Afghanistan

Opium Survey 2010

Summary Findings
September 2010
Vienna International Centre, PO Box 500, 1400 Vienna, Austria
Tel.: (+43-1) 26060-0, Fax: (+43-1) 26060-5866, www.unodc.org
Government of Afghanistan
Ministry of Counter Narcotics

ABBREVIATIONS
AGE Anti-government Elements
ANP Afghan National Police
CNPA Counter Narcotics Police of Afghanistan
GLE Governor-led eradication
ICMP Illicit Crop Monitoring Programme (UNODC)
ISAF International Security Assistance Force
MCN Ministry of Counter-Narcotics
UNODC United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The following organizations and individuals contributed to the implementation of the 2009
Afghanistan Opium Survey and to the preparation of this report:

Ministry of Counter-Narcotics:
Mohammad Ibrahim Azhar (Deputy Minister), Mohammad Zafar (Deputy Minister), Ahmad Haroon
Shirzad (Director General), Policy &Coordination, Mir Abdullah (Deputy Director of Survey and
Monitoring Directorate), Saraj Ahmad (Deputy Director of Survey and Monitoring Directorate).
Survey Coordinators: Eshaq Masumi (Central Region), Abdul Mateen (Eastern Region), Abdul Latif
Ehsan (Western Region), Fida Mohammad (Northern Region), Mohammed Ishaq Anderabi (North-
Eastern Region), Khalil Ahmad (Southern Region), Khiali J an Mangal (Eradication Verification
Reporter), Mohammad Khyber Wardak (Database officer), Mohammad Sadiq Rizaee (Remote
Sensing), Shiraz Khan Hadawe (GIS & Remote Sensing Analyst), Mohammad Ajmal (Data entry),
Sahar (Data entry), Mohammad Hakim Hayat (Data entry).
United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (Kabul)
J ean-Luc Lemahieu (Country Representative), Ashita Mittal (Deputy Representative, Programme),
Devashish Dhar (International Project Coordinator), Ziauddin Zaki (National Project Coordinator),
Abdul Mannan Ahmadzai (Survey Officer), Noor Mohammad Sadiq (Database Developer)
Remote sensing analysts: Ahmad J awid Ghiasee and Sayed Sadat Mehdi
Eradication reporters: Ramin Sobhi and Zia Ulhaq.
Survey Coordinators: Abdul Basir Basiret (Eastern Region), Abdul Rahim Marikh (Eastern Region),
Abdul J alil (Northern Region), Fardin Osmani (Northern Region), Sayed Ahmad (Southern Region),
Fawad Ahmad Alaie (Western Region), Mohammad Rafi (North-eastern Region), Rahimullah Omar
(Central Region),
Provincial Coordinators: Fazal Mohammad Fazli (Southern Region), Mohammad Alam Ghalib
Eastern Region), Altaf Hussain J oya (Western Region), Lutfurhaman Lutfi (Northern Region)
United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (Vienna)
Sandeep Chawla (Director, Division for Policy Analysis and Public Affairs), Angela Me (Chief,
Statistics and Surveys Section-SASS), Martin Raithelhuber (Programme Officer), Philip Davis
(Statistician), Coen Bussink (GIS & Remote Sensing Expert) (all SASS), Yen-Ling Wong (Scientific
Affairs Officer, Laboratory and Scientific Section), Suzanne Kunnen (Public Information Assistant,
Studies and Threat Analysis Section).
The implementation of the survey would not have been possible without the dedicated work of the
field surveyors, who often faced difficult security conditions.
The MCN/UNODC Illicit Crop Monitoring activities in Afghanistan were made possible by financial
contributions from the Governments of Germany, Norway, the United Kingdom and the United States
of America.













Afghanistan Opium Survey 2010


Summary Findings























September 2010



Fact Sheet Afghanistan Opium Survey 2010
1

2009
Change from
2009
2010
Net opium cultivation (after eradication) 123,000 ha 0% 123,000 ha
in % of agricultural land 1.6%
Number of poppy-free provinces
2
20 No change 20
Number of provinces affected by opium
cultivation
14 No change 14
Eradication 5,351 -57% 2,316
Weighted average opium yield 56.1 kg/ha -48% 29.2 kg/ha
Potential production of opium
6,900 mt
(5,100-8,800)
-48%
3,600 mt
(3,300-4,000)
No. of household involved in opium cultivation
3
245,200 +1% 248,700
in % of total population
3
6% 6%
Average farm-gate price (weighted by production)
of fresh opium at harvest time
US$ 48/kg
Average farm-gate price (weighted by production)
of dry opium at harvest time
US$ 64/kg +164% US$ 169/kg
Current GDP
4
US$ 10.7 billion US$ 12.7 billion
Total farm-gate value of opium production US$ 438 million +38% US$ 604 million
in % of GDP 4% 5%
Gross income from opium per ha US$ 3,600 +36% US$ 4,900
Indicative gross income from wheat per ha US$ 1,200 -36% US$ 770


1
Numbers in brackets indicate the upper and lower limits of the 95% confidence interval.
2
Poppy-free provinces are those which are estimated to have less than 100 ha of opium cultivation.
3
Estimates are based on a population of 24.0 million for 2009 and a population of 24.5 million for 2010
and an average household size of 6.2 persons. Source: Government of Afghanistan, Central Statistical
Office.
4
Source: Government of Afghanistan, Central Statistical Office.
2

SUMMARY FINDINGS
The total opium poppy cultivation estimated for Afghanistan in 2010 did not change from
2009 and remained at 123,000 hectares. Ninety eight per cent of the total cultivation took
place in nine provinces in the Southern and Western regions
5
, including the most insecure
provinces in the country. This further substantiates the link between insecurity and opium
cultivation observed since 2007.
Total opium production in 2010 was estimated at 3,600 metric tons (mt), a 48% decrease
from 2009. The sharp decline was due to the spread of a disease that affected opium
fields in the major growing provinces, particularly Hilmand and Kandahar. The disease
started to appear in the fields after flowering in spring. This was too late to plant another
crop, therefore the disease did not change the area under opium cultivation. The major
effect of the disease was visible in the yield which dropped to 29.2 kg/ha, a 48%
reduction from 2009.
Virtually all opium production (96%) took place in the same southern and western
provinces where cultivation is concentrated. The other provinces produced only 4% of
the countrys total opium in 2010.
All 20 provinces which were poppy free in 2009, remained poppy free in 2010.
The total estimated farm-gate income of opium growing farmers amounted to US$ 604
million. This is a significant increase from 2009, when farm-gate income for opium was
estimated at US$ 438 million.
Figure 1: Opium culti vation in Afghanistan (ha), 1994-2010
7
1
,
0
0
0
5
4
,
0
0
0
5
7
,
0
0
0
5
8
,
0
0
0
6
4
,
0
0
0
9
1
,
0
0
0
8
2
,
0
0
0
8
,
0
0
0
7
4
,
0
0
0
8
0
,
0
0
0
1
3
1
,
0
0
0
1
0
4
,
0
0
0
1
6
5
,
0
0
0
1
9
3
,
0
0
0
1
5
7
,
0
0
0
1
2
3
,
0
0
0
1
2
3
,
0
0
0
0
25,000
50,000
75,000
100,000
125,000
150,000
175,000
200,000
1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
H
e
c
t
a
r
e
s

Source: UNODC (1994-2002), MCN/UNODC (since 2003).

5
Regions as designated by UNODC for analytical purposes. Please refer to Table 1 for a full list.
3
Table 1: Opium culti vation (2005-2010) and eradication (2009-2010) in Afghanistan
PROVINCE
Cultivation
2005 (ha)
Cultivation
2006 (ha)
Cultivation
2007 (ha)
Cultivation
2008 (ha)
Cultivation
2009 (ha)
Cultivation
2010 (ha)
Change
2009-2010
(%)
Eradicatio
n in 2009
(ha)
Eradicatio
n in 2010
(ha)
Kabul Poppy free 80 500 310 132 152 15% 1.35 0.48
Khost Poppy free 133 Poppy free Poppy free Poppy free Poppy free 0% 0 0
Logar Poppy free Poppy free Poppy free Poppy free Poppy free Poppy free 0% 0 0
Paktya Poppy free Poppy free Poppy free Poppy free Poppy free Poppy free 0% 0 0
Panjshir Poppy free Poppy free Poppy free Poppy free Poppy free Poppy free 0% 0 0
Parwan Poppy free 124 Poppy free Poppy free Poppy free Poppy free 0% 0 0
Wardak 106 Poppy free Poppy free Poppy free Poppy free Poppy free 0% 0 0
Ghazni Poppy free Poppy free Poppy free Poppy free Poppy free Poppy free 0% 0 0
Paktika Poppy free Poppy free Poppy free Poppy free Poppy free Poppy free 0% 0 0
Central Region 106 337 500 310 132 152 15% 1.35 0.48
Kapisa 115 282 835 436 Poppy free Poppy free 0% 31 1
Kunar 1,059 932 446 290 164 154 -6% 11 0
Laghman 274 710 561 425 135 234 73% 0 10
Nangarhar 1,093 4,872 18,739 Poppy free 294 719 145% 226 16
Nuristan 1,554 1,516 Poppy free Poppy free Poppy free Poppy free 0% 0 0
Eastern Region 4,095 8,312 20,581 1,151 593 1,107 87% 269 27
Badakhshan 7,370 13,056 3,642 200 557 1,100 97% 420 302
Takhar 1,364 2,178 1,211 Poppy free Poppy free Poppy free 0% 0 12
Kunduz 275 102 Poppy free Poppy free Poppy free Poppy free 0% 0 0
N.-eastern Region 9,009 15,336 4,853 200 557 1,100 97% 420 314
Baghlan 2,563 2,742 671 475 Poppy free Poppy free 0% 0 0
Balkh 10,837 7,232 Poppy free Poppy free Poppy free Poppy free 0% 0 0
Bamyan 126 17 Poppy free Poppy free Poppy free Poppy free 0% 0 0
Faryab 2,665 3,040 2,866 291 Poppy free Poppy free 0% 261 0
Jawzjan 1,748 2,024 1,085 Poppy free Poppy free Poppy free 0% 0 0
Samangan 3,874 1,960 Poppy free Poppy free Poppy free Poppy free 0% 0 0
Sari Pul 3,227 2,252 260 Poppy free Poppy free Poppy free 0% 0 0
Northern Region 25,040 19,267 4,882 766 Poppy free Poppy free 0% 261 0
Hilmand 26,500 69,324 102,770 103,590 69,833 65,045 -7% 4,119 1,602
Kandahar 12,989 12,619 16,615 14,623 19,811 25,835 30% 69 0
Uruzgan 2,024 9,703 9,204 9,939 9,224 7,337 -20% 74 15
Zabul 2,053 3,210 1,611 2,335 1,144 483 -58% 0 0
Day Kundi 2,581 7,044 3,346 2,273 3,002 1,547 -48% 27 0
Southern Region 46,147 101,900 133,546 132,760 103,014 100,247 -3% 4,289 1,617
Badghis 2,967 3,205 4,219 587 5,411 2,958 -45% 0 0
Farah 10,240 7,694 14,865 15,010 12,405 14,552 17% 43 198
Ghor 2,689 4,679 1,503 Poppy free Poppy free Poppy free 0% 0 0
Hirat 1,924 2,287 1,525 266 556 360 -35% 67 159
Nimroz 1,690 1,955 6,507 6,203 428 2,039 376% 0 0
Western Region 19,510 19,820 28,619 22,066 18,800 19,909 6% 110 357
Total (rounded) 104,000 165,000 193,000 157,000 123,000 123,000 0% 5,351 2,316

