Publication: Gaza Rapid Damage and Needs Assessment, June 2021
Loading...
Date
2021-06
ISSN
Published
2021-06
Author(s)
Editor(s)
Abstract
On May 20, 2021, after 11 days of the worst conflict since 2014, Israel and militants in Gaza agreed to a cessation of hostilities. Casualties were recorded on both sides, including more than 260 dead in Gaza according to the Palestinian Authority (PA) and the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR), along with considerable destruction of residential and commercial buildings. While in Israel, 9 Israelis and 3 foreign workers were killed according to the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs. In Gaza, the conflict damaