COMMUNITY SCORECARD OF

KABUL MUNICIPALITY
2016
www.iwaweb.org
 INTEGRITY WATCH AFGHANISTAN

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

Published by Integrity Watch Afghanistan
Kolola Poshta, Kabul, Afghanistan
Email: info@iwaweb.org
Website: www.iwaweb.org

COMMUNITY SCORECARD OF KABUL MUNICIPALITY 2016 3

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.................................................................................................................................................... ii
Executive Summary ...................................................................................................................................................1
Recommendations.....................................................................................................................................................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).....................................................................................................................................21
District Two (Deh Afghanan-Quwaye Markaz).........................................................................................................23
District Three (Kabul University Road).....................................................................................................................25
District Four (Klola Poshta).......................................................................................................................................27
District Five (Khushla Mena-Kut-e Sangi).................................................................................................................29
District Six (West of Sarak Darul Aman-Pul Surkh Road)..........................................................................................31
District Seven (East of Sarak Darul Aman-Chelsutoon Road)...................................................................................33
District Eight (Sarake-e Now)...................................................................................................................................35
District Nine (Macroyan)..........................................................................................................................................37
District Ten (Wazir Akbar Khan)...............................................................................................................................39
District Eleven (Khair Khana)....................................................................................................................................41
District Twelve, (Ahmad Shah Baba Mena or Arzan Qeemat)..................................................................................43
District Thirteen (Dasht-e Barchi).............................................................................................................................45
District Fourteen (Paghman)....................................................................................................................................47
District Fifteen (Khair Khana-Sarak-e Maidan).........................................................................................................49
District Sixteen (Qala Zaman Khan)..........................................................................................................................51
District Seventeen (Sare Kotal Khair Khana)............................................................................................................53
District Eighteen (Deh Sabz).....................................................................................................................................55
District Nineteen (Bagrami).....................................................................................................................................57
District Twenty-One (Binesar)..................................................................................................................................59
District Twenty-Two (Shewaki).................................................................................................................................61
LIST OF ANNEXES.................................................................................................................................. 64
 INTEGRITY WATCH AFGHANISTAN
Executive Summary
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
1 COMMUNITY SCORECARD OF KABUL MUNICIPALITY 2016
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
 INTEGRITY WATCH AFGHANISTAN

is not limited to service delivery but it is a major problem Problem of coordination. The existing legal framework
in governance too. Due to reactive governance concerning has failed to outline clear boundaries for the Water
the drafting and implementation of the master plan, out of and Canalization Corporation and the Ministry of Urban
400,000 dwellings in Kabul city, 3 out of 4 are unplanned, Development, on the one hand, and Kabul Municipality on
meaning they are not based on the master plan.1 the other hand. Stronger coordination over the past decade
The reason for this is that Kabul Municipality did not could have bridged this gap. Similarly, the Municipality’s
proactively plan the city suburbs before they were “island mentality” has blurred its responsibilities versus
urbanized. In some areas, therefore, Kabul Municipality the responsibilities of Ministry of Health in the area of
officials do not allow people to construct on their privately- public hygiene and in regard to cultural and educational
owned properties because the plan is still not ready. activities as compared to the responsibilities of other
ministries. In addition, the relationship between Kabul
Unresponsive approach to unplanned areas. Unplanned
Municipality and both Ministry of Interior Affairs and
areas are either government lands that that have been
National Environmental Protection Authority has not been
grabbed, or private lands where houses have been built
collaborative. Robust coordination mechanisms between
on. Some district officials claim that they are not legally
both mid and high-level officials is required to mobilize
bound to provide services to unplanned areas which they
and utilize the resources of the responsible agencies for
refer to with the derogatory term, Zur Abad (forcefully
the benefit of the Kabul city residents.
built). However, existing legislation requires that Kabul
Municipality provides services to all residents within its Serious management issues. There are more resources and
boundary without discrimination. In practice, however, infrastructure at the disposal of Kabul Municipality than is
when residents within these areas request services, officials evidenced by the output it produces. Kabul Municipality
deny them. Such an approach is seen as a failure of Kabul has not produced reliable data and information upon which
Municipality and has had disastrous consequences for the it can formulate policies and take action. In addition, it has
citizens in these areas. not efficiently and effectively managed its own resources
especially at district level. These subordinate units can turn
Absence of prioritization. Kabul City lacks basic water
into strong operational hands of the municipality if the
infrastructure of pumping drinking water to dwellings and
required resources are properly allocated and professional
transporting waste water to proper areas. Canalization and
managers are assigned. Furthermore, Kabul Municipality
access to clean water are pressing issues in the city. Roads’
has not mapped the existing resources available to
conditions and waste management are two other major
boost its service delivery. Wakeel Guzars are volunteer
problems. They were the top issues raised during the public
representatives of their communities with strong potential
hearings and Kabul Municipality has failed on each of the
to mobilize cooperation and implement policies.
above issues. Kabul Municipality has built some roads but
due to lack of prioritizing canalization over roads, such Considering the above-noted issues and the serious lack
paved roads fall apart far before the end of their intended of attention on urban planning and development by the
useful life due to rainfall among other reasons. political leadership of Kabul Municipality, this report
advises the following:
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.

COMMUNITY SCORECARD OF KABUL MUNICIPALITY 2016 2

 INTEGRITY WATCH AFGHANISTAN

Recommendations

▪▪ The government should commence a thorough ▪▪ As the primary responsible agency in charge of all the
review of the municipality’s laws in consultation with affairs of Kabul City, Kabul Municipality should act as
civil society groups and propose amendments to the such. Currently, Kabul Municipality officials blame other
National Assembly. government agencies such as Water and Canalization
Corporation of Afghanistan, Ministry of Interior Affairs,
▪▪ Kabul City’s existing master plan and other detailed
Ministry of Health, Ministry of Education, and National
plans should be publicized. A national urban
Environmental Protection Authority among others for
development policy is overdue and should be a
not improving the living conditions in the city including.
priority. Kabul Municipality requires a responsive and
Instead, the Municipality should improve its capacities
flexible policy for unplanned areas, including usurped
to become the main coordinating agency for delivery
properties, in order to make service delivery and
of basic services within Kabul City.
planning possible. Municipality officials at all levels
should take responsibility for ensuring the right of ▪▪ Kabul Municipality should actively consult with people
every citizen to receive basic municipal services. and involve them in planning and monitoring of service
delivery by holding town hall meetings for providing
▪▪ The government should immediately appoint a
update to people and to hear their views and to involve
mayor of the city with proven leadership experience
them in decision making. Public consultation should
and integrity. The government should extend full
be regulated and annual meeting dates should be
and sustained political support to his/her plans. A
specified and publicized in advance.
Municipality election should be held within the next
12-18 months. ▪▪ Provide access to information in a way that is
understandable and accessible to the public such as
▪▪ Kabul Municipality should increase the financial
using walls of districts to provide details of district
authority of the districts within existing legislation
budget. Each district should designate a public
and authorize district authority over allocation of
information officer to provide information to the
a proportion of revenues, and responsibility for a
people. This will provide the environment for people’s
proportion of expenditure, in each district.
interest in the municipality activities and will positively
▪▪ Canalization of the city should be a top priority, affect revenue collections and project implementation
followed by access to clean water. Based on the existing in the future.
legislations, this action is part of the mandate of Water
▪▪ Establish a proper complaint mechanism using available
and Canalization Corporation of Afghanistan while
technologies such as Complaints Pro, Zoho Support,
Kabul Municipality also bears responsibility for them.
Voxmapp, etc. and establish systems to address them
In order to avoid problem of coordination, options like
in a timely manner.
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.