A province is defined as poppy free when it is estimated to have less then 100 ha of opium cultivation.
Source: MCN/UNODC.
Opium cultivation in 2010 remained at 2009 levels
There was no major difference in the level of opium cultivation between 2009 and 2010
as opium cultivation remained at 123,000 ha, the same rounded figure as 2009.
98% of the opium cultivation remains concentrated in the Southern and Western regions,
however, significant changes occurred within these regions. Cultivation decreased in
some of the main opium poppy growing provinces (Uruzgan, Zabul, Day Kundi, Badghis,
Hirat) and increased in others (Kandahar, Farah, Nimroz). Opium cultivation in Hilmand
remained stable with a small, statistically not significant decrease of 7%. The Northern
region maintained the poppy free status reached in 2009.
4
H
i
r
a
t
F
a
r
a
h
N
i
m
r
o
z
H
i
l
m
a
n
d
Z
a
b
u
l
K
a
n
d
a
h
a
r
P
a
k
t
i
k
a
G
h
a
z
n
i
U
r
u
z
g
a
n
G
h
o
r
B
a
d
g
h
i
s
F
a
r
y
a
b
J
a
w
z
j
a
n
S
a
r
i
P
u
l
B
a
l
k
h
S
a
m
a
n
g
a
n
K
u
n
d
u
z
T
a
k
h
a
r
B
a
d
a
k
h
s
h
a
n
N
u
r
i
s
t
a
n
K
u
n
a
r
L
a
g
h
m
a
n
K
a
p
i
s
a
P
a
r
w
a
n
B
a
g
h
l
a
n
B
a
m
y
a
n
W
a
r
d
a
k
L
o
g
a
r
P
a
k
t
y
a
K
h
o
s
t
N
a
n
g
a
r
h
a
r
P
a
n
j
s
h
i
r
D
a
y
K
u
n
d
i
K
a
b
u
l
3 6 0
1 1 0 0
6 5 0 4 5
2 5 8 3 5
1 4 5 5 2
2 0 3 9
4 8 3
2 9 5 8
1 5 4 7
7 3 3 7
7 1 9
1 5 4
1 5 2
2 3 4
7
5

E
7
5

E
7
0

E
7
0

E
6
5

E
6
5

E
3 5 N
3 5 N
3 0 N
3 0 N
O
p
i
u
m
c
u
l
t
i
v
a
t
i
o
n
i
n
A
f
g
h
a
n
i
s
t
a
n
,
2
0
0
8
-
2
0
1
0
T
U
R
K
M
E
N
I
S
T
A
N
I
R
A
N
P
A
K
I
S
T
A
N
T
A
J
I
K
I
S
T
A
N
U
Z
B
E
K
I
S
T
A
N
S
o
u
r
c
e
:
G
o
v
e
r
n
m
e
n
t
o
f
A
f
g
h
a
n
i
s
t
a
n
-
N
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
m
o
n
i
t
o
r
i
n
g
s
y
s
t
e
m
i
m
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
e
d
b
y
U
N
O
D
C
N
o
t
e
:
T
h
e
b
o
u
n
d
a
r
i
e
s
a
n
d
n
a
m
e
s
s
h
o
w
n
a
n
d
t
h
e
d
e
s
i
g
n
a
t
i
o
n
s
u
s
e
d
o
n
t
h
i
s
m
a
p
d
o
n
o
t
i
m
p
l
y
o
f
f
i
c
i
a
l
e
n
d
o
r
s
e
m
e
n
t
o
r
a
c
c
e
p
t
a
n
c
e
b
y
t
h
e
U
n
i
t
e
d
N
a
t
i
o
n
s
.
C
u
l
t
i
v
a
t
i
o
n
Y
e
a
r
2
0
0
8
2
0
0
9
2
0
1
0
P
r
o
v
i
n
c
i
a
l
b
o
u
n
d
a
r
y
I
n
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
b
o
u
n
d
a
r
y
G
e
o
g
r
a
p
h
i
c
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
i
o
n
:
W
G
S
8
4

0
1
0
0
2
0
0
5
0
k
m

5
H
i
r
a
t
F
a
r
a
h
G
h
o
r
H
i
l
m
a
n
d
N
i
m
r
o
z
K
a
n
d
a
h
a
r
B
a
d
a
k
h
s
h
a
n
B
a
l
k
h
G
h
a
z
n
i
Z
a
b
u
l
F
a
r
y
a
b
P
a
k
t
i
k
a
B
a
d
g
h
i
s
B
a
g
h
l
a
n
B
a
m
y
a
n
S
a
r
i
P
u
l
T
a
k
h
a
r
D
a
y
K
u
n
d
i
J
a
w
z
j
a
n
U
r
u
z
g
a
n
W
a
r
d
a
k
N
u
r
i
s
t
a
n
K
u
n
d
u
z
S
a
m
a
n
g
a
n
K
u
n
a
r
L
o
g
a
r
P
a
k
t
y
a
K
a
b
u
l
P
a
r
w
a
n
K
h
o
s
t
N
a
n
g
a
r
h
a
r
P
a
n
j
s
h
i
r
L
a
g
h
m
a
n
K
a
p
i
s
a
7
5

E
7
5

E
7
0

E
7
0

E
6
5

E
6
5

E
3 5 N
3 5 N
3 0 N
3 0 N
T
U
R
K
M
E
N
I
S
T
A
N
I
R
A
N
P
A
K
I
S
T
A
N
T
A
J
I
K
I
S
T
A
N
U
Z
B
E
K
I
S
T
A
N
0
2
0
0
1
0
0
S
o
u
r
c
e
:
G
o
v
e
r
n
m
e
n
t
o
f
A
f
g
h
a
n
i
s
t
a
n
-
N
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
m
o
n
i
t
o
r
i
n
g
s
y
s
t
e
m
i
m
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
e
d
b
y
U
N
O
D
C
N
o
t
e
:
T
h
e
b
o
u
n
d
a
r
i
e
s
a
n
d
n
a
m
e
s
s
h
o
w
n
a
n
d
t
h
e
d
e
s
i
g
n
a
t
i
o
n
s
u
s
e
d
o
n
t
h
i
s
m
a
p
d
o
n
o
t
i
m
p
l
y
o
f
f
i
c
i
a
l
e
n
d
o
r
s
e
m
e
n
t
o
r
a
c
c
e
p
t
a
n
c
e
b
y
t
h
e
U
n
i
t
e
d
N
a
t
i
o
n
s
.
G
e
o
g
r
a
p
h
i
c
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
i
o
n
:
W
G
S
8
4 k
m
5
0
O
p
i
u
m
c
u
l
t
i
v
a
t
i
o
n
i
n
A
f
g
h
a
n
i
s
t
a
n
,
2
0
1
0
(
a
t
p
r
o
v
i
n
c
e
l
e
v
e
l
)
L
e
g
e
n
d
O
p
i
u
m
c
u
l
t
i
v
a
t
i
o
n
(
h
a
)
I
n
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
b
o
u
n
d
a
r
y
P
o
p
p
y
f
r
e
e
L
e
s
s
t
h
a
n
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
-
1
0
0
0
0
h
a
1
0
0
0
0
-
3
0
0
0
0
h
a
M
o
r
e
t
h
a
n
3
0
0
0
0
h
a
P
r
o
v
i
n
c
i
a
l
b
o
u
n
d
a
r
y

6
The regional divide of opium cultivation between the south and rest of the country
continued in 2010. Most of the opium cultivation remained confined to the south and
west, which are dominated by insurgency and organized criminal networks. This mirrors
the sharp polarization of the security situation between the lawless south and relatively
stable north of the country.
Poppy-free provinces in 2010
All 20 provinces which were poppy-free in 2009 continued to be poppy-free in 2010. No
additional province became poppy-free.
6

Table 2: Provinces with poppy free status in 2010 (<100 ha opium poppy cultivation)
Region Province
Central region Khost, Logar, Paktya, Paktika, Panjshir, Parwan, Wardak, Ghazni
Northern region Baghlan, Balkh, Bamyan, Faryab, J awzjan, Samangan, Sari Pul
North-eastern region Kunduz, Takhar
Eastern region Kapisa, Nuristan
Western region Ghor

In the Central and Eastern regions, Kabul and Kunar provinces continued to have low
levels of cultivation and were close to reaching poppy-free status.
All provinces of the Northern region remained poppy-free
The Northern region consists of Baghlan, Balkh, Bamyan, Faryab, J awzjan, Samangan
and Sari Pul provinces. In 2010, all the provinces in this region remained poppy-free.
Most of these provinces sustained moderate levels of opium cultivation in the past except
Balkh. This province emerged as a major opium cultivating province in 2005 and 2006
(10,837 ha and 7,232 ha respectively), whereas the rest of the provinces contributed in
the range of 17 to 3,000 ha each. The decline in opium cultivation in the Northern region
started with strict law enforcement and counter-narcotic initiatives. In 2008, poppy
cultivation in these provinces was already negligible and Balkh and Bamyan provinces
have remained poppy-free since 2007.

