Attachments
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Purpose
Lebanon’s experience of compounding crises over the past several years points to the nexus of fragility and disaster. The country has recently experienced one of the worst financial and economic crises in human history. The crisis derives from a set of structural causes of fragility: a combination of chronic macroeconomic imbalances and political inaction stemming from political polarization and decision-making paralysis. Lebanon’s economic model has failed to generate economic opportunities, leading to high levels of inequality and poverty. The privatization of services and their patronage-based access, coupled with the capture and mismanagement of public funds intended for infrastructure, have led to a decline in the quality of virtually all public services—including a near collapse in electricity provision.
The devastating August 2020 explosion in Beirut exacerbated many of the preexisting drivers of fragility in Lebanon. The impact of the explosion at the Port of Beirut that destroyed homes, businesses, and infrastructure aggravated the already grave socioeconomic impact on the population of COVID-19–induced lockdowns and the presence of a large refugee population from Syria, with worsening poverty rates, unemployment, basic service delivery, social stability, and food security. Despite this dire situation, the government’s response was limited, relegating the response coordination role to the Forward Emergency Room (FER) set up by the military and relying on the humanitarian relief efforts of international partners. The accumulation of public frustration at failing public services, the lack of accountability, and low economic growth has eroded public trust in the state and given rise to mass protests, social unrest, increased crime and violence, and increased tensions between refugees and host communities.
The international community’s response after this humanitarian disaster was an innovative institutional platform—the Reform, Recovery and Reconstruction Framework (3RF)—aiming to facilitate recovery and reconstruction in the aftermath of the disaster while reactivating reforms to address the drivers of fragility in the country. Organized by the European Union (EU), the United Nations (UN), and the World Bank in December 2020, the 3RF not only provided a prioritized comprehensive plan across various sectors to support Beirut’s recovery and reconstruction but also included a second track to advance critical reforms to address governance challenges in Lebanon. The 3RF is a unique governance platform, backed by a fund-pooling facility (the Lebanon Financing Facility, or LFF), which links the unlocking of investments in Lebanon with the reform results so that nonhumanitarian assistance received through national institutions is conditional on the implementation of reform. While the people-centered recovery response (Track 1) concluded in June 2022, the 3RF continues on Track 2, which focuses on inclusive policy dialogue, the implementation of reforms, and the reconstruction of critical services and infrastructure.
Key takeaways from the 3RF
Despite challenges at each stage, the 3RF has itself presented a governance mechanism that goes beyond a recovery roadmap document to facilitate reforms needed to address the underlying causes of fragility. The examination of interviews with stakeholders involved in the 3RF and a desk review of literature reveal four big-picture achievements that provide insights into the work in other post-disaster settings under conditions of fragility, conflict, and violence (FCV) (see also table ES.1). These achievements are listed below.
1. Holistic vision of recovery and development. While initiated as a framework for the recovery of Beirut in the aftermath of the port explosion, the 3RF was simultaneously conceptualized as a driver for nationwide reforms to address the underlying drivers of fragility that have contributed to the ongoing crises and the humanitarian disaster. The Port of Beirut explosion came after a series of failed attempts at national reforms (Paris I, II, III, and the CEDRE) and the popular uprising in October 2019. To achieve a longlasting impact from recovery, policy and governance reforms at the national level were essential. The 3RF not only reactivated these past efforts at reform but also introduced an implicit conditionality that linked the disbursement of investments in Lebanon to the implementation of reforms, to make a lasting impact on recovery and development.
2. Strong commitment from the three organizations and donors. The 3RF has had strong commitment to recovery, reconstruction, and reform in Lebanon from all three partner organizations—the EU, the UN, and the World Bank—as well as from donors. This commitment helped to define a holistic vision for recovery and development in Lebanon, clear strategic objectives, and a common agenda that transcends different mandates and functions of the international organizations. It also helped to anchor the mobilization of funds.
3. Bringing everyone to the same table. The participatory process of setting up the 3RF has been unprecedented, considering the challenges that countries with fragile contexts normally experience. The setup of the 3RF is the tripartite partnership between the EU, the UN, and the World Bank that encourages civil society, the private sector, and other relevant local stakeholders to come to the same table to increase interaction among each other. This setup had a positive effect by including a broader range of public voices and airing grievances along the way, thereby increasing the legitimacy and accountability of the process.
4. Change in the perception of development partners and better partnership. Prior to the 3RF, one of the inhibiting factors to the engagement of the World Bank and other development partners was the lack of trust within the Lebanese state toward development partners. Despite the initial challenge of engaging the Lebanese government, there was a window of opportunity for increasing engagement. The increased interactions between international partners and the Lebanese state and civil society organizations (CSOs) have gradually helped to build trust, a critical component that facilitates collaboration on important work for reform and recovery.
Key challenges
Despite the above achievements, the 3RF has faced challenges that may impact its effectiveness in facilitating reform and recovery. These are summarized below. Key lessons of the 3RF are summarized in table ES.2 and described in more detail in section 4.
Impact on fragility. While the reform track and the institutional setup that promotes inclusive dialogue facilitated wider engagement of stakeholders compared to past attempts by Lebanon’s international partners, it still fell dramatically short of bringing stakeholders together. The impact of the 3RF on making meaningful political progress is yet to manifest in a meaningful and measurable way. Set against the original plan, the 3RF yield on policy reforms after two years of 3RF is low, particularly regarding the enactment of laws and decrees that require high political commitment.