3 COMMUNITY SCORECARD OF KABUL MUNICIPALITY 2016

 Part One: Methodology

PART ONE
METHODOLOGY
COMMUNITY SCORECARD OF KABUL MUNICIPALITY 2016 4
 INTEGRITY WATCH AFGHANISTAN

COMMUNITY SCORECARD

The Community Scorecard is a research/advocacy officials, both sides express their expectations and their
tool to measure perceptions and hold public officials level of satisfaction or dissatisfaction. In a process of
accountable. It is a widely used social audit approach dialogue, confusion is minimized, misunderstandings are
carried out around the world—particularly in developing clarified, and the environment for cooperation between
and post-conflict countries—to improve governance, parties can kick off.
provide accountability to the public, and encourage
For the sake of clarity, a distinction should be made
public participation in the decision-making process.2
between community scorecards and citizen report cards.
This approach provides not only a scorecard record, but
A community scorecard is a participatory process, while
also a means to document perceptions and feedback by a
a citizen report card is only a survey instrument. With a
community or communities regarding public institutions,
community scorecard, people are engaged with public
their attitudes toward the public, and the quality of
officials and enter into a conversation, whereas with a
services they provide to a community/communities.3
citizen report card, surveyors transfer people’s views to the
In addition, the community scorecard empowers citizens to
government through the media (see table above).
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

THE COMMUNITY SCORECARD4 DISTINGUISHING BETWEEN5

Community Scorecards Citizen Report Cards
▪▪ Tool for Participatory Monitoring and exact
▪▪ Participatory process - ▪▪ Survey instrument -
Accountability
data through focus group data collected through
▪▪ Community Empowerment discussions questionnaires
▪▪ Hybrid of – social audit, and citizen report card ▪▪ Unit – community ▪▪ Unit – household/
individual
▪▪ ‘Process’ not just ‘scorecard’ ▪▪ Meant for local level
▪▪ More for macro level
▪▪ Emphasis on immediate feedback and reform ▪▪ Emphasis on immediate
feedback and ▪▪ Emphasis on monitoring
▪▪ Monitoring of the quality of services/projects
accountability, less on demand side data on
▪▪ Generating benchmark performance criteria that can actual data performance and actual
be used in resource allocation and budget decision scores/report
▪▪ Implementation time
▪▪ Comparison of performance across facilities/districts short (3-6 weeks) ▪▪ Implementation time
longer (3-6 months)
▪▪ Mechanisms of direct feedback between providers ▪▪ Requires strong
and users facilitation skills ▪▪ Feedback later, through
media
▪▪ Building local capacity
▪▪ Requires strong technical
▪▪ Strengthening citizen voice and community
skills
empowerment.
▪▪ Flexible and adaptive – no one way to Implement

5 COMMUNITY SCORECARD OF KABUL MUNICIPALITY 2016


COMMUNITY SCORECARD OF
THE KABUL MUNICIPALITY
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:
TOOLS
Integrity 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.
SCOPE
With 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.
Part One: Methodology
DATA COLLECTION PROCESS
Three 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 KABUL MUNICIPALITY 2016 6
 INTEGRITY WATCH AFGHANISTAN
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 PROCESS
Data 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.
Row No Description Very Bad Bad
1 Score 1 2
2 No. of Scorers 3 4
3 Calculation method (3*1) + (2*4) +
7 COMMUNITY SCORECARD OF KABUL MUNICIPALITY 2016
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 RESEARCH
People’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.
Fair Good Very Good Community Score
3 4 5  
6 2 1  
Accumulation of Row 3 /
(3*6) + (4*2) + (5*1) Accumulation of Row 2
2.625
 Part One: Methodology

PART TWO
KABUL 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.

COMMUNITY SCORECARD OF KABUL MUNICIPALITY 2016 8

 INTEGRITY WATCH AFGHANISTAN
LACK OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT POLICY AND
UNRESPONSIVE LEGISLATURES
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 LEGISLATION
The 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).
9 COMMUNITY SCORECARD OF KABUL MUNICIPALITY 2016
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
CITY MASTER PLANS
Afghanistan’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
Part Two: The Kabul Municipality Findings
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 START
For 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
COMMUNITY SCORECARD OF KABUL MUNICIPALITY 2016 10
 INTEGRITY WATCH AFGHANISTAN

THE COMMUNITY SCORE

CARD FINDINGS

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’ FINDINGS
As 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.

Public access to Accountability to the Effectiveness of

information public complaints mechanism

Process of document Public participation in Public cooperation with

registration and licensing decision making the municipality

Transparency, and
accountability of tax Standardization of
collection private construction Bus stands

11 COMMUNITY SCORECARD OF KABUL MUNICIPALITY 2016

 Part Two: The Kabul Municipality Findings

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.

Construction of roads,
Car parking streets, and sidewalks Drainage

Maintenance of Public parks, planting,

infrastructure and green spaces Sanitation

Solid waste
management Overall Average

COMMUNITY SCORECARD OF KABUL MUNICIPALITY 2016 12

 INTEGRITY WATCH AFGHANISTAN
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
13 COMMUNITY SCORECARD OF KABUL MUNICIPALITY 2016
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,
Part Two: The Kabul Municipality Findings
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.
COMMUNITY SCORECARD OF KABUL MUNICIPALITY 2016 14
 INTEGRITY WATCH AFGHANISTAN

THE DISTRICTS’ FINDINGS

DISTRICTS’ RANKING IN 2015 SURVEY
The 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 .

15 COMMUNITY SCORECARD OF KABUL MUNICIPALITY 2016


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 Survey
District 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.
Part Two: The Kabul Municipality Findings
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.
COMMUNITY SCORECARD OF KABUL MUNICIPALITY 2016 16
 INTEGRITY WATCH AFGHANISTAN
KABUL MUNICIPALITY DISTRICTS HAVE SHOWN
IMPROVEMENTS
The 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.
17 COMMUNITY SCORECARD OF KABUL MUNICIPALITY 2016
FEMALE-POSITIVE BIAS
Women 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.
 Part Two: The Kabul Municipality Findings

COMMUNITY SCORECARD OF KABUL MUNICIPALITY 2016 18

 INTEGRITY WATCH AFGHANISTAN

19 COMMUNITY SCORECARD OF KABUL MUNICIPALITY 2016

 Part One: Methodology

PART THREE
DISTRICTS’ PUBLIC
HEARINGS AND
FINDINGS
This 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.

COMMUNITY SCORECARD OF KABUL MUNICIPALITY 2016 20

 INTEGRITY WATCH AFGHANISTAN

District 1
average 56%
RANK 03

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

21

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
Part Three: Districts’ Public Hearings and Findings
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.
COMMUNITY SCORECARD OF KABUL MUNICIPALITY 2016 22
 INTEGRITY WATCH AFGHANISTAN

District 2
average 50%
RANK 06

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

23

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
Part Three: Districts’ Public Hearings and Findings
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.
COMMUNITY SCORECARD OF KABUL MUNICIPALITY 2016 24
 INTEGRITY WATCH AFGHANISTAN

District 3
average 58%
RANK 01

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

25
 Part Three: Districts’ Public Hearings and Findings

waste management staff are responsible to two authorities: Except for the problems which concern the hilly areas, the
Kabul Municipality and the districts. district has performed well. Compared to 2014, the district
has improved 10 percentage points; the average score
Although there is a private company that is contracted by
across all indicators was 48 percent in 2014, but this number
residents to collect waste, there are problems with the
improved to 58 percent in 2015. In terms of ranking, the
waste collection in the district. People in the hilly areas
district was ranked first in 2014 and kept its spot in 2015.
were especially critical of the district. The district officials
People’s perception of this district has slightly improved
argued that, “Trucks cannot reach the hilly areas. We cannot
during the past year.
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.

COMMUNITY SCORECARD OF KABUL MUNICIPALITY 2016 26

 INTEGRITY WATCH AFGHANISTAN

District 4
average 46%
RANK 09

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.

27

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
Part Three: Districts’ Public Hearings and Findings
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.
COMMUNITY SCORECARD OF KABUL MUNICIPALITY 2016 28
 INTEGRITY WATCH AFGHANISTAN

District 5
average 36%
RANK 18

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

29

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.”
Part Three: Districts’ Public Hearings and Findings
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.
COMMUNITY SCORECARD OF KABUL MUNICIPALITY 2016 30
 INTEGRITY WATCH AFGHANISTAN

District 6
average 42%
RANK 15

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

31

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
Part Three: Districts’ Public Hearings and Findings
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.
COMMUNITY SCORECARD OF KABUL MUNICIPALITY 2016 32
 INTEGRITY WATCH AFGHANISTAN

District 7
average 46%
RANK 10

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’

33

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.
Part Three: Districts’ Public Hearings and Findings
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.
COMMUNITY SCORECARD OF KABUL MUNICIPALITY 2016 34
 INTEGRITY WATCH AFGHANISTAN

District 8
average 42%
RANK 16

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

35

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
Part Three: Districts’ Public Hearings and Findings
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.
COMMUNITY SCORECARD OF KABUL MUNICIPALITY 2016 36
 INTEGRITY WATCH AFGHANISTAN

District 9
average 50%
RANK 07

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,

37

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
Part Three: Districts’ Public Hearings and Findings
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.
COMMUNITY SCORECARD OF KABUL MUNICIPALITY 2016 38
 INTEGRITY WATCH AFGHANISTAN