6
A province is defined as poppy-free when it is estimated to have less then 100 ha of opium cultivation.
7
Figure 2: Opium poppy culti vation in the Northern region by province (ha), 2004-2010
0
2,000
4,000
6,000
8,000
10,000
12,000
H
e
c
t
a
r
e
s
2004 2,444 2,495 803 3,249 1,673 1,151 1,974
2005 2,563 10,837 126 2,665 1,748 3,874 3,227
2006 2,742 7,232 17 3,040 2,024 1,960 2,252
2007 671 poppy-free poppy-free 2,866 1,085 poppy-free 260
2008 475 poppy-free poppy-free 291 poppy-free poppy-free poppy-free
2009 poppy-free poppy-free poppy-free poppy-free poppy-free poppy-free poppy-free
2010 poppy-free poppy-free poppy-free poppy-free poppy-free poppy-free poppy-free
Baghlan Balkh Bamyan Faryab J awzjan Samangan Sari Pul

Badakhshan remained the only opium poppy cultivating province in the North-eastern
region
In the North-eastern region, Kunduz province has been poppy-free since 2007 and Takhar
province since 2008. In 2009 and 2010, Badakhshan remained the only opium cultivating
province in this region. Compared to cultivating provinces in the South, the 2010 opium
poppy cultivation in Badakhshan remained low at 1,100 ha, although this represents a
large increase (97%) from 2009. The increase happened despite the eradication of 302 ha.
98% of the opium poppy cultivation happened in rain-fed areas.
8
Figure 3: Opium poppy culti vation in Badakhshan province (ha), 2004-2010
0
2,000
4,000
6,000
8,000
10,000
12,000
14,000
16,000
H
e
c
t
a
r
e
s
Badakhshan 15,607 7,369 13,056 3,642 200 557 1,100
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Nangarhar maintains low level of cultivation
Nangarhar province became poppy-free for the first time in 2008, but in 2009 it lost the
poppy-free status as 294 ha of opium poppy were detected. In 2010, opium cultivation
continued to increase and reached 719 ha. Considering that Nangarhar was traditionally a
large opium growing province, the area estimated in 2010 is comparatively small, despite
an increase of 145% on 2009. Due to strong resistance by AGE against eradication, only
16 ha of opium poppy cultivation could be eradicated in Nangarhar province in 2010.
Figure 4: Opium culti vation in Nangarhar province (ha), 2004-2010
0
5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
25,000
30,000
H
e
c
t
a
r
e
s
Nangarhar 28,213 1,093 4,871 18,739 poppy-free 294 719
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

9
Before 2008, the level of opium cultivation in Nangarhar province was erratic. In 2004,
cultivation was at 28,213 ha, the following year it dropped drastically to 1,093 ha and
was confined to remote parts of the province. In 2006, it increased again to 4,872 ha and
in 2007 further increased to 18,739, before becoming poppy free in 2008.
In 2010, Kunar province of the Eastern region was very close to be poppy-free with
negligible amounts of cultivation (154 ha) . In Laghman province, opium cultivation
increased by 73% in 2010, (234 ha) where only (10 ha) of opium poppy cultivation were
eradicated in 2010.
Farah remains the main opium cultivating province in the Western region
Trends in opium cultivation level in Farah province has often been irregular. In 2008 it
reached the highest cultivation level (15,010 ha). In 2009, there was a 17% decrease
while in 2010, opium cultivation increased by 17%, reaching almost the same level of
2008. Farah is the most insecure province in the Western region.
Figure 5: Opium culti vation in Farah and Nimroz provinces (ha), 2004-2010
0
2,000
4,000
6,000
8,000
10,000
12,000
14,000
16,000
H
e
c
t
a
r
e
s
Farah 2,289 10,240 7,694 14,865 15,010 12,405 14,552
Nimroz 115 1,690 1,956 6,507 6,203 428 2,039
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Note: Due to administrative boundary changes, the 2009 and 2010 estimates for Farah and Nimroz were
calculated considering parts of Khash Rod district, the main opium cultivating district in Nimroz, as being
in Farah province. Figures for 2008 and before include all of Khash Rod district in Nimroz province
Opium cultivation level in Badghis province raised steadily between 2004-2009 with the
exception of 2008 when a drought and the total failure of rain-fed crops contributed to the
drop in opium cultivation. In 2010, opium cultivation decreased by 45% to 2,958 ha. In
2009, good rainfall had resulted in extensive cultivation in rain-fed areas, enabling
farmers to grow more poppy. This had contributed to a strong increase in opium
cultivation from only 587 ha in 2008 to 5,411 ha in 2009, most of which was in areas
difficult to access.
10
Figure 6: Opium culti vation in Badghis province (ha), 2004-2010
0
1,000
2,000
3,000
4,000
5,000
6,000
H
e
c
t
a
r
e
s
Badghis 614 2,967 3,206 4,219 587 5411 2,958
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Opium cultivation in Hilmand decreases by 7%
In 2010, opium cultivation in Hilmand went down by 4,788 ha or 7% compared to 2009,
a decrease which is statistically not significant. Despite this reduction, Hilmand remained
the largest opium cultivating province with 65,045 ha (53% of total opium cultivation in
Afghanistan). Kandahar province, Hilmands neighbour to the east, experienced an
opposite trend. Here, opium cultivation has been on the increase since 2007. In 2010,
opium cultivation in Kandahar reached almost 26,000 ha, representing 21% of national
cultivation.
Figure 7: Opium culti vation in Hilmand and Kandahar provinces (ha), 2004-2010
0
20,000
40,000
60,000
80,000
100,000
120,000
H
e
c
t
a
r
e
s
Hilmand 29,353 26,500 69,323 102,770 103,590 69,833 65,045
Kandahar 4,959 12,989 12,619 16,615 14,623 19,811 25,835
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

11
98% of opium cultivation is concentrated in the Southern and Western regions
In 2010, 82% of the Afghan opium cultivation was concentrated in the Southern region.
Kandahar was the only province in this region that showed a significant increase from
19,811 ha in 2009 to 25,835 ha in 2010 (30% increase). In 2010, Kandahar was the
second largest opium cultivating province after Hilmand, which still had over three times
more area under opium cultivation than Kandahar. In the Western region, Farah, Badghis
and Nimroz were the main opium poppy cultivating provinces with 70% of regional
opium cultivation being concentrated in Farah province alone.
Security has been a major problem in the Southern and Western regions. Because the lack
of security compromises the rule of law from the legitimate Government, counter-
narcotic interventions are limited and these regions consistently show very high opium
cultivation levels.
Table 3: Regional distribution of opium culti vation (ha), 2009-2010
Region 2009 (ha) 2010 (ha)
Change
2009-2010
2010 (ha) as
% of total
Southern 103,014 100,247 -3% 82%
Western 18,800 19,909 +6% 16%
Eastern 593 1,107 +87% 0.9%
North-eastern 557 1,100 +97% 0.9%
Central 132 152 +15% 0.1%
Northern Poppy free Poppy free NA NA
Rounded Total 123,000 123,000 0% 100%

Table 4: Main opium cultivating provinces in Afghanistan (ha), 2010
Province
2007
(ha)
2008
(ha)
2009
(ha)
2010
(ha)
Change
2009-
2010
Hilmand 102,770 103,590 69,833 65,045 -7%
Kandahar 16,615 14,623 19,811 25,835 +30%
Farah 14,865 15,010 12,405 14,552 +17%
Uruzgan 9,204 9,939 9,224 7,337 -20%
Badghis 4,219 587 5,411 2,958 -45%
Day Kundi 3,346 2,273 3,002 1,547 -48%
Nimroz 6,507 6,203 428 2,039 +376%
Rest of the country 35,455 5,028 2,982 3,202 +7%
Total 193,000 157,000 123,000 123,000 0%
12
Potential opium production in Afghanistan had a 48% decline in 2010
In 2010, opium production in Afghanistan decreased by almost half (48%) compared to
2009 and was lower than in any year since 2003. This was due to a strong decline in
opium yield in the main cultivation areas in the South and West of the country, while the
overall area under opium poppy cultivation remained at level of 2009.
Figure 8: Potential opium production in Afghanistan (mt), 1994-2010
3
,
4
1
6
2
,
3
3
5
2
,
2
4
8
2
,
8
0
4
2
,
6
9
3
4
,
5
6
5
3
,
2
7
8
3
,
4
0
0
3
,
6
0
0
4
,
2
0
0
4
,
1
0
0
6
,
1
0
0
8
,
2
0
0
7
,
7
0
0
6
,
9
0
0
3
,
6
0
0
1
8
5
0
1,000
2,000
3,000
4,000
5,000
6,000
7,000
8,000
1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
m
t

Table 5: Potential opium production by region (mt), 2009-2010
PROVINCE
Pr oduction
2009 (mt)
Pr oduction
2010 (mt)
Change
2009-2010
(mt)
Change
2009-
2010 (%)
Central Region NA* 8 NA NA
Eastern Region 21 56 +35 +167%
North-eastern Region 19 56 +37 +195%
Northern Region Poppy-free Poppy-free NA NA
Southern Region 6,026 2,979 -3047 -51%
Western Region 825 478 -347 -42%
Total (r ounded) 6,900 3,600 -3,300 -48%
* In 2009, no specific regional production figure was calculated for the Central region due to a low number
of yield measurements in that region.
Despite a low yield, the South remained the largest opium producing region in 2010
contributing 83% to total opium production, followed by the Western region (13%).
Opium production fell significantly in the largest opium producing province of Hilmand
(Southern region) where still over half of all opium (53%) was produced. While the
largest five opium producing provinces all showed strong decreases in opium production,
13
some smaller ones such a Badakhshan and Nimroz provinces experienced a strong
production increase, which, however, did not make up for the decreases elsewhere.
Table 6: Potential opium production in main opium producing provinces (mt), 2009-2010
PROVINCE
Pr oduction
2009 (mt)
Pr oduction
2010 (mt)
Change
2009-2010
(mt)
Change
2009-2010
(%)
Hilmand 4,085 1,933 -2,152 -53%
Kandahar 1,159 768 -391 -34%
Farah 545 349 -195 -36%
Uruzgan 540 218 -322 -60%
Badghis 238 71 -167 -70%
Badakhshan 19 56 +37 +205%
Nimroz 19 49 +30 +158%
Day Kundi 176 46 -130 -74%

