Final evaluation Netherlands participation in ISAF 2006 - 2010

During the Uruzgan mission, a great deal was invested in increasing accessto basic facilities, such as education, including for girls, and better healthcare for the population (see Annex B). As part of their efforts to build goodgovernance and law enforcement, the NGOs, the UN and the PRT alsodevoted attention to human rights and the position of women. For example,the Netherlands raised a number of human rights issues with localauthorities and made resources available to tackle the problems. The PRTsought contact in an appropriate manner with women in the province and,for example by means of radio broadcasts, highlighted the need for respectto be shown to women and girls and for their rights.Sub-conclusion on human rightsThe Netherlands, with its totality of activities and interventions, helped theAfghan authorities protect the population against violence and made itpossible for more opportunities for development to be offered. Theconservative, tribal and deeply religious Muslim population of Uruzgan had,up to the arrival of the Netherlands, little experience of girls going toschool, women being given access to medical care and opponents beingtreated with respect for their individual rights. It may be concluded that astart is being made with the process of building awareness and putting intopractice the principle of equal human rights for everyone in Uruzgan, butthat the situation of women remains difficult, also by Afghan standards.4.4.8 Counternarcotics operationsUruzgan is one of the traditional opium regions of Afghanistan and in 2004was the fourth province as regards area under opium poppy cultivation.From the start of the mission, there were indications that the authoritieswere involved in the drug trade in Uruzgan as well. As a result, the drugsproblem also has a negative effect on the local administration. Moreover,the revenues from the sales of drugs form an important potential source ofincome for the insurgents.ISAF could assist Afghan government with counternarcotics operations, butISAF did not have the legal authority to destroy harvests or take any otherautonomous action against drug producers. In 2005, the EU andAfghanistan agreed to cooperate in the field of anti-drug operations. Whenthe mission was extended in 2007, policy priorities for the Dutch mission’santi-drug operations were announced. These related to a consistentinformation campaign for farmers, the development of alternative sourcesof income (partly in the framework of a broad rural development strategy)and more attention for law enforcement and interdiction.In 2007, the Netherlands signed an agreement with the US DrugsEnforcement Administration (DEA) to assign a DEA team to Uruzgan. Thisteam gathered intelligence and cooperated closely with the Afghan NationalInterdiction Units, which operate at a national level to capture major drugdealers and producers. In practice, however, the DEA did not live up toexpectations because its priorities were in other provinces.Dutch policy was aimed at contributing to a programme of providingfarmers with alternative sources of income, within the framework of theAfghan national counternarcotics plan. The Netherlands intended to takeadvantage of the relatively high world prices for food crops. This would helpto make the transition more attractive for the farmers. Initially, efforts weredirected, via small-scale projects and national programmes of the AfghanMinistry of Rural Rehabilitation and Development (MRRD), to the repair ofirrigation channels, the distribution of seeds and fertilizer and the buildingup of infrastructure. In February 2007, a mission consisting of, amongPage 61 of 133