Previous page | Contents | Next page
10.2  |  Reconstruction: July 2004 to July 2009
398.  The briefing also stated that the World Bank had agreed to channel US$21m from
its Trust Fund to a power project in Najibiyah, through DFID’s IISP. The Najibiyah project
had, however, floundered in the absence of Iraqi Government support; DFID was
exploring “all possible alternative options” for the funding.
399.  On 30 September, Mr Dinham sent Sir Nigel Sheinwald a paper providing an
“honest assessment” of progress on reconstruction, following a discussion between
Mr Dinham and Sir Nigel earlier that month.232
400.  The DFID paper listed the achievements that had been made in re-establishing
the economy, electricity generation, water and sanitation, employment, education,
health, and transport and communications. DFID also listed factors which had hindered
reconstruction:
insecurity, which meant that few other donors had a presence on the ground
in Iraq;
poor co-ordination and little buy-in from the Iraqi Government and local
authorities;
limited capacity of Iraqi institutions and rapid turnover of political figures;
“large additional funds … are unlikely to accelerate progress on reconstruction
without corresponding policy and institutional reform and capacity building”;
security costs had “eaten into” reconstruction funds;
the US had been “distracted by hotspot cities” at the expense of a “strategic
reconstruction programme”. Significant amounts of US funding had been
re‑allocated from basic services to tackle security and oil;
problems with the sustainability of large-scale projects; and
unrealistic Iraqi and international expectations. In other countries, DFID allowed
between five and 15 years for “the first phase of governance projects”, to allow
time for institutional culture to change. In Iraq, international partners were trying
to reform institutions in less than two years.
401.  DFID concluded:
“A carefully balanced approach is needed: on the one hand, an acceptance of the
realistic pace of reconstruction will help to manage expectations and encourage
more sustainable, long-term projects; on the other hand, some continuation of
high‑profile, short-term activity will be needed to provide signs of visible progress
while longer-term activity is under way.”
232  Letter Dinham to Sheinwald, 30 September 2005, ‘Iraq: Reconstruction Situation’ attaching Paper
DFID, [undated], ‘DFID Information Note on Reconstruction Progress in Iraq’.
263
Previous page | Contents | Next page