Afghanistan

People not assisted through the HNRP

The 2026 HNRP applies a shock-based methodology in line with global guidance, while retaining the flexibility needed to capture the most acute needs beyond the strictly defined shock framework. Accordingly, the geographic scope of the plan encompasses areas affected by drought, AWD, mass returns, sudden-onset natural disasters and the residual impacts of the eastern region earthquake, in addition to areas where the needs analysis has shown the highest inter-sectoral needs, specifically districts with an inter-sectoral severity of 3 or above. The HCT agreed to retain the inclusion of inter-sector severity 3 districts beyond shock-affected areas to ensure continued assistance where significant needs persist. While a narrower severity scope would have provided a clearer distinction between acute humanitarian needs and longer-term BHN arising from structural conditions, the agreed approach reflects operational realities and the distribution of inter-sectoral severity in Afghanistan.

Under this methodology, approximately 284,200 people have been assessed as in pockets of need within inter-sector severity 2 in 15 districts and fall within the scope of the 2026 HNRP plan. More than 2.3 million people in the 15 inter-sector severity 2 districts that are not in the identified pockets of need fall out of the scope of the 2026 HNRP.

For targeting, the HCT agreed that clusters will prioritise inter-sectoral severity 4 locations first, followed by inter-sectoral severity 3 and defined targets in pockets of need in inter-sectoral severity 2 districts where clearly justified shock-affected pockets of need exist, such as returnee settlements.

In parallel, dedicated efforts were undertaken to de-duplicate activities between the HNRP and the UNSFA to ensure that development-oriented interventions fall outside the humanitarian response.

Despite this, transitional shelter, agricultural livelihood support and WASH rehabilitation still account for 15 per cent of total HNRP requirements (SO3).

Humanitarian–Basic Human Needs collaboration

In 2025, concrete steps were taken to strengthen collaboration between humanitarian and BHN partners to ensure greater coherence between shock response and longer-term essential service support. BHN indicators were integrated into the WoAA to enable shared analysis without expanding assessment burden. Clusters also completed transition planning in 2025, in consultation with BHN counterparts, to identify where and how humanitarian support could responsibly transition to longer-term service delivery models as conditions permit.

Joint humanitarian–BHN planning processes were also conducted to align risk analysis, cross-cutting priorities and transition approaches. In parallel, the Data Working Group (DWG) was expanded to include humanitarian actors, enabling the use of joint population baselines, administrative boundaries and shared datasets for PiN, targeting and severity analysis. These efforts ensure that BHN partners can align basic service delivery, referral pathways and area-based programming with HNRP-identified shock and severity analysis.

In late 2025, a workshop aimed at strengthening humanitarian–BHN collaboration was conducted. The discussion focused on enhancing coherence across humanitarian and BHN coordination mechanisms through more through joined-up sectoral platforms, with the aim of reinforcing a whole-of-response approach. The outcomes will inform the development of an overarching coordination architecture framework for implementation in early 2026.

Consequences of development suspension

While BHN financing has exceeded humanitarian funding since 2024, BHN programming remains development-light. As of June 2025, funding for the 2025 HNRP stood at $537.7 million, while the UNSFA had received $1.39 billion at the same time.¹ BHN programming addresses essential service continuity, livelihoods and community-level recovery but

deliberately avoids large-scale infrastructure and state systems development. This approach is driven largely by the current political context, operating environment, funding constraints and risk appetite of a large proportion of the international community. Most traditional donors remain unwilling to fund initiatives that could be perceived as directly supporting the DfA. As a result, development actors face strict limitations on the type and scale of activities they can undertake with funding often channelled into humanitarian programmes, complemented only by lighter forms of BHN engagement that circumvent direct institutional support. While this protects donor principles, education, health, water and livelihoods sectors continue to operate under fragmented, short-term financing, with limited opportunity to enable durable public systems.

The absence of predictable, transformative development financing has far-reaching consequences. Without substantial structural investment, Afghanistan remains unable to significantly reduce humanitarian needs over time. Communities remain highly exposed to repeated shocks, essential services continue to deteriorate and household coping capacities steadily erode. This dynamic reinforces a cycle in which humanitarian assistance substitutes for development but cannot itself deliver long-term recovery.

2026 priorities

Looking ahead, three strategic response priorities will be central to translating humanitarian–BHN collaboration into sustained impact. First, expanded BHN engagement in inter-sector severity 2 districts will be important to consolidate recent gains and support continued movement away from humanitarian dependence. Second, greater flexibility in financing will be essential to enable responsible transition from humanitarian assistance to BHN programming in stabilising inter-sector severity 3 areas. Finally, scaled and complementary BHN investments

in high-return urban centres are needed to ease pressure on humanitarian systems, strengthen local absorption capacity and reduce the risk of secondary displacement.

Engagement with DfA on these issues will continue through principled and coordinated dialogue platforms, including the High-Level Coordination Forum (HLCF).

Advocacy efforts will prioritise the protection of humanitarian space, the continuity of essential services and the creation of conditions that enable the safe, meaningful and comprehensive participation of women in the humanitarian response.