro vi nci al C e nter )Fara h
Wa za hkh wa h
Bakw a h
Na w Ba ha r
Miza n
San gi n Qa la
Wa sh er
Shi b Ko h
Sha h Wal i Ko t
Kha kre z
De la ram
Gh o rak
Koh Band
Mandol
Wama
Bar Kunar (Asmar)
Wo r Ma ma y
Tu rwo
Tarn ak w a Ja ld a k Shi nka i
Nijrab
Watahpoor Dangam
She me l za i
Dowlat Shah Noor Gram
Na he r-i- Sara j
Argh a nd ab
Chapa DaraDara-i-PechShigal wa Sheltan
La sh-i -Ju wa yn
Atgh ar
Bagram
AlaSai
Kha sh R od
Zh ire
Na d Ali
Mara
warah
Mai wa nd
La shk arg ah (Pro vin cia l C en ter)
63° E
Source: MCN - UNO DC Afghani stan Cannab is Survey, 20 11
Note: The bo undari es and na me s shown and th e d esig nations u sed on this map do no t imply officia l e ndorsement or a cceptance by the United Na tion s.
30° N
36° N
33° N
40
75° E
30° N
Afghanistan cannabis harvest calendar, 2011
2011 Survey of Commercial Cannabis Cultivation and Production
2011 Survey of Commercial Cannabis Cultivation and Production
The production of cannabis resin
The production of cannabis resin in Afghanistan involves several steps. 13 First, cannabis plants need to be
dried, then threshed and sieved to produce a powdery substance known locally as “garda”. Through
repeated sieving, farmers produce a graded quality that contains different concentrations of cannabis resin
and are categorized as “first” garda, “second” garda and “third” garda. First garda is considered the best
quality since it contains the highest proportion of resin and is thus more expensive than second and third
garda. It is not yet known exactly how farmers and traders determine the garda grade other than by
counting the number of sieving processes performed to extract the resin. The first, gentle shaking of the
plant and sieving of plant material usually produces first garda quality, although this first garda powder
may later be mixed with garda from subsequent sieving and still be known and traded as first garda.
Most cannabis farmers sell garda (resin) to traders in its powdery form, though some process it further into
hashish, known locally as “charas”. This transformation of garda into hashish is usually done by traders
and is the final product used for trafficking and consumption. Information collected during the survey
suggests that the amount of hashish produced from 1 kg of cannabis garda varies across regions, probably
due to different hashish production methods. From current knowledge of different hashish production
methods used in Afghanistan, it is reasonable to assume a 1:1 conversion rate of cannabis garda into
hashish.
Photo 7 Cannabis garda processing in Logar province
Separating cannabis leaves and flowers from the
stalk (1)
Sieving of cannabis flowers through muslin cloth
(2)
First garda collection after sieving (3)
Separation of cannabis seeds (4)
13
More information on cannabis resin yield and hashish production can be found in UNODC/MCN:
Afghanistan Cannabis Survey 2009, April 2010.
41
2011 Survey of Commercial Cannabis Cultivation and Production
Photo 8 Pictures of cannabis fields at flowering stage
Cannabis at flowering stage cultivated as mono crop, Sherzad
district of Nangarhar province.
Cannabis at flowering stage cultivated on bund in wheat field in
Baraki Barak district of Logar province.
Cannabis at flowering stage cultivated as mixed crop with
maize in Sherzad district of Nangarhar province.
Cannabis at flowering stage cultivated as mono crop in
Shindand district of Hirat province.
42
2011 Survey of Commercial Cannabis Cultivation and Production
5 METHODOLOGY
The survey was made up of three main components:
•
A questionnaire survey in a sample of villages, randomly selected under an area frame sampling
approach, with interviews of village headmen and three farmers per village.
•
A remote sensing survey using a sample of satellite images, randomly selected under an area
frame sampling approach.
•
A yield observation survey, which investigates cannabis yield per field, harvest and processing of
cannabis.
Information from different survey instruments was complemented by information from the monthly price
monitoring system, which also covers cannabis resin, and from the Annual Opium Surveys where
appropriate.