The average yield (weighted by cultivation area) for Afghanistan in 2010 was 29.2 kg/ha,
a 48% reduction from the 56.1 kg/ha estimated in 2009. As a consequence, potential
opium production decreased by 48% to 3,600 mt. This reduction was partly due to the
fact that the number of opium poppy capsules per square meter and their average size
were significantly smaller in the Western and Southern regions in 2010 than in 2009. An
additional and more important factor was the occurrence of diseases in major growing
areas that affected opium plants at late stage of plant development. The diseased plants
exhibited wilt symptoms with leaves yellowing, drooping and finally desiccating
completely indicative of a collar (stem/root interface) and/or upper root rot. These
symptoms are consistent with those observed previously in the region for fungal
infestations.
Table 7: Average opium yield by region in Afghanistan, 2008-2009
Region
2009 aver age
yield (kg/ha)
2010 aver age
yield (kg/ha)
%
Change
Central * NA NA NA
Eastern 36.2 NA NA
North-eastern 34.3 NA NA
Northern NA* NA NA
Southern 58.5 29.7 -49%
Western 43.9 24.0 -45%
Central, Eastern, North-eastern, Northern ** NA 51.0 NA
Weighted national aver age 56.1 29.2 -48%
* In 2009, no regional yield figure for the Central region was calculated due to a low number of yield
measurements in this region. The Northern region was poppy-free.
** In 2010, due to a low number of yield measurements in some regions, Central, Eastern, North-eastern
and Northern regions were grouped into one yield region. For these regions, direct region-by-region
comparison with yields in 2009 is not possible.
14
I
R
A
N
I
R
A
N
P
A
K
I
S
T
A
N
P
A
K
I
S
T
A
N
I
N
D
I
A
I
N
D
I
A
T
U
R
K
M
E
N
I
S
T
A
N
T
U
R
K
M
E
N
I
S
T
A
N
T
A
J
I
K
I
S
T
A
N
T
A
J
I
K
I
S
T
A
N
U
Z
B
E
K
I
S
T
A
N
U
Z
B
E
K
I
S
T
A
N
0
1 9 9 0 9
1 5 2
1 0 0 2 4 7
1 1 0 0
1 1 0 7
0
8
4 7 8
2 9 7 9
5 6
5 6
7
5

E
7
5

E
7
0

E
7
0

E
6
5

E
6
5

E
6
0

E
6
0

E
3
5

N
3
5

N
3
0

N
3
0

N
R
e
g
i
o
n
a
l
o
p
i
u
m
c
u
l
t
i
v
a
t
i
o
n
a
n
d
p
r
o
d
u
c
t
i
o
n
i
n
A
f
g
h
a
n
i
s
t
a
n
,
2
0
1
0
S
o
u
r
c
e
:
G
o
v
e
r
n
m
e
n
t
o
f
A
f
g
h
a
n
i
s
t
a
n
-
N
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
m
o
n
i
t
o
r
i
n
g
s
y
s
t
e
m
i
m
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
e
d
b
y
U
N
O
D
C
N
o
t
e
:
T
h
e
b
o
u
n
d
a
r
i
e
s
a
n
d
n
a
m
e
s
s
h
o
w
n
a
n
d
t
h
e
d
e
s
i
g
n
a
t
i
o
n
s
u
s
e
d
o
n
t
h
i
s
m
a
p
d
o
n
o
t
i
m
p
l
y
o
f
f
i
c
i
a
l
e
n
d
o
r
s
e
m
e
n
t
o
r
a
c
c
e
p
t
a
n
c
e
b
y
t
h
e
U
n
i
t
e
d
N
a
t
i
o
n
s
.
S
o
u
t
h
e
r
n
W
e
s
t
e
r
n
C
e
n
t
r
a
l
N
o
r
t
h
e
r
n

0
1
0
0
2
0
0
5
0
K
m
G
e
o
g
r
a
p
h
ic
p
r
o
je
c
t
i
o
n
,
D
a
t
u
m
W
G
S
8
4
E
a
s
t
e
r
n
N
o
r
t
h
-
e
a
s
t
e
r
n
E
a
s
t
e
r
n
N
o
r
t
h
E
a
s
t
e
r
n
2 0 5 8 1
L
e
g
e
n
d
C
u
l
t
i
v
a
t
i
o
n
(
h
a
)
P
r
o
v
i
n
c
i
a
l
b
o
u
n
d
a
r
y
I
n
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
b
o
u
n
d
a
r
y
P
r
o
d
u
c
t
i
o
n
(
m
t
)

15

The Southern region was the most affected region with about 42% of the area under
opium cultivation damaged. The Western region was also affected by diseases but to a
much lower degree. In the West, a combination of factors including frost played a role
according to farmer reports.
Opium poppy diseases are a normal occurrence in Afghanistan. Farmers reported varying
degrees of damage to their crops in practically all years and regions since systematic
yield surveys started. Reported causes of the damage farmers observed on their poppy
fields include various local names for plant diseases, frost or drought conditions and
different pest including aphids/insects and worms. Use of agrochemicals to fight plant
diseases or pests is rather the exception. While this information on crop damage is based
on farmers assessment and not on scientific investigations, the comparison of farmers
damage assessment from 2004 to 2010 clearly shows the difference between normal
levels of crop damage and the extraordinary high levels reach in 2004 and 2010. Both in
2004 and 2010, the Southern and Western regions were the most affected, according to
farmers damage assessment. In 2004, other regions, which at that time still had relatively
high levels of cultivation, were also affected, while in 2010 this was not the case.
The pattern of diseases and other damage reported by farmers in 2010 differs clearly
between the Southern and Western regions and the rest of the country. In the West,
farmers most frequently identified frost as the cause of the damage. Other causes were
well below 10% of responses. A large proportion of farmers in the Western region
reported not to have observed any damage at all (39%). The frost damage reported by
farmers may well have contributed to plant death or damage at earlier stages of plant
development, resulting in low yields, which were reflected in the results of the systematic
yield survey.
Photo 1: Opium poppy plants affected by disease, Hilmand province, April 2010

16

Figure 9: Proportion of damage to opium culti vation area reported by farmers, 2004-2010
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Central
Eastern
North-eastern
Northern
Southern
Western
%of poppy area damaged (as reported by farmers)
2004 (n=150) 2005 (n=116) 2006 (n=780) 2007 (n=531)
2008 n=619) 2009 (n=818) 2010 (n=685)

In the Southern region, almost all farmers reported some kind of damage to their opium
crops. Frost (23%) and drought (12%) were often mentioned. However, most causes of
damage were reported by farmers as yellowish (35%) or fungal disease (7%). These
observations could be related to a collar (stem/root interface) and/or upper root rot
described above.
Opium farmers discovered this phenomenon only at a relatively late stage, often after
flowering or just before the opium poppy fields were ready for harvest. The pre-mature
drying of the plant greatly reduced the amount of opium which could be harvested as the
harvesting technique used in Afghanistan consists of lancing the fully developed but still
green opium capsules. Liquid plant juice (opium latex) oozes out of the cuts, dries on the
capsules to turn into opium gum, and is scratched off the other day. If capsules turn dry
earlier, less opium can be harvested. Opium yields on disease-affected fields were only
13% to 39% of the amount farmers would have normally harvested from fields with
similar numbers and sizes of capsules.
7


7
This finding is based on weight measurements of harvested opium conducted on disease-affected fields in
Hilmand and Kandahar in 2010. The results were compared to the potential yield estimated from poppy
capsule volumes per square meter, which is the established method used in UNODC-supported opium
surveys in Afghanistan, Lao PDR and Myanmar. See United Nations (2001), Guidelines for Yield
Assessment of Opium Gum and Coca Leaf from Brief Field Visits. New York. ST/NAR/33.
17
Photo 2: Opium poppy field affected by disease, Hilmand province, April 2010


Eradication was at the lowest level since the monitoring system started in 2005
A total of 2,316 ha of Governor-led eradication (GLE) were verified by MCN/UNODC.
GLE was carried out in 11 provinces. The final figures of eradication in Hilmand, Farah,
Hirat and Badakhshan provinces were adjusted after verification using satellite images.
Table 8: Eradication and opium culti vation in Afghanistan (ha) 2005-2010
Year 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
Governor-led eradication (GLE)
(ha)
4000 13050 15898 4306 2687 2316
Poppy Eradication Force (PEF) (ha) 210 2250 3149 1174 2663 0
Total (ha) 4210 15300 19510 5480 5351 2316
Opium cultivation (ha) * 104,000 165,000 193,000 157,253 119,141 123,000
% poppy in insecure provinces
of South and West
56% 68% 80% 98% 99% 98%
Poppy-free provinces 8 6 13 18 20 20
* Net opium cultivation after eradication
Comparing the 2010 and 2009 eradication campaigns, the following can be noted:
The 2010 eradication campaign started in February in Hilmand and Farah provinces.
In 2009, eradication started at the same time in Hilmand and Hirat provinces.
Eradication progressed at a slower pace in 2010 compared to 2009 throughout the
country.
The 2010 eradication campaign was mostly active in South, West, and North-eastern
regions while last year there was more eradication in the Eastern region. In 2010 the
18
eradication in Nangarhar province was not intense due to frequent attacks on
eradication teams.
In 2010, the number of security incidents was less than in 2009. GLE teams were
attacked 12 times in 2010 while there were 34 attacks on GLE in 2009. However, the
number of fatalities was higher this year as compared to 2009. This year about 28
eradication campaign related fatalities were reported against 21 in 2009.
In 2010, only GLE eradication took place whereas in 2009, the Poppy Eradication
Force (PEF) had eradicated about half of the total area.
Table 9: Security incidents eradication, 2009-2010
2008 2009 2010 Change 2009-2010 %
Persons injured >100 52 36 -31%
Fatalities 78 21 28 33%
As reported by eradication verification surveyors.
Although the highest number of hectares eradicated (1,602 ha) was verified in Hilmand
province, this amount was negligible (2.4%) considering the amount of opium cultivation
in this province (65,045 ha). Eradication in Uruzgan (15 ha) was also negligible in
comparison to its total cultivation of 7,337 ha. No eradication was carried out in
Kandahar province in 2010. In Farah, 198 ha of eradication were verified (1.3%),
however this amount is also negligible compared to the total opium cultivation (14,552
ha). In Badakhshan and Hirat, the percentage eradication were 27% and 44% respectively
of the total area under opium cultivation in these provinces.
Table 10: Governor-led eradication by province (ha), 2010
Province Eradication
(ha)
verified
No. of
fields
eradication
reported
No. of
villages
eradication
reported
Badakhshan 302 1,760 103
Farah 198 431 35
Hilmand 1,602 3,573 178
Hirat 159 741 42
Kabul 0 9 1
Kapisa 1 28 11
Laghman 10 27 4
Nangarhar 16 45 5
Nimroz 0 14 2
Takhar 12 51 7
Uruzgan 15 197 14
Total 2316 6876 402

