IRIN interview with UNDCP representative

The International Day against Drug Abuse and Illicit Trafficking is being marked worldwide on 26 June. Working at the forefront of the global war effort against drugs is the United Nations Office for Drug Control (UNDCP), an agency particularly active in war-torn Afghanistan, once the leading producer of opium in the world. During the 1990s and up until 2000, Afghanistan was firmly established as the main source of the illicit opium produced, trafficked and consumed in the world. More specifically, it had become the source of 79 percent of the global illicit opium production in 1999, with a record harvest of 4,600 mt. Today, the opium poppy has been effectively eliminated in those parts of Afghanistan controlled by the Taliban, who imposed a ban on its cultivation, an act in which UNDCP was particularly instrumental. However, the successful ban on poppy cultivation is only one part of the equation in the war against drugs. In an interview with IRIN, UNDCP representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan, Bernard Frahi, highlighted what still needed to be done to sustain the ban and why immediate action by the international community has never been so important. QUESTION: Could you tell us about your recent mission into Afghanistan last month? ANSWER: The donors’ mission to Afghanistan’s former poppy-growing provinces last month was organised by UNDCP. This mission went to places that had already been surveyed last February by a special pre-assessment survey conducted by UNDCP. The mission, composed of six countries, including the US, confirmed our primary survey results that there was no poppy in this area, which in the past covered 75,000 hectares. UNDCP is currently carrying out the annual poppy survey in all of Afghanistan, including the northern regions. We will have the final results of this by mid-August. Q: Do you believe that the poppy eradication programme put in place by the Taliban is being maintained? A: That is what the experts from the donor countries concluded. Indeed, wherever they went, this was the conclusion. We covered a large territory in the provinces of Helmand, Kandahar, Zabul and Nangarhar. We didn’t find poppy in any of these areas and the mission returned with the conviction that in the areas visited, the ban was being implemented. Again, we are talking about 75,000 hectares, which had been surveyed last year and which had not been cultivated with poppy this year. Q: What effect has the ban had on the poppy and heroin trade, both in Afghanistan and internationally? A: Regarding the price of opium in Afghanistan, there was an immediate increase as a result of the ban. It is clear there was a fluctuation over the last year with regard to opium due to weather conditions affecting supply, with the price increasing or decreasing. In 2000, at harvest time, the price of opium was about US $35 per kilo, which was very low. Just after the announcement of the decree banning poppy, in July, the price of a kilo rose from US $35 to about US $100 per kilo. This past March, a kilo was US $600, but has now stabilised at about US $300 per kilo. In other words, using the premise of simple supply and demand, there has been a huge increase within Afghanistan. This in turn has created a lot of speculation. Of course, some farmers holding stocks of opium sold off some of their stocks to receive cash. At the same time, we have also noted over the past two months, an increase in the price of opium in Pakistan and Iran. The price in Pakistan is currently 40,000 rupees [US $630]. In the year 2000 in Iran, the figure was US $400. In February it rose to US $1,300 and US $2,750 in March. While it is a bit too early to say, we haven’t noticed a change in price of heroin in Europe - resulting in a lot of questions. Does it mean that the stocks are already in Europe for example? Maybe it is too early to say what effect it will have on the price of heroin, but this is certainly something that UNDCP will be monitoring over the next coming months. Q: How has the poppy ban affected the farmers and labourers in the area? A: That is a fundamental question, and there is always a reversal of the coin. The positive side is that based on our requests, the Taliban have complied with international standards with regard to drug control, calling for the elimination of illicit drugs, and particularly poppy cultivation. On the other side, however, this dramatic shift from illicit drugs to crops has generated a great deal of economic problems for the population there. To the landowning farmers is the problem of income. If you compare the cultivation of wheat with poppy, they lost two-thirds of their income. For the landless labourer, the problem of income is that they are no longer employed. Opium created a lot of work and this has not been replaced by new jobs - jobs that we could offer. It’s very limited, as many of these people were only employed during harvest time. Nonetheless, this loss of work has resulted in some cases of people moving, adding to the already steady flow of internally displaced persons [IDPs] within the country. Another problem identified is the issue of debt. Before the decree, it was quite normal in Afghanistan for people to get loans with opium. As we know, opium served as a form of credit. People were getting money or opium based on the expected opium that they were going to sell later on, repaying the debt after the harvest. For people that borrowed last year in January, they were supposed to pay back with the new crop this year, but now can’t. Furthermore, the creditors ask for the debt on the opium to be paid back in cash, but not at the price of opium when they took out the loan at US $35 per kilo, but rather the current market value which is US $300. As a result, many people wanting to pay off their debt have had to leave or