Abstract

November marks the onset of the opium poppy planting season in Afghanistan. Speculation over the scale of cultivation in 2009 also begins in this month. As in previous years, when the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) publishes its annual Rapid Assessment Survey in February, the speculation over the hectarage of opium poppy grown this season will reach a crescendo, dominating coverage in the media and subsequently shaping policy in the coming season. This is all despite the fact that one year’s measure of opium area cannot assess trends of long term change nor does it reveal how any change occurred or, therefore, the likely sustainability of that change.

The problems associated with assessing counter-narcotics achievements purely in terms of the hectarage of opium poppy grown are compounded by confusion over attribution. A rise in the level of cultivation leads to counter-narcotics efforts being seen as responsible for the failure of such policies, while a fall in any given year means the label of success is assigned. For example, reductions in the level of cultivation in the north, northeast and central provinces are primarily attributed to successful counter-narcotics efforts.1 Yet due to an overall rise in global food prices, the more recent decline in opium price, the Government of Pakistan’s ban on wheat exports and lower rainfall in Afghanistan, there has been a significant shift away from opium poppy in favour of the terms of trade on wheat. In 2008, farmers in more marginal areas have been able to obtain a greater quantity of wheat for consumption by growing it on their own land than by growing opium to sell and using the proceeds to purchase wheat. As such, environmental and economic factors have played a more significant role in decreasing opium poppy cultivation levels than counter-narcotics policies did.

Over the last decade in Afghanistan, there have been a number of occasions when a significant annual reduction in the level of opium cultivation has not been sustained. The Taliban prohibition of 2001 was seen as a success, as were the 2005 and 2006 reductions in Nangarhar and Balkh. All have been heralded as evidence of successful counter-narcotics efforts. Even now, Nangarhar is once again being cited as a success story despite the deteriorating security situation. As with the return of cultivation in 2002 following the collapse of the Taliban, the 2007 increase in national levels of cultivation following both the resurgence in cultivation in Nangarhar and the deteriorating security situation in the south was viewed as symptomatic of a failure of counternarcotics policy. In 2009, a return to cultivation in the province of Nangarhar or other provinces identified as "poppy-free" in 2008 is likely to once again bring with it accusations of failure. There is no doubt some will call for the rethinking of counter-narcotics policy, perhaps once again resurrecting demands for the magic bullets of legalisation or aerial eradication.

The top-down, coercive means of imposing reduced cultivation and the subsequent impact on the household and wider economy have also left in their wake a growing discontent among much of the population. Opium poppy bans have often served to consolidate economic and political power in the hands of the relatively resource wealthy, some of whom are involved in the drug trade. The Taliban prohibition of 2001 led to an increase in the farm-gate price of opium, not only encouraging the return to cultivation the following year but also attracting new entrants. When cultivation rebounded in Nangarhar in 2007, it did so in an atmosphere of mistrust, broken promises, economic stagnation and higher opium prices. Addressing the underlying causes of opium poppy cultivation - and thereby delivering sustainable reductions in opium production - becomes much more difficult in such an environment.

Despite the negative repercussions of imposing such significant reductions on opium poppy cultivation over such a short period of time, these efforts are still described as successful. Some governors are individually commended for their efforts when significant reductions in cultivation are achieved and calls are made for other provincial leaders to follow suit. Development assistance is even allocated based on falling levels of cultivation. This inadequate understanding of the reasons for changes in the level of cultivation is perhaps most pronounced in discussions regarding the southern region of Afghanistan. There, high levels of cultivation, despite falling farm-gate prices and particularly low net returns on opium, are blamed on failed counter-narcotics policy rather than a much deeper failure to deliver progress in security, economic growth and governance. This tendency to blame counter-narcotics policy reflects a wider failure of understanding that limits the policy debate and constrains the development of more relevant measures of progress. Sustainable reductions in opium poppy cultivation will only be achieved by a wider process of improved security, economic growth and governance, rather than by a distinct and parallel set of more limited counter-narcotics activities whose success or failure is assessed against short term changes in opium poppy area.

The challenge is to define success measures that capture whether reductions in the level of cultivation actually reflect a durable process of movement out of opium poppy, or simply a shortterm reaction to political pressures or physical intervention. Reductions in opium poppy area do not necessarily indicate progress if the land previously allocated to opium poppy is grown with wheat one year only to return to opium the next. Measures of positive changes in security, economic growth and governance - together with declines in hectarage - better reflect a more sustainable shift out of opium poppy cultivation and progress towards the achievement of counter-narcotics outcomes. More appropriate measures for judging progress in the short and medium term might be improvements in rural livelihood security associated with basic security; social protection, including the achievement of food security; and economic growth. Further, it must be recognised that progress against these measures will vary by location, socioeconomic group and time. Those with better access to resources can reduce and ultimately abandon opium poppy more rapidly than those in more remote, resource poor areas that are more and more exposed to risk and uncertainty.