community scorecard of kabul municipality 2016...integrity watch afghanistan community scorecard of...

www.iwaweb.org

COMMUNITY SCORECARD OF KABUL MUNICIPALITY

2016

INTEGRITY WATCH AFGHANISTAN

COMMUNITY SCORECARD OF KABUL MUNICIPALITY 2016 3

Copyright © 2016 by Integrity Watch Afghanistan. All rights reserved.

Published by Integrity Watch Afghanistan

Kolola Poshta, Kabul, Afghanistan

Email: [email protected]

Website: www.iwaweb.org

ACKNOwLEDgEMENTS

This report would like to thank those Kabul citizens who enthusiastically shared their views during public hearings and patiently participated in the surveys. A special thanks goes to Wakeel Guzars, neighborhood representatives, who facilitated the participation of their fellow neighbors. In addition, researchers express their gratitude to the heads of Kabul Municipality districts for their cooperation and collaboration. Finally, we would like to thank our peer reviewers, Amirzada Ahmadzai and Sayed Naqibullah Esmati for their insights and views.

TABLE OF CONTENT

Acknowledgements ................................................................................................................................................... iiExecutive Summary ..................................................................................................................................................1Recommendations ....................................................................................................................................................3

PART ONE .............................................................................................................................................. 4

METHODOLOgY ................................................................................................................................... 4

PART TwO .............................................................................................................................................. 8

KABUL MUNICIPALITY FINDINgS ......................................................................................................... 8

PART THREE .......................................................................................................................................... 20

DISTRICTS’ PUBLIC HEARINgS AND FINDINgS .................................................................................. 20

District One (Shar-e Kuhna).....................................................................................................................................21District Two (Deh Afghanan-Quwaye Markaz) ........................................................................................................23District Three (Kabul University Road) ....................................................................................................................25District Four (Klola Poshta) ......................................................................................................................................27District Five (Khushla Mena-Kut-e Sangi) ................................................................................................................29District Six (West of Sarak Darul Aman-Pul Surkh Road) .........................................................................................31District Seven (East of Sarak Darul Aman-Chelsutoon Road) ..................................................................................33District Eight (Sarake-e Now) ..................................................................................................................................35District Nine (Macroyan) .........................................................................................................................................37District Ten (Wazir Akbar Khan) ..............................................................................................................................39District Eleven (Khair Khana) ...................................................................................................................................41District Twelve, (Ahmad Shah Baba Mena or Arzan Qeemat) .................................................................................43District Thirteen (Dasht-e Barchi) ............................................................................................................................45District Fourteen (Paghman) ...................................................................................................................................47District Fifteen (Khair Khana-Sarak-e Maidan) ........................................................................................................49District Sixteen (Qala Zaman Khan) .........................................................................................................................51District Seventeen (Sare Kotal Khair Khana) ...........................................................................................................53District Eighteen (Deh Sabz) ....................................................................................................................................55District Nineteen (Bagrami) ....................................................................................................................................57District Twenty-One (Binesar) .................................................................................................................................59District Twenty-Two (Shewaki) ................................................................................................................................61

LIST OF ANNEXES ................................................................................................................................. 64

1


COMMUNITY SCORECARD OF KABUL MUNICIPALITY 2016

Kabul residents were asked in a community scorecard to rank sixteen service delivery and governance indicators of Kabul Municipality districts between “very good” and “very bad.” From 1,275 respondents across 21 districts, the average score was “bad.” Five times more participants provided a score of “very bad” than “very good” for districts’ performances. Forty percent of survey-takers responded that the service delivery by Kabul Municipality was “very bad.”

Out of sixteen, public cooperation with the municipality, process of document registration and solid waste management were the top three indicators while accountability to public, bus stands, and car parking were the top lowest indicators in 2015 survey. In terms of district ranking, districts 3, 14 and 1 were the three top performers while districts 18, 21, 13 were the three lowest underperforming districts. It is important to note that the three top indicators and the best performing districts are viewed as just “fair” by Kabul citizens. Overall, out of a score of 100, the average rating for the service delivery and governance of Kabul Municipality was 44 in 2015 from 34 in 2014. Although Kabul Municipality has shown some improvement over last year, its current score of 44 is below average.

One key factor contributing to the public’s view of Kabul Municipality’s poor service delivery and governance is the lack of robust laws and priority given by government leaders to urban development policy formulation. After thirteen years of President Karzai’s tenure, Afghanistan still uses a 15-year-old municipality law that was enacted during the Taliban’s rule. Half of the law has already been abolished due to conflict with new laws. As a result, there are no updated urban development policies upon which decision making becomes possible.

The National Unity Government (NUG) raised the expectations of citizens by promising to turn the country’s cities, including Kabul, into drivers of urban development. Although the NUG has produced a comprehensive study on “the Status of Afghan Cities,” it has yet to abolish the old municipality law, and there is no indication of plans to develop a new urban policy. Even worse, the NUG has not been able to appoint anyone to the position of Kabul mayor for nearly two years.

Besides a lack of political leadership to address the problems in Kabul City, the slow progress of Kabul Municipality and dissatisfaction of the public regarding service delivery stems from within the organization itself. Based on public hearings

held in 21 districts of Kabul Municipality, there are eight major problems that have hindered performance. These issues include internal centralization, lack of accountability to the public, reactive service delivery, an unresponsive approach to unplanned areas, absence of prioritization, a strong aversion to privatization, problems of coordination, and serious management issues.

Internal centralization. Kabul Municipality has 22 districts, each of which has been turned into an administrative unit with no authority over financial and human resources. Both civilians and district officials complain that all decisions are vested in and centralized with Kabul Municipality authorities. There are talks of creating more than one municipality for the Kabul city. However, instead of creating new jurisdictions, there is a strong desire for greater authority to be ceded to existing districts. Specifically, in the case of human resources and vehicles, the demand is that waste management staff and transportation vehicles fall under the authority of the districts. Regarding financial resources, each district submits a development plan, but there is no formula to adequately allocate a proportion of the revenues they collect for local district requirements. The current call is that at least fifty percent of the revenue collected by districts should be spent at the discretion of the district, with oversight and monitoring from the district advisory council.

Lack of accountability to the public. The mayor, district heads, and to a large extend Wakeel Guzars are not elected. Lack of elections create serious accountability issues among others. On one hand, the public officials do not feel accountable to the people and on the other hand people do not feel part of the government. Town hall meetings are not held and there is weak people participation in the decision making. In addition, due to lack of accountability of public officials to the people, there is no response to public complaints in a systematic way. There were several instances during the public hearings where citizens complained that they reported their respective district issues to the municipality with no avail. Collection of revenues is not transparent and the municipality officials do not feel accountable to report on the use of the funds.

Reactive service delivery. When district officials were questioned about the timetable on which they collect waste in their area, a majority of the answers were “whenever local people call on us, we immediately send vehicles to transport waste.” One major problem is that districts are unable to plan for the use of their available resources and act before they are called upon. Reactivity

EXECUTIvE SUMMARY


COMMUNITY SCORECARD OF KABUL MUNICIPALITY 2016 2

is not limited to service delivery but it is a major problem in governance too. Due to reactive governance concerning the drafting and implementation of the master plan, out of 400,000 dwellings in Kabul city, 3 out of 4 are unplanned, meaning they are not based on the master plan.1 The reason for this is that Kabul Municipality did not proactively plan the city suburbs before they were urbanized. In some areas, therefore, Kabul Municipality officials do not allow people to construct on their privately-owned properties because the plan is still not ready.

Unresponsive approach to unplanned areas. Unplanned areas are either government lands that that have been grabbed, or private lands where houses have been built on. Some district officials claim that they are not legally bound to provide services to unplanned areas which they refer to with the derogatory term, Zur Abad (forcefully built). However, existing legislation requires that Kabul Municipality provides services to all residents within its boundary without discrimination. In practice, however, when residents within these areas request services, officials deny them. Such an approach is seen as a failure of Kabul Municipality and has had disastrous consequences for the citizens in these areas.