District 10
average 56%
RANK 04

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.
The district has had some achievements in regard to returning
to the government properties that had been previously
usurped. According to the district director, more than one
hundred government property plots have been repossessed.
Such an achievement was unique to this district.
Canalization and drainage has been scored the lowest
among the services, although it has seen improvement
from 2014. According to the head of the district, Wazir

39

Akbar Khan was a hilly and pond area used for outdoor
picnics. “When it was turned into a residential area by
the then-government, its canalization was not given due
attention.” Still canalization remains the top problem in
the district. The district has seen significant improvement
in solid waste collection from 50 to 64 percent and even
starker increases in document registration, from 40 percent
in 2014 to 70 percent in 2015.
In the public hearing, the residents and Wakeel Guzars were
relatively happy with the district administration, especially
in regard to waste collection from planned areas. However,
the majority of the issues raised by planned and unplanned
areas were related to canalization and rainfall management.
One resident from Farhang Neighborhood emphasized
that lack of proper canals is their top problem in the area.
Part Three: Districts’ Public Hearings and Findings
Another resident of Saraye Chughurak complained that a
pond in the area threatens a whole neighborhood and the
district has not done anything. According to the head of the
district, the area is unplanned, therefore the district could
not deliver the same services as it does to planned areas.
Compared to 2014, the district has improved 20 percentage
points. The overall average score across all indicators was
36 percent in 2014, just 2 percentage points more than the
municipality average. However, in 2015, the overall average
score of the district was 56 percent. That is 12 percentage
points more than the municipality average of 44 percent.
In terms of ranking, the district was ranked ninth in 2014
and improved to fourth in 2015. People’s perception of the
district has clearly improved during the past year.
COMMUNITY SCORECARD OF KABUL MUNICIPALITY 2016 40
 INTEGRITY WATCH AFGHANISTAN

District 11
average 44%
RANK 11

District Eleven (Khair Khana)

This area is a densely populated district with 231,000 people
according to the CSO’s estimate.19 The district is mostly
unplanned with dwellings on the hilltops. Private companies
have been contracted to collect solid waste and clean the
canals in many districts at different points of time. Whereas
in many districts officials criticize these private companies,
this district’s officials seem more cooperative with a private
company and appreciated its work in the public hearing.
The district has seen improvement in solid waste
management. A private company, Aman Ahmadi Co, is
contracted by residents to collect solid waste and clean
canals. In 2014, solid waste was scored at 50 percent, and
this figure improved to 62 percent, which is slightly above

41

average, in 2015. However, people in hilly areas were less
happy with waste collection since the company does not
cover their neighborhoods and the district is also unable to
pick up their solid waste. The district has seen a decrease
with regard to the construction of roads, public parks, and
transparency of tax collection, as well as car parking.
During the public hearing, people raised issues of canalization,
waste collection, land usurpation, unpaved roads, sanitation,
and lack of services in unplanned areas. An Imam complained
that he has not seen the district promote green spaces or
plant trees, despite the fact that district officials have stated
that around 6,000 to 10,000 trees are planned for planting
each year in the district. The Imam further stated, “The
canals are not cleaned and this creates sanitation issues,
Part Three: Districts’ Public Hearings and Findings
such as overflow, in the winter.” A resident from Guzar Shesh
Dokan highlighted the lack of waste collection and canals as
important issues. According to the head of the district, there
are six parks in the area, including Park Jahan or World Park,
where each of the embassies in Kabul have contributed to
the planting of their respective national trees.
Compared to 2014, the district has improved by 4 percentage
points. The overall average score across all indicators was 40
in 2014, just 6 percent more than the municipality average.
However, in 2015, the overall average score of the district
was 44 percent. That is the same as the municipality average.
In terms of ranking, the district was ranked sixth in 2014 but
dropped to eleventh in 2015. People’s perception of the
district has slightly improved during the past year.
COMMUNITY SCORECARD OF KABUL MUNICIPALITY 2016 42
 INTEGRITY WATCH AFGHANISTAN

District 12
average 44%
RANK 12

District Twelve, (Ahmad Shah Baba Mena

or Arzan Qeemat)
Based on the CSO estimate, this smaller district has a
population of 42,000 across 6,500 households.20 The area
is located in the east of Kabul City, bordering three new
districts: 18, 19, and 22.
This district saw improvements across all indicators. The
three top indicators were document registration process,
with a 20 percentage points increase from 36 percent in
2014 to 56 percent in 2015; public participation in decision
making, which jumped from 24 to 46 percent; and public
access to information, which increased from 26 to 44
percent. Solid waste management and public parks, each
with 8 percentage points, have seen the least improvement
in the district.

43
 Part Three: Districts’ Public Hearings and Findings

The issues raised at the public hearings were a lack of collection trucks to measure mileage and fuel usage. The
attention to unplanned areas, sidewalks occupied by GPS does not allow the truck drivers to report lengthier
street vendors, and finally market places used as hotels or mileage than actual distance. Therefore, several dozens of
hostels. A Wakeel Guzar from the Sheena area complained truck drivers resigned.
that the district does not give the required attention
Compared to 2014, this district has improved 14 percentage
to their area. One resident explained the situation at
points. The overall average score across all indicators was
certain market places where a cluster of shops were used
30 percent in 2014, just 4 percentage points less than the
as hotels or hostels with little facilities like toilets. The
municipality average. However, in 2015, the overall average
district officials argued that they cannot provide services
score of the district was 44 percent, the same as the
to the unplanned areas for two reasons: the fact that
municipality average. In terms of ranking, the district was
people constructed houses that weren’t based on Kabul
ranked sixteenth in 2014 and improved to twelfth in 2015.
Municipality master plan and that in many cases they
People’s perception of the district has improved during the
have not obtained a Safayee registration or made the
past year.
Safayee payment. Furthermore, district officials explained
that the reason Kabul Municipality has faced issues with
waste collection is due to the use of GPS systems in waste

COMMUNITY SCORECARD OF KABUL MUNICIPALITY 2016 44

 INTEGRITY WATCH AFGHANISTAN

District 13
average 32%
RANK 19

District Thirteen (Dasht-e Barchi)

This district is located in the west of Kabul and the majority
of its areas were constructed in the last decade. According
to the head of the district, the area is entirely unplanned.
Kabul Municipality kept waiting, witnessing the entire area
as it was built without a master plan. If Kabul Municipality
had instead acted proactively, construction would have
happened based on a more efficient master plan. Being
unplanned, service delivery is now very difficult. The
population of the district is estimated between 700,000 to
one million by district officials, though the CSO estimates a
population of 195,000.21
The process of document registration has seen significant
improvement in the district. At 38 percent in 2014, it has
reached 64 percent in 2015. The increase is attributed to the
appointment of a new district head. The district has improved
across all indicators with public cooperation, public parks,

45

and sanitation being the top three. Although there is an
improvement in the access to information indicator from 26
percent to 28 percent, the head of the district was very critical
of Kabul Municipality regarding the release of information.
He complained that a newly constructed building in the
district was procured and implemented without consultation
with the district. When asked about the amount of money
spent on the new building, he exclaimed, “I am not aware,
even as the head of the district. How can the common
people know about its expenditure?” Furthermore, it is
believed that Kabul Municipality has a booklet that includes
information pertaining to population, geography, dwellings,
and other information, but has kept it confidential among
Municipality senior management.
At the public hearing, people complained about a lack of
proper waste management or septic tanks, unpaved roads
and lanes, and canalization, among other issues. Since the
Part Three: Districts’ Public Hearings and Findings
city lacks a sewage system, residents dig wells for human
waste from toilets. To make things worse, the city also lacks
a system to provide clean water to each dwelling. Since the
toilet wells are not septic, waste from these wells mixes
beneath the surface with the wells dug for drinking water.
Although this issue was emphasized particularly within
this district, this is also an issue within the majority of the
districts of Kabul City.
Compared to 2014, the district has improved by 4 percentage
points. The overall average score across all indicators was 28
percent in 2014—6 percentage points less than municipality
average. In 2015, the overall average score of the district
was 32 percent. That’s 12 percentage points less than the
municipality average of 44 percent. In terms of ranking, the
district was ranked seventeenth in 2014 but dropped further
down to nineteenth in 2015. People’s perception of the
district has not improved during the past year.
COMMUNITY SCORECARD OF KABUL MUNICIPALITY 2016 46
 INTEGRITY WATCH AFGHANISTAN

District 14
average 58%
RANK 02

District Fourteen (Paghman)

This district is located within Paghman, which is part
of the province of Kabul. The boundaries for the two
administrations are demarcated and the relationship
between the head of the district and district administrators
are cordial and cooperative. However, the newly created
districts of Kabul Municipality, like districts 18 and 19 as well
as 20, 21, and 22, suffers from a lack of clear boundaries and
cordial relations with district administrators. Regarding the
population of district 14, the CSO states that the existence
of the district has not been acknowledged by Ministry of
Interior Affairs.22 Controversies over the legality of district
14 aside, it is a green area and a popular destination for
outdoor picnics by Kabul residents.