Survey components
Village survey
The sampling follows the guidelines of an area frame sampling design. An area frame sampling design is a
widely used methodology in agricultural statistics. For the aims of this survey the following steps were
carried out.
Construction of the sampling frame: the purpose of stratification in any survey is to reduce the variance of
the variables under study in each stratum. The village frame is a list of villages compiled by The Central
Statistical Office in Afghanistan and the Afghanistan Information Management System (AIMS). It
contains the village name, district name, province name, location, number of households, and average
household size. It has 41,419 villages in total.
By consultations with survey coordinators in Afghanistan, it was concluded that several provinces in
Afghanistan have little or almost null cannabis cultivation. In order to optimize resources, it was decided to
exclude those provinces from the sampling frame. Hence, only 23 out of the 34 provinces in Afghanistan
were targeted as potential areas with cannabis cultivation (cannabis risk area). Considering only the
cannabis risk area, the sampling frame consists of 28,110 villages.
Sample size: more than one item or characteristic is usually measured in surveys and often the number is
large. If a desired degree of precision is prescribed for each item, the sample size calculations lead to a
series of conflicting values for the sample size n (see Cochran, Wiley 1977 for formulae).There is a budget
constraint due to field and operations costs, limiting the village survey to cover up to 1,608 villages. The
chosen approach assigned a number of villages to each province that was proportional to the square root of
the size of the province (measured in number of villages). To take large differences in size into account
and to maintain a similar precision for all villages, a minimum number of sampled villages was introduced.
During the village survey 133 surveyors visited 1,509 responsive villages out of a total of 1,608 sampled
villages spread over 23 provinces and 259 districts. Altogether, 133 surveyors interviewed 4,527 farmers in
the village survey.
Data collection and data entry
The village survey was carried out by experienced surveyors of UNODC/MCN Afghanistan under the
close supervision of UNODC/MCN Survey Coordinators, who have also been involved in the opium
poppy survey for many years. The methodology of the Cannabis Survey 2011 covered various tools, such
as the village survey through a questionnaire of different types of farmers: “cannabis growing”, “ceased
cannabis growing” and “never grown cannabis”. The village survey also included village headmen to
understand the extent of cannabis crop cultivation and socio-economic factors behind cultivation. In
addition to the village survey, other important methods such as ground truth collection for the imagery
interpretation, area estimation of cannabis fields as well as the growth calendar of the crop and yield
survey were part of the survey. In fact, the survey methodology was based on a sampling approach and
was combined with the use of satellite imagery and extensive field visits.
43
2011 Survey of Commercial Cannabis Cultivation and Production
The data was collected by trained surveyors through the questionnaire prepared for interviewing farmers
cultivating cannabis, farmers who had ceased cultivating cannabis, farmers who had never grown cannabis
and the headman of the village in order to get his perception regarding cannabis cultivation. The
questionnaire also covered socio-economic aspects of farmers, reasons, the receipt of agricultural
assistance and access to facilities such as school, phone, medical centre, road and transportation,
electricity, drinkable water, off-farm employment, market for agricultural products, credit, irrigation water
and training on vocational skills. All the questionnaires were reviewed by the regional Survey
Coordinators and sent to UNODC or MCN central survey section. The data were entered by the data clerks
based in the Ministry of Counter Narcotics (MCN) under the supervision of the Data Management Officer
of UNODC, survey section.
Remote sensing survey
Fourteen provinces of the cannabis risk area (see table 8) were associated with large-scale cannabis
cultivation suitable for a remote sensing survey with satellite imagery. For 3 out of those 14 provinces a
targeting approach was used, i.e. the area covered by the imagery was chosen based on field information
on cannabis cultivation, because the area under cultivation was expected to be too low and/or too
concentrated in just a view locations for a sampling approach to be successful with the available means for
acquiring satellite imagery. In the remaining 11 provinces cannabis cultivation was too widespread to use
the target approach, therefore a sampling approach with randomly sampled images was used.
