International Non-governmental Organizations in Afghanistan (2020–2025): Humanitarian Activities and Operational Challenges

The humanitarian crisis in Afghanistan (2020–2025) represents one of the most complex operational environments for international non-governmental organizations (INGOs) globally. Following the Taliban takeover in August 2021, INGOs faced a critical juncture characterized by economic collapse, diplomatic isolation, and severe restrictions on civil liberties, particularly for women. Objectives. This study investigates the institutional adaptation mechanisms employed by INGOs to sustain operations under the de facto authorities (DFA) and examines the “legitimacy-humanitarian imperative paradox”. Methods. A systematic literature review was conducted using SCOPUS-indexed journals from 2020 to 2025, synthesizing findings from 58 peer-reviewed articles through a mixed-methods thematic analysis rooted in Institutional Theory and Resource Dependency Theory. Key Findings. Results indicate that INGOs utilize “strategic decoupling” to navigate the conflict between donor compliance requirements (nonrecognition) and operational necessities (engagement with DFA). While localization has accelerated as a survival strategy, the December 2022 ban on female NGO workers created an existential threat to principled humanitarian action, particularly in the health and protection sectors. Conclusions. The study concludes that the current operational model relies on a fragile equilibrium of pragmatic negotiation that risks eroding humanitarian principles. Sustainable intervention requires a recalibration of donor risk thresholds and a distinct separation of humanitarian engagement from political recognition. Sustainable intervention requires a recalibration of donor risk thresholds and a distinct separation of humanitarian engagement from political recognition

1. Mirzazada, S., Padhani, Z.A., Jabeen, S., Fatima, M., Bhutta, Z.A.Impact of conflict on maternal and child health service delivery: A country case study of Afghanistan. Conflict and Health. 2020;14(1):1-13. URL: https://doi.org/10.1186/s13031-020-00285-x

2. Spiegel P.B., Checchi F., Colombo S., Paik E. Health-care needs of people affected by conflict: Future trends and changing frameworks. The Lancet. 2010:375(9711);341-345. URL: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(09)61873-0

3. Bellal A., Giacca G., Casey-Maslen S. International law and armed non-state actors in Afghanistan. International Review of the Red Cross. 2011;93(881):47-79. URL: https://doi.org/10.1017/S1816383111000051

4. Schemeil, Y. Bringing international organization in: Global institutions as adaptive hybrids. Organization Studies. 2013:34(2):219-252. URL: https://doi.org/10.1177/0170840612473551

5. Essar M.Y., Raufi N., Head M.G., Nemat A. Afghan women are essential to humanitarian NGO work. The Lancet Global Health. 2023;11(3): e334. URL: https://doi.org/10.1016/S2214-109X(23)00048-7

6. Yang A., Liu W., Wang R.Cross-sector alliances in the global refugee crisis: An institutional theory approach. Business Ethics: A European Review. 2020:29(4):742-757. URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/beer.12288

7. Fadaeiresketi F. Uncertainty and collective caution: Humanitarian security strategies in Afghanistan post-Taliban takeover. Journal of Peacebuilding & Development. 2025. URL: https://doi.org/10.1177/15423166251399849

8. Mall R.K., Srivastava R.K., Banerjee T., Mishra O.P., Bhatt D. Disaster risk reduction including climate change adaptation over South Asia: Challenges and ways forward. International Journal of Disaster Risk Science. 2019;10(1):14-27. URL: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13753-018-0210-9

9. Vaidya R.A., Shrestha M.S., Nasab N., Gurung D.R. (2019). Disaster risk reduction and building resilience in the Hindu Kush Himalaya. In P.Wester et al., (Eds.). The Hindu Kush Himalaya Assessment. Springer, Cham; 2019;389-419. URL: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-92288-1_11

10. Basij-Rasikh M., Dickey E.S., Sharkey A. Primary healthcare system and provider responses to the Taliban takeover in Afghanistan. BMJ Global Health. 2024;9(2):e013760. URL: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjgh2023-013760

11. Mena R., Hilhorst D. The (im)possibilities of disaster risk reduction in the context of high-intensity conflict: The case of Afghanistan. Environmental Hazards. 2021;20(2):115-134. URL: https://doi.org/10.1080/17477891.2020.1771250

12. Barakat S., Larson A. Fragile states: A donor-serving concept? Issues with interpretations of fragile statehood in Afghanistan. Journal of Intervention and Statebuilding. 2014;8(1):21-41. URL: https://doi.org/10.1080/17502977.2013.770263

13. Seybolt T.B. Harmonizing the humanitarian aid network: Adaptive change in a complex system. International Studies Quarterly. 2009;53(4):1027-1050. URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2478.2009.00567.x

14. Yalçınkaya H. The nongovernmental organizations–military security collaboration mechanism: Afghanistan NGO Safety Office. Armed Forces & Society. 2013.39(3):489-510. URL: https://doi.org/10.1177/0095327X12446923