19
Figure 10: Eradication comparison by province in 2009 and 2010
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000
Badakhshan
Day Kundi
Farah
Faryab
Hilmand
Hirat
Kabul
Kandahar
Kapisa
Kunar
Laghman
Nangarhar
Nimroz
Takhar
Uruzgan
GLE-2010 GLE-2009 PEF-2009

Note: In 2010, no PEF eradication took place.
20
T
U
R
K
M
E
N
I
S
T
A
N
T
U
R
K
M
E
N
I
S
T
A
N
U
Z
B
E
K
I
S
T
A
N
U
Z
B
E
K
I
S
T
A
N
T
A
J
I
K
I
S
T
A
N
T
A
J
I
K
I
S
T
A
N
P
A
K
I
S
T
A
N
P
A
K
I
S
T
A
N
I
N
D
I
A
I
N
D
I
A
I
R
A
N
I
R
A
N
H
i
r
a
t
F
a
r
a
h
G
h
o
r
H
i
l
m
a
n
d
N
i
m
r
o
z
K
a
n
d
a
h
a
r
B
a
d
a
k
h
s
h
a
n
G
h
a
z
n
i
B
a
l
k
h
Z
a
b
u
l
F
a
r
y
a
b
B
a
g
h
l
a
n
B
a
d
g
h
i
s
P
a
k
t
i
k
a
S
a
r
i
P
u
l
T
a
k
h
a
r
B
a
m
y
a
n
D
a
y
K
u
n
d
i
J
a
w
z
j
a
n
U
r
u
z
g
a
n
W
a
r
d
a
k
N
u
r
i
s
t
a
n
K
u
n
d
u
z
S
a
m
a
n
g
a
n
P
a
k
t
y
a
P
a
r
w
a
n
L
o
g
a
r
K
u
n
a
r
K
a
b
u
l
N
a
n
g
a
r
h
a
r
K
h
o
s
t
P
a
n
j
s
h
i
r
L
a
g
h
m
a
n
K
a
p
i
s
a
7
5

E
7
5

E
7
0

E
7
0

E
6
5

E
6
5

E
3 5 N
3 5 N
3 0 N
3 0 N
A
f
g
h
a
n
i
s
t
a
n
:
V
e
r
i
f
i
e
d
G
o
v
e
r
n
o
r
-
l
e
d
E
r
a
d
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
,
2
0
1
0
(
b
y
p
r
o
v
i
n
c
e
)
S
o
u
r
c
e
:
G
o
v
e
r
n
m
e
n
t
o
f
A
f
g
h
a
n
i
s
t
a
n
-
N
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
m
o
n
i
t
o
r
i
n
g
s
y
s
t
e
m
i
m
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
e
d
b
y
U
N
O
D
C
N
o
t
e
:
T
h
e
b
o
u
n
d
a
r
i
e
s
a
n
d
n
a
m
e
s
s
h
o
w
n
a
n
d
t
h
e
d
e
s
i
g
n
a
t
i
o
n
s
u
s
e
d
o
n
t
h
i
s
m
a
p
d
o
n
o
t
i
m
p
l
y
o
f
f
i
c
i
a
l
e
n
d
o
r
s
e
m
e
n
t
o
r
a
c
c
e
p
t
a
n
c
e
b
y
t
h
e
U
n
i
t
e
d
N
a
t
i
o
n
s
.
G
e
o
g
r
a
p
h
i
c
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
i
o
n
D
a
t
u
m
:
W
G
S
8
4
0
1
5
0
3
0
0
7
5
k
m
L
e
g
e
n
d
E
r
a
d
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
(
h
a
)
N
o
e
r
a
d
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
N
e
g
l
i
g
i
b
l
e
1
0
-
1
0
0
1
0
1
-
5
0
0
5
0
1
-
1
6
0
2
I
n
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
b
o
u
n
d
a
r
y
P
r
o
v
i
n
c
i
a
l
b
o
u
n
d
a
r
y

