Financing support for internally displaced persons (IDPs) in Afghanistan is challenging. An emphasis on local integration, involving local actors, the private sector, the diaspora community and climate finance could offer a way forward.

Financing Solutions for IDPs is a complex undertaking. It proves most challenging in fragile, conflict and violence-affected settings, notably in those with politically estranged governments. This is the case of Afghanistan (since the August 2021 Interim Taliban Administration takeover) where the focus is on humanitarian and basic needs assistance and where engagement with authorities is limited to technical dialogue. In Afghanistan, the international community favours approaches from the humanitarian-development-peace nexus to support solutions to internal displacement, using research and evidence, operational responses and financing.

The formation of the Office of the Special Advisor on Solutions to Internal Displacement, in 2023, represents an unprecedented recognition of the high cost of protracted displacement, and the multi-faceted barriers to durable solutions. However, since the 2016 New York Declaration of the UN General Assembly, the international community’s focus has been on supporting refugees and other migrants. International financing for internal displacement is in short supply and unlikely to increase.

Under these conditions, available resources need to have maximum impact and consider the following questions:

Are governments ready to take ownership and dedicate resources for internally displaced people? IDPs are nationals of their countries, and any decision-making around needs and assistance among nationals is a politically loaded decision, especially in fragile, conflict and violence-affected contexts. Traditional development financing rests on the principles of government ownership, but in fragile, conflict and violence-affected states this is complicated. Government entities often enable violence and displacement, deny the needs of IDPs and marginalised groups, and fail to create enabling environments for voluntary and dignified displacement solutions.

Can earmarked funds extend to internal displacement? The creation of dedicated financing from the World Bank for refugees and their hosts has increased expectations that displaced populations – whether or not they have crossed a border – warrant the allocation of specific resources. However, the rationale for the establishment of earmarked funds was the lack of incentives for refugee-hosting countries to use their finite development resources for non-citizens, a rationale that does not apply to IDP situations. In fact, linking the provision of additional resources to the number of IDPs in a given country could create counterproductive incentives such as skewed data or exacerbating tensions between displaced and host communities.

Is traditional development financing suited to addressing displacement? The majority of financing towards internal displacement is humanitarian in nature and disbursed in funding cycles that last between six and twelve months. This reality drives the push to situate IDPs as beneficiaries of development financing. The systematic inclusion of an ‘IDP lens’ for development financing in affected countries could maximise impact.

The challenge of financing displacement solutions in Afghanistan

In Afghanistan, where there are an estimated 6.3 million IDPs,^[1] the presence of a de facto Taliban government has rendered effective and collective financing difficult. Since the takeover in August 2021, international donors have left aside any contributions to substantive development responses. In a situation of protracted displacement, the lack of structural response is a major obstacle in the search and financing for sustainable solutions.

UN organisations (including the International Organization for Migration) and multilateral development banks (including the World Bank) are working across the humanitarian-basic human needs nexus in support of the Afghan people. This entails basic services support, which is off-budget and outside the control of the Interim Taliban Administration, aligned with the ‘principled approach’ of delivery by and for women.

Ensuring that available resources are spent to maximise impact will require interventions that are consistent with the following key principles:

Enable greater access to public services
Enabling IDPs’ economic and social integration through inclusion in national health and education systems, access to public services, and livelihood and housing programmes is crucial. While development planning is paused in Afghanistan, discussions around ‘inclusive urban solutions’ can remain a focus and a step ahead of further urban planning discussions. Economic considerations inform displacement and mobility decisions and access to sustainable livelihoods is fundamental to displacement solutions. Understanding public spending, household and diaspora contributions to key sectors – such as health, education, water and sanitation – can ensure that displacement-affected communities remain supported.

Broaden the conversation on people in need
In many conflict-affected countries, internal displacement has become a proxy to identify those who are vulnerable. The use of such proxies is critical to the effectiveness of aid programmes in resource-constrained settings. However, prioritising IDPs over other groups of citizens is not always the most effective way to address vulnerability, other factors need to be considered and support should promote local integration by addressing broader community needs. This will entail systematic inclusion of key groups, with gender, displacement and disabilities as potential markers for inclusion.