The image size was set to 8 km by 8 km. With that size a total of 136 images was available for sampling (9
missed and could not be evaluated) and 28 images for targeted provinces, making a total of 155 very highresolution satellite images.
The sampling method was a systematic sampling. This method is an equal-probability method, in which
every kth element in the frame of size N is selected, where k is the sampling interval given by k = N/n with
n the sample size. To ensure equal inclusion probabilities for all sampling units a random cell is chosen,
from which a two-dimensional step pattern is started. This form of sampling ensures a geographically
equally distributed sample over the whole frame, which is a particular advantage if little is known about
the distribution of the area of interest. The sample was not drawn on the basis of provinces, but on a
national scale, and is therefore not suitable for making estimates of sufficient precision at the province
level.
In the cannabis surveys it has become clear that the active agricultural area on the imagery taken for the
cannabis estimates is much smaller than the potential agricultural land (“ag mask”) on which the sampling
frame is based. Active agricultural land is by definition smaller than the potential agricultural land.
However, the differences were larger than those observed in the poppy cultivation season, because
cannabis is grown later in the year, when less water is available. UNODC, together with academic
partners, is undertaking research to better understand the year-to-year changes of active agricultural land
and differences between winter and summer agricultural seasons in Afghanistan.
Table 8: Sample and target provinces, 2011
Sample
Baghlan, Balkh, Day Kundi, Farah, Hilmand, Hirat, Kandahar, Logar,
Nimroz, Paktya, Zabul
Total: 11
Target
Badakhshan, Nangarhar, Uruzgan
Total: 3
Village
Survey
Badghis, Faryab, Jawzjan, Kabul, Kapisa, Kunduz, Paktika, Takhar, Sari Pul
Total: 9
44
Nimroz
Hilmand
Ghor
Kandahar
Uruzgan
Zabul
Ghazni
Takhar
0
Paktika
75
Paktiya
Logar
150
¯
300
Km
PA K I S T A N
Khost
Nangarhar
Nuristan
Parwan Kapisa
Kunar
Laghman
Kabul
Panjshir
Baghlan
Kunduz
Wardak
Samangan
Bamyan
Balkh
Day kundi
Sari Pul
Jawzjan
TA J I K I S T A N
Source: MCN - UNODC A fgh anistan Cann abis survey 20 11
Note: The bou ndaries and names shown and the designations u sed on this map do not i mpl y official endo rsemen t or acceptance by the Unite d Nations.
IRAN
Farah
Hirat
Badghis
Faryab
TU RKM EN ISTAN
U Z B E K I S TA N
Sampling frame & selected cells for cannabis satellite survey in Afghanistan, 2011
International boundary
Provincial boundary
Sampling frame-2011
Selected areas for
targeted provinces
Randomly selected cells
Legend
Badakhshan
2011 Survey of Commercial Cannabis Cultivation and Production
45
46
!
Balkh
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
Kunduz
Takhar
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!!
!!
!
! !
!
!! !
!
!! !
! !!
!!!! !!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!!!!! !!! !
!
! !! !
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!!
!! !
!!! !
! !!
!
!!!
!
!
!
! !
! !
!
!
! !
!!!!
!
! !!
!
!
!
! !
!!!!
! ! !! !
!
!!
! !!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
! !! ! !
!!
!!
!!
! ! !!
!
! !!
! !
!!! ! !
!
!
!
! !! ! !!
!
! ! !
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!!
!!
!
!! !
!
!
!
!!
!!
!!!
!! ! !!!
!
!
!
!
!! !
! !!
! !
!!
! !
!!
!
!
!!
!!!!
!
! ! !!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! !
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
Nimroz
Farah
Hirat
!
!
Ghor
!
Hilmand
Badghis
Faryab
!
!
Kandahar
Uruzgan
0
75
Paktiya
Logar
!
!
!
¯
150
!
!
!
!