21
I
R
A
N
P
A
K
I
S
T
A
N
I
N
D
I
A
T
U
R
K
M
E
N
I
S
T
A
N
T
A
J
I
K
I
S
T
A
N
U
Z
B
E
K
I
S
T
A
N
H
i
r
a
t
F
a
r
a
h
G
h
o
r
H
i
l
m
a
n
d
K
a
n
d
a
h
a
r
N
i
m
r
o
z
B
a
d
a
k
h
s
h
a
n
G
h
a
z
n
i
F
a
r
y
a
b
Z
a
b
u
l
B
a
l
k
h
P
a
k
t
i
k
a
B
a
d
g
h
i
s
B
a
m
y
a
n
B
a
g
h
l
a
n
S
a
r
i
P
u
l
T
a
k
h
a
r
D
a
y
k
u
n
d
i
J
a
w
z
j
a
n
W
a
r
d
a
k
U
r
u
z
g
a
n
S
a
m
a
n
g
a
n
K
u
n
d
u
z
N
u
r
i
s
t
a
n
K
h
o
s
t
N
a
n
g
a
r
h
a
r
K
u
n
a
r
K
a
b
u
l
P
a
r
w
a
n
L
o
g
a
r
P
a
k
t
i
y
a
P
a
n
j
s
h
i
r
L
a
g
h
m
a
n
K
a
p
i
s
a
R
e
g
D
is
h
u
C
h
a
h
a
r
B
u
r
j
a
k
W
a
k
h
a
n
A
d
r
a
s
k
a
n
G
a
r
m
S
e
r
J
a
w
a
n
d
A
n
a
r
D
a
r
a
h
G
u
lr
a
n
G
h
o
r
y
a
n
G
u
li
s
t
a
n
N
a
w
u
r
S
h
i
n
d
a
n
d
R
e
g
-
i-
K
h
a
n
N
is
h
in
Y
a
k
a
w
la
n
g
N
a
d
A
l
i
O
b
e
G
iz
a
b
G
o
m
a
l
K
o
h
is
t
a
n
a
t
Q
a
d
is
D
a
m
a
n
W
a
s
h
e
r
A
s
l-
i
-
C
h
a
k
h
a
n
s
u
r
M
a
r
u
f
P
a
n
jw
a
y
e
e
P
u
r
C
h
a
m
a
n
S
h
a
h
r
a
k
K
h
a
s
h
R
o
d
T
u
l
a
k
N
o
w
z
a
d
B
a
l
a
B
u
lu
k
K
h
u
lm
W
a
r
a
s
K
i
t
i
S
p
i
n
B
o
ld
a
k
D
o
L
a
i
n
a
h
P
a
s
a
b
a
n
d
T
a
y
w
a
r
a
C
h
o
r
a
h
S
h
o
r
a
b
a
k
W
a
r
s
a
j
A
r
g
h
i
s
t
a
n
F
e
r
s
i
S
h
i
g
h
n
a
n
Q
a
is
a
r
B
a
l
k
h
a
b
L
a
s
h
-
i-
J
u
w
a
y
n
B
a
g
h
r
a
n
S
a
g
h
a
r
E
n
j
il
D
u
s
h
i
Q
a
la
-
i-
K
a
h
B
a
l
a
M
u
r
g
h
a
b
K
a
j
a
k
i
M
a
i
w
a
n
d
S
h
i
n
k
a
i
B
a
k
w
a
h
K
o
h
s
a
n
S
h
i
b
K
o
h
K
a
j
r
a
n
J
a
g
h
u
r
i
N
a
w
a
D
e
l
a
r
a
m
R
u
s
t
a
q
M
i
r
A
m
o
r
P
a
n
ja
b
J
u
r
m
K
o
h
is
t
a
n
W
o
r
M
a
m
a
y
A
l
m
a
r
K
a
r
r
u
k
h
N
e
s
h
K
h
e
d
ir
T
a
g
a
b
R
o
i
-
D
o
-
A
b
T
u
r
w
o
A
r
g
o
K
u
f
A
b
D
o
w
l
a
t
a
b
a
d
Z
a
r
i
A
j
r
i
s
t
a
n
S
a
i
g
h
a
n
P
a
r
y
a
n
G
ir
o
G
u
r
z
iw
a
n
G
h
o
r
a
k
Q
a
r
q
i
n
J
a
lr
e
z
M
i
z
a
n
A
z
r
a
Is
h
t
a
r
la
y
S
h
o
r
T
e
p
a
S
a
n
g
-
i
-
T
a
k
h
t
K
a
h
m
a
r
d
K
a
l
d
a
r
D
o
w
l
a
t
a
b
a
d
K
i
r
a
n
w
a
M
u
n
j
a
n
M
a
n
d
o
l
S
h
e
m
e
l
z
a
i
C
h
a
g
h
c
h
a
r
a
n
(
P
r
o
v
in
c
ia
l
C
e
n
t
e
r
)
L
a
l
w
a
S
a
r
j
a
n
g
a
l
C
h
i
m
t
a
l
P
a
s
h
t
u
n
K
o
t
K
a
n
g
Y
a
m
g
a
n
S
h
a
h
W
a
li
K
o
t
Z
a
y
b
a
k
Q
a
la
-
i-
Z
a
l
Z
e
n
d
a
h
J
a
n
M
a
l
is
t
a
n
G
h
o
r
m
a
c
h
Z
u
r
m
a
t
S
u
r
u
b
i
S
h
a
h
J
o
i
K
h
a
k
r
e
z
M
a
r
k
a
z
-
i-
B
e
h
s
u
d
S
h
o
lg
a
r
a
h
K
h
a
s
U
r
u
z
g
a
n
T
a
la
h
w
a
B
a
r
f
a
k
G
e
la
n
S
h
a
h
r
i
s
t
a
n
J
a
ji
M
u
q
u
r
B
a
r
m
a
l
S
h
e
b
a
r
S
h
u
h
a
d
a
C
h
i
is
h
t
-
i
-
S
h
a
r
if
A
b
K
a
m
a
r
i
S
a
y
y
a
d
D
ih
r
a
w
u
d
D
o
w
l
a
t
y
a
r
F
a
r
k
h
a
r
S
h
i
r
in
T
a
g
a
b
D
a
r
a
h
-
i-
S
o
o
f
-
i
-
B
a
la
B
a
g
h
la
n
-
i
-
J
a
d
e
e
d
M
u
s
a
Q
a
la
N
a
w
a
-
i-
B
a
r
u
k
z
a
i
B
u
r
k
a
B
a
r
g
-
i-
M
a
t
a
l
Q
a
r
a
B
a
g
h
K
h
i
n
j
a
n
D
a
y
c
h
o
p
a
n
K
h
w
a
ja
h
D
u
K
o
h
M
u
q
u
r
S
h
i
k
i
K
h
a
k
-
i-
S
a
f
e
d
A
r
g
h
a
n
d
a
b
F
a
r
a
h
(
P
r
o
v
i
n
c
i
a
l
C
e
n
t
e
r
)
K
u
s
h
k
(
R
a
b
a
t
-
i
-
S
a
n
g
i
)
N
a
r
i
R
a
g
h
i
s
t
a
n
K
a
m
d
e
s
h
F
a
iz
a
b
a
d
W
a
z
a
h
k
h
w
a
h
M
i
n
g
a
j
i
k
K
i
s
h
i
n
d
e
h
Z
h
ir
e
K
h
o
s
t
w
a
F
i
r
i
n
g
G
o
s
f
a
n
d
i
S
h
a
h
id
i
H
a
s
a
s
A
n
d
a
r
a
b
A
l
in
g
a
r
K
i
s
h
i
m
A
n
d
a
r
D
a
r
a
h
W
a
r
d
o
o
j
A
b
B
a
n
d
K
u
s
k
-
i
-
K
o
h
n
a
h
K
h
a
n
a
b
a
d
N
a
w
B
a
h
a
r
N
a
h
r
e
e
n
N
a
h
e
r
-
i-
S
a
r
a
j
B
i
l
C
h
i
r
a
g
h
P
a
s
h
t
u
n
Z
a
r
g
h
u
n
P
u
l
-
i-
A
l
a
m
E
s
h
k
a
s
h
i
m
N
ij
r
a
b
J
a
n
i
K
h
e
l
W
a
y
g
a
l
K
h
u
r
a
m
w
a
S
a
r
B
a
g
h
B
a
n
g
i
C
h
a
h
a
b
T
a
s
h
k
a
n
Q
a
r
a
m
Q
u
l
D
u
A
b
N
ii
z
a
m
-
i
-
S
h
a
h
i
d
(
G
u
z
a
r
a
h
)
D
a
i
m
ir
d
a
d
S
a
y
y
i
d
a
b
a
d
Q
u
r
g
h
a
n
N
a
h
r
-
i-
S
h
a
h
i
B
a
l
k
h
D
a
h
a
n
a
-
i
-
G
h
u
r
i
C
h
a
h
a
r
S
a
d
a
h
S
a
n
g
c
h
a
r
a
k
K
h
a
m
y
a
b
D
a
r
a
h
-
i-
S
u
f
-
i
-
P
a
y
i
n
C
h
a
h
a
r
D
a
r
a
h
N
e
r
k
h
S
h
a
y
k
h
A
li
H
a
z
r
a
t
i
I
m
a
m
S
a
h
i
b
T
a
g
a
b
Q
a
r
g
h
a
y
e
e
P
u
l
-
i-
H
is
a
r
S
u
r
k
h
-
i
-
P
a
r
s
a S
h
i
n
w
a
r
i
C
h
a
h
a
r
K
e
n
t
D
e
h
Y
a
k
M
a
r
d
y
a
n
T
a
r
n
a
k
w
a
J
a
l
d
a
k
K
h
w
a
h
a
n
S
p
e
r
a H
e
s
a
r
a
k
T
a
n
a
y
M
a
r
m
u
l
A
c
h
i
n
U
r
g
u
n
S
a
r
i
P
u
l
(
P
r
o
v
i
n
c
i
a
l
C
e
n
t
e
r
)
H
is
a
h
-
i-
A
w
a
l
B
e
h
s
u
d
E
s
h
k
a
m
is
h
O
m
n
a
J
a
g
h
a
t
u
S
h
e
b
e
r
g
h
a
n
(
P
r
o
v
i
n
c
ia
l
C
e
n
te
r
)
C
h
a
k
-
i
-
W
a
r
d
a
k
S
a
l
a
n
g
Q
u
s
h
T
e
p
a
h
M
i
y
a
N
e
s
h
i
n
Q
a
la
t
(
P
r
o
v
in
c
ia
l
C
e
n
t
e
r
)
A
t
g
h
a
r
G
o
s
h
t
a
K
o
h
is
t
a
n
D
a
r
a
y
i
m
K
h
u
g
y
a
n
i
S
h
a
h
r
i
B
u
z
u
r
g
B
a
m
y
a
n
(
P
r
o
v
in
c
i
a
l
C
e
n
t
e
r
)
Y
a
w
a
n
F
a
y
r
o
z
N
a
k
h
c
h
e
e
r
H
a
z
r
a
t
-
i
-
S
u
lt
a
n
K
h
o
s
h
i
L
a
l
p
o
o
r
T
i
r
i
n
K
o
t
(
P
r
o
v
in
c
ia
l
C
e
n
t
e
r
)
D
a
s
h
t
i-
i-
A
r
c
h
i
S
a
r
R
o
w
z
a
D
il
a
h
w
a
K
h
w
o
s
h
a
m
a
n
d
K
a
b
u
l
D
a
r
w
a
z
-
i
-
B
a
la
(
n
e
s
a
y
)
K
o
h
-
i
-
S
a
fi N
a
m
a
k
A
b
K
a
l
a
f
g
a
n
D
a
r
q
a
d
K
h
a
r
w
a
r
A
l
i
A
b
a
d
K
h
a
n
a
q
a
S
a
r
-
i-
P
o
l
D
a
r
w
a
z
-
i
P
a
y
in
(
m
a
m
a
y
)
A
r
g
h
a
n
d
a
b
W
a
g
h
a
z
C
h
a
p
a
D
a
r
a
K
h
a
n
i
C
h
a
h
a
r
B
a
g
h
Y
a
f
t
a
l
-
i
-
S
u
f
l
a
Y
o
s
u
f
K
h
e
l
G
h
a
z
i
A
b
a
d
S
u
r
u
b
i
K
h
a
k
-
i-
J
a
b
a
r
A
n
d
k
h
o
y
B
a
k
Z
ir
u
k
S
o
z
m
a
Q
a
l
a
K
h
a
s
h
A
r
g
h
a
n
j
K
h
w
a
h
D
e
h
B
a
la
R
a
s
h
id
a
n
B
e
h
s
u
d
N
u
r
is
t
a
n
P
a
r
o
o
n
(
P
r
o
v
i
n
c
i
a
l
C
e
n
t
e
r
)
C
h
a
h
a
r
B
o
la
k
B
a
h
a
r
a
k
G
u
r
b
u
z
K
a
m
a
P
u
s
h
t
R
o
d
S
a
n
g
in
Q
a
l
a
G
iy
a
n
M
a
t
a
K
h
a
n
N
o
o
r
g
a
l
S
h
u
t
u
l
S
a
m
k
a
n
i
K
h
w
a
ja
G
h
a
r
K
h
a
s
K
u
n
a
r
L
a
s
h
k
a
r
g
a
h
(
P
r
o
v
i
n
c
i
a
l
C
e
n
t
e
r
)
Z
a
n
a
k
h
a
n
H
ir
a
t
J
a
ji
M
a
id
a
n
N
ik
a
B
a
h
a
r
a
k
D
u
r
B
a
b
a
Z
a
r
a
n
j
(
P
r
o
v
in
c
ia
l
C
e
n
t
e
r
)
N
a
z
y
a
n
F
ir
in
g
w
a
G
h
a
r
u
D
a
s
h
t
iQ
a
l
a
K
a
n
d
a
h
a
r
(
P
r
o
v
i
n
c
l
a
l
C
e
n
t
e
r
)
Q
a
la
-
i-
N
o
w
(
P
r
o
v
in
c
ia
l
C
e
n
t
e
r
)
N
il
i
(
P
r
o
v
in
c
ia
l
C
e
n
t
e
r
)
S
h
i
g
a
l
w
a
S
h
e
l
ta
n
Y
a
n
g
i
Q
a
l
a
D
a
n
g
a
m
S
a
r
K
a
n
i
T
e
r
a
y
z
a
i
(
A
l
i
S
h
e
r
)
S
h
w
a
k
M
o
h
m
a
n
d
D
a
r
a
M
a
r
a
w
a
r
a
h
S
h
a
h
r
a
k
-
i-
H
a
i
r
a
t
a
n
7
5

