Dutch support to the Afghan Eradication Force (EAF) in destroying poppies in Uruzgan is a mistake. The two conditions the Netherlands had placed on its co-operation – saving the small opium farmers and a proportional ‘targeting’ of different tribes – are practically unattainable. The destruction of a harvest without there being any alternatives borders the inhuman and works counterproductive in winning the hearts and minds of the Afghan people, says the Transnational Institute (TNI) and the members of the Dutch NGO Network for Afghanistan (DNNA). “The two conditions the Netherlands placed cannot be implemented”, says Martin Jelsma, co-ordinator of the Drugs & Democracy programme of the TNI research institute. Jelsma has just returned from a two and a half weeks visit to the northern and eastern provinces of Badakhshan and Nangarhar respectively. “There is no social-economic map of Uruzgan as a baseline for preventing small farmers from being hit. And if one did exist, chances are high that the AEF did not use it in its planning. Our research shows that the planning in the north and east was not based on the expensive social map the British had developed.’ Also, the second condition – the proportional attack on the poppy fields of the different tribes in Uruzgan – is not feasible, according to Jelsma. ‘The destruction can only happen where the Dutch ISAF troups have some control: right inside the ink stain on the map, especially around Tarin Kowt.” Attempts at eradication in different provinces have led to riots between the police and civilians, leaving several people dead or wounded. Angry farmers in Nangarhar set tractors on fire and blocked provincial roads. Chances are that AEF’s activities in Uruzgan destabilise. Last Sunday shots were fired at the AEF. ‘In Uruzgan the focus is less than in other provinces on a public education campaign to prepare farmers for the destruction,’ says Jelsma. ‘Besides, the destruction starts right when the farmers have begun harvesting. This does not just mean that farmers see all their crop and investments destroyed. They have not been able to plant alternative crops to overcome this blow.’ The destruction of poppy fields only has a chance of success when the approach is holistic, and aimed at developing sustainable alternative sources of income, before imposing repressive measures. The destruction of poppy by the feared AEF, without putting alternatives in place and without preparing the farmers, only works counterproductive for reconstruction. It undermines the fragile local support for the Dutch military presence and contributes to further destabilisation. The Afghan government says it can no longer escape the political pressure to destroy the poppy fields in Uruzgan too and has asked for ISAF’s support should things go wrong. According to DNNA the Netherlands must exert itself inside the ISAF coalition to get a holistic approach on the agenda of the Afghan authorities. That is where ending poppy cultivation is pursued in consultation with the village communities concerned and at a time when farmers have sufficient alternatives for providing in a full income.