Afghanistan

A crisis shaped by shocks and exclusion

The December 2025 HNRP estimates 21.9 million people in need, targets 17.5 million and requests US$1.71 billion. It prioritises severe districts and verified shock-affected pockets, while recognising that drought, returns, earthquakes and disease interact with persistent economic and service deficits. These are planning estimates, not people reached.[10] OCHA

Salient One analysis. The apparent decline in the national needs estimate is not evidence that households have recovered. A response limited to the latest shock can stabilise immediate consumption while leaving the conditions that make the next shock dangerous: weak services, scarce income and exclusion from work. Conversely, a development programme without rapid-response capacity cannot substitute for food, care and protection when a new shock occurs.[10] OCHA

Sida’s 31 March analysis describes mass returns, drought, damaged livelihoods and restrictions on women and girls. It also reports that regional hostilities disrupted trade and fuel supply routes, raising costs and delaying humanitarian imports. These observations describe conditions at the time of the assessment, not a forecast of every route throughout the year.[4] Sida

Salient One analysis. Rural water stress, urban underemployment, disaster-affected settlements and areas receiving returnees present different combinations of needs. Severity classifications help allocate limited resources, but a district average can conceal excluded households; a shock-affected pocket in a less severe district can still require urgent assistance.[10] OCHA · [4] Sida

Salient One analysis. Geography also changes the timing of a response. High-altitude communities can become difficult to reach in winter, while agricultural households face a lean season before the harvest. Pre-positioning food, medicines or shelter supplies incurs storage costs and risks, but waiting until roads close can make even funded assistance impossible to deliver. Seasonal planning is thus a question of when an operation must be ready, not merely an annual caseload.[10] OCHA · [4] Sida

Salient One analysis. A district may be classified as highly severe because several needs coincide, but individual households within it do not have the same assets or constraints. A household with a regular income may cope differently from one headed by a woman with restricted access to work, or one caring for an older relative with a chronic condition. Aggregated targeting can miss these differences if registration assumes every household can travel or speak freely with an enumerator.[10] OCHA · [4] Sida

Return is a process, not a border event

The May 2026 returnee plan projected nearly 2.7 million arrivals from Iran and Pakistan between April and December and requested US$529.2 million for a two-track response: immediate border assistance and reintegration support in 35 priority districts. A projection is not a count of actual arrivals.[7] United Nations in Afghanistan

IOM describes post-arrival screening, meals, short-term accommodation, protection referrals and transport assistance, alongside case management for people with particular needs. Its agency plan has a different coverage and budget from the inter-agency plans.[8] IOM

Salient One analysis. The border response addresses immediate exposure, while the decisive test comes after onward travel: a family may reach its intended destination but lack housing, income, documents or a functioning clinic. Returnees and longer-term residents compete for the same water, work and services. Area-based support can reduce that pressure, but only if resident communities and returnees both influence priorities and assistance does not depend on an assumption that all return is voluntary or sustainable.[7] United Nations in Afghanistan · [8] IOM

Salient One analysis. The returnee plan and HNRP serve connected populations and may overlap. Their requirements and headcounts cannot simply be added as distinct people or a consolidated funding gap. The HNRP describes emergency action; the return plan also includes reintegration, making the gap between short-term relief and longer-term financing especially consequential.[10] OCHA · [7] United Nations in Afghanistan

Salient One analysis. Reception capacity and absorption capacity have different bottlenecks. Border facilities require water, health screening, immediate shelter and onward transport; receiving districts need functioning schools and clinics, affordable housing and work over a longer period. Moving staff and funding entirely toward the border during a surge can relieve immediate congestion while leaving families with little support after arrival. Conversely, long-term investments in selected districts do not help people stranded at a crossing.[7] United Nations in Afghanistan · [8] IOM

Salient One analysis. The 35 districts in the returnee plan are a prioritisation of the response, not proof that all returnees settle there or that other districts face no pressure. Population movements can change a locality’s needs faster than a fixed budget or annual target can change. Community-wide investments offer a way to support residents and newcomers together, although they also require agreement on who operates and maintains a service after the emergency funding ends.[7] United Nations in Afghanistan · [10] OCHA

Donor priorities compared

Published preferences and portfolio scope, followed by Salient One’s interpretation of their implications.