47

This district has seen improvement across all indicators.
This can be attributed to the appointment of a resident of
Paghman as the head of the district who has maintained
good relationships with residents and other government
officials in the area. The process of document registration,
public parks, and public cooperation were the indicators
with top scores, totaling 64, 66, and 70 percent, respectively.
At the public hearing, the Wakeel Guzars were
generally happy with the district. They acknowledged
the improvements in waste collection, sanitation, and
document registration. A major portion of the problems
raised by residents pertained to the maintenance of the
Paghman River. Since the area is a tourist location, one
resident suggested, “Waste bins should be installed so
tourists can use them instead of throwing the waste into
Part Three: Districts’ Public Hearings and Findings
the river.” Another resident complained that sewage
water from toilets and bathrooms is channeled into the
river. With regard to Paghman as a tourist area, a resident
commented that it is not ready in terms of sanitation and
waste collection.
Compared to 2014, the district has improved 26 percentage
points. The overall average score across all indicators was
32 percent in 2014, which is 2 percentage points less than
the municipality average. In 2015, the overall average score
of the district was 58 percent—14 percentage points more
than the municipality average. In terms of ranking, the
district was ranked thirteenth in 2014 but improved all the
way to second in 2015. People’s perception of the district
has improved during the past year.
COMMUNITY SCORECARD OF KABUL MUNICIPALITY 2016 48
 INTEGRITY WATCH AFGHANISTAN

District 15
average 44%
RANK 13

District Fifteen
(Khair Khana-Sarak-e Maidan)
This area is located in the north of the city. The district
stretches from the top of the hills down to the plains bordering
central districts 4, 9, and 10. The district is a typical example of
Kabul City, with hilly areas, planned residential communities,
agricultural areas, government establishments, and dedicated
market places. From east to west, the district covers Khaja
Boghra, Kabul Airport, Shahid Square, and Lab-e Jahr Square.
According to the district’s acting head, Kabul Municipality
estimates the population at 400,000 but he emphasized that,
based on his knowledge, the true population more likely totals
one million. The CSO estimates the population at 316,000—
higher than any other district.23
Construction of roads has seen a drop from 52 percent in 2014
to 48 percent in 2015. According to district officials, “Except
for one road, all the roads are paved in the district.” This point

49

does not, however, align with the score given by the people
surveyed. In the districts where officials are satisfied with an
indicator (thus meaning the service is not a priority to them),
residents have scored that particular indicator lower than any
other indicator on the scorecard. This was also the case with
the green spaces indicator in district 2, where the head of the
district stated that the district did not need any more green
spaces. District 15 has also seen drop in other areas, including
waste management with a drop from 66 percent to 56
percent, sanitation from 46 to 42 percent, bus stands from 38
to 34 percent, and public cooperation from 66 to 56 percent.
In the public hearing, people raised several issues:
centralization of Kabul Municipality, road pavement and
maintenance, access to water, and canalization. There was
an elaborate discussion regarding the centralization of Kabul
Municipality and the fact that districts lack authority. One
Wakeel Guzar suggested that transportation vehicles should
Part Three: Districts’ Public Hearings and Findings
be part of the tashkeel (staff) of the district, while another
proposed that half of the revenues collected by the district
should be planned and spent by the district itself. One resident
complained, “We are happy with the district. The problem is
with Kabul Municipality.” The district is relatively well-off and
people do not feel that they are substantially engaged in the
affairs of the district. According to the head of the district, the
revenue from the area was AFN 56 million (approximately
USD one million).
Compared to 2014, the district has improved only 2 percentage
points. The overall average score across all indicators was 42
percent in 2014, which is 8 percent more than the municipality
average. In 2015, the overall average score of the district was
44 percent—the same as the municipality average. In terms of
ranking, the district was ranked fourth in 2014 but dropped to
thirteenth in 2015. People’s perception of the district has not
improved during the past year.
COMMUNITY SCORECARD OF KABUL MUNICIPALITY 2016 50
 INTEGRITY WATCH AFGHANISTAN

District 16
average 44%
RANK 14

District Sixteen (Qala Zaman Khan)

This area is located at the center of the city bordering
district 1 on the west side. It covers posh areas like the
Macroyans but also agricultural areas; one-third of its
eastern portion is agricultural lands. The population of the
district is estimated at 137,000. People and district officials
debated problems pertaining to solid waste collection,
road maintenance, skyscrapers, centralization of Kabul
Municipality, balanced development, and unfulfilled
promises and delayed projects, among other issues.
The district has improved in all indicators except waste
management. In 2014, this indicator was scored at 46
percent, but it dropped 6 percentage points to 40 percent.
The residents complained of piles of solid waste in the
neighborhoods, which have remained there for months.
The district head stated, “I know there are loads of waste
in your localities but I am understaffed and cannot reach

51

out to all of them.” District officials further explained an
arranged visit to Ankara from Kabul Municipality. The
head of the district informed residents, “The population in
Ankara is five million, and the city staffs 36,000 thousand
for waste management, while we have only 6,000 for Kabul
City, which has a population of more than five million.”
During the public hearing, people complained about the
unfulfilled promises by Kabul Municipality, skyscrapers
invading privacy, and unbalanced development, among
other concerns. One resident stated that Qalaye Zaman
Khan 60 Meter Road was planned 12 years back, but it
still had not even been started. He explained, “Kabul
Municipality demolished people’s properties for expansion
of the road, promising to pave it.” Another old man in
attendance at the hearing noted how skyscrapers in
the area invaded their personal privacy and he angrily
concluded, “If the government does not care, let us know if
Part Three: Districts’ Public Hearings and Findings
we should leave this country.” Wakeel Guzar and a resident
alleged that there was unbalanced development in the
area. A resident complained, “Because we belonged to an
ethnicity different from the head of the district, our area
has been left out.” District officials were unable to offer a
convincing explanation for this concern. The head of the
district stated, “It is easier to criticize others but difficult to
reform one’s self.”
Compared to 2014, the district has improved 8 percentage
points. The overall average score across all indicators was
36 in 2014, 2 percent more than the municipality average.
In 2015, the overall average score of the district was 44
percent—the same as the municipality average. In terms of
ranking, the district was ranked eighth in 2014 but dropped
to fourteenth in 2015. The living conditions in the district
have slightly improved over the last year.
COMMUNITY SCORECARD OF KABUL MUNICIPALITY 2016 52
 INTEGRITY WATCH AFGHANISTAN

District 17
average 52%
RANK 05

District Seventeen
(Sare Kotal Khair Khana)
This area is located in the northwest of Kabul city. The majority
of the space the district covers was constructed over the last
decade. According to the head of the district, the area was
not part of the city’s master plan until recently. Even now, the
detailed master plan has not been shared with district officials.
The area is comprised of agricultural lands and hilly areas
belonging to six tribes from Paghman, according to the head of
the district. In addition to those areas, Kabul Municipality and
Ministry of Urban Development have distributed hundreds of
plots in the district. The population of the district is estimated
at 86,000, but the head of the district emphasized that the
population must be around 300,000. The district also houses
the recent IDPs from the north.
The district has improved across all indicators of the scorecard,
with an average score increase of 20 percentage points. This

53

is due in part to a more positive view of the participants
in comparison to last year. In addition, although district
officials were initially disinterested, they took the public
hearing seriously and tried to convince the participants of
improvements in the area. Daily-issue indicators like solid
waste management, drainage, and construction of roads
improved from 44 to 62 percent, 28 to 52 percent, and 30 to
48 percent respectively.
In the public hearing, people raised issues of the centralization
of Kabul Municipality, issues with waste collection, unpaved
roads, lack of septic tanks, canalization, and, finally, the need
for more schools and clinics in the area. Although a general
trend, it was realized that the majority of the Wakeel Guzars
express positive views of the work of the district head. In the
same district, all seven Wakeel Guzars expressed satisfaction
and even went on to suggest that the head of the district
should be appointed as mayor. A good portion of the
suggestions regarding the remaining issues within the district
Part Three: Districts’ Public Hearings and Findings
related to the paving of the roads. District officials stated
that paving is a priority and referred to the pavement of the
road to Bustan-e Kabul, where the public hearing was held,
as an example of achievements within the district. As a result
of recent insurgency in the north of the country, IDPs from
the north have taken refuge in this district. This district was
therefore among a few districts in which people emphasized
a need for more public schools and clinics to compensate for
the refugee surge.
Compared to 2014, the district has improved 22
percentage points. The overall average score across all
indicators was 30 percent in 2014, which was 4 percentage
points less than the municipality average. In 2015, the
overall average score of the district was 52 percent, which
is 8 percent more than the municipality average. In terms
of ranking, the district was ranked fifteenth in 2014 and
improved to fifth in 2015. People’s perception of the
district has improved during the past year.
COMMUNITY SCORECARD OF KABUL MUNICIPALITY 2016 54
 INTEGRITY WATCH AFGHANISTAN