E
7
5

E
7
0

E
7
0

E
6
5

E
6
5

E
6
0

E
6
0

E
3 5 N
3 5 N
3 0 N
3 0 N
S
o
u
r
c
e
:
G
o
v
e
r
n
m
e
n
t
o
f
A
f
g
h
a
n
i
s
t
a
n
-
N
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
m
o
n
i
t
o
r
i
n
g
s
y
s
t
e
m
i
m
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
e
d
b
y
U
N
O
D
C
N
o
t
e
:
T
h
e
b
o
u
n
d
a
r
i
e
s
a
n
d
n
a
m
e
s
s
h
o
w
n
a
n
d
t
h
e
d
e
s
i
g
n
a
t
i
o
n
s
u
s
e
d
o
n
t
h
i
s
m
a
p
d
o
n
o
t
i
m
p
l
y
o
f
f
i
c
i
a
l
e
n
d
o
r
s
e
m
e
n
t
o
r
a
c
c
e
p
t
a
n
c
e
b
y
t
h
e
U
n
i
t
e
d
N
a
t
i
o
n
s
.
A
f
g
h
a
n
i
s
t
a
n
:
V
e
r
i
f
i
e
d
G
o
v
e
r
n
o
r
-
l
e
d
E
r
a
d
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
,
2
0
1
0
(
b
y
d
i
s
t
r
i
c
t
)
N
u
r
i
s
t
a
n
K
u
n
a
r
a
b
u
l
o
g
a
r
N
a
n
g
a
r
h
a
r
P
a
n
j
s
h
i
r
L
a
g
h
m
a
n
K
a
p
i
s
a
S
u
r
u
b
i
J
a
ji
M
a
n
d
o
l
A
z
r
a
A
l
in
g
a
r
D
a
r
a
h
N
ij
r
a
b
W
a
y
g
a
l
D
u
A
b
T
a
g
a
b
Q
a
r
g
h
a
y
e
e
N
o
o
r
G
r
a
m
H
e
s
a
r
a
k
A
c
h
i
n
A
l
is
h
e
n
g
G
o
s
h
t
a
L
a
l
p
o
o
r
K
o
h
-
i
-
S
a
fi
D
o
w
l
a
t
S
h
a
h
K
o
t
D
e
h
S
a
b
z
A
l
a
S
a
i
B
a
g
r
a
m
W
a
m
a
K
a
m
a
S
u
r
k
h
R
u
d
K
h
u
g
y
a
n
i
K
h
o
s
h
i
R
o
d
a
t
S
h
e
r
z
a
d
S
a
l
a
n
g
C
h
a
p
a
D
a
r
a
D
a
r
a
-
i-
P
e
c
h
K
h
a
k
-
i-
J
a
b
a
r
D
e
h
B
a
la
B
e
h
s
u
d
N
o
o
r
g
a
l
K
a
b
u
l
S
h
u
t
u
l
M
u
h
a
m
m
a
d
A
g
h
a
h
B
a
g
r
a
m
i
P
a
c
h
i
r
w
a
g
a
m
K
h
a
s
K
u
n
a
r
K
u
z
k
u
n
a
r
K
a
m
d
e
s
h
P
u
l
-
i-
A
l
a
m
S
a
m
k
a
n
i
N
u
r
is
t
a
n
P
a
r
o
o
n
(
P
r
o
v
i
n
c
i
a
l
C
e
n
t
e
r
)
D
u
r
B
a
b
a
N
a
z
y
a
n
A
h
m
a
d
a
b
a
d
C
h
o
w
k
e
y
U
n
a
b
a
W
a
t
a
h
p
o
o
r
S
a
r
K
a
n
i
M
e
h
t
a
r
L
a
m
(
P
r
o
v
i
n
c
i
a
l
C
e
n
t
e
r
)
L
a
j
a
A
h
m
a
d
K
h
e
l
C
h
a
p
a
r
h
a
r
S
h
i
n
w
a
r
R
u
k
h
a
h
D
a
r
a
h
-
i-
N
o
o
r
B
a
t
i
K
o
t
M
u
s
a
h
i
S
a
y
y
i
d
K
a
r
a
m
K
o
h
B
a
n
d
D
a
n
d
P
a
t
a
n
M
o
h
m
a
n
d
D
a
r
a
M
a
r
a
w
a
r
a
h
N
a
r
a
n
g
w
a
B
a
d
i
l
A
n
d
a
r
a
b
P
a
r
y
a
n
K
a
l
a
k
a
n
S
a
y
y
i
d
K
h
e
l
J
a
la
l
a
b
a
d
J
a
ji
M
a
id
a
n
D
a
n
g
a
m
E
a
s
t
e
r
n
R
e
g
i
o
n
N
o
e
r
a
d
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
N
e
g
l
i
g
i
b
l
e
D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t
b
o
u
n
d
a
r
y
E
r
a
d
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
(
h
a
)
I
n
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
b
o
u
n
d
a
r
y
P
r
o
v
i
n
c
i
a
l
b
o
u
n
d
a
r
y
1
1
-
1
0
0
1
0
1
-
2
0
0
2
0
1
-
4
0
0
4
0
1
-
9
6
4

22

Opium prices show rapid increasing trends in 2010
In 2010, the average farm-gate price of dry opium at harvest time (weighted by
production) was US$ 169/kg, a 164% increase from 2009. The rapid increasing trend is a
market response to the drastic reduction of the opium production which is due to the
spreading of the opium disease in the major growing areas.
After a steady decline between 2005-2009, opium price started a rapid increase in 2010
reaching nominal levels observed only at the end of 2004, a year when opium cultivation
was also heavily affected by diseases. The long-time trend of opium price observed in the
two provinces of Nangarhar and Kandahar shows that the price trend in 2010 followed a
similar trend observed in 2004, but that the peak is still far from the very high levels
reached in 2001 and 2003 when the market was affected by the lowest level of
production.
Price trends in the next months will show how the opium market will be affected by the
production decrease in 2010, however, the current high price may play an encouraging
factor for farmers to cultivate opium. In 2009 data on famers motivation to cultivate
opium had started to show an increasing number of farmers stopping opium cultivation
due to its low sale price. It is worrying that the current high sale price of opium in
combination with a lower wheat price may encourage famers to go back to opium
cultivation.
Figure 10: Opium prices reported by traders in Kandahar and Nangarhar, Jul 1997 Aug 2010
(US$/kg)
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
J
u
l
-
9
7
J
a
n
-
9
8
J
u
l
-
9
8
J
a
n
-
9
9
J
u
l
-
9
9
J
a
n
-
0
0
J
u
l
-
0
0
J
a
n
-
0
1
J
u
l
-
0
1
J
a
n
-
0
2
J
u
l
-
0
2
J
a
n
-
0
3
J
u
l
-
0
3
J
a
n
-
0
4
J
u
l
-
0
4
J
a
n
-
0
5
J
u
l
-
0
5
J
a
n
-
0
6
J
u
l
-
0
6
J
a
n
-
0
7
J
u
l
-
0
7
J
a
n
-
0
8
J
u
l
-
0
8
J
a
n
-
0
9
J
u
l
-
0
9
J
a
n
-
1
0
J
u
l
-
1
0
U
S
$
/
k
g
Nangarhar (Eastern Afghanistan) Kandahar (Southern Afghanistan) Unweighted average

Nominal prices converted to US$ at local exchange rate, not adjusted for inflation.
MCN/UNODC has monitored opium prices on a monthly basis in selected provinces of
Afghanistan since 1994. In all regions monthly prices showed a decreasing trend since
23
2005. Since mid-2007, opium prices at the trading level in the Western and Eastern
regions tended to be higher than prices in other regions. Between J uly and November
2009 opium started to increase in all regions with the Western, Southern and Eastern
regions reaching the highest levels .
Figure 11: Dry opium prices reported by traders, by region (US$/kg), January 2005 to August
2010
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
J
a
n
-
0
5
M
a
r
-
0
5
M
a
y
-
0
5
J
u
l
-
0
5
S
e
p
-
0
5
N
o
v
-
0
5
J
a
n
-
0
6
M
a
r
-
0
6
M
a
y
-
0
6
J
u
l
-
0
6
S
e
p
-
0
6
N
o
v
-
0
6
J
a
n
-
0
7
M
a
r
-
0
7
M
a
y
-
0
7
J
u
l
-
0
7
S
e
p
-
0
7
N
o
v
-
0
7
J
a
n
-
0
8
M
a
r
-
0
8
M
a
y
-
0
8
J
u
l
-
0
8
S
e
p
-
0
8
N
o
v
-
0
8
J
a
n
-
0
9
M
a
r
-
0
9
M
a
y
-
0
9
J
u
l
-
0
9
S
e
p
-
0
9
N
o
v
-
0
9
J
a
n
-
1
0
M
a
r
-
1
0
M
a
y
-
1
0
J
u
l
-
1
0
N
o
m
i
n
a
l

p
r
i
c
e

i
n

(
U
S
$
/
K
g
)
Eastern Southern Western North-eastern Northern

Table 11: Regional farm-gate prices of dry opium at harvest time (US$/kg), 2009-2010
Region
Average Dry
Opium Price
(US$/kg) 2009
Average Dry
Opium Price
(US$/kg) 2010
Change
Central 160 133 -17%
Eastern 90 130 +44%
North-eastern 75 91 +21%
Northern 64 104 +63%
Southern 62 181 +192%
Western 72 108 +50%
National average
weighted by production*
64 169 +164%

* Prices for the Central region were taken from the annual village survey as there is no monthly opium
price monitoring in the Central region. Prices for all other regions were derived fromthe opium price
monitoring system and refer to the month when opium harvest took actually place in different regions of
the country.
24
Total farm-gate value of opium increased by 38% in 2010
Based on potential opium production and reported opium prices, the farm-gate value of
the 2010 opium harvest amounted to US$ 604 million increasing by 38% from 2009. The
farm-gate value of opium as a proportion of GDP also increased in 2010 to 5% compared
to 4% in 2009. Despite the considerably lower amount of opium produced in 2010, the
increase in opium price made overall the opium business more productive. While many
farmers in the disease-affected areas lost much of their expected income from opium,
other farmers not affected by the disease or affected only marginally had a large increase
in their profits.
Gross income from opium increased by 36% to US$ 4,900 per ha
Due to the high price of opium in 2010, the gross income for farmers per hectare
increased by 36% to US$ 4,900. This reversed the decreasing trend observed since 2007.
At the same time, the gross income per hectare of wheat decreased to US$ 770. This is
higher than in the years 2003-2007 but considerably lower than in 2008 and 2009, when
wheat prices reach peak levels worldwide. These diverging price trends increased the
discrepancy between (illicit) gross income from opium and (licit) income from wheat.
Table 12: Gross income from opium and wheat (US$/ha), 2003-2010
Income in US$/ha
Year
Opium Wheat
Ratio
opium/wheat
income
2003 12,700 470 27:1
2004 4,600 390 12:1
2005 5,400 550 10:1
2006 4,600 530 9:1
2007 5,200 550 10:1
2008 4,700 1600 3:1
2009 3,600 1200 3:1
2010 4,900 770 6:1
In prices of the reporting year, not adjusted for inflation. Income from poppy stalks and seeds and from
wheat straw is not considered in this calculation.
25