Gender, protection and actual access

The HNRP describes restrictions on female staff and uneven locally negotiated arrangements. The EU evaluation of 2020–2024 found persistent gaps in reaching women and girls, particularly in protection and education, while identifying benefits from flexible, multi-year and multisector support. Its findings are retrospective.[10] OCHA · [6] DG ECHO

Salient One analysis. Access to a district is not the same as access to every person in it. Restrictions on movement, education and employment can prevent a woman from using a service; restrictions on female staff can prevent an organisation from identifying her needs or offering confidential care. Gender-segregated delivery and locally negotiated arrangements may preserve some services, but add staff, transport and supervision costs and do not remove the underlying exclusion.[10] OCHA · [6] DG ECHO

Salient One analysis. A protection referral is meaningful only if a safe and confidential receiving service exists and the person can choose whether to use it. Collecting detailed personal information without a safe purpose can expose people to harm. Feedback from women, older people and people with disabilities needs accessible channels that do not require disclosure to gatekeepers; absence of complaints does not establish consent or equal access.[10] OCHA · [8] IOM

Food, water and health form one survival system

The plan requests the largest sector amount for food security and agriculture, followed by nutrition and health. Sida’s March analysis identifies food security and WASH as priorities, linking them to nutrition and health, and calls for attention to severely food-insecure and underserved areas.[10] OCHA · [4] Sida

Salient One analysis. Food transfers can protect consumption during the lean season, but treatment for acute malnutrition also depends on clean water, staff, supplies and the ability to return for care. A clinic that screens children without treatment supplies produces a count rather than a complete service. Likewise, repairing a water point without funds for maintenance or safe access can leave a community no better protected when drought returns.[10] OCHA · [4] Sida

Salient One analysis. Cash can give households choice where goods, prices and payment access make it useful. Where markets lack food, transport is interrupted or households cannot safely collect a transfer, purchasing power alone may not deliver the intended assistance. In-kind provision, cash and support to services therefore have different logistical costs and protection consequences; no single modality is universally cheaper or more dignified.[10] OCHA

Donor priorities and resource pressure

DG ECHO describes a multisector emergency response including food, health, nutrition, water, protection, shelter and education. Sida’s March initial allocation analysis gives particular weight to food security and WASH, linked to health and nutrition, as well as protection and returnees. These are donor-specific priorities, not universal eligibility rules.[3] DG ECHO · [4] Sida

The FCDO’s September results publication reports what its bilateral ODA programmes supported during April 2025–March 2026. It is a retrospective results account covering broader development assistance, not a 2026 humanitarian allocation or an invitation to apply.[9] FCDO

Salient One analysis. The difference is analytical rather than a neat sector divide: ECHO presents a broad emergency portfolio; Sida explicitly explains its relative emphasis on food and water in light of previous sector funding and need; FCDO’s published results show a wider bilateral programme. Their spending periods and instruments differ, so the publications cannot be treated as a like-for-like ranking or as proof that an individual organisation is eligible.[4] Sida · [3] DG ECHO · [9] FCDO

Salient One analysis. A lower headline cost can transfer risk to communities or local partners if transport, safe female staffing, referrals and monitoring are unfunded. Flexible resources matter because a route closure or return movement changes the cost and location of delivery; flexibility alone cannot compensate for insufficient overall funding or restrictions that prevent safe access.[10] OCHA · [4] Sida

Salient One analysis. The published sector requirements reflect the planned mix and cost of activities, not a direct measure of severity or proof that food assistance has been funded. Food has a much larger requested envelope than protection, but the latter can be essential to whether women, children or people facing violence can use other assistance safely. Dividing funding mechanically by the number of people targeted also obscures different durations, service packages and costs across sectors.[10] OCHA · [4] Sida

Salient One analysis. An efficient response has to account for who bears the cost of adaptation. If restrictions require separate teams, extra transport or negotiated access, a short grant that covers only commodities may leave the local partner or community to absorb these costs. Conversely, financing an adaptation that excludes women from decisions may keep a programme operating while undermining its intended outcomes. The EU’s retrospective evaluation supports examining both flexibility and the quality of access, rather than equating uninterrupted activity with equitable delivery.[6] DG ECHO · [4] Sida

Conditional outlook

Salient One analysis. If return movements exceed reception capacity, transport and community services may become the binding constraints even when commodities are available at the border. If drought deepens or trade routes remain disrupted, households may face simultaneous income loss and higher prices. If restrictions prevent female staff from working, national reach totals can improve while access for women and girls remains inadequate.[10] OCHA · [7] United Nations in Afghanistan · [4] Sida

Salient One analysis. Evidence of improvement would include sustained service access and safe participation, not only completed distributions or recorded returns. District access, market conditions and the safety of referrals can change quickly; the dated plans establish a baseline rather than guaranteeing current local feasibility.[6] DG ECHO · [10] OCHA

Salient One analysis. A measurable warning of a return surge would be rising arrivals at a crossing together with longer stays or reduced access to onward transport. Under those conditions, emergency accommodation and medical referrals could become the immediate bottleneck. If arrivals slow but return districts report rising school or clinic use and housing costs, the pressure may instead shift toward the continuity of local services and household income.[7] United Nations in Afghanistan · [8] IOM · [10] OCHA

Salient One analysis. A second trigger is a sustained rise in staple prices relative to transfer values, or traders reporting that goods cannot be replenished. In that case a cash transfer of unchanged nominal value buys less, and transport or supply support may become more important. A third is a verified loss of female staff access or a decline in women’s independent use of services; total distributions could continue while effective coverage falls. Each signal is conditional and locality-specific, not a claim that it will occur.[10] OCHA · [4] Sida

What to watch

Editorial monitoring priorities, not forecasts.

• Return movements, border conditions and capacity in receiving communities.
• Changes affecting women’s and girls’ safe access and female humanitarian staff.
• Seasonal food insecurity, climate shocks and continuity of essential services.

Key documents and sources

1. OCHA: Global Humanitarian Overview 2026: At a glance ↗8 December 2025 · Launch requirements used only for the initial selection; later plans can revise them.
2. OCHA: Afghanistan Humanitarian Needs and Response Plan 2026 ↗30 December 2025 · National planning framework; targets are not actual reach.
3. DG ECHO: Afghanistan: humanitarian needs and EU response ↗22 May 2026 · Country response and delivery constraints, rather than an application notice.
4. Sida: Humanitarian Crisis Analysis 2026: Afghanistan ↗31 March 2026 · Initial allocation preferences, with protection, gender and local-response considerations.
5. UNICEF: Afghanistan: Humanitarian Action for Children 2026 ↗December 2025 · Agency appeal and planned sector targets; separate from the inter-agency HNRP.
6. DG ECHO: Evaluation of EU humanitarian interventions in Afghanistan, 2020–2024 ↗1 August 2026 · Retrospective evaluation; findings concern 2020–2024, rather than a new funding round.
7. United Nations in Afghanistan: 2026 Response Plan for Afghan Returnees ↗19 May 2026 · Border response and reintegration in 35 priority districts; projections and separate plan scope.
8. IOM: Afghanistan Crisis Response Plan 2026 ↗Date unavailable · Agency response for returnees, displacement and protection; dynamic page.
9. FCDO: FCDO Afghanistan Official Development Assistance results: April 2025 to March 2026 ↗3 September 2026 · Results of UK bilateral ODA programmes in financial year 2025–26, not a current call.
10. OCHA: Afghanistan Humanitarian Needs and Response Plan 2026 ↗30 December 2025 · Pages 2, 20–28 and 36–38: cluster requirements, returns, access and response costing.
11. FCDO, UK Parliament: FCDO planned ODA programme country and regional allocations 2026/27–2028/29 ↗16 July 2026 · Afghanistan country row: planned bilateral ODA allocations and description; excludes other central, regional and multilateral spending and is subject to revision.

Facts and labelled Salient One analysis are distinct. Source dates refer to the document or publication page, not to every underlying observation. Plans, past allocations and donor statements do not establish an open call or applicant eligibility.