sell off their assets to do so. In some instances, there have been reports of farmers having to sell off their daughters to the family of the creditor. In short, there have been a lot of problems, both economic and social, generated by this banning within Afghanistan. Q: Regarding the poppy eradication programme, do you think the Taliban are sincere in their efforts? A: They issued a decree imposing a total ban, and that ban has been fully implemented. UNDCP itself has seen and monitored the implementation of this ban last fall during the planting season. In the beginning of this year, we monitored its implementation. The one thing that we can say is that there is no poppy. In other words, the main cause of the non-cultivation this year is the decree. In this respect, the Taliban have fulfilled their commitment. Q: So you are pleased with the results? A: Yes, in accordance with the conventions, we are pleased with the results. There has been a full-fledged elimination of poppy cultivation in the country. However, with regard to the humanitarian aspect, UNDCP has always promoted the need to accompany such a measure with alternative development programmes. Unfortunately, we have not secured proper funding for this. Last year we had to close a pilot programme due to lack of funds. The option would have been no assistance at all, and the Taliban, we believe, implemented their commitment. Q: What specific efforts is your organisation making today? And what is your overall strategy in Afghanistan? A: UNDCP has always been focusing first on the elimination of poppy cultivation, contributing a great deal of effort to the issuance of this decree. Getting the decree in place was certainly, because of the dialogue that UNDCP maintained as the only international organisation working on drug control with the Taliban. We have managed to ensure [that] the Taliban take the right decisions, at the right level. Secondly, we have continually relayed what is happening in Afghanistan back to the international community. At the end of last year, UNDCP raised the issue that something very surprising would happen last December after Montreux. At the donor meeting in Vienna and at the ASG [Afghanistan Support Group] meeting in Montreux, we were already informing the international community of the ban, and that the ban would be seriously implemented. We have been readily encouraging the international community to respond to the consequences such a ban would have on the people. We carried out a pre-assessment survey in February. It was the first time we did it, and we did it because we couldn’t wait until September 2001 to inform the international community of the enforcement of the ban. We carried out this pre-assessment survey, which covered 80 percent of the territory. But it was sufficient to demonstrate that the ban was being seriously implemented. Based on this pre-assessment survey, we mobilised the donor community as early as 15 February. They decided, in their initial gesture, to go and see for themselves what was happening in Afghanistan. For this reason, we organised a special donor mission at the end of April, beginning of May, which brought back positive dividends. Donor funding will certainly come back to this issue, but with the conviction that the ban is in fact being implemented. At the same time, UNDCP has already used its authority to inform the international media of the enforcement of the ban. This is an important contribution of UNDCP, and the Taliban cannot only accept, but praise UNDCP for doing that. The authorities are actually very happy with the neutral and impartial role that UNDCP has played in this respect. Advocacy and information are, therefore, important aspects of UNDCP’s activities. UNDCP is also working on the formulation of projects. We want to help the population that have been affected by the ban. We have indicated the social and economic problems being faced by this group. We have a duty to help this population, which is why we are involved in a series of projects there. We are now awaiting some funding from some donors, and thus far we received positive indication from countries like the US. Out of the US $43 million for humanitarian assistance, at least one million would be given to UNDCP to assist the farmers. We are also working with the chair [Germany] of the Afghan Support Group to formulate with the agencies a package of projects for possible funding from donors. Hence, we have the role of attracting donors, of informing them, and of preparing projects to address the needs of the population. Q : What about the large stocks of poppy remaining in Afghanistan today? What should be done with them? A: That’s a very delicate question. Over the past two or three years we know that Afghanistan produced huge quantities of opium. These stocks are part of Afghanistan’s underground economy of drug trafficking. How much stock is actually in the pipeline at the moment is difficult to answer. The donors’ mission last month tried to secure some information about it, but it was very difficult as we are talking about a black economy. The only assurance we got was from the Taliban authorities, whose intentions were to help reduce the flow of drugs leaving the country. That’s really all we can say at this stage. Q: In a recent interview with IRIN, the director of the Taliban Islamic Emirate High Commission for Drug Control, Abdol Hamid Akhondzadeh, said it was the right of Afghans to expect more from the international community. Do you agree with him? A: In line with the UN General Assembly special session on drug control in New York in June 1998, heads of state and government of the UN expressed in a political declaration their commitment to assist the countries and populations where the elimination of illicit drugs would take place. Based on this declaration, there is a responsibility of the