Reasons for cultivating opium poppy
The high sale price was the most important reason cited by farmers (47%) for cultivating
opium poppy in 2010. Provision of basic food and shelter for the family, improving living
condition and high income from little land were other important reasons given.
Figure 12: Reasons for cultivating opium in 2010 (n=392 farmers)
1%
1%
2%
2%
2%
5%
11%
13%
15%
47%
0.3%
0.6%
0% 25% 50%
Land/climate conditions suitable
Possibility of getting loan
Lack of support fromGovernment/other sources
Unemployment
To cope up with high domestic expenditures
Other
It is a custom
High demand for opium
High income fromlittle land
To improve living condition
Poverty (Provision of basic food and shelter)
High sale price of opium

Reasons for stopping cultivation
In 2010, farmers who stopped cultivating opium in 2010 or before were asked about their
major reason for doing so. The Government ban on opium cultivation was mentioned by
about 25% of the respondents, making it the most frequently cited reason for stopping.
Considering opium cultivation as being against Islam was the second main reason (13%).
7% of farmers mentioned low opium price as the reason for stopping cultivation. This is a
decrease from the 18% observed in 2009 and it reflects the choice made during the
planting season (November 2009 in the main cultivating areas) when opium prices were
still relatively low.
Reasons for never cultivating opium poppy
Religious belief is the most dominant reason for never having cultivated opium poppy.
63% of farmers who never grew opium reported that they did not do it because it is
forbidden (haraam) in Islam. The ban by the Government was another main reason for
never cultivating opium poppy.
26
Figure 13: Reasons for stopping opium culti vation in or before 2010 (n=1507 farmers)
1%
1%
2%
2%
2%
2%
2%
3%
4%
6%
7%
8%
10%
11%
13%
25%
0.3%
0.4%
0.5%
0.6%
0% 15% 30%
Low demand for opium
Received support fromGovernment
In-anticipation of support fromGovernement
It is an illegal crop
Lack of experience
Satisfied with with income fromlicit crops
Other
Cultivation is more labor intensive
Land/climate conditions not suitable
High cost of inputs (fertilizer, labors etc.)
Because of disease
It is harmful for human beings
Lack of water
Fear of eradication
Low sale price of opiumcomeared to before
Elders and Shura decision
Fear of Government
Not enough yield
It is against Islam
It was banned by Government

Figure 14: Reasons for never culti vating opium (n=2460 farmers)
1%
1%
1%
1%
2%
2%
2%
3%
3%
3%
3%
3%
5%
8%
63%
0% 35% 70%
Lack of water
Fear of eradication
Small land holdings
It is an illegal crop
Land/climate conditions not suitable
Fear of Government
Satisfied with income fromlicit crops
Not enough yield
It is not a custom
Other
Elders and Shura decision
Lack of experience
It is harmful for human beings
It was banned by Government
It is against Islam


27
Strong correlation between lack of security and opium cultivation
Eighty two per cent of the opium cultivated in 2010 was concentrated in Hilmand,
Kandahar, Uruzgan, Day Kundi, and Zabul provinces of the Southern region and 16%
was concentrated in Farah, Badghis, Nimroz provinces in the Western region. These are
the most insecure provinces where security conditions are classified as high or extreme
risk by the United Nations Department of Safety and Security (UNDSS). Most of the
districts in this region were not accessible to the United Nations and non-governmental
organisations.
Overall, 98% of the total opium cultivation took place in the Southern and Western
regions. Anti-government elements (AGE) as well as drug traders are very active in the
Western region. Provinces in the south are the strongholds of AGEs, while provinces in
the west (Farah, Badghis and Nimroz) are known to have organized criminal networks.
The link between lack of security and opium cultivation was also evident in Nangarhar
province (Eastern region) and Kabul province (Central region), where cultivation was
located in districts classified as having high or extreme security risk.
Security incidents in Afghanistan have been on the rise every year since 2003, especially
in the south and south-western provinces.
Security level (as of 30 March 2010) and opium cultivation in Nangarhar, 2010
Hesarak
Achi n
Gosht a
Khugyani
Lal poor
Rodat
Sherzad
Kot
Deh Bala
Kama
Behsud
Surkh Rud
Pachir wagam
Kuzkunar
Dur Baba
Nazyan
Chapar har
Shinwar
Darah-i- Noor
Bati Kot
Mohmand Dar a
Jalalabad
70E
70E
Security
Extreme Risk
MediumRisk
LowRisk
Legend
Cultivation
High Risk
Opiumpoppy field locations
Agricultural area
Paktiya
Kabul
Logar
Laghman
Nangarhar
Parwan
Kapisa
Kunar
Khost
Geographicprojection: WGS 84
0 10 20 5
km

The boundaries and names shown and the designations used on this map do not imply official endorsement
or acceptance by the United Nations. Source security map: United Nations Department of Safety and
Security.
28
Security level (as of 30 March 2010) and opium cultivation in Kabul, 2010
Surubi Kabul
DehSabz
Khak-i-Jabar
Paghman
Bagrami
Shakar Dara
Qara Bagh
Chahar Asyab
Estalef
Musahi
Gulara
Farzah
Kalakan
Mir Bacha Kot
70E
70E
Logar
Wardak
Nangarhar
Parwan
Kapisa
Laghman
Security
Extreme Risk
MediumRisk
LowRisk
Legend
Cultivation
High Risk
Opiumpoppy field locations
Agricultural area
Kabul
Geographicprojection: WGS 84
0 10 20 5
km

The boundaries and names shown and the designations used on this map do not imply official endorsement
or acceptance by the United Nations. Source security map: United Nations Department of Safety and
Security.
Figure 15: Number of security incidents by month, January 2003 to July 2010
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
1800
2000
2200
2400
J an Feb Mar Apr May J un J ul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
1800
2000
2200
2400
J an Feb Mar Apr May J un J ul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010

Source: United Nations Department of Safety and Security
29
I
R
A
N
P
A
K
I
S
T
A
N
T
U
R
K
M
E
N
I
S
T
A
N
T
A
J
I
K
I
S
T
A
N
U
Z
B
E
K
I
S
T
A
N
H
i
r
a
t
F
a
r
a
h
G
h
o
r
H
i
l
m
a
n
d
N
i
m
r
o
z
K
a
n
d
a
h
a
r
B
a
d
a
k
h
s
h
a
n
B
a
l
k
h
G
h
a
z
n
i
Z
a
b
u
l
F
a
r
y
a
b
P
a
k
t
i
k
a
B
a
d
g
h
i
s
B
a
g
h
l
a
n
B
a
m
y
a
n
S
a
r
i
P
u
l
T
a
k
h
a
r
D
a
y
K
u
n
d
i
J
a
w
z
j
a
n
U
r
u
z
g
a
n
W
a
r
d
a
k
N
u
r
i
s
t
a
n
K
u
n
d
u
z
S
a
m
a
n
g
a
n
K
u
n
a
r
L
o
g
a
r
P
a
k
t
y
a
K
a
b
u
l
P
a
r
w
a
n
K
h
o
s
t
N
a
n
g
a
r
h
a
r
P
a
n
j
s
h
i
r
L
a
g
h
m
a
n
K
a
p
i
s
a
3
6
0
1
1
0
0
2
5
8
3
5
1
4
5
5
2
2
0
3
9
4
8
3
2
9
5
8
1
5
4
7
7
3
3
7
7
1
9
1
5
4
6
5
0
4
5
1
5
2
2
3
4
7
5

E
7
5

E
7
0

E
7
0

E
6
5

E
6
5

E
3 5 N
3 5 N
3 0 N
3 0 N
7
1
9
1
5
4
1
5
2
2
3
4
K
a
b
u
l
L
o
g
a
r
K
h
o
s
t
P
a
k
t
i
y
a
K
u
n
a
r
N
a
n
g
a
r
h
a
r
P
a
r
w
a
n
W
a
r
d
a
k
P
a
k
t
i
k
a
L
a
g
h
m
a
n
N
u
r
i
s
t
a
n
K
a
p
i
s
a
G
h
a
z
n
i
P
a
n
j
s
h
i
r
S
o
u
r
c
e
s
e
c
u
r
i
t
y
m
a
p
:
U
N
D
S
S
S
o
u
r
c
e
c
u
l
t
i
v
a
t
i
o
n
:
G
o
v
e
r
n
m
e
n
t
o
f
A
f
g
h
a
n
i
s
t
a
n
-
N
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
m
o
n
i
t
o
r
i
n
g
s
y
s
t
e
m
i
m
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
e
d
b
y
U
N
O
D
C
N
o
t
e
:
T
h
e
b
o
u
n
d
r
i
e
s
a
n
d
n
a
m
e
s
s
h
o
w
n
a
n
d
t
h
e
d
e
s
i
g
n
a
t
i
o
n
s
u
s
e
d
o
n
t
h
i
s
m
a
p
d
o
n
o
t
i
m
p
l
y
o
f
f
i
c
i
a
l
e
n
d
o
r
s
e
m
e
n
t
o
r
a
c
c
e
p
t
a
n
c
e
b
y
t
h
e
U
n
i
t
e
d
N
a
t
i
o
n
s
S
e
c
u
r
i
t
y
m
a
p
(
a
s
a
t
3
0
M
a
r
c
h
2
0
1
0
)
a
n
d
o
p
i
u
m
c
u
l
t
i
v
a
t
i
o
n
i
n
A
f
g
h
a
n
i
s
t
a
n
b
y
p
r
o
v
i
n
c
e
,
2
0
1
0
S
e
c
u
r
i
t
y
O
p
i
u
m
c
u
l
t
i
v
a
t
i
o
n
(
h
a
)
b
y
p
r
o
v
i
n
c
e
1
0
,
0
0
0
E
x
t
r
e
m
e
R
i
s
k
H
i
g
h
R
i
s
k
M
e
d
i
u
m
R
i
s
k
L
o
w
R
i
s
k
I
n
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
b
o
u
n
d
a
r
y
P
r
o
v
i
n
c
i
a
l
b
o
u
n
d
a
r
y
D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t
b
o
u
n
d
a
r
y

0
1
0
0
2
0
0
5
0
k
m
G
e
o
g
r
a
p
h
i
c
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
i
o
n
:
W
G
S
8
4