300
Km
PA K I S T A N
Khost
Nangarhar
Nuristan
Parwan Kapisa
Kunar
Laghman
Kabul
Panjshir
Baghlan
Paktika
Wardak
Ghazni
Bamyan
Samangan
Zabul
Day kundi
Sari Pul
Jawzjan
Source: MCN - UNODC A fgh anistan Cann abis Su rve y 2011
Note: The bou ndaries and names shown and the designations u sed on this map do not i mpl y official endo rsemen t or acceptance by the Unite d Nations.
IRAN
!
! !
!
!
!
!
TA J I K I S T A N
!!
!
! !!! !
!!
! !!
!
! !!
!! !
!
!! ! !
!
!
!!! ! !!!
! ! !!
!!
! !!!
!
!
!! !
!
!!!
!!
!!!
!
! !!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!! ! !
!
! !!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
! !!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!!
!! !
!
!
!
!
!
! ! !!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!! !
! !! !!
!
!
!
!!!
!! !! ! !!
!!
! ! ! !!!
!
!!
!
!
! !
!
!
! !
!
! !! !
!!
! !
! !
!
! !
! !!
!
!
!! !
! !! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!!!
!! !
!! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!!! !
!!
!! !!
!!!
!
!
!!! !
!
! !!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
! !!! !! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!!!
!
!
!!
!
!!
!!
! !! !! !
!
!!
!! ! !!!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!!
!!
!
!
!
!
!!
! !!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!!! !
!! !
!!!
!
!
!
!!!
! !!
!
!!
!
!
!
! ! !!! !!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!!
!
!
!
! ! !
!
!!
!!!!!
!!!!
!! !! ! !
!!!
!
!
!!!
!
! !! !!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
! !! !!!!!!
!!
! !! !
!
!
!
!
!!
!
! !! !!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!!!!!
! ! !!
!
!!
!!
!
!
!! !!!!
!! !!!
! !
!
!
!
!!
!!
!
!
!!!!
!
! ! !
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
! !! !
!!! !
!
! ! !!
!
! !!!!!!
!
!
!
! ! !!
!!!
!
!!!!
!
! !
! !! !
!
!! ! ! ! !
!
!
!
!
!!
! !!! ! !!!!!
!
!! !
!
!!
! !
!
!!! !
!
!
!
! !
! !
!!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !!!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!!
!
!!
!
! !
!!
!!
!
! !
! ! !!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!!
!
! !
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!! !
!!!
!
!!
!
!
!
!!!
!
!
! !
! !
!!!
!
! !! !
! !
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!!!
! !!!!!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!! !
!
!
!!
!
! ! !!!!
! !!
!
!
!
!
! !
!!
!!
!
!
!
!
! !
!!!
! !
!
!
!!
!
!!!
!
! !
! !!
!!
!!
!
!!
!!
!
!! !!
! !
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!!!!
!! ! !!
!! !
! !!
!!!! !
!
! !!!
!
!
! !!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
! ! ! !
!
!! !
! !!!
!!!
!
!! !
! !
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!! ! !
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
! !! !!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !!! !
!
!
!!!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
! !
! !! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!!!!
!
!!
!
!
!
!!
!
! !
!
!
! !!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! !
! !!! !! !!
!
! ! !!
!
!
!
!! !!
!
!
!
! !!! !
!
!
!
!! !!!
! !
!! !
!! ! !
!
!!
! !
!!
!
! !
!!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!! !
!!!!
!
!
!
!!
!
!!
TU RKM EN ISTAN
U Z B E K I S TA N
Sampling frame & selected villages for cannabis survey in Afghanistan, 2011
!
Disricts boundary
International boundary
Provincial boundary
Sampling frame
Selected villages
Legend
!
Badakhshan
!
2011 Survey of Commercial Cannabis Cultivation and Production
2011 Survey of Commercial Cannabis Cultivation and Production
Ground truth collection
Ground truth refers to information that is collected “on location”. This is especially important for relating
image data to actual cannabis fields on the ground. The collection of ground-truth data enables calibration
and aids in the interpretation and analysis of areas of interest on the satellite images.
Ground truth information (GPS points) was collected in Badakhshan, Nangarhar and Uruzgan provinces.
The collection of ground truth in most of the Southern region was difficult for the surveyors and survey
coordinators.