District 18
average 26%
RANK 21

District Eighteen (Deh Sabz)

The area is located in the northeast of Kabul on the highway
to Bagram Airfield. The highway has come under attack
by insurgents numerous times, resulting in causalities
and damage. This district is one of the five newly created
districts with no clear demarcation by the Kabul Province
administration. In recent years, Kabul Municipality has
expanded into parts of Kabul Province. Kabul Province is
administered by district administrators, whereas Kabul
Municipality is administrated by heads of the district. The
area supposedly covered by district 18 was previously
under the Deh Sabz District of Kabul Province. According
to the head of the district, the demarcation is not clear and
Kabul province does not recognize their existence. A Wakeel
Guzar commented, “Kabul Province officials perceive us as
enemies and do not cooperate with us.”
Since the district is new, it lacks the necessary infrastructure
and resources to deliver services to the new citizens

55

of Kabul Municipality. The district has not significantly
improved on any of the indicators. Document registration
is scored at 36 percent, 2 percentage points higher than the
previous year and the highest of all indicators. Since people
are frustrated by a lack of services in the district, they have
scored the district poorly on all indicators. In addition, the
head of the district was a weak manager who could not
clearly communicate and convince people. He stated, “I do
not have resources at my disposal. There are no police as
part of the district to impose my decisions.”
During the public hearing, people raised several issues—
some of them unique to this district. The problems
included lack of compensation for the damages as a result
of road side bombs, centralization of Kabul Municipality,
lack of resources at the district level, problems pertaining
to administrative demarcation from Kabul Province, and
issues related to waste collection, canalization, and road
pavement services. A Wakeel Guzar commented, “The
district does not have any resources, and I do not except
Part Three: Districts’ Public Hearings and Findings
anything from it.” A resident complained, “We are on the
highway and there were numerous bomb blasts in our
area damaging our businesses. They government did not
compensate us.” Since the district is in a suburb, people
feel marginalized and underserved. One citizen stated, “If
the government does not wish to deliver services to us,
we can also destabilize the north of Kabul City as the west
and east.”
Compared to 2014, the district has improved by only 2
percentage points. The overall average score across all
indicators was 24 percent in 2014, 10 percentage points
less than the municipality average. In 2015, the overall
average score of the district was 26 percent, which is 18
percentage points less than the municipality average. In
terms of ranking, the district was ranked twentieth in 2014
but dropped to twenty-first in 2015. People’s perception of
the district has not improved during the past year.
COMMUNITY SCORECARD OF KABUL MUNICIPALITY 2016 56
 INTEGRITY WATCH AFGHANISTAN

District 19
average 42%
RANK 17

District Nineteen (Bagrami)

This area is located in the north of Kabul Municipality. The
area covers agricultural areas and barren but empty lands.
Although this district is a new district that’s several times
larger than district 18, it has shown significant improvement
in service delivery. People were happy by the fact that their
area is not part of Kabul Municipality because such a change
has increased property prices and potentially city services
in the future. Still, respondents did have issues with waste
collection, lack of government support to agriculture, and
even lack of salary for Wakeel Guzars.
The district recorded improvement across all indicators.
Solid waste management improved to 56 percent from
a meager 24 percent. The residents from planned areas
expressed their satisfaction with waste collection during
the public hearing. In addition, document registration and
sanitation showed 14 percentage points improvements.
These indicators of improvement in the district can be
attributed to better district management. The head of the

57

district showed signs of stronger management compared
to the head of district 18. District 19 did not have space
to hold a public hearing, so a large tent was raised in a
matter of hours for five dozen people to attend the public
hearing—showing signs of competence.
During the public hearing, some people acknowledged the
good work of district officials. Residents of planned areas
expressed their satisfaction with waste collection, but people
in unplanned areas had certain complaints. The head of the
district told the gathering, “Let me know if there is solid
waste in your neighborhood. I will collect it immediately.”
One resident from an agricultural area commented, “We
provide fruit and vegetables to Kabul city. Why doesn’t the
government support us to improve our agricultural lands?”
A Wakeel Guzar stated that there are 12 karez in the area—
all in need of cleaning and support. The district has a dozen
Wakeel Guzars. One Wakeel Guzar suggested that the
government should provide a salary for the Wakeel Guzars.
He stated, “I am a retired colonel receiving AFN 4500 each
Part Three: Districts’ Public Hearings and Findings
month. This amount does not suffice for my family. How
can I spend it to, for example, buy credit to communicate
with district officials or travel?” Currently, a Wakeel Guzar
is a voluntary and elected neighborhood representative in
all districts of Kabul Municipality.
Compared to 2014, the district has improved 16
percentage points. The overall average score across all
indicators was 26 percent in 2014, 8 percentage points
less than the municipality average. In 2015, the overall
average score of the district was 42 percent, coming in
at only 2 percentage points less than the municipality
average. In terms of ranking, the district was ranked
eighteenth in 2014 and improved one spot to seventeenth
in 2015. People’s perception of the district has improved
during the past year.
COMMUNITY SCORECARD OF KABUL MUNICIPALITY 2016 58
 INTEGRITY WATCH AFGHANISTAN

District 21
average 28%
RANK 20

District Twenty-One (Binesar)

This district is located in the far east of Kabul City bordering
the Khak-e Jabar district of Kabul Province. More than
half of the area covered by the district is comprised of
vacant plots, and the remaining area of the district is
sparsely populated. District 21 is one of five newly created
jurisdictions of Kabul Municipality; the other four being
districts 18, 19, 20, and 22.
On one hand, three indicators have seen a setback in
this district and on the other hand three indicators have
increased radically. Solid waste management improved
dramatically from 22 percentage points to 42 percentage
points, process of document registration increased from

59

26 to 44 percentage points, and finally drainage saw a 20
percentage points’ improvement from 22 to 42. Finally,
three indicators have stayed stagnant. They are bus stands,
public parks and green spaces, and public participation in
decision making.
In the public hearing, people raised the issue of unpaved
roads several times. In the newly created districts, road
pavement is a major concern for residents. However, there
was a pervasive dissatisfaction from Kabul Municipality,
both by the people and district officials. The people said
the problem was with Kabul Municipality because it does
not pay any attention to this area. The district officials
complained that Kabul Municipality has not provided
Part Three: Districts’ Public Hearings and Findings
minimum resources for their day-to-day activities. District
21 still does not have a building. The district 21 staff are
housed in a few rooms in district 12.
Compared to 2014, the district has improved by only 4
percentage points. The overall average score across all
indicators was 24 percent in 2014, 10 percentage points less
than the municipality average. In 2015, the overall average
score of the district was 28 percent; that’s 16 percentage
points less than the municipality average. In terms of
ranking, the district was ranked twenty-first in 2014 and
improved to twentieth in 2015. People’s perception of the
district has slightly improved during the past year.
COMMUNITY SCORECARD OF KABUL MUNICIPALITY 2016 60
 INTEGRITY WATCH AFGHANISTAN

District 22
average 48%
RANK 08

District Twenty-Two (Shewaki)

This area is located in the south of Kabul City, bordering the
Khak-e Jabar district of Kabul Province. The district covers
barren and agricultural lands, as well as residential areas.
However, in terms of legal and administrative demarcation
from Kabul Province, it faces serious issues. According to
the head of the district, the Khak-e Jabar district claims that
the area is under its administration and has even shown a
presidential decree as an evidence. But Kabul Municipality
demarcates the area as part of its administration. The
relationship between Kabul Municipality subordinate
district and the Kabul Province district is stressed. According
to district officials, “Khak-e Jabar police detained a Safayee
officer who was later released after the intervention of
other officials.”