international community to assist those who are taking positive steps towards the elimination of illicit drugs, particularly when it is of no cost for the international community, which is the case in Afghanistan. Today we are facing a serious dilemma, which is strong enforcement and application of a commitment from the ruling authority in Afghanistan. In one year, we have eliminated what would correspond to 3,500 mt of opium. That is full elimination in one go. Today we have a large population which is not considered part of the direct “trafficking” population. They are farmers, labourers, and people who are simply trying to earn a minimal income level in a problematic country ravished by 20 years of war and drought. This dramatic elimination has generated immense problems for this group. Therefore, we have a responsibility towards these people. We need to help them. This sentiment has already been reflected by many statements said by UNDCP Executive Director Pino Arlacchi, followed by all authorities within the UN. It has been confirmed by the donors at the ASG. However, what one has to understand is the need to launch a machinery, and this always takes time. There was so much suspicion of Taliban involvement in drugs that we had to change the stigma or perception of the situation in Afghanistan - in other words, convince the donors that they could fund a serious programme in Afghanistan. We are gradually coming to this point. At the last ASG meeting in Islamabad two weeks ago, it was made clear by the donors that if there was one sure thing in Afghanistan today, it was the implementation of the ban. This is a remarkable achievement. It takes time, but it is coming. I should add that there is no need to challenge today whether one should come and contribute in Afghanistan. Donors need to help the farmers. Of course, the Taliban would like to see a flow of money come in. It will not come in in this form, but things are definitely proceeding in a proper way. Q: Regardless of the Taliban’s commitment towards the ban placed on the cultivation of poppy next year, more importantly, do you think the farmers will be able to maintain it next year? A: No one has a crystal ball, and we can only speculate. But let me say, the problems they face now are the problems they faced last year. During the planting season last fall 2000, the ban was fully implemented, without any harm to the population. In fact, we were told that some 30 or 40 people were arrested because they resisted the ban. We would expect the situation to be maintained just as it was last year. At least that is what the Taliban authorities told us during the donor mission. They said they were determined to maintain the ban and to enforce it next season. The farmers that we met confirmed to us that as the edict came directly from the supreme religious leader of the Taliban regime, they would respect it. Very few people expressed a desire to use arms to fight this - very few. So, until the fall, we simply have to wait and see what happens. We have to remain optimistic that the ban will be maintained. The Taliban had said they would issue this decree and would enforce it, both of which they did. This year they said they would maintain it, so we have to believe that it will be maintained. Nonetheless, we have the responsibility to support the sustaining of this ban by assisting the communities that are being affected. Even if it is only symbolic this summer, we have to take some action to demonstrate that some assistance will be coming. It will never come in one go, but [will] be gradual. This is our responsibility with regard to the ban. Q: Drought and the poppy eradication programme have hit the farmers in the region twofold. Many, in fact, have become displaced to as far away as Herat. Do you think that we have missed the boat? A: I do not think that we have missed the boat. On the contrary, thanks to the issuance of the ban, and the full elimination of poppy cultivation this year, we received the support of all the UN agencies of the need to do something immediately at the village level. Thanks to the situation and the strong commitment by the Taliban, we have succeeded in convincing the international community that at least one devil - the cultivation of opium - is finished in the country. The fact that there is no opium is immensely important in proving that the ban is being seriously implemented. Based on that, and the fact that it has produced adverse consequences for the population, it became clear to our UN leaders and authorities that instead of working outside the country to encourage the return of refugees, or to work on the IDP problem, it was very useful to work at the root of the problem. There is a need to work in poppy-growing areas to assist the landowners and labourers so that they stay where they are. Many labourers were only getting jobs because of the opium being cultivated, and are now losing income. This, of course, will only lead to a greater flow of IDPs and refugees. That is why we are working to generate work for these people. Food for work, for example, with the minimum of cash to assist the people to remain settled where they are. This is an important role that all UN agencies have to address, working together, to assist IDPs and refugees, not when they are in camps, but today at the [site of the] root problem. If these people leave, it will only compound the already difficult problems existing at these camps. This is a humanitarian war that all UN agencies need to address. Based on what we have heard from the executive director or high commissioner of these agencies, that is seriously being considered. Q: The German Ambassador and current head of the ASG told IRIN in a recent interview that they were focusing on more alternative income projects for farmers and farm labourers affected by the Taliban poppy eradication