While big banks wait for the war’s end, civil society is rebuilding in Gaza

Over the last year, more than half the residential buildings and electrical power lines in Gaza have been destroyed by the Israel-Hamas war. But international efforts to rebuild Gaza’s infrastructure are largely on hold until the war ends, with big institutions such as the United Nations and the World Bank saying they’ll wait to begin such a behemoth task. A handful of small civil society groups have decided not to wait. Tareq Abu Hamed, a Palestinian environmentalist with the Arava Institute for Environmental Studies, says the organization is waiting for the necessary permits to send solar panels into Gaza. Once they’re allowed inside, they can be installed to help bring electricity, wastewater treatment, and desalination back online in the Strip as soon as possible. “Of course, our systems can be bombarded or destroyed. It’s a risk, but we are willing to take that risk” said Abu Hamed, the executive director of the Nobel Peace Prize-nominated environmental studies and research institute — which employs Israelis and Palestinians, as well as people from Jordan, Morocco, and other countries. In rebuilding Gaza’s infrastructure, Arava is harnessing climate-friendly technologies such as portable solar panels, off-grid solar-powered desalination, and a vertical wall that can treat and reuse water also using solar power. They work with Damour for Community Development, an organization that is well-connected with communities on the ground in Gaza, to get the technologies installed. The idea is that these technologies are off-grid, and therefore more resilient to the volatility of the region. Abu Tareq has no illusions about the risks of rebuilding in an active war zone. But the needs, he believes, are so urgent, that it would be immoral not to try. “If this system works for a week and provides water for people for a week, it’s worth it. People are desperate.” Any effort by the big institutions to rebuild Gaza will be far more involved, long-term, and permanent than Arava’s current assistance. But the institute’s solutions raise the question of whether infrastructural support should be part of the apparatus of immediate aid along with food and shelter. The scale of damage Since the start of the war, more than 62% of residential buildings and more than 64% of housing units have been partially damaged or destroyed, according to a World Bank report from June. Over 1.3 million people are without homes across the Gaza Strip. “As of 28 June, the Gaza Strip has been without power for 265 days after electricity transmission through feeder lines was cut and the Gaza Power Plant ran out of fuel,” the report states. The lack of electricity has also put 80% of the territory’s primary health care centers out of commission, according to another World Bank report published in September. The Arava Institute and other civil society organizations are focused on sending modular, scalable, climate-friendly technologies to Gaza. That includes decentralized, off-grid water desalination, water generation from air moisture molecules, and wastewater treatment plants — all technologies that have developed as a response to the climate crisis. All of the above can be powered by small fields of solar panels, which means that the technology won’t be reliant on a grid system that’s more vulnerable to air strikes. Before the conflict began, Arava had built one solar field in southern Gaza — but it was bombed in the first week of the war. Solar can also power hospitals, schools, and emergency shelters, but building them while the war is ongoing is risky and the group faces significant hurdles to get them inside the Strip. The Israeli Defense Forces, or IDF, have to approve all shipments and provide permits for anything that goes into Gaza. Abu Hamed said that they have had permit applications submitted for months and are awaiting approval. So far, they have only been able to get a few caravans in to replace some tents with more stable shelters. Abu Hamed said that Arava has been updating institutions such as the World Bank and the United Nations about what they are doing and inviting them to their meetings. “They are aware of the work we do,” he said. “But these institutions have to work with the governments and the body that will eventually run Gaza.” “I think the only solution right now is to provide people with a little amount of water, little amount of wastewater treatment, little amount of electricity, just to provide for basic needs. But no one wants to take that risk,” he said. Postwar planning stalemate For policymakers, the prospect of rebuilding Gaza is especially challenging at a time when the fighting between Israel and Hamas shows no sign of cooling off. In December, the U.N. Security Council passed Resolution 2720, created a new post for a senior humanitarian and reconstruction coordinator, and appointed a former Dutch diplomat, Sigrid Kaag, to head it. But the council mandate doesn’t really include any proposals for reconstruction beyond emergency repairs of critical infrastructure, focusing almost exclusively on facilitating greater humanitarian relief. Kaag outlined a proposal for a database that would expedite the flow of humanitarian aid to Gaza called the UN 2720 Mechanism for Gaza. The database logs how many requests are made for food, shelter, sanitation and health, nutrition, and others each month. It also indicates whether they are pending clearance, approved, delivered, or other. The database does not include any infrastructure — or help the Strip operate on its own. On Sept. 24, the Office of the United Nations Special Coordinator for the Middle East Peace Process published a draft for an early recovery strategy in Gaza. The internal document, which was obtained by Devex, states at the top that the U.N. will only act on this plan “once the conditions on the ground change and the parties to the conflict create an enabling environment.” The report outlines plans to rebuild essential services such as health and education facilities, municipal buildings, wastewater and sanitation networks, energy, communication, and transportation. The focus will be on decentralized energy supply and improved water imports. The report does not provide more detail on what technology they will use, though it notes that “access for required materials and equipment will be critical” — access that is often difficult within Gaza’s borders, which are currently under tight IDF controls. The cost of permanent reconstruction is huge — when it was last calculated in March, it was at $18 billion. “This needs a long-term commitment, political, but also in financial terms from the different stakeholders, but also private sector and investors,” said Kaag in an interview with PBS Newshour. Large banks and institutions don’t want to get involved until the war has ended and leadership is established. MDBs are also waiting to get involved in infrastructure. The European Bank of Reconstruction and Development declined to comment on why they have not begun any reconstruction efforts or whether they have any plans in place to enter as soon as the war ends. Meanwhile, the World Bank is working with the U.N. and other agencies to bring in aid. They have so far deployed a $200 million emergency response package, including health provisions, water, and food. But the Bank’s Interim Damage Assessment Report in April said that full damage and needs assessment, “as well as financing needs for recovery and reconstruction, will be completed as soon as the situation allows.” Some officials see the wisdom in taking a smaller-scale approach to reconstruction, however. “I think the cost/benefit on this is a tough call,” said Jeremy Konyndyk, president of Refugees International in a message to Devex. “Hard to comment in the abstract but I think that if you’re spending more money upfront to rehab permanent infrastructure than you would to set up a more temporary solution, for the same amount of benefit in the near term, that’s a questionable call.”