61

Due to the demarcation problems, district 22 was not
covered in the 2014 survey. In 2015, the district has recorded
relatively good scores. Document registration was scored
at 60 percent and public cooperation was recorded at 66
percent. Bus stands, car parking, and public parks were
issues across the district, with scores of 36 percent each.
During the public hearing, people raised issues of
administrative demarcation, centralization of Kabul
Municipality, IDPs, and unfulfilled or delayed commitments.
The head of the district criticized Kabul Municipality’s
treatment of its subordinate districts. He stated, “Without
consulting the districts, Kabul Municipality prepared ‘The
Revenue Collection Plan.’” Residents also complained that
Kabul Municipality does not allocate enough resources
to the districts. “They [Kabul Municipality officials] have
Part Three: Districts’ Public Hearings and Findings
transferred three of this district’s staff,” the head of the
district shared, “without even consulting the district.” One
resident complained that the canals in his neighborhood
are not constructed and this has created problems. He
continued, “Elders are in trouble going to mosque to
offer prayers and children face problems going to school
because of muddy roads and lanes due to lack of canals.”
A Wakeel Guzar requested that IDPs that have moved from
other parts of the country should be relocated to a more
appropriate place. The head of the district stated, “I do
not have the authority to do it. There is not a single police
officer under my command and the Kabul Police do not
cooperate with me.”
The district was not covered in 2014 due to lack of clarity
regarding its legal status.
COMMUNITY SCORECARD OF KABUL MUNICIPALITY 2016 62
 INTEGRITY WATCH AFGHANISTAN

63 COMMUNITY SCORECARD OF KABUL MUNICIPALITY 2016

 Part One: Methodology

LIST OF ANNEXES
COMMUNITY SCORECARD OF KABUL MUNICIPALITY 2016 64
 INTEGRITY WATCH AFGHANISTAN

ANNEX 1
Very
Good Fair Bad Very bad
No. Indicators good
5 4 3 2 1
1 Solid waste management
2 Process of document registration and licensing
3 Drainage 
4 Sanitation
5 Construction of roads, streets, and sidewalks
6 Public parks, planting, and green spaces 
7 Car parking
8 Bus stands
9 Transparency, and accountability of tax collection
10 Maintenance of infrastructure
11 Standardization of private construction
12 Public cooperation with the municipality 
13 Public access to information
14 Public participation in decision making
15 Accountability to the public
16 Effectiveness of complaints mechanism

65 COMMUNITY SCORECARD OF KABUL MUNICIPALITY 2016

 Comparison of ranking of 2015 and 2014 indicators
Rank Rank Score Rank
Indicator Percentage Score Indicator Percentage score indicator
2014 2015 Change Change

Public cooperation with Public cooperation with the

1 48 48 1 56 56 Solid waste management 4 0
the municipality  municipality 
Process of document Process of document Process of document
2 44 44 2 54 54 10 0
registration and licensing registration and licensing registration and licensing

Solid waste management 3 44 44 Solid waste management 3 48 48 Drainage  10 -3

Construction of roads, Transparency, and

4 40 40 4 48 48 Sanitation 10 -1
streets, and sidewalks accountability of tax collection
Public parks, planting, Construction of roads, streets, Construction of roads,
5 38 38 5 44 44 4 -1
and green spaces  and sidewalks streets, and sidewalks
Transparency, and
Public participation in decision Public parks, planting, and
accountability of tax 6 38 38 6 44 44 6 -2
making green spaces 
collection
Public parks, planting, and
Drainage  7 32 32 7 44 44 Car parking 10 0
green spaces 

Sanitation 8 32 32   Standardization of private 8 42 42   Bus stands 10 -3

construction
Transparency, and
Effectiveness of
9 30 30 Sanitation 9 42 42 accountability of tax 10 2
complaints mechanism
collection
Public participation in Maintenance of
11 30 30 Drainage  10 42 42 12 -1
decision making infrastructure
Maintenance of Standardization of private
10 28 28 Maintenance of infrastructure 11 40 40 14 6
infrastructure construction
Effectiveness of complaints Public cooperation with
Bus stands 12 28 28 12 40 40 8 0
mechanism the municipality 
Public access to Public access to
13 28 28 Public access to information 13 40 40 12 0
information information
Standardization of private Public participation in
14 28 28 Accountability to the public 14 38 38 14 5
construction decision making
Accountability to the Accountability to the
15 26 26 Bus stands 15 38 38 12 1
public public
Effectiveness of complaints
Car parking 16 26 26 Car parking 16 36 36 10 -3
mechanism

COMMUNITY SCORECARD OF KABUL MUNICIPALITY 2016

INTEGRITY WATCH AFGHANISTAN

66
67
Comparison of District Ranking of 2015 with 2014

District Rank 2014 percentage District Rank 2015 percentage District Changes Score Changes Rank

District 3 1 48% District 3 1 58% District 1 14% percentage points 2

District 8 2 44% District 14 2 58% District 2 8% -3

District 2 3 42% District 1 3 56% District 3 10% percentage points 0

District 15 4 42% District 10 4 56% District 4 14% percentage points 3

INTEGRITY WATCH AFGHANISTAN

District 1 5 42% District 17 5 52% District 5 6% percentage points -4

District 11 6 40% District 2 6 50% District 6 4% percentage points -8

District 6 7 38% District 9 7 50% District 7 12% percentage points 0

District 16 8 36% District 22 8 48% District 8 -2% percentage points -14

District 10 9 36% District 4 9 46% District 9 18% percentage points -4

COMMUNITY SCORECARD OF KABUL MUNICIPALITY 2016

District 7 10 34% District 7 10 46% District 10 20% percentage points 5

District 9 11 32%   District 11 11 44%   District 11 4% percentage points -5

District 4 12 32% District 12 12 44% District 12 14% percentage points 4

District 14 13 32% District 15 13 44% District 13 4% percentage points -2

District 5 14 30% District 16 14 44% District 14 26% percentage points 11

District 17 15 30% District 6 15 42% District 15 2% percentage points -9

District 12 16 30% District 8 16 42% District 16 8% percentage points -6

District 13 17 28% District 19 17 42% District 17 22% percentage points 10

District 19 18 26% District 5 18 36% District 18 2% percentage points -1

District 20 19 24% District 13 19 32% District 19 16% percentage points 1

District 18 20 24% District 21 20 28% District 20 n/a -3

District 21 21 22% District 18 21 26% District 21 6% percentage points 1

District 22 22 n/a District 20 22 n/a District 22 n/a n/a

 INTEGRITY WATCH AFGHANISTAN

District 1 District 3
District 1 2014 2015 District 3 2014 2015

Accountability to the public 28% 48% Accountability to the public 34% 50%

Bus stands 28% 56% Bus stands 44% 48%

Car parking 30% 48% Car parking 36% 44%

Construction of roads, streets, and sidewalks 62% 62% Construction of roads, streets, and sidewalks 58% 64%

Drainage  38% 56% Drainage  46% 54%

Effectiveness of complaints mechanism 38% 50% Effectiveness of complaints mechanism 42% 52%

Maintenance of infrastructure 30% 58% Maintenance of infrastructure 44% 62%

Process of document registration and licensing 32% 64% Process of document registration and licensing 58% 64%

Public access to information 62% 50% Public access to information 38% 48%

Public cooperation with the municipality  30% 60% Public cooperation with the municipality  56% 78%

Public parks, planting, and green spaces  66% 56% Public parks, planting, and green spaces  62% 60%

Public participation in decision making 50% 50% Public participation in decision making 36% 60%

Sanitation 32% 54% Sanitation 52% 52%

Solid waste management  40% 64% Solid waste management  76% 60%

Standardization of private construction 62% 50% Standardization of private construction 38% 56%
Transparency, and accountability of tax Transparency, and accountability of tax
28% 62% 58% 70%
collection collection
District Average 54% 56% District Average 49% 58%

Overall Average 34% 44% Overall Average 34% 44%

District 2 District 4
District 2 2014 2015 District 4 2014 2015

Accountability to the public 30% 36% Accountability to the public 26% 44%

Bus stands 30% 42% Bus stands 26% 40%

Car parking 32% 50% Car parking 28% 36%

Construction of roads, streets, and sidewalks 48% 62% Construction of roads, streets, and sidewalks 40% 52%

Drainage  40% 56% Drainage  30% 42%

Effectiveness of complaints mechanism 34% 38% Effectiveness of complaints mechanism 32% 42%

Maintenance of infrastructure 32% 44% Maintenance of infrastructure 28% 44%

Process of document registration and licensing 62% 64% Process of document registration and licensing 36% 52%