programme. What sort of programmes do you envision? A: It could be short-term to medium to long-term programmes. Short-term programmes being the provision of seeds, fertilisers and pesticides to the farmers who have land. They need to have improved seeds for the next season to produce wheat, which is a winter crop. However, we also need to assist those who have no land, but worked as labourers in the poppy cultivation areas. For example, food-for-work programmes. Many things could be done. Renovation of roads, refurbishment of canals, improving the current irrigation system are all examples of areas in which we could work together. There is also a need for medium- to long-term programmes. We cannot just give immediate assistance to the people to keep them where they are. When we provide seeds, we need to ensure that the products these people will have can be properly distributed. In other words, there will be a need for marketing and for credit. Opium was a credit source, and that credit source is gone. How are people to live if they only have wheat? If they only have wheat, they cannot buy clothes, medicine etcetera. We have to address this issue and establish a revolving fund, a credit scheme that of course would involve a longer period of time than six months. This is a good example of a medium- to long-term programme. Another area we need to address is water. If you switch from growing poppy to wheat or cotton, for example, you need to have more water and more efficient irrigation schemes. You need to renovate canals and wells. These are all major-term programmes. Then there is the issue of marketing. You need to be able to sell the products. If farmers can’t sell the products they are growing, what good is that? Moreover, we need to work with the next generation to get rid of this social stigma to grow poppy in the first place. Instead, we need to encourage people to go to school for education. We need to ensure that in poppy growing areas, we have schools and proper training facilities for teachers. It’s amazing to see in these areas that there are no schools. In addition, we need to provide work for women. Earlier, women were very much involved in the opium production. These are just a few of the short- and long-term development programmes we need to work on. Currently, we are working with all UN agencies to formulate a package of such projects. Q: Currently funding for your organisation is being done on a one-year basis. Wouldn’t a three-year programme be more realistic? A: Three years, five years, 10 years would definitely be better. When funding is only done on an annual basis, it is difficult to launch a project which is very often a three- to five-year programme. There is always the risk that the funding will not be secured, and afterwards we have to close a project before its completion. This is a serious handicap we face when we have funding that is limited to one year. Sometimes we get funding for periods longer than one year. This would certainly be more beneficial. Q: Aside from funding, what are the main obstacles being faced by your organisation? A: That’s a good question. I wouldn’t say we face obstacles. However, looking at just Afghanistan, despite the advocacy role being played by UNDCP, the main obstacle is the lack of immediate response to the problem through our organisation. The problem today is not merely one of drugs, but of development and humanitarian issues. This is a problem that be addressed by all UN agencies, not just UNDCP. In other words, agencies like WFP, UNOCHA, FAO, and UNDP, should all be participating now. There is a need now to ensure that since response is related to this drug-control problem, the need to maintain a minimum support to UNDCP, so that we can play the role as buffer and spokes-entity for the international community. That is one role that we can continue to play with the support of the donors. In short, there is nothing sustainable thus far, and we have to follow this closely. In addition, we have to address the issue of drug cultivation in the northern areas. Here there remains the important job of advocacy in working with the authorities. That action needs to be taken in eliminating poppy cultivation. At the same time, alternative work programmes need to be developed to assist the communities there as well. Throughout it all, we have to maintain a large security programme that we have set up around Afghanistan, to ensure that enforcement against drug trafficking will work properly. We have to monitor that there is no opium this year in Afghanistan. How much is still there, how much has been processed, and how much is going to leave the country are still questions we do not know [the answers to]. We need to remain vigilant, and this is the role of UNDCP. Q: What is your prognosis of the drug situation in Afghanistan today? A: Afghanistan last year was producing 75 percent of the world’s opium production. This year it will not hold such a record, but be a “model” country in terms of production and cultivation instead. In terms of prognosis, there is a very high probability that the ban will remain implemented next year, and Afghanistan, for the second year, will not produce opium. Nonetheless, it will only be in the medium term that we will see the full effect of the ban - not in the first year. However, if in the second year the ban is seriously implemented, we will see opium in the form of stocks leaving the country, as it is not in the interest of the people to hold onto them, but to sell them instead. Today we are seeing decreases in seizures in Iran and Pakistan, as well as Central Asia, so it will be interesting to see what will happen. In short, we have to remain vigilant. Normally, when we close a water tap, there is no water any more except that which remains in the pipeline. The same can be said about the opium pipeline.