In response to the Taliban’s takeover of Kabul on August 15, 2021, the German government committed to a Federal Admission Program (FAP) designed to assist vulnerable individuals from Afghanistan. Officially launched in October 2022, the program is now at its midpoint but faces potential discontinuation due to significant cuts in the federal budget. A distinctive feature of the FAP within the German context is the extensive involvement of civil society organizations (CSOs) in both policymaking and implementation. In the following we attempt to open up the black box of the FAP’s policy making and implementation process, with a particular focus on the role of CSOs. Our research is based on expert interviews and process tracing, carried out by author 1. We conclude that civil society engagement and including the knowledge from CSOs working on the ground was vital for an inclusive FAP.
Germany’s involvement in Afghanistan began with the initiation of the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) mission in 2001, authorized under United Nations Security Council Resolution 1386. This mission involved the deployment of German soldiers to Afghanistan, with the Bundeswehr incurring significant costs—12.3 billion euros for deployment and an additional 5 billion euros allocated for reconstruction and development assistance.
In August 2021, the situation in Afghanistan rapidly deteriorated. By August 15th, the Taliban had taken control of Kabul and most provincial capitals, leading to the collapse of the Afghan government. In response, the United States accelerated its withdrawal of armed forces, announcing they would leave the country by August 31st, 2021. These developments placed local employees of foreign organizations, activists, and vulnerable groups, such as women and the LGBTQI community, at severe risk. Afghans who collaborated with or supported stationed troops, or who advocated for human rights, were particularly endangered.
In response to the Taliban takeover, between August 16th and 26th, 2021, the German government evacuated 5,347 individuals, including German citizens, Afghan local employees, and others from 45 nations. However, the Ministries of Foreign Affairs, Interior, and Defense faced significant challenges, particularly due to the lack of comprehensive and up-to-date lists of local employees. After August 26th, 2021, the German government announced a halt to evacuations due to political and bureaucratic obstacles, as well as security concerns. This decision faced substantial criticism from CSOs such as Kabul Luftbrücke, Pro Asyl, and Reporters sans Frontières. It was in this context that the idea for a larger-scale federal admission program for Afghans began to take shape.
Setting up Admission Programs for Afghans
Before diving into the policymaking and implementation process, it’s important to first examine the origins of the program and what was officially announced. Even before the FAP was introduced, select cases from Afghanistan were being admitted under §22 s.2 of the German Residence Law, especially via the so-called “local staff procedure” (Ortskräfteverfahren). Eligibility for the local staff procedure is based on specific criteria, such as direct employment with German ministries or related organizations. Applicants must submit a risk report proving their endangerment due to their work for German institutions. However, this procedure excludes individuals like subcontractors, NGO workers, journalists, and human rights activists. Since May 2021, approximately 25,100 local staff, including their family members, have been offered the prospect of admission to Germany, with 20,300 of them having entered the country as of April 2024.
Amid the escalating situation in Afghanistan in 2021 and in response to pressure from CSOs, the German government announced plans to establish a federal admission program for Afghans. The newly formed coalition of Social Democrats, Liberals, and the Green Party included this goal in its September 2021 coalition agreement. However, it took more than a year before the Federal Admission Program for vulnerable Afghans (FAP) was officially announced.
The FAP is designed as an evacuation program, which sets it apart from other humanitarian admission schemes like resettlement. Resettlement programs aim to demonstrate international solidarity with major refugee-hosting countries by admitting a limited number of ‘particularly vulnerable’ refugees who remain at risk or whose needs cannot be adequately met in those countries. While the UNHCR advocates for vulnerability-centered selection criteria, admitting countries have the freedom to establish their own criteria, often emphasizing security or integration aspects. In contrast, evacuation programs like the FAP focus on quickly admitting select groups and individuals directly from an acute conflict or crisis region —often before they have fled to another country—which typically excludes UNHCR involvement in these programs.
