Executive Summary
As the number of urban residents in
Afghanistan rises dramatically, the international donor and assistance
community is increasingly looking at ways to address the challenges of
urban planning and poverty. The term "vulnerability" has been
developed as a recognised conceptual framework and analytical approach
to address marginality and poverty through means other than economic terms
alone. Vulnerability has been defined as "the exposure to contingencies
and stress, and difficulties coping with them. Vulnerability has thus two
sides: an external side of risks, shocks and stress to which an individual
or household is subject; and an internal side which is defencelessness,
meaning a lack of means to cope without damaging loss."1
The present study attempts to shed light on the myriad forms of urban vulnerability in Afghanistan. Based on focus group discussions in three cities -- Kabul, Jalalabad and Herat -- the study tries to move beyond the broad category of "vulnerable groups" to concentrate instead on the "asset-vulnerability"2 of different communities, households and individuals. The research team also sought to find out about the biggest problems and risks faced by the urban poor (perception of risks), how individuals deal with the identified problem (coping strategy -- what is actually done in face of the specific problem), possible solutions (suggestions from the affected persons themselves) and existing modes of self-help and mutual support.
The focus group discussions revealed four intertwined forms of vulnerability in urban Afghan settings:
- Vulnerability to income failure;
- Vulnerability to food insecurity;
- Vulnerability to poor health; and
- Vulnerability to social exclusion and disempowerment.
A key finding of the study is thus that the widely used term "vulnerable group" is not a concise category, because there are differences within all groups studied. Vulnerabilities tend to be a-spatial, i.e., not confined to a specific urban location, and affect different social groups across all three cities in similar ways. However, inside certain groupings, differences do exist, and it is not the social group per se that is vulnerable, but certain households and individuals belonging to these groups.
In attempting to move beyond a group-focused approach, Moser's asset vulnerability framework may offer a more realistic view of the situation in Afghanistan's cities. This framework looks at human, financial, social, physical and environmental factors, as well as both positive and negative potential coping strategies and outcomes. The framework could be a useful tool for practitioners to improve the impact of programming for so-called vulnerable populations.
Other recommendations to begin to tackle urban vulnerability include the following:
- Generate longer-term income opportunities
that enable people to earn cash throughout the year and build up stocks
to cope during "lean" times;
- Support housing reconstruction efforts
and establish some form of tenure rights for squatter settlements on the
periphery of cities;
- Increase balanced food assistance options
and nutrition awareness to combat the widespread phenomenon of "hidden
hunger;"
- Develop credit-cycle schemes that allow
for low or interest-free loans, to reduce dependency on family and shopkeepers
for financial assistance;
- Build on local potentials of self-help
and establish access to social participation; and
- Conduct further vulnerability research to explore risks and coping strategies at the household level.
Footnotes
1 Chambers, R. "Vulnerability, coping and policy." IDS Bulletin. 1989. 20: 1-7.
2 Moser, C. "The Asset Vulnerability Framework: Reassessing Urban Poverty Reduction Strategies." World Development. 1998. 26(1): 1-19.
(pdf* format - 487 KB)