Public access to information 32% 44% Public access to information 30% 46%

Public cooperation with the municipality  60% 66% Public cooperation with the municipality  40% 60%
Public parks, planting, and green spaces  54% 52% Public parks, planting, and green spaces  36% 48%
Public participation in decision making 38% 46% Public participation in decision making 30% 52%
Sanitation 42% 44% Sanitation 32% 48%
Solid waste management  56% 56% Solid waste management  38% 46%
Standardization of private construction 32% 46% Standardization of private construction 28% 46%
Transparency, and accountability of tax Transparency, and accountability of tax
56% 58% 38% 48%
collection collection
District Average 42% 50% District Average 32% 47%
Overall Average 34% 44% Overall Average 34% 44%

COMMUNITY SCORECARD OF KABUL MUNICIPALITY 2016 68

 INTEGRITY WATCH AFGHANISTAN

District 5 District 7
District 5 2014 2015 District 7 2014 2015

Accountability to the public 22% 26% Accountability to the public 24% 42%

Bus stands 24% 36% Bus stands 26% 40%

Car parking 24% 28% Car parking 24% 36%

Construction of roads, streets, and sidewalks 36% 42% Construction of roads, streets, and sidewalks 48% 46%

Drainage  26% 30% Drainage  28% 42%

Effectiveness of complaints mechanism 24% 30% Effectiveness of complaints mechanism 26% 50%

Maintenance of infrastructure 24% 34% Maintenance of infrastructure 26% 42%

Process of document registration and licensing 48% 42% Process of document registration and licensing 44% 60%

Public access to information 22% 32% Public access to information 24% 46%

Public cooperation with the municipality  46% 54% Public cooperation with the municipality  52% 64%

Public parks, planting, and green spaces  36% 42% Public parks, planting, and green spaces  26% 42%

Public participation in decision making 22% 40% Public participation in decision making 30% 50%

Sanitation 24% 26% Sanitation 30% 44%

Solid waste management  34% 32% Solid waste management  52% 50%

Standardization of private construction 24% 36% Standardization of private construction 30% 46%

Transparency, and accountability of tax Transparency, and accountability of tax

36% 42% 42% 48%
collection collection

District Average 30% 36% District Average 33% 47%

Overall Average 34% 44% Overall Average 34% 44%

District 6 District 8
District 6 2014 2015 District 8 2014 2015

Accountability to the public 28% 38% Accountability to the public 32% 34%

Bus stands 32% 54% Bus stands 36% 42%

Car parking 26% 38% Car parking 28% 34%

Construction of roads, streets, and sidewalks 56% 36% Construction of roads, streets, and sidewalks 50% 44%

Drainage  38% 42% Drainage  46% 30%

Effectiveness of complaints mechanism 38% 38% Effectiveness of complaints mechanism 42% 48%

Maintenance of infrastructure 36% 32% Maintenance of infrastructure 38% 48%

Process of document registration and licensing 48% 32% Process of document registration and licensing 58% 48%

Public access to information 28% 48% Public access to information 38% 40%

Public cooperation with the municipality  52% 40% Public cooperation with the municipality  48% 60%

Public parks, planting, and green spaces  48% 38% Public parks, planting, and green spaces  54% 48%

Public participation in decision making 30% 60% Public participation in decision making 34% 46%

Sanitation 34% 38% Sanitation 44% 38%

Solid waste management  46% 42% Solid waste management  62% 34%

Standardization of private construction 36% 36% Standardization of private construction 34% 42%

Transparency, and accountability of tax Transparency, and accountability of tax

42% 42% 50% 52%
collection collection

District Avetage 39% 41% District Average 43% 43%

Overall Average 34% 44% Overall Average 34% 44%

69 COMMUNITY SCORECARD OF KABUL MUNICIPALITY 2016

 INTEGRITY WATCH AFGHANISTAN

District 9 District 11
District 9 2014 2015 District 11 2014 2015

Accountability to the public 24% 38% Accountability to the public 32% 42%

Bus stands 26% 44% Bus stands 32% 46%

Car parking 26% 46% Car parking 30% 28%

Construction of roads, streets, and sidewalks 42% 50% Construction of roads, streets, and sidewalks 42% 30%

Drainage  26% 46% Drainage  36% 38%

Effectiveness of complaints mechanism 28% 44% Effectiveness of complaints mechanism 38% 44%

Maintenance of infrastructure 28% 50% Maintenance of infrastructure 34% 38%

Process of document registration and licensing 34% 64% Process of document registration and licensing 54% 70%

Public access to information 26% 40% Public access to information 36% 36%

Public cooperation with the municipality  60% 56% Public cooperation with the municipality  56% 64%

Public parks, planting, and green spaces  38% 50% Public parks, planting, and green spaces  42% 36%

Public participation in decision making 28% 48% Public participation in decision making 38% 44%

Sanitation 36% 50% Sanitation 34% 44%

Solid waste management  46% 62% Solid waste management  50% 62%

Standardization of private construction 24% 46% Standardization of private construction 32% 40%
Transparency, and accountability of tax Transparency, and accountability of tax
30% 56% 50% 48%
collection collection
District Average 33% 49% District Average 40% 44%

Overall Average 34% 44% Overall Average 34% 44%

District 10 District 12
District 10 2014 2015 District 12 2014 2015

Accountability to the public 26% 48% Accountability to the public 26% 36%

Bus stands 28% 40% Bus stands 28% 40%

Car parking 26% 46% Car parking 22% 42%

Construction of roads, streets, and sidewalks 44% 60% Construction of roads, streets, and sidewalks 30% 46%

Drainage  34% 50% Drainage  28% 38%

Effectiveness of complaints mechanism 34% 52% Effectiveness of complaints mechanism 22% 38%

Maintenance of infrastructure 28% 52% Maintenance of infrastructure 28% 42%

Process of document registration and licensing 40% 70% Process of document registration and licensing 36% 56%

Public access to information 34% 52% Public access to information 26% 44%

Public cooperation with the municipality  54% 74% Public cooperation with the municipality  36% 52%

Public parks, planting, and green spaces  32% 56% Public parks, planting, and green spaces  38% 46%

Public participation in decision making 32% 58% Public participation in decision making 24% 46%

Sanitation 36% 50% Sanitation 30% 44%

Solid waste management  50% 64% Solid waste management  36% 48%

Standardization of private construction 30% 56% Standardization of private construction 26% 44%
Transparency, and accountability of tax Transparency, and accountability of tax
36% 66% 36% 46%
collection collection
District Average 35% 56% District Average 30% 44%

Overall Average 34% 44% Overall Average 34% 44%

COMMUNITY SCORECARD OF KABUL MUNICIPALITY 2016 70

 INTEGRITY WATCH AFGHANISTAN

District 13 District 15
District 13 2014 2015 District 15 2014 2015

Accountability to the public 24% 24% Accountability to the public 28% 38%

Bus stands 26% 28% Bus stands 38% 34%

Car parking 24% 24% Car parking 32% 36%

Construction of roads, streets, and sidewalks 28% 32% Construction of roads, streets, and sidewalks 52% 48%

Drainage  26% 28% Drainage  42% 42%

Effectiveness of complaints mechanism 26% 28% Effectiveness of complaints mechanism 34% 44%

Maintenance of infrastructure 26% 30% Maintenance of infrastructure 38% 44%

Process of document registration and licensing 38% 42% Process of document registration and licensing 54% 54%

Public access to information 26% 28% Public access to information 28% 40%

Public cooperation with the municipality  40% 60% Public cooperation with the municipality  66% 56%

Public parks, planting, and green spaces  28% 36% Public parks, planting, and green spaces  42% 42%

Public participation in decision making 24% 36% Public participation in decision making 36% 42%

Sanitation 26% 28% Sanitation 46% 42%

Solid waste management  34% 32% Solid waste management  66% 56%

Standardization of private construction 24% 30% Standardization of private construction 36% 40%
Transparency, and accountability of tax Transparency, and accountability of tax
28% 36% 42% 50%
collection collection
District Average 28% 33% District Average 43% 44%

Overall Average 34% 44% Overall Average 34% 44%

District 14 District 16
District 14 2014 2015 District 16 2014 2015

Accountability to the public 26% 48% Accountability to the public 46% 36%

Bus stands 26% 54% Bus stands 48% 32%

Car parking 24% 58% Car parking 34% 32%

Construction of roads, streets, and sidewalks 40% 60% Construction of roads, streets, and sidewalks 36% 46%

Drainage  30% 56% Drainage  40% 40%

Effectiveness of complaints mechanism 26% 48% Effectiveness of complaints mechanism 32% 40%

Maintenance of infrastructure 36% 54% Maintenance of infrastructure 28% 40%

Process of document registration and licensing 42% 64% Process of document registration and licensing 28% 58%

Public access to information 30% 50% Public access to information 38% 40%

Public cooperation with the municipality  42% 70% Public cooperation with the municipality  28% 66%