Outlined in the German government’s Action Plan for Afghanistan, the Federal Admission Program (FAP) aims to protect a broader range of vulnerable individuals. The FAP focuses on Afghan nationals still residing in the country, who typically have ties to Germany and are at risk due to their commitment to women’s or human rights, or their involvement in fields such as justice, politics, media, education, culture, sports, or science. The program also extends protection to those who have experienced or are experiencing violence or persecution due to their gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or religion. Notably, the FAP includes an unprecedented feature in the German context: the involvement of Civil Society Organizations (CSOs) in the selection process. These CSOs include NGOs like the Lesbian and Gay Association in Germany (LSVD) and Pro Asyl, as well as international organizations such as UNHCR and Reporters sans Frontières.
CSOs initially responded positively to the FAP’s announcement but emphasized the need for a swift and efficient implementation process, in which many of them planned to actively participate. Within the FAP for Afghans, CSOs are tasked with identifying eligible cases and referring them to the German Ministry of the Interior, supported by a newly established Coordination Office. However, the specifics remained unclear, including which CSOs were involved in designing and implementing the program, the role of the Coordination Office, and how the selection process functioned in practice. Informed by expert interviews and process tracing, we aim to shed light on these and other aspects in the following sections.
Policy making: New Roles for Civil Society Organizations
Shortly after the fall of Kabul, German CSOs like BAfF e.V. and Amnesty International quickly mobilized, directing discussions toward finding legal pathways out of Afghanistan. These organizations focused heavily on maintaining a strong media presence to keep the issue in the public eye and to pressure the government into taking action. Some CSOs actively consulted with at-risk individuals on the ground to stay informed and provide support in various ways. Others, like Kabul Luftbrücke, concentrated on finding pathways for at-risk individuals, even going so far as to charter airplanes and organize evacuations. Although the new government committed to the FAP following the elections, they largely remained silent on the matter. The graph below offers a brief overview of the policy-making process timeline.
Figure 1 – Timeline of the policy making process (Lehmann 2024)
Eventually, the German Foreign Office extended an invitation to select CSOs, a move that can be seen as a response to the persistent lobbying efforts by these organizations. The CSOs had emphasized their valuable knowledge, contacts, and networks related to the situation on the ground. In a first meeting on March 9, 2022, the Foreign Office engaged with representatives from Kabul Luftbrücke, Pro Asyl, Save the Children, Amnesty International, Terre des Femmes, HAWAR, and UNHCR.
However, both observers and attendees were unclear about the criteria the Foreign Office used to invite CSOs. The list included well-established humanitarian and pro-refugee organizations like Pro Asyl, Amnesty International, and UNHCR, along with groups focused on key target populations for admission, such as Terre des Femmes and Save the Children, which specialize in advocating for women and children.
A relatively new player at the table was the NGO Kabul Luftbrücke, which was founded specifically to support vulnerable individuals after the Taliban took control of Kabul. The organization’s mission is to provide unbureaucratic and direct assistance to those on the ground. Driven by their founding purpose and activist spirit, Kabul Luftbrücke took the initiative to organize their own evacuations from Afghanistan for individuals who had been greenlighted, in a tough process, by the German government. Due to their active on-the-ground involvement, strong media presence, and close ties to politicians from the Green Party, which assumed control of the Foreign Office after the September 2021 elections, they quickly became a vocal participant in discussions with the government, despite being a newcomer in the field.
While many CSOs were eager to influence political solutions for Afghanistan, their involvement in the policymaking process and access to government representatives varied significantly. This variation also affected relationships within the group of CSOs. Organizations like UNHCR and Pro Asyl attempted to coordinate and streamline efforts, aiming to present a unified front when communicating with the government. However, others, such as the LSVD and Kabul Luftbrücke, leveraged long-standing personal contacts or shared interests to form smaller coalitions that lobbied for specific target groups or implementation processes. These dynamics among NGOs were often marked by tensions between newer and more established actors, as well as debates over the most effective lobbying styles and approaches.
For instance, many CSO representatives agreed that the coordination of the process was more efficient when a smaller circle of non-state actors was involved. Yet, as more organizations sought representation for their specific target groups, coordination became challenging. Stakeholders voiced concerns about parallel meetings, lack of communication, and duplicated efforts. Moreover, despite efforts to communicate demands to government representatives, stakeholders often found their input overlooked by the government.