Cannabis Yield Observation Survey
Cannabis yield was estimated based on the results of the cannabis yield observation survey. This survey
was conducted in January 2011, when farmers actually processed the harvested and dried cannabis plants
to obtain cannabis resin. In January 2011, surveyors went to selected farmers and witnessed the cannabis
resin (garda) production from those fields. The garda yield of different qualities was measured.
In the survey the following fields were included:
Table 9: Distribution of fields, by type in the yield observation study, 2011
Mixed
cultivation
33
Mono Crop
60
Cultivation on
boundaries
14
Total number of
fields
107
Farmers were interviewed on the yield obtained from a previously identified field, including all yield
qualities, as well as on the cannabis extraction method used, cannabis seed yield, timing and duration of
harvesting, drying, and garda extraction, people involved and hashish production.
Capacity building
•
Training of Survey Coordinators (SC) of UNODC and MCN for village survey and yield survey
•
Training for surveyors for collection of GPS points for target provinces
•
Training for data clerks on data cleaning procedure by the UNODC database management officer.
Estimation methods
Area estimation from remote sensing in sampled provinces
The sample was designed for yielding an estimate for all provinces under consideration, meaning that it
was designed for directly providing an estimate of the total area under cultivation in all 14 sampled
provinces (see table 7). The total area was estimated by employing a ratio estimate on the share of cannabis
cultivation within the available agricultural area. Hence, the ratio Ac/Aa is estimated, where Ac denotes the
area of cannabis cultivation and Aa the agricultural area. The ratio estimator employed uses the ratio of the
sum of the values of Ap for the sampled cells, divided by the sum of the values of Aa for the sampled cells:
Let r̂ be the estimate of the ratio r = Actot Aatot with
∑A
∑A
c
r̂ratio =
sample
.
a
sample
By applying the estimated ratio to the agricultural area an estimate of total area under cannabis cultivation
is yielded.
Area estimation from the village survey
According to field information and to results from previous surveys, seven provinces in the cannabis risk
area seemed to have only very scattered cannabis cultivation or cultivation at such a low level that is was
decided to not cover them with satellite images. The decision was based on finding an optimal allocation
47
2011 Survey of Commercial Cannabis Cultivation and Production
of resources. However, the village survey revealed that in five out of those seven provinces cannabis
cultivation existed at a measurable level.
Headmen are asked for the total area of cultivated cannabis in the village. This estimate of the headmen
can be used for extrapolating to a provincial estimate by calculating an average area per village and
multiplying this estimate with the number of villages in the province. Headmen estimates are not as
reliable as satellite surveys and are particularly likely to overestimate the area under cultivation. Therefore
we calculated all provincial estimates and compared them to provincial estimates coming from the satellite
survey (the sampling was not designed for producing provincial estimates, but the estimates are still
considered to be more reliable and accurate than the headmen estimates). Headmen estimates and satellite
survey estimates had a strong linear relationship (R2=0.77); meaning that it seemed to be a safe assumption
that the area estimates from the village survey could be modelled as a linear function of the satellite survey
estimates. By using the best fit straight line y=ax+b through the points where both a village survey and a
remote sensing survey estimate was available, the corrected estimates of the village survey results for the
remaining provinces were calculated.
The estimate of the total area under cultivation is the sum of the estimates from the remote sensing of
sampled provinces, the targeted provinces and the provinces covered by the village survey only.
Inconsistencies with the village frame
The village frame is a list compiled by The Central Statistical Office in Afghanistan and AIMS. It contains
the village name, district name, province name, location, number of households, and average household
size of 41,419 villages.
The following two figures show scatter plots of the numbers of households (x-axes) together with the
numbers of villages (left) and with the population size (right).
As one can see, the total population is highly correlated with total numbers of households (all dots align
along one line), whereas the number of villages compared to the numbers of households in the province
has four remarkable outliers in the Day Kundi, Kandahar, Nangarhar and Zabul provinces (all within the
red circle). When compared to household numbers a relatively larger number of villages can come from a
significantly smaller size of village, however, double counting of villages or other problems with the
database cannot be excluded. Deeper analyses of these issues are out of the scope of this survey; but the
discrepancies between the number of villages and the number of households in some province should be
kept in mind when interpreting the results. Too large a number (relatively) of villages can lead to an
overestimate of indicators of interest (for example, the area under cultivation).