Public parks, planting, and green spaces  58% 66% Public parks, planting, and green spaces  28% 40%

Public participation in decision making 28% 54% Public participation in decision making 44% 48%

Sanitation 30% 62% Sanitation 36% 44%

Solid waste management  32% 58% Solid waste management  38% 40%

Standardization of private construction 26% 54% Standardization of private construction 32% 42%
Transparency, and accountability of tax Transparency, and accountability of tax
30% 54% 32% 46%
collection collection
District Average 33% 57% District Average 36% 43%

Overall Average 34% 44% Overall Average 34% 44%

71 COMMUNITY SCORECARD OF KABUL MUNICIPALITY 2016

 INTEGRITY WATCH AFGHANISTAN

District 17 District 19
District 17 2014 2015 District 19 2014 2015

Accountability to the public 22% 52% Accountability to the public 22% 38%

Bus stands 22% 40% Bus stands 20% 30%

Car parking 22% 42% Car parking 20% 32%

Construction of roads, streets, and sidewalks 30% 48% Construction of roads, streets, and sidewalks 24% 40%

Drainage  28% 52% Drainage  26% 46%

Effectiveness of complaints mechanism 28% 54% Effectiveness of complaints mechanism 28% 36%

Maintenance of infrastructure 22% 46% Maintenance of infrastructure 22% 34%

Process of document registration and licensing 42% 62% Process of document registration and licensing 32% 56%

Public access to information 22% 54% Public access to information 24% 38%

Public cooperation with the municipality  56% 66% Public cooperation with the municipality  40% 48%

Public parks, planting, and green spaces  30% 52% Public parks, planting, and green spaces  24% 52%

Public participation in decision making 30% 56% Public participation in decision making 26% 42%

Sanitation 28% 54% Sanitation 24% 46%

Solid waste management  44% 62% Solid waste management  24% 56%

Standardization of private construction 24% 48% Standardization of private construction 20% 40%
Transparency, and accountability of tax Transparency, and accountability of tax
34% 56% 30% 42%
collection collection
District Average 30% 53% District Average 25% 42%

Overall Average 34% 44% Overall Average 34% 44%

District 18 District 21
District 18 2014 2015 District 21 2014 2015

Accountability to the public 22% 22% Accountability to the public 22% 24%

Bus stands 20% 22% Bus stands 22% 22%

Car parking 20% 24% Car parking 22% 24%

Construction of roads, streets, and sidewalks 22% 22% Construction of roads, streets, and sidewalks 22% 26%

Drainage  20% 24% Drainage  22% 42%

Effectiveness of complaints mechanism 24% 24% Effectiveness of complaints mechanism 24% 22%

Maintenance of infrastructure 22% 24% Maintenance of infrastructure 22% 24%

Process of document registration and licensing 34% 36% Process of document registration and licensing 26% 44%

Public access to information 22% 24% Public access to information 24% 22%

Public cooperation with the municipality  32% 28% Public cooperation with the municipality  28% 32%

Public parks, planting, and green spaces  24% 26% Public parks, planting, and green spaces  22% 22%

Public participation in decision making 22% 26% Public participation in decision making 22% 22%

Sanitation 20% 26% Sanitation 22% 32%

Solid waste management  22% 22% Solid waste management  22% 42%

Standardization of private construction 24% 28% Standardization of private construction 22% 24%
Transparency, and accountability of tax Transparency, and accountability of tax
32% 24% 30% 24%
collection collection
District Average 24% 25% District Average 23% 28%
Overall Average 34% 44% Overall Average 34% 44%

COMMUNITY SCORECARD OF KABUL MUNICIPALITY 2016 72

 INTEGRITY WATCH AFGHANISTAN

District 22
District 22 2014 2015

Accountability to the public 46%

Bus stands 36%

Car parking 36%

Construction of roads, streets, and sidewalks 36%

Drainage  40%

Effectiveness of complaints mechanism 56%

Maintenance of infrastructure 44%

Process of document registration and licensing 60%

Public access to information 44%

Public cooperation with the municipality  66%

Public parks, planting, and green spaces  36%

Public participation in decision making 54%

Sanitation 46%

Solid waste management  54%

Standardization of private construction 54%

Transparency, and accountability of tax
54%
collection
District Average   48%

Overall Average   44%

73 COMMUNITY SCORECARD OF KABUL MUNICIPALITY 2016


Endnotes
1. Government of Afghanistan, “State of Afghan Cities,”
Government of Afghanistan, Volume I: 2015: 94.
2. CARE International, “The Community Score
Card,” CARE International, http://www.care.org/
sites/default/files/documents/FP-2013-CARE_
CommunityScoreCardToolkit.pdf (accessed on 31
August 2016).
3. World Bank, “Social Accountability Source
Book,” World Bank, http://info.worldbank.org/
etools/docs/library/94570/tanz_1103/ta_1103/
thecommunityscorecardprocess_nov03.pdf (accessed
on 31 August 2016).
4. World Bank, “The Community Scorecard Process,”
World Bank, http://info.worldbank.org/etools/
docs/library/94570/tanz_1103/ta_1103/
thecommunityscorecardprocess_nov03.pdf (accessed
on 31 August 2016).
5. World Bank, “The Community Scorecard Process,”
World Bank, http://info.worldbank.org/etools/
docs/library/94570/tanz_1103/ta_1103/
thecommunityscorecardprocess_nov03.pdf (accessed
on 31 August 2016).
6. Government of Afghanistan, “State of Afghan Cities,”
Government of Afghanistan, Volume I: 2015: 28.
7. Independent Joint Monitoring and Evaluation
Committee, “Public Hearing Report on Land
Usurpation,” MEC, 2014.
8. President Ashraf Ghani, “Driving Corruption out of
Procurement,” in Against Corruption: a book of essays,
2016, TSO.
9. Government of Afghanistan, “State of Afghan Cities,”
Government of Afghanistan, Volume II: 2015: 54.
10. Bakhtar News, “Namayandah fughulada raees jumhor:
tamam-e buland manzel haye ghare ghanuni Kabul
takhreeb meeshawand,” Bakhtar News, http://bit.
ly/2bBYDkO (accessed on 31 August 2016).
11. Bokhdi News, “Dadsetani: 26 karmand shahrsazi be
fasaad mutaham shudand,” Bokhdi News, http://bit.
ly/2bRROkG (accessed on 31 August 2016).
12. Central Statistics Organization, “Bar award nufoos
shahr-e Kabul be tafkek naheya wa jens taye saal 1394,”
Central Statistics Organization: 2015.
INTEGRITY WATCH AFGHANISTAN
13. Central Statistics Organization, “Bar award nufoos
shahr-e Kabul be tafkek naheya wa jens taye saal 1394,”
Central Statistics Organization: 2015.
14. Central Statistics Organization, “Bar award nufoos
shahr-e Kabul be tafkek naheya wa jens taye saal 1394,”
Central Statistics Organization: 2015.
15. Government of Afghanistan, “State of Afghan Cities,”
Government of Afghanistan, Volume I: 2015: 62.
16. Central Statistics Organization, “Bar award nufoos
shahr-e Kabul be tafkek naheya wa jens taye saal 1394,”
Central Statistics Organization: 2015.
17. Central Statistics Organization, “Bar award nufoos
shahr-e Kabul be tafkek naheya wa jens taye saal 1394,”
Central Statistics Organization: 2015.
18. Central Statistics Organization, “Bar award nufoos
shahr-e Kabul be tafkek naheya wa jens taye saal 1394,”
Central Statistics Organization: 2015.
19. Central Statistics Organization, “Bar award nufoos
shahr-e Kabul be tafkek naheya wa jens taye saal 1394,”
Central Statistics Organization: 2015.
20. Central Statistics Organization, “Bar award nufoos
shahr-e Kabul be tafkek naheya wa jens taye saal 1394,”
Central Statistics Organization: 2015.
21. Central Statistics Organization, “Bar award nufoos
shahr-e Kabul be tafkek naheya wa jens taye saal 1394,”
Central Statistics Organization: 2015.
22. Central Statistics Organization, “Bar award nufoos
shahr-e Kabul be tafkek naheya wa jens taye saal 1394,”
Central Statistics Organization: 2015.
23. Central Statistics Organization, “Bar award nufoos
shahr-e Kabul be tafkek naheya wa jens taye saal 1394,”
Central Statistics Organization: 2015.
COMMUNITY SCORECARD OF KABUL MUNICIPALITY 2016 74
Kolola Poshta,
Kabul, Afghanistan
info@iwaweb.org
www.iwaweb.org