To voice their concerns, stakeholders turned to open letters, press releases, and social media campaigns to maintain public pressure. A notable example of coordinated effort was a joint open letter signed by 41 NGOs in Germany on May 31st, 2022. This letter highlighted mutual support for each other’s demands and the shared goal of protecting endangered individuals. Among the key demands was the call for Afghans who identified as LGBTQI* to be given more consideration in evacuation programs, and the call for same-sex couples persecuted in their country of origin to be treated the same as married couples in the context of family reunification. However, neither the Federal Foreign Office nor the Federal Ministry of the Interior responded to the letter.
Tensions also arose between CSO actors and government representatives over the goals, scale, and effectiveness of the FAP. By the end of April 2022, Pro Asyl voiced concerns that the FAP was at risk of becoming a token event. Reports indicated that the Federal Ministry of the Interior aimed to admit a maximum of 5,000 Afghan refugees per year under the planned program. Despite these concerns, the ministries remained largely silent on the issue until a press release on June 23rd, 2022, titled “Six-Month Action Plan Afghanistan,” which confirmed that the FAP was still in development but emphasized the importance of civil society involvement, noting that the first meeting had taken place in March.
The impact of CSOs on Germany’s FAP for Afghans
The German FAP for Afghans highlights the roles and strategies of CSOs in active refugee admission programs. A notable and influential strategy was the ‘DIY activism‘ approach of Kabul Luftbrücke. By directly evacuating people from Afghanistan while the German government was still assessing admission options, they provided immediate assistance and applied significant pressure on the authorities.
In addition, consistent with traditional studies and theoretical frameworks on the role of CSOs, three main strategies were evident: sustained advocacy, leveraging financial resources and connections, and utilizing technical expertise paired with broad alliances. These factors empowered NGOs to effectively push their agendas. Established players like Pro Asyl and Amnesty International exerted influence through their long-standing advocacy for humanitarian aid and resettlement, while UNHCR contributed its specialized expertise in resettlement. The combination of seasoned and emerging stakeholders, employing diverse strategies, had a significant impact on the process.
Through various strategies, CSOs played a crucial role in shaping the FAP’s substance and structure. For instance, they lobbied for inclusive admission criteria, ensuring that vulnerability—not merely the potential risk associated with civil society activism—became a key criterion in the FAP. LSVD advocated for the protection of same-sex couples and a broader definition of the nuclear family, while Reporters sans Frontières focused on enhancing better protections for journalists. Additionally, there were calls for expedited and unbureaucratic family reunifications, the establishment of a coordination office to oversee the admissions process, and provisions for evacuations and admissions for individuals in neighbouring countries.
The limitations of the FAP can be partially attributed to the uncoordinated and parallel advocacy efforts of the CSOs. With more transparent structures and improved communication and negotiation among all stakeholders, the success from the CSOs’ perspective could have been greater. Furthermore, Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in February 2022 diverted political attention away from Afghanistan, making it more challenging for CSOs to maintain the importance of their negotiations on this issue.
In summary, it is clear that without the involvement of non-state actors, the outcome would have been significantly different. To date, 1.5 years after the official announcement of the Federal Admission Program, there is still significant room for improvement, and its continuation is frequently questioned by the opposition.
Therefore, the continuous pressure from CSOs remains essential. To date, the German government has offered the prospect of admission to more than 47,000 particularly vulnerable Afghans through these ongoing procedures. Of these, over 33,600 individuals have entered Germany with the support of the Federal Government. Among those offered the prospect of admission, approximately 2,200 people have been granted admission under the Federal Admission Program for Afghanistan, with 399 having entered the country so far (as of 26 April 2024).
Initially, the situation in Afghanistan was taken very seriously, with significant efforts made to support vulnerable individuals and implement the FAP. However, the current structure and execution of the program fall short in addressing urgent humanitarian needs, exposing systemic inefficiencies and injustices.
This article will also appear on the Refugee Law Initiative Blog.