Figure 23 Scatter plots of household data, village data and population data of the village frame
16.00 3000
14.00 Population in province (100,000)
3500
2500
2000
1500
1000
500
12.00 10.00 8.00 6.00 4.00 2.00 Number of villages in province (absolute)
0
‐
‐
0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 Households in province (100,000)
2.50 ‐
0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 Households in province (100,000)
Estimation of yield and production
The basis of the yield estimates is the yield observation study (see respective section for details).
Information on these fields was used for calculating a yield per hectare separately for mono-crop fields in
the Northern and North-Eastern region and for the South-East-Central-West region. This distinction stems
from different garda production practices, which result in different yields.
48
2011 Survey of Commercial Cannabis Cultivation and Production
Cannabis yield per hectare in mixed-crop fields depends on several factors, such as plant density or the
type of the other crop. In some cases the fields had one row of cannabis and one row of mixed crop (for
example, when combined with potatoes), in other cases plants were mixed randomly (for example, when
combined with maize). It was therefore not possible to determine a clear pattern for the different
cultivation types.
For cultivation on bunds in fields the concept of per-hectare yield needs to be replaced by a “per-metre
yield”, which could be estimated on the basis of the yield observation factor. The unknown variables here
are thus the length of bunds cultivated, which depends on field size, and the number of edges under
cultivation.
To provide a production estimate for those types of fields the most straightforward method was, therefore,
to estimate a yield per field for fields with cultivation on bunds and mixed-crop fields. This yield per field
was then applied to an estimate of the total number of mixed-crop fields and of the number of fields with
cultivation on bunds. To make sure that the resulting production results are realistic the average field size
was compared from three different sources: the data from the yield observation study for mixed and monocrop fields, data from fields with cultivation on bunds and from headmen interviews on cannabis
cultivation. All three sources had average field sizes of between 0.04 and 0.12 ha, which was encouraging
for providing a yield per field based estimate.
Cannabis-cultivating households
The number of cannabis-cultivating households was estimated from information provided by headmen in
the sample villages on the number of households involved in cannabis cultivation compared to the total
number of households in the village. This number included any kind of cannabis cultivation, i.e. it may
have included households with only small-scale cannabis cultivation, such as in kitchen gardens.
The number of cannabis-cultivating households was estimated by calculating the proportion of cannabisgrowing households for each surveyed village, and calculating the weighted average proportion of
cannabis growing households per village for each province of the sampling frame (the cannabis risk area).
The weights represent the probability of villages being selected and included in the sample. The provincial
averages were multiplied with the total number of households in that province to obtain the total number of
cannabis-growing households per province. The sum of all provinces is the national estimate.
Farm-gate value of cannabis production
Similar to the methodology used in the Annual Opium Survey, the farm-gate value of cannabis was
calculated based on the prices observed in the monthly price monitoring in the month of harvesting/garda
production, when farmers were actually able to start selling their products, which was January 2011. As
monthly price monitoring only collects prices of first garda, second and third garda prices were calculated
from the average price difference between first and second and first and third garda reported by headmen
in the village survey. The first garda price of the yield regions used in this report was calculated as the
simple average of the provincial prices reported in the price monitoring report.
The upper and lower bound of the farm-gate value was calculated by using the upper and lower bounds of
the area estimates for the respective regions and on an upper bound for the yield per field for mixed
cropped fields and cultivation on bunds.
Income from cannabis
The potential gross income per hectare from cannabis resin was calculated based on regional prices and
regional yields, using the regional divisions described above. The gross income does not take into account
expenditures, and is the potential cash income individual farmers would get if they sold the total resin
produced in January 2011. The weighted average was calculated using the proportions of regional cannabis
cultivation from the remote sensing survey as weights.
49