Absence of prioritization. Kabul City lacks basic water infrastructure of pumping drinking water to dwellings and transporting waste water to proper areas. Canalization and access to clean water are pressing issues in the city. Roads’ conditions and waste management are two other major problems. They were the top issues raised during the public hearings and Kabul Municipality has failed on each of the above issues. Kabul Municipality has built some roads but due to lack of prioritizing canalization over roads, such paved roads fall apart far before the end of their intended useful life due to rainfall among other reasons.

Strong aversion to privatization. Kabul Municipality has failed to manage waste collection in the city or to provide necessary maintenance for roads. However, the Municipality has also not welcomed other actors who would play a role in addressing the issues Kabul Municipality can’t handle on its own. Afghan municipalities that have proactively privatized or subsidized waste management, such as Herat, have prevented potential failures. Kabul Municipality has not yet developed the breadth of vision to explore transferring part of its mandate from direct delivery to alternative mechanisms. Privatization has been successful in Afghanistan not only in municipalities but also in the areas of national health and education. This needs to be seriously explored by Kabul Municipality as well.

Problem of coordination. The existing legal framework has failed to outline clear boundaries for the Water and Canalization Corporation and the Ministry of Urban Development, on the one hand, and Kabul Municipality on the other hand. Stronger coordination over the past decade could have bridged this gap. Similarly, the Municipality’s “island mentality” has blurred its responsibilities versus the responsibilities of Ministry of Health in the area of public hygiene and in regard to cultural and educational activities as compared to the responsibilities of other ministries. In addition, the relationship between Kabul Municipality and both Ministry of Interior Affairs and National Environmental Protection Authority has not been collaborative. Robust coordination mechanisms between both mid and high-level officials is required to mobilize and utilize the resources of the responsible agencies for the benefit of the Kabul city residents.

Serious management issues. There are more resources and infrastructure at the disposal of Kabul Municipality than is evidenced by the output it produces. Kabul Municipality has not produced reliable data and information upon which it can formulate policies and take action. In addition, it has not efficiently and effectively managed its own resources especially at district level. These subordinate units can turn into strong operational hands of the municipality if the required resources are properly allocated and professional managers are assigned. Furthermore, Kabul Municipality has not mapped the existing resources available to boost its service delivery. Wakeel Guzars are volunteer representatives of their communities with strong potential to mobilize cooperation and implement policies.

Considering the above-noted issues and the serious lack of attention on urban planning and development by the political leadership of Kabul Municipality, this report advises the following:

3



▪ The government should commence a thorough review of the municipality’s laws in consultation with civil society groups and propose amendments to the National Assembly.

▪ Kabul City’s existing master plan and other detailed plans should be publicized. A national urban development policy is overdue and should be a priority. Kabul Municipality requires a responsive and flexible policy for unplanned areas, including usurped properties, in order to make service delivery and planning possible. Municipality officials at all levels should take responsibility for ensuring the right of every citizen to receive basic municipal services.

▪ The government should immediately appoint a mayor of the city with proven leadership experience and integrity. The government should extend full and sustained political support to his/her plans. A Municipality election should be held within the next 12-18 months.

▪ Kabul Municipality should increase the financial authority of the districts within existing legislation and authorize district authority over allocation of a proportion of revenues, and responsibility for a proportion of expenditure, in each district.

▪ Canalization of the city should be a top priority, followed by access to clean water. Based on the existing legislations, this action is part of the mandate of Water and Canalization Corporation of Afghanistan while Kabul Municipality also bears responsibility for them. In order to avoid problem of coordination, options like transferring full responsibility to provide water and canalization to Kabul Municipality should be explored.

▪ Whether in part or in full, Kabul Municipality should proactively privatize or create public private partnership mechanisms with companies in area of waste management in the city. The Municipality can act as a regulatory authority while delegating the oversight of waste collection to the Wakeel Guzars.

▪ As the primary responsible agency in charge of all the affairs of Kabul City, Kabul Municipality should act as such. Currently, Kabul Municipality officials blame other government agencies such as Water and Canalization Corporation of Afghanistan, Ministry of Interior Affairs, Ministry of Health, Ministry of Education, and National Environmental Protection Authority among others for not improving the living conditions in the city including. Instead, the Municipality should improve its capacities to become the main coordinating agency for delivery of basic services within Kabul City.

▪ Kabul Municipality should actively consult with people and involve them in planning and monitoring of service delivery by holding town hall meetings for providing update to people and to hear their views and to involve them in decision making. Public consultation should be regulated and annual meeting dates should be specified and publicized in advance.

▪ Provide access to information in a way that is understandable and accessible to the public such as using walls of districts to provide details of district budget. Each district should designate a public information officer to provide information to the people. This will provide the environment for people’s interest in the municipality activities and will positively affect revenue collections and project implementation in the future.

▪ Establish a proper complaint mechanism using available technologies such as Complaints Pro, Zoho Support, Voxmapp, etc. and establish systems to address them in a timely manner.

RECOMMENDATIONS

Part One: Methodology

4COMMUNITY SCORECARD OF KABUL MUNICIPALITY 2016

PART ONEMETHODOLOgY

5



The Community Scorecard is a research/advocacy tool to measure perceptions and hold public officials accountable. It is a widely used social audit approach carried out around the world—particularly in developing and post-conflict countries—to improve governance, provide accountability to the public, and encourage public participation in the decision-making process.2 This approach provides not only a scorecard record, but also a means to document perceptions and feedback by a community or communities regarding public institutions, their attitudes toward the public, and the quality of services they provide to a community/communities.3In addition, the community scorecard empowers citizens to hold their public officials accountable. A unique feature of the community scorecard is immediate feedback because the methodology provides for an interface and public hearings between the residents in a particular area and public officials responsible for service delivery. When people enter into a direct conversation with government

officials, both sides express their expectations and their level of satisfaction or dissatisfaction. In a process of dialogue, confusion is minimized, misunderstandings are clarified, and the environment for cooperation between parties can kick off.

For the sake of clarity, a distinction should be made between community scorecards and citizen report cards. A community scorecard is a participatory process, while a citizen report card is only a survey instrument. With a community scorecard, people are engaged with public officials and enter into a conversation, whereas with a citizen report card, surveyors transfer people’s views to the government through the media (see table above).

COMMUNITY SCORECARD

THE COMMUNITY SCORECARD4

▪ Tool for Participatory Monitoring and exact Accountability

▪ Community Empowerment

▪ Hybrid of – social audit, and citizen report card

▪ ‘Process’ not just ‘scorecard’

▪ Emphasis on immediate feedback and reform

▪ Monitoring of the quality of services/projects

▪ Generating benchmark performance criteria that can be used in resource allocation and budget decision

▪ Comparison of performance across facilities/districts

▪ Mechanisms of direct feedback between providers and users

▪ Building local capacity

▪ Strengthening citizen voice and community empowerment.

▪ Flexible and adaptive – no one way to Implement

DISTINGUISHING BETWEEN5

Citizen Report CardsCommunity Scorecards

▪ Survey instrument - data collected through questionnaires

▪ Unit – household/individual

▪ More for macro level

▪ Emphasis on monitoring demand side data on performance and actual scores/report

▪ Implementation time longer (3-6 months)

▪ Feedback later, through media

▪ Requires strong technical skills

▪ Participatory process - data through focus group discussions

▪ Unit – community

▪ Meant for local level

▪ Emphasis on immediate feedback and accountability, less on actual data

▪ Implementation time short (3-6 weeks)

▪ Requires strong facilitation skills



Following a consultative meeting with President Ashraf Ghani in which the President of Afghanistan asked civil society organizations to come up with suggestions for how to improve governance and services of Kabul Municipality, Integrity Watch Afghanistan initiated Community Scorecards.