Use approaches from the wider sector
Traditionally approached as humanitarian emergencies, forced displacement crises tend to become protracted given the ongoing nature of drivers of displacement (such as conflict and climate change) and the complexity of durable solutions. Yet, globally, the majority of external financing is provided for humanitarian purposes, typically as short-term responses to urgent demands. In protracted situations, the succession of emergency, crisis-response programmes is unlikely to be effective. Instead, it is better to develop responses that can be sustained over time, both financially and socially. Approaches drawn from the humanitarian-development-peace nexus may be helpful.

Strategies for funding and addressing IDP solutions

Consider financing mechanisms that are not dedicated to displacement
Funding decisions need to match the drivers of displacement by addressing the missing link between climate financing and the durable solutions agenda. In Afghanistan, the majority of recent displacement is caused by climate change and environmental shocks. Financing solutions through climate action is a timely opportunity: climate resilience represents an area of consensus among all stakeholders – authorities, donors, civil society and international actors. The priority is to ensure that donors and implementers of climate resilience programmes, including the Asia Development Bank, the Aga Khan Foundation, UNICEF and the World Bank, actively engage with and meaningfully integrate the durable solutions agenda in their climate interventions.
Include local actors in planning and decision-making
In a context where the de facto government is not being given direct budgetary support, design and planning solutions need to be found at a local level to promote communities’ resilience to change and ability to integrate displaced people. This requires multi-year funding to ensure a consistent dialogue and committed engagement is maintained. This also means looking at the actors who are able to move the agenda forward – local actors able to connect and consult a range of stakeholders (including displaced people) and actors that can design participatory budgeting processes to unlock either public funding or donor funding to match the solutions put forward. Samuel Hall has piloted this approach in the city of Jalalabad in Afghanistan. The project shows the benefits of participatory planning forums to co-design inclusive solutions.^[2]
Leverage data to create a common narrative on the funding required
Costing plans that focus on reducing the number of people in protracted displacement may have limitations in a context where numbers are imperfect and unreliable. To solve the costing question, the priority should be to strengthen resilience and facilitate digital remittances, diaspora investments and private sector investments in Afghanistan. This requires integrating data on the inclusion of displaced groups and specific tools dedicated to understanding how displaced women can be supported in their livelihoods and entrepreneurial activities.^[3] An ongoing effort led by the International Organization for Migration and UNHCR to better understand IDP population figures is another important data initiative that will enable better measurement of progress towards durable solutions.
Recognise the role of diaspora communities and the private sector
Qualitative data has shown that diaspora communities play an important role in supporting internally displaced people in Afghanistan. Including diaspora communities and the private sector in the planning stages could encourage more sustainable financing for durable solutions to internal displacement in Afghanistan. More data is needed on remittances, and their role in financing solutions, in fragile, conflict and violence-affected contexts.

Reflections

Ownership of solutions to displacement should rest with governments. However, different responses are needed depending on the context, and the complex role, strengths and limitations of specific governments. National governments are often party to, or disadvantaged by, the internal displacement crisis and its drivers. Financing approaches that are inclusive of displaced people and host communities, feature a localised response and make coherent use of data will be fundamental to advancing existing frameworks towards their intended outcomes.

Responding to the needs of displaced people in Afghanistan represents a particularly complex challenge. Inaction, either due to politically driven paralysis or an inability to capitalise on good practice and learnings, would bear dramatic consequences for the most vulnerable Afghans facing a compounding crisis of poverty, gender and climate. Tactical and long term investments are needed, including through climate financing channels, to address barriers to durable solutions and to support the resilience of displacement affected communities.

Olivier Lavinal
Program Leader, Sustainable Development and Infrastructure – Afghanistan, The World Bank
olavinal@worldbank.org

Lauren McCarthy
(Former) Durable Solutions Coordinator – Afghanistan, International Organization for Migration
lauren.mccarthy00@gmail.com

Nassim Majidi
Co-Founder and Executive Director, Samuel Hall
nassim.majidi@samuelhall.org
linkedin.com/in/nassimmajidi/

Disclaimer: The findings, interpretations, and conclusions expressed in this work are entirely those of the authors and should not be attributed in any manner to the World Bank, its Board of Executive Directors, or the governments they represent and it does not necessarily represent the views of IOM.

^[1] https://dtm.iom.int/afghanistan

^[2] Samuel Hall (2024) ‘Planning for Inclusive Urban solutions in Afghanistan’ www.samuelhall.org/publications/tag/Participatory+Forum

^[3] Barratt, S. et al (2024) Afghanistan’s unfolding crisis: wellbeing and livelihoods of displaced people before and after regime change www.iied.org/22276iied

READ THE FULL ISSUE