Kabul Municipality Scorecard was conducted for the first time in December 2014 as a means to provide a baseline for a subsequent report. One year later, in December 2015, the exercise was repeated in Kabul City using the following methodology:

TOOLSIntegrity Watch Afghanistan’s research team mapped Kabul Municipality services and subsequently developed 16 indicators covering both the governance and services of Kabul Municipality. The governance indicators cover those governance issues that directly involve the public and have substantial impact on the quality of services, such as accountability to the public or public access to information. For each of the indicators, five options were assigned: “very good,” “good,” “fair,” “bad,” and finally, “very bad.” Each of the options were given a number to signify the level of satisfaction of citizens. For “very good”: 5; “good”: 4; “fair”: 3; “bad”: 2; and “very bad”: 1 (see annex 1).

To make sure that the indicators were comprehensive and covered core services of Kabul Municipality, the research team tested the indicators both with municipality staff and local residents of Kabul City. The community scorecard form was finalized by incorporating relevant comments generated during the test phase.

SCOPEWith the exceptions of district 22 in 2014 and district 20 in 2015, all 22 districts in Kabul Municipality were covered for two consecutive years. District officials in the two abstaining districts claimed that the boundaries between Kabul Municipality and Kabul Province are disputed in their districts, and therefore Kabul Province officials do not allow them to exercise their full authority. For this reason, they asked the research team to excuse them.

DATA COLLECTION PROCESSThree teams of community mobilizers were trained to mobilize communities and assist the public hearing facilitators. The training material included a general introduction to the survey, the research methodology, the community scorecard concept and approach, the mobilization of communities, and the conduct of this community scorecard. The surveyors and their team leaders were also trained about what each indicator meant for the purpose of this research. Each team was composed of a lead mobilizer and an assistant. One female and one male member were used in each of the teams to ensure participation of women. Each community mobilizing team was accompanied by a facilitator. Integrity Watch’s Research Manager and the Lead Researcher of this report were the two facilitators.

It took one month to conduct the community scorecard in 21 districts of Kabul Municipality in 2015. In general, it took three days in each district to conduct the community scorecards. The first day, based on pre-set appointments, the research team met with the targeted districts’ officials. Having a letter from Kabul Municipality ensured that all the districts in principle had to agree to cooperate with the conduct of the community scorecard. The research team explained the community scorecard and its importance to district officials as a tool to engage people and raise public cooperation with Kabul Municipality. The districts officials cooperated with the research team and jointly set the dates and identified proper venues for the interface meetings.

One day before the interface meetings, a community mobilization team was sent to the area to identify Wakeel Guzars and through them mobilize the residents for the public hearings. Learning from the 2014, it was realized that ten Wakeel Guzars each accompanied by five members of their neighborhood could represent a good sample of a district. Appointments were set in each of the districts and a list of the participants was prepared. The community mobilization teams ensured that people of different ages and genders were present to represent each district. An average of fifty participants in each district also ensured meaningful conversation because almost all the participants could participate in the two-hour interface meeting.

On the third day, the public hearing was held. The venues were public places or event sites large enough to accommodate a public audience. Wedding halls, mosques, and district halls (when large enough for the number of participants) were the most common interface meeting

COMMUNITY SCORECARD OF THE KABUL MUNICIPALITY

7



places. Each public hearing started with a recitation of a few verses of the Holy Quran by one of the participants. Following that, the facilitator opened the meeting with an introduction of Integrity Watch Afghanistan, followed by an elaborate overview of the community scorecard and its importance in empowering people and making the public officials accountable.

To collect reliable data, the Community Scorecard was printed on a one and half by one meter sign and pasted on a wall visible to all participants. The card was well explained first, included what each indicator meant for the purpose of this survey. The district representative, usually the head of the district, was asked to explain his district activities in regard to the sixteen indicators. Following this, people were asked to give comments, ask questions, or request further information. The facilitator collected the questions in one round and asked the district officials to answer them. In certain districts, time allowed for two or three rounds of questions. Although the average time for the public hearing was two hours, in some districts it reached three hours.

At the end of interface meeting, people were asked to fill out the community scorecard. The research team assisted residents who needed help or requested clarification to fill out the scorecard. Following collection of the form, a religious scholar was asked to end the meeting with prayers (dua).

DATA ANALYSIS PROCESSData entry was performed by two data entry assistants. To ensure accuracy of data, the data was controlled and double checked on a daily basis by the research manager. To count the final community scores, the research adopted a widely accepted method of community scorecard analysis. Based on this method, participants give a score of 1 to 5 for each indicator, in the sense that 1 indicates the lowest score and 5 indicates the highest score. The community score is calculated from the scores of individual participants.

Based on the adopted methodology, an accumulation of each score multiplied by the number of participants of each score divided by the total number of participants comprises the community score. In order to make the data easily understandable to common citizens, the five-point scale was converted into a percentage system.

In order to have a systematic analysis of qualitative data, the public hearings were either video or sound recorded. In addition, out of the total 1,275 respondents, only 253 respondents answered the single open-ended question in the questionnaire. The public hearings and answers enabled the researcher to analyze and interpret the quantitative data.

LIMITATIONS OF THE RESEARCHPeople’s interest and participation in the public hearings was significant—signaling volunteerism in the society. District officials and Wakeel Guzars facilitated the mobilization of the participants in each district. However, in three districts, 3, 7, and 15, the public hearing was repeated due to low turnout in the first round.

Although women make up 50 percent of the population, turnout of female participants was relatively low. Out of 1,275 individuals who participated, only seven percent identified themselves as women. In some districts, such as district 11, no women participated. This turnout indicates that traditional societal norms continue to inhibit women’s civic involvement.

Row No Description Very Bad Bad Fair Good Very Good Community Score

1 Score 1 2 3 4 5

2 No. of Scorers 3 4 6 2 1

3 Calculation method (3*1) + (2*4) + (3*6) + (4*2) + (5*1) Accumulation of Row 3 / Accumulation of Row 2

2.625



PART TwOKABUL MUNICIPALITY FINDINgS Part Two presents the overall findings on Kabul Municipality as a whole, while Part Three will discuss the findings of each district. In the first section, legal statutes and legislations are discussed to show how unresponsive the municipality law has been and how this has affected the efficacy of the entity. In the second section, the general findings of the survey are analyzed, districts are compared, and areas that are lagging behind are highlighted.

9



Afghanistan has been in need of at least three documents to guide and regulate urban development in the last decade: 1) A thorough study of Afghan cities, 2) an urban development policy, and 3) a municipality law. Throughout President Karzai’s 12 years in office, none of the above documents have been a priority. While urban development was in need of state intervention to facilitate an active urban policy and appropriate regulations, President Karzai’s administration instead took a laissez-faire approach. The situation has slightly changed under President Ghani, albeit very slowly. Nonetheless, the National Unity Government (NUG) has come up with a comprehensive study of Afghan cities upon which an urban development policy could be formulated. The following three sections discuss the existing municipality legislations, an urban development policy, and a master plan for Kabul city, as well as highlighting the findings of a study by the NUG pertaining to the state of Afghan cities and referencing the Kabul Municipality.

UNRESPONSIvE LEgISLATIONThe Afghan Government’s actions in regard to the formulation of a municipality law can best be described as lazy. The existing municipality law dates back to the year 2000 when the Taliban ruled Kabul, and the law as a whole is still binding. The law stipulates the functions of municipalities, their administrative mechanisms, and their accountability apparatuses. Article 16 stipulates that municipalities shall regulate prices and oversee their implementation. Article 6 stipulates that the Kabul Mayor is appointed by “Head of the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan”. In terms of its administration, the provisions pertaining to Kabul Municipality (Article 8) state that it shall have a mayor, deputies, heads, administrative council, central directorates, and district heads. The administrative council is headed by the mayor and its members are suggested by the mayor and appointed by the council of ministers. Article 3 outlines the accountability of the municipalities, stating that provincial municipalities are part of the Ministry of Interior and that Kabul Municipality is a part of Office of the Head of Emirate.

A good portion of the law from the year 2000 has been abolished. The Afghan Constitution of 2004 has abolished Article 16 and recognized free markets with no regulation over prices. Similarly, Article 6 is no longer binding, since the Constitution stipulates that city mayors are directly elected by the people. However, Article 8 remains in force and the existing Kabul Municipality structure is based on it. Finally, Article 3 has been abolished due to the establishment of the Independent Directorate of Local Governance (IDLG).

Based on decree 72 of 2007, provincial municipalities report to the IDLG, while Kabul Municipality should report to the President. These changes to municipality law, however, have not been sufficient to improve the effective performance of municipalities. They are accidental changes due to the new constitution and the creation of the IDLG to which the governors’ offices and local municipalities report. The portions of the 2000 municipality law which remain effective, however, have by no means been adequately responsive to the changes in governance and the demands of citizens since the fall of the Taliban.

To fill the above gap (among others), the IDLG came out with the Sub-National Governance Policy (SNGP) in 2010 which partly addresses municipalities. The policy was produced by a committee comprised of a dozen deputy ministers from relevant agencies. The policy is a polished form of minutes of the committee meetings that does not meet the basic purpose of a policy to give a clear direction to policy makers based on which decision can be made. Like many strategies produced during Karzai’s administration (anti-corruption policy, for example) the document is 450 pages long but fails to provide sufficient strategic direction. Given the less than clear content of the SNGP, the results from its implementation are not difficult to guess. The SNGP was prepared to fulfill some of the commitments of the government under the Joint Coordination and Monitoring Board (JCMB). Two major commitments concerning municipalities were: 1) the development of a municipality law by the end of 2010, and 2) municipal elections by 2011. Municipal elections have not been held anywhere in Afghanistan as of yet. Five years after the deadline indicated by the JCMB, Afghanistan still uses the outdated municipality law.

As a result, Afghan municipalities, including Kabul Municipality, lack an updated and coherent basis upon which to regulate their principal functions and responsibilities. One of the effects of this situation has been a lack of clarity on the boundaries between different institutions on the execution of their mandates, especially as between the Ministry of Urban Development and the Water and Canalization Corporation of Afghanistan on one hand and Kabul Municipality on the other. There has also been a lack of clarity between mandates of Ministry of Health, Ministry of Education and Kabul Municipality.

LACK OF URBAN DEvELOPMENT POLICY AND UNRESPONSIvE LEgISLATURES

Part Two: The Kabul Municipality Findings


LACK OF URBAN DEvELOPMENT POLICY AND CITY MASTER PLANSAfghanistan’s urban population has doubled in the last decade. This has happened in the absence of a policy concerning migration and government planning. The lack of government involvement has resulted in two major issues: irregular construction and land grabbing.

The size of Afghan cities has grown in parallel with the overall population increase and increased migration from the countryside to the cities; however, the development and implementation of master plans have not kept up with the pace of urbanization. In Kabul, three out of four households are “unplanned” (not built based on a master plan) because the municipality has not acted proactively to extend and implement a revised master plan before the city’s suburbs were swallowed up by a 10 percentage point per annum increase in Kabul’s population following the fall of the Taliban.6

A further effect of the lack of progress of government planning has been land usurpation. The Afghan government is the largest land owner in Afghanistan. In spite of a high demand for land in urban areas since 2001, the government’s customary response has been merely to hold onto the land it controls (especially in Kabul City). Land usurpation was therefore inevitable in the absence of a willingness by the government to distribute/sell its land. While the demand for land by businesses and for private home construction continued to rise, criminals, ex-commanders, and powerful elites grabbed the government lands, built substandard townships, and sold off properties to the growing urban Afghan population.7 “As a result of land grabs, the private sector was denied access to property for investment, while the poor was driven into substandard and insecure housing.”8

In the end, the Afghan government not only allowed corrupt intermediaries to enrich themselves, but also lost the opportunity to collect millions of dollars from property sales.

THE NUg’S IMPRESSIvE STARTFor the first time, the Afghan government has initiated a thorough study of Kabul and other Afghan cities. The Ministry of Urban Development, the IDLG, and Kabul Municipality, with support from the Australian government, has produced an impressive study of Afghan cities. Entitled “The Status of Afghan Cities” this study, consisting of two volumes, provided a comparative study of Afghan cities in terms of urban environment, land and housing, and governance structures and highlighted how the cities should serve as drivers of economic development. The study calculated land area, total dwellings, and the percentage breakdown of residential, commercial, and institutional properties in each city. In addition, maps of each city were prepared showing agricultural land and empty plots. As a result of this study, it is now known that the area covered by Kabul Municipality is 103,000 hectares with 396,000 total dwellings and vacant plots which account for 9 percent of the total land area. The study states that, “despite the large number of dwellings, barren land still accounts for the highest percentage of total land use (41%) and agriculture is the second highest (19%) followed by residential (17%).” 9 This comprehensive study can serve as a basis for urban planning and decision making by policy makers in Afghanistan. The data and analysis in this report could provide valuable input into the formulation of urban and land polices, the drafting of municipality laws and municipal governance structures.

This section presents and discusses municipality-wide findings of the survey and public hearings held across Kabul

11



Municipality districts. The first section makes a comparison of the 16 indicators and discusses the dominant trends influencing fluctuation of each indicator across the districts. The second section presents a ranking of Kabul Municipality districts and the reason for their varied performances. The third section presents an overall comparison between the 2014 survey (the baseline) and this 2015 survey.

THE INDICATORS’ FINDINgSAs stated in the methodology section, the citizens were asked to score municipality services between “very good” and “very bad.” Only seven percent of Kabul citizens scored Kabul Municipality as “very good.” Citizens generally had strong positive or negative opinions regarding municipality services. Forty percent of respondents scored the overall performance of Kabul Municipality as “very bad.” Just 20 percent of people recorded “fair” for services delivered by Kabul Municipality.

THE COMMUNITY SCORE CARD FINDINgS

Accountability to the public

Process of document registration and licensing

Transparency, and accountability of tax

collection

Public access to information

Public participation in decision making

Standardization of private construction

Effectiveness of complaints mechanism

Public cooperation with the municipality

Bus stands



Public cooperation with the municipality received the highest satisfaction rating, with 18 percent scoring as “very good.” Car parking came in with the lowest “very good” ranking at only 4 percent. Only 9 percent of citizens were very happy with solid waste management, while 37 percent of Kabul citizens expressed their extreme dissatisfaction with waste collection.

Car parking

Maintenance of infrastructure

Solid waste management

Construction of roads, streets, and sidewalks

Public parks, planting, and green spaces

Overall Average

Drainage

Sanitation

13



In terms of ranking the indicators, the analyzed data shows that public cooperation with the municipality was scored the highest in both 2014 and 2015 surveys. People seem to have a positive view of their cooperation with municipality. The process of document registration, which includes issuance of Safayee, small business licenses, etc., has been evaluated as the second most effective among the 16 indicators in both 2014 and 2015. Solid waste management, which includes collection and transportation of waste, is ranked third. As seen in Figure 2, the three top indicators have stayed the same in both 2014 and 2015.

Three indicators have shown improvement in terms of their ranking from 2014 to 2015. Standardization of private construction has improved dramatically, by six ranks; construction of roads, streets, and sidewalks has improved two ranks; and accountability to the public has improved one rank. The reason behind overall improvement in the ranking of these three indicators suggests that the municipality is performing better in these areas as compared to others, the ranking of which varies from indicator to

indicator. Statements by NUG officials that the government will demolish the floors of any building that was built against the “basement plus four floors” standard of Kabul Municipality10 seems to have positively influenced Kabul residents’ perception in regard to this indicator. During the public hearings, people referred to such statements and demanded actual implementation. In addition, four officials of the Ministry of Urban Development were detained and 20 more are under investigation due to illegal licensing of skyscrapers.11 This case has been well publicized in the media and may also have positively affected people’s perceptions with regard to the municipal government’s record on standardization and accountability. The ranking for road construction has also consistently increased within Kabul Municipality. There are districts, for example district 15, whose officials stated that more than 90 percent of the sub-streets in their areas were paved.

Eight indicators have dropped in their ranking as compared to the 2014 survey (Figure 2). Public participation in decision making has seen a dramatic drop of five ranks, while bus



stands, effective complaint mechanisms, and drainage have each seen a ranking drop of three. A majority of district officials stated that the municipality has now realized that the roads built in Kabul city lack bus stands. Except on Darul Aman Street, where districts 6 and 7 are located, the remaining roads do not have bus stands as part of the street designs. In regard to drainage, people were very dissatisfied largely due to the absence of a canalization system in the city. Several district officials explicitly stated and almost all officials agreed that Kabul city lacks a canalization system. Finally, while district officials have tried to convince citizens that there is an effective complaints mechanisms in place, the citizens of the city do not appear to agree with them.

From 2014 to 2015, public access to information and car parking stayed the same, with a ranking of 13 and 16, respectively.

Overall, Kabul Municipality has seen 10 percentage point improvement between the 2014 and the 2015 surveys. In 2014, the overall average of the 16 indicators was 34 percent, and this number improved to 44 percent in 2015. However,

improvement has not been even across all indicators. Five indicators have improved more than 10 percentage point between 2014 and 2015. Public cooperation with the municipality has dramatically improved by 26 percentage point, followed by standardization and public participation, which each improved by 14 percentage point. Access to information and public accountability have each improved 12 percentage point. Across all indicators, solid waste management has seen the least improvement. In 2014, the overall score of solid waste management was 44 percent, and this indicator improved to 48 percent in 2015, while the municipality improvement average was 10 percentage point in the same year. Construction of roads and public parks have improved 6 percentage point, which is 4 percentage point below the average score of the municipality.

The remaining nine indicators: process of document registration, drainage, sanitation, car parking, bus stands, transparency in tax collection, maintenance of infrastructure, and effectiveness of complaints mechanisms have not seen a significant increase or decrease.

15



DISTRICTS’ RANKINg IN 2015 SURvEYThe overall average (the Municipality Average) in 2015 was 44 percent. Interestingly, four districts (11, 12, 15, and 16) came in at this exact average, and another five districts fell within two percentage points up or down from this average. Districts 7 and 4 scored 46 percent and districts 6, 8, and 19 each scored 42 percent. These nine districts represent almost half of Kabul Municipality jurisdiction and are indicative of the overall performance of the Municipality. As 44 percent is below average (below 50%), this shows an overall low performance by Kabul Municipality.

The districts with the highest scores are district 3 and 14 with 58 percent. Kabul residents were asked to score the service delivery in each district between “very good” and “very bad” with “fair” for an average performance. Since the highest score is less than sixty percent, this means the top districts are “fair” in people’s perception. The reason behind the higher scores for district 3 and 14 are likely to be due to the fact that more attention has been paid to these districts by Kabul Municipality. District 3 is located at the heart of the city, which includes both sides of the Kabul University Road. A good portion of the area covers regular or planned construction, making it easier for the district to deliver services. However, even the best-ranked district in Kabul Municipality were assessed as “fair” by the residents. Specifically, in the case of district 3, there are two major problems: leadership and the unplanned houses on Deh Mazang Mountain area. The senior staff of the district suffer from a lack of cohesive chain of command among its senior staff, which affects the day to day workings of the district. Second, the Deh Mazang Mountain area of district

3, which includes irregular and unplanned construction, creates serious hurdles for service delivery. Irregular housing is a common problem in Kabul City and is often associated with district government leadership failure (one such case in point being in district 18). As such, irregular construction and weak district governmental leadership are issues present in almost every district. Higher scores for district 14 can also be explained by the fact that Paghman area, where the district is located, is a tourist hub that receives more attention from Kabul Municipality. In addition, better leadership within district 14 has resulted in better service delivery.

District 1 and 10, with results of 56 percent, are among the top four highest-ranked districts in Kabul Municipality. District government leadership and attention from Kabul Municipality are the driving factors behind better service delivery in these two districts. District 10 houses a number of diplomatic missions and receives a high degree of attention from Kabul Municipality, while the high level of service delivery in district 1 may relate to the fact that it is next to the headquarters of Kabul Municipality.

Most of the districts at the bottom of the table are newly created districts. Both districts 21 and 18 were created in the last decade and have received little attention from Kabul Municipality. Until recently, the administration of district 21 did not have a building to house its staff. The whole district administration was conducted from a few rooms provided by district 12. District 18 is also a newly created jurisdiction with weak leadership and few resources. The district is still not well recognized within the overall administration, with the Kabul provincial administration unwilling to bestow full authority to the district 18 of Kabul Municipality .

THE DISTRICTS’ FINDINgS



However, not all the districts at the lower end of the table are new districts. District 5 is an old district but it scored 36 percent, which is 8 percentage point lower than the overall average. The issues raised at the public hearing for the district highlighted the fact that the district officials had failed to deliver services in the area of Kota Sangi. It was also apparent that officials were unable to convince small businesses that license fees imposed were fair (though it can be said that a majority of the districts face issues with perceived high license fees, especially in poorer and suburban areas; the issue of license fees is further elaborated on in Part Three of this report). In addition, district 5 has been unable to deliver good services to the planned areas of Khoshhal Mena. District 13 is a large, densely populated area in the west of Kabul City where the perceived failures were due to poor waste management and lack of canalization.

COMPARINg DISTRICTS’ RANKINgS OF 2014 wITH 2015 SURvEYDistrict 3 topped both 2014 and 2015 surveys. In 2014, it scored 48 percent and increased by 10 percentage points in the next year, which is the overall average improvement of the Municipality. Better performance in this district can be attributed to more regular maintenance and attention by Kabul Municipality, among other reasons. In addition, two suburban districts, 14 and 17, have seen significant improvement in terms of score, and thus ranking, in 2015. District 14 jumped from 32 percent to 46 percent for a 14 percentage point increase. Its ranking improved from 13th in 2014 to 2nd in 2015. This dramatic increase can be attributed in part to the reappointment of a former head of the district.

In 2014, the Municipality rotated almost all the heads of the districts. While it brought improvement in a few districts, it negatively affected many more. In the case of district 14, the head of the district is a local resident with good relationships with other government officials. He was sent to another district in 2014. With his reappointment to district 14 in 2015, he seems to have reactivated the activities of the district.

District 17 has also seen significant changes in people’s perception. The district scored 30 percent in 2014 and jumped by 22 percentage point to reach 52 percent in 2015. The ranking of the district increased 10 ranks from 15th in 2014 to 5th in 2015. As stated in Part Three, district officials were successful in convincing residents that the district has done its part; whatever is left is a failure of Kabul Municipality headquarters. Specifically, because this district was also created in the last decade, it lacks a detailed master plan. The head of the district attributed this to slow progress on the part of Kabul Municipality.

Other of the newly created districts have consistently remained at the bottom of the table in both 2014 and 2015. Districts 19, 20, 18, and 21 scored the least and were thus ranked the lowest among the districts, though district 21 could not be covered in 2015 for the reasons elaborated in the methodology. This means that Kabul Municipality has not given sufficient support and resources to the newer districts to enable them to function effectively in the initial stages of their establishment.

17



KABUL MUNICIPALITY DISTRICTS HAvE SHOwN IMPROvEMENTSThe combined average rating of all districts in 2014 was 34 percent. This improved to 44 percent in 2015 for an overall improvement of 10 percentage points over the previous year. One reason for this improvement can be attributed to the promises made by the NUG to improve the living conditions in Kabul City.

The NUG had promised to reconsider the structure of Kabul Municipality, including the possibility of dividing Kabul City into several zones within the Municipality or to create two or more independent jurisdictions for the Kabul city. What improved people’s perception was the NUG officials’ promise that the government would demolish any construction which was not consistent with the “basement plus four stories” standard of Kabul Municipality.

The indicator on standardization of construction, saw a 14 percentage point improvement between 2014 and 2015—the highest among all the indicators. In addition, accountability to the public and public participation in the decision making of Kabul Municipality increased by 12 percentage points each—the second highest improvement in scores. However, people are unhappy about solid waste management and construction of roads and sub-streets. These two indicators have seen the least improvement between 2014 and 2015.

Generally, people are hopeful that the NUG will take practical steps to achieve its promises. But in certain pockets of the city, people have already become impatient and refer to the lack of appointment of a mayor as the first in the series of unfulfilled promises by the NUG. If a mayor had been appointed, there may well have been a greater appreciation for the NUG’s promises.

FEMALE-POSITIvE BIASWomen were more positive than men in their perception of the districts of Kabul Municipality. Although low in number (only 7 percent of respondents who participated were women), they consistently scored services more highly than the male respondents. The overall average rank by male survey-takers was 44 percent across all the districts, while women’s average was 54 percent; 10 percentage points higher than men. Women scored each indicator higher than men except public cooperation. Men scored public cooperation 58 percent, while women scored it 56 percent. Other indicators where women were more positive than men were process of document registration and public parks. Document registration was scored 54 percent by men but 60 percent by women and public parks was scored 44 percent by men but 50 percent by women.

Four indicators for which women showed a significant difference from the ratings of men were bus stands, transparency in tax collection, maintenance of infrastructure, and construction of roads. Men scored these at 36, 46, 40, and 44 percent, respectively, while women scored these indicators at 54, 62, 56, and 60 percent.

The difference in the perception of women requires an in-depth study but the observation during the public hearings highlights that women are less frustrated. There were limited instances that men marked the scorecard ‘very bad’ without going into the details because their frustration overpowered their observation and reason. Such cases were rare among women.

19





PART THREEDISTRICTS’ PUBLIC HEARINgS AND FINDINgSThis part will summarize the results from the community scorecard for each of the 21 districts. The information presented for each district is composed of four sections each. The first section deals with those unique features of each district that influences its administration and service delivery. The second section contains the quantitative findings of the community scorecard from 2015. The third section presents an overview of the main issues raised by the people and officials at public hearings held in 2015. The final section shows the comparison of the community scorecard of the respective district for 2014 and 2015.

21


DISTRICT ONE (SHAR-E KUHNA)District 1 is a densely populated area. According to the head of the district, there’s an estimated population of one million in the district. However, the Central Statistics Organization (CSO) differs on the official population, with an estimate as low as 87,000 spread across 14,800 households.12 In addition to the households, the district houses many market places and is frequently referred to as the shopping center of the old city. Being a central point of the old city, there are many small roads with narrow lanes and only a few waste canals. In recent years, though, the district has improved. According to the head of the district, seventy-five percent of the roads are now paved.

These improvements were reflected in people’s scores for the road construction indicator. In both 2014 and 2015, people gave a score of 62 percent, which is slightly more than average and higher than any other indicator in this district. One month prior to this survey, the district head

District 1RANK 03

56% AvERAgE

Part Three: Districts’ Public Hearings and Findings


was appointed to his post, and he conducted a hasher where local residents and a social association worked together to remove accumulated waste from the district. In 2014, the solid waste management indicator received 62 percent, and in 2015 it improved to 64 percent. Interestingly, in the baseline survey, people scored their own cooperation with the district at 66 percent, but in 2015 this number decreased to 60 percent. Transparency in tax collection, solid waste collection, and construction of roads were the three indicators with top scores in the district.

People were generally positive about the district in the public hearing but not happy with Kabul Municipality. An elderly man complained that although he petitioned officials several times, there has been no action to pave his neighborhood road. Another participant raised the issue of the city’s master plan, saying that the municipality does not allow them to undertake construction on their private properties because the master plan is not ready. He inquired

why such a plan takes so much time. The district officials did not have convincing answers to the above questions. A young lady who lives in a semi-mountainous area stated, “The public transport buses and taxis drop me away from my neighborhood saying the road is unpaved.” The head of the district promised to send a bulldozer to level it but stated that he could not commit to paving the road anytime soon. The participants received this positively. This shows that when there is a dialogue, not only citizens can raise their voices but officials can also share the limitations they face and therefore may lead to lower dissatisfaction rate.

Compared to 2014, the district has improved 14 percentage points; the average score for all indicators in District 1 was 42 percent in 2014 but improved to 56 percent in 2015. In terms of ranking, the district was ranked fifth in 2014 and improved to third in 2015.

23


DISTRICT TwO (DEH AFgHANAN-QUwAYE MARKAz)This district is located at the heart of Kabul City with a lot of governmental buildings and market places. The district head and CSO surprisingly have the same population estimate for the district, i.e. 98000.13 However, the head of the district stated that government and market clients overburden the district’s responsibilities. In market areas like Nader Pashtun Road or Deh Afghanan, shopkeepers do not cooperate with the district in keeping the sidewalks empty or keeping the areas clean, said the official. According to the district head, sanitation conditions are unbearable in the vicinity of the hospitals like Malalai Hospital. While district officials complained that the police do not cooperate with them, they were happy with the business community which has financially helped the district in certain areas.

According to the district head, they do not have a problem with the construction of roads and lanes. People scored the construction of roads and sidewalks at 62 percent, the second highest indicator. But there were residents who live

District 2RANK 06

50% AvERAgE



in the hilltops and complained during the public hearing that roads in their neighborhoods were unpaved. Bus stands and complaint mechanisms received the lowest score in this district. The problem of bus stands is a Kabul City problem and it received the lowest score across all of the districts. However, a score of 38 percent in 2015 and 34 percent in 2014 for complaint mechanism indicates the overall weakness of such mechanisms in this district. The head of the district stated in the public hearing that there was no need for further green spaces and planting trees in the district. However, the residents disagreed. Public parks, planting, and green spaces was the only indicator that decreased over the last year in the district. In 2014, respondents scored it 54 percent, but it dropped to 52 percent in 2015.

During the public hearing, people referred to the problems in their area and proposed a couple of suggestions. A Wakeel Guzar (the representative of each neighborhood) stated that waste collection trucks and tashkeel (staff) were inadequate resulting in poor waste management. While the head of the Wakeel Guzars proposed that waste collection

should be privatized since Kabul Municipality has shown its inability to manage it, a resident suggested that at least the administration of trucks and waste collectors should come under the authority of the district, not the municipality. One resident stated that, “We do not have any problem with the district since it has done what is within its control; the problem is with Kabul Municipality [headquarters].” In their questions and comments, the residents referred to three problems. First, the street vendors have occupied sidewalks. Second, there are herders who move their animals through residential areas. Third, one resident complained that the municipality has not provided a cemetery for the district. Compared with other districts, these problems were relatively unique to this area.

Compared to 2014, the district improved 8 percentage points; the average score across all indicators was 42 percent in 2014 but has improved to 50 percent in 2015. In terms of ranking, the district was ranked third in 2014 but has dropped to sixth in 2015. Based on people’s perception, the living conditions have slightly improved over the last year.

25


DISTRICT THREE (KABUL UNIvERSITY ROAD)This area houses Kabul University and several other educational facilities. According to the CSO, the district population is estimated at 129,000 with 21,300 households.14 The district has planned areas but there are also hilly areas like Deh Mazang Mountain and a range of mountains referred to as Koh-e Telvezoon (TV Mountain). The major problems the district faces are in the hilly areas: land usurpation, lack of canalization, and waste management, among others. According to deputy head of the district, “We are aware of the fact that people are not happy with the way municipality manages the waste collection.” Kabul Municipality manages trucks and staff, and districts identify the areas for collection. The problem stems, according to him, from the fact that

District 3RANK 01

58% AvERAgE



waste management staff are responsible to two authorities: Kabul Municipality and the districts.

Although there is a private company that is contracted by residents to collect waste, there are problems with the waste collection in the district. People in the hilly areas were especially critical of the district. The district officials argued that, “Trucks cannot reach the hilly areas. We cannot help those people because they have grabbed government land”. He added that, “Recently, Ministry of Agriculture has requested us to evacuate the hilly areas and prepare it for green space”. This disagreement was reflected in the scores assigned to waste management. In 2014, residents scored this district 76 percent, though it decreased dramatically to only 60 percent in 2015.

Except for the problems which concern the hilly areas, the district has performed well. Compared to 2014, the district has improved 10 percentage points; the average score across all indicators was 48 percent in 2014, but this number improved to 58 percent in 2015. In terms of ranking, the district was ranked first in 2014 and kept its spot in 2015. People’s perception of this district has slightly improved during the past year.

27


District 4

DISTRICT FOUR (KLOLA POSHTA)Unlike the former three districts, this district consists of flat land with no hills or mountains, but the problems here are similar. The district is a medical hub with 765 clinics and hospitals. When discussing the problems of the district with the district heads, they tend to exaggerate population while blaming a lack of cooperation from the public and centralization of the municipality, among others. The CSO estimates this district’s population at 274,000, while the head of the district estimates it at a figure that’s four-times higher. According to the district head, the district produces some 600 cubic meters of waste, but the district has the resources to collect only half of it. In addition, Kabul Municipality recently changed the disposal point of city waste from Pul-e Charkhi to the Gazak area, which almost doubles the distance from the previous disposal point.

RANK 0946% AvERAgE



Waste management has improved from 38 percent in 2014 to 46 percent in 2015, but that rate is still less than the average across all city districts. Car parking scored the lowest in the district while public cooperation, process of document registration, construction of roads, and public participation in decision-making scored the highest.

During the public hearing, issues pertaining to canalization and management of rainfall were raised several times. Roads are impacted by the lack of appropriate canalization: the road connecting Traffic Square to Shahid Square, as well as Parwan is a good example. The district officials also stated that the reason behind the delay in construction of several roads was the lack of proper canalization. Poor rainfall management and canalization are the two major reasons for early destruction of asphalted roads. According to the head of the district, the canalization issue in this district is beyond the abilities even of Kabul Municipality because the rainfall and surface

water from five surrounding districts reaches district four. A heated discussion during the public hearing occurred among the residents from the area that public officials call Zur Abad (forcefully built) but citizens in those areas refer to as Faqir Abad (built for poor); they are government properties where mostly internally displaced peoples have settled. The district head has refused to deliver services to them, while residents have claimed that district officials have collected money promising the delivery of services. This issue remained unresolved following discussion at the hearing.

Compared to 2014, the district has improved 14 percentage point; the average score across all indicators was 32 percent in 2014, but responses improved to 46 percent in 2015. In terms of ranking, the district was ranked twelfth in 2014 and improved 3 ranks to reach ninth in 2015. People’s perception of the district has therefore improved slightly during the past year.

29


District 5

DISTRICT FIvE (KHUSHLA MENA-KUT-E SANgI)This district covers market areas like Kota Sangi, residential areas such as Khoshhal Khan Mena, and semi-agricultural areas bordering Paghman. Therefore, the district presents a wide range of environments, similar to Kabul City, which covers residential, market, and agricultural areas. Collection of property tax and small business license taxes were the major issues from the officials’ perspectives, while residents raised the issues of access to clean water, canalization, waste management and road pavement. While the head of the district emphasized that the basis for planning is statistics and the budget, he also greatly exaggerated the population of the district. The head of the district estimated the population at one million people, but the CSO’s estimate was only 253,000. According to the district, there are some 50,000 households, of which 13,000 have Safayee, property tax, and of which only 30 percent pay their taxes. Although the above figures regarding tax payment stated by the district officials seem random, they show a trend in paying taxes by the citizens. The

RANK 1836% AvERAgE



citizens are reluctant to pay taxes to the Municipality. As one district head commented, “We are in a vicious circle; people do not pay taxes and when we request it to boost our services, they say you do not deliver services to us.”

Although a low incidence of tax payment is an issue across all districts, residents here scored this district only 42 percent for transparency and accountability of tax collection—6 percent lower than the average rating for all districts. This district has seen a decrease in its waste management score. It scored 34 percent in 2014, and this decreased to 32 percent in 2015. Although the decrease is little, considering the overall increase in scores, the effectiveness of waste management seems to have dropped in the district. One resident from Saraye Herati complained that waste in the area had not been collected in the last six months.

During the public hearing people raised the issue of access to clean water—something that was raised in the following districts as well. In addition, one resident suggested that, “there should be a ratio between the amount of taxes each district pays and the volume of the services delivered to it.”

The Head of the Wakeel Guzars in district five is the head of all Wakeel Guzars in the city. He stated that there are 766 Wakeel Guzars in Kabul and suggested that the President should appoint one of them as his advisor to consult him on issues pertaining to Kabul City. In general, resident’s criticism was mostly directed at Kabul Municipality. One resident commented that, “The district has no authority.” The head of the district repeatedly complained that Kabul Municipality is highly centralized.

When compared to 2014, the district has improved 6 percentage points. The average score for all indicators was 30 percent in 2014, while the overall average of the Municipality was 34 percent. In 2015, this district improved to 36 percent, though this is still 8 percentage points lower than the overall average of the Municipality, at 44 percent. Therefore, during both years the district scored less than the overall average of the city. In terms of ranking, the district was ranked fourteenth in 2014 and dropped 4 ranks to eighteenth in 2015. People’s perception of the district has slightly improved during the past year, but the district still lags behind other districts.

31


District 6

DISTRICT SIX (wEST OF SARAK DARUL AMAN-PUL SURKH ROAD)This area is extends to the west of Darul Aman Road, so half of the district is at the center of the city and the other half is a suburb that borders Charaseyab. Although Kart-e Seh is a planned area, 97 percent of the district is covered by unplanned housing. There have been improvements, especially in the planned areas, but residents complain about repossession of land, lack of access to clean water, road pavement, unfair license taxes, and lack of authority of the district.

The district scored 46 percent for waste collection in 2014 but dropped to 38 percent in 2015. Although the head of the district told the participants about an informal public private partnership for the collection of solid waste, citizens did not seem to be convinced. A large pile of solid waste could be seen just next to the district building when the research team visited the district head. In addition, people were not happy with the extent of road pavement. One resident who lives on

RANK 1542% AvERAgE



the periphery of the district, the Jabbar Khan Neighborhood, complained that the municipality has focused on Kart-e Seh in the paving of roads and the delivery of services. Another resident of Jabbar Khan questioned, “Do we not belong to the same district and are we not paying taxes?” The ranking of construction of roads has dropped from 56 percent to 42 percent between the 2014 and the 2015 surveys.

During the public hearing, residents acknowledged that there have been improvements in areas like pavement of the main roads. Still, there were many complaints too. A young man criticized the centralization of Kabul Municipality, stating, “The district cannot do anything. All the authority is vested in Kabul Municipality. Why should we expected the district to meet our requirements?” One Wakeel Guzar complained how unfairly the government manages the repossession of private property in order to expand or create new roads. He stated that the compensation the government pays to citizens is too little because such people cannot buy a property and

rebuild a house with that money. Repossession of private property is a sensitive and controversial issue in Kabul. Since Kabul Municipality and the newly created Ministry of Urban Development have been passive in planning the city, people were forced by the last decade’s surge of refugees and IDPs to construct houses and buildings in unplanned ways. Implementation of the master plan given existing unplanned housing is very difficult, if not impossible.

Compared to 2014, the district has improved only 2 percentage point. The overall average score across all indicators was 38 percent in 2014, slightly above the municipality average of 34 percent. However, in 2015, the overall average score of the district was 42 percent, coming in at two percentage points less than the municipality average of 44 percent. In terms of rank, the district was ranked seventh in 2014 but has dropped 8 ranks, falling to fifteenth in 2015. People’s perception of the district has not improved during the past year.

33


District 7

DISTRICT SEvEN (EAST OF SARAK DARUL AMAN-CHELSUTOON ROAD)The Kabul River cuts this district into two, and the area is completely unplanned. Residential houses and dwellings have been built on the hilly areas along the east of the river. The district was significantly impacted during the civil war. The still destroyed Darlul Aman Palace reminds citizens of the days of war. According to the head of the district, the population is around half a million. The district is half-urban and half-suburban in the area bordering Charaseyab.

The process of document registration has seen significant improvement in the district. In 2014, it was scored 44 percent but improved to 60 percent in 2015. One of the documents the district administers for registration is Safayee (property tax). According to the head of the district, one in six out of 60,000 households pay their Safayee. District officials emphasized several times that people should cooperate in registering their properties and paying the Safayee. However, residents complain that if they register, they would have to pay the tax for the last ten years. According to the head of the district, a Council of Ministers’

RANK 1046% AvERAgE



resolution has mandated that the starting date for Safayee payment is 1385 (2007) no matter when the property was actually constructed. The district officials further explained that if a property is built under the permission of Kabul Municipality, the Safayee tax is charged based on the date of the permission. However, if a property is built without permission, the Council of Ministers’ resolution is binding. Kabul Municipality has failed to convince the people to register their properties, and those who have registered are not satisfied with service delivery in spite of having paid Safayee each year. According to Kabul Municipality, only 17 percent of the households pay Safayee.15 However, the head of district six emphasized that he would assist and cooperate with the people in registering their properties, and people seemed to agree with him as reflected in the survey scores.

During the public hearing, the Wakeel Guzars mostly acknowledged the improvement in the district. However, some residents complained of unfair small business license tax, lack of authority of the district, issues with canalization and human waste, as well as a lack of access to clean water.

The problem of water was especially acute in the district. One resident complained, “Why does the government take the water from our area to downtown districts while we do not have access to water?” According to the head of the district, the government has dug wells in the area and distributes the water to Wazir Akbar Khan. The head of the Wakeel Guzars in the district stated that when the government started to dig the wells, it was promised that the neighboring areas would have access to that water. The government has not fulfilled its promises. One resident warned, “Since we do not have access to water, we will stand against this unfair treatment.”

Compared to 2014, the district has improved 12 percentage points. The overall average score across all indicators was 34 percent in 2014, the same as the municipality average of 34 percent. However, in 2015, the overall average score of the district rose to 46 percent—2 percentage points above the municipality average of 44 percent. In terms of ranking, the district was ranked tenth in 2014 and has stayed at the same rank in 2015. People’s perception of the district has slightly improved during the past year.

35


District 8

DISTRICT EIgHT (SARAKE-E NOw)This district adjoins district 1, and is at the center of the city. The CSO estimates the population of the district to 278,000—the third most populated district.16 The problems in the district are many: unpaved roads and lanes, canalization and drainage, and solid waste collection being the most discussed problems.

People are very unhappy with this district’s administration. In the 2014 survey, the district was ranked second best among all districts. But by the 2015 survey, the ranking had dropped by 14 ranks. The district saw a drop across six indicators: solid waste management, process of document registration, drainage, sanitation, construction of roads, and public parks. The starkest decline was in the indicator of solid waste collection. In 2014, the district scored 62 percent in this indicator, which was above average, but in

RANK 1642% AvERAgE



2015 it scored only 34 percent, falling between a rating of “bad” and “very bad.”

In the public hearing, the people openly showed their dissatisfaction with the district officials’ performance. Unpaved roads and canalization were emphasized several times. One resident complained, “The district has not paved a meter in our neighborhood.” A Wakeel Guzar criticized Kabul Municipality, noting that even the main road that connects the district to the downtown is not maintained. The same Wakeel Guzar warned, “We will wait this winter but if the main road is not paved and well-maintained, we will block the road to make the government realize the severity of our problems.” Canalization and rainfall is another important issue. As neither roads nor lanes are paved, nor is there proper canalization, muddy roads in the winter have been especially troubling for district residents. The neighborhood representatives have petitioned officials from Kabul Municipality, Ministry

of Agriculture, Irrigation and Livelihoods, and ater and Canalization Corporation, among others, to no avail. A Wakeel Guzar stated he had petitioned officials since 1391 (2011) to pave the lanes in his neighborhood. However, there has been no progress. People feel discriminated against. One resident stated, “We are at district eight and at the center of the city. But there are no services here.” “The officials should answer us. Are we not from this city?” He exclaimed.

Compared to 2014, this district has dropped 2 percentage points, while a majority of the districts have shown improvements. The overall average score across all indicators was 44 percent in 2014—10 percentage points more than municipality average. However, in 2015, the overall average score of the district dropped to 42 percent, 2 percentage points less than the municipality average. In terms of ranking, the district was ranked second in 2014 but saw a dramatic drop to sixteenth in 2015.

37


District 9

DISTRICT NINE (MACROYAN)In Kabul, the industrial spaces are located in district 18, 19, and 9. District 9 houses more than half of all the industrial buildings in Kabul city. In addition, around one-fifth of the district is covered by government establishments. The remaining area is residential with almost no agricultural lands in the district. The area is located at the center of Kabul, with a population that the CSO estimates at 241,000.17 All districts have an advisory council composed of Wakeel Guzars, and in district 9 the relationship between the district and the advisory council has been very cooperative.

The district has witnessed improvement across its scorecard indicators. Since the district is partly planned,

RANK 0750% AvERAgE



car parking, bus stands, and public parks are scored 46, 44, and 50 percent, respectively, while the municipality average for these indicators was 36, 36, and 42 percent. In addition, solid waste management has improved from 46 to 62 percent.

During the public hearing, people raised several issues pertaining to service delivery. However, district nine, like district sixteen, suffers from a certain sense of marginalization by a few neighborhoods. The UN Habitat, in cooperation with residents, runs a program of sub-street paving. People from certain district neighborhoods are not happy because they feel that their areas were not covered. They claim that the head of the district discriminates against them. The district officials reject these allegations and have argued that the district provides

for all residents. Still, this sense of marginalization has affected the overall average of district nine.

Compared to 2014, the district improved by 18 percentage points. The overall average score across all indicators was 32 percent in 2014, 2 percentage points less than the municipality average. However, in 2015, the overall average score of the district was 50 percent—6 percentage points more than the municipality average of 44 percent. In terms of ranking, the district was ranked eleventh in 2014 and improved to seventh in 2015. People’s perception of the district has improved during the past year.

39


District 10

DISTRICT TEN (wAzIR AKBAR KHAN)This district is located in the center of Kabul City, where diplomatic missions and several government agencies are based. Therefore, it has received more attention from Kabul Municipality. It is densely populated. The CSO estimates 295,000 people live here,18 while district officials and people estimate that a more accurate figure would be one million

community scorecard of kabul municipality 2016...integrity watch afghanistan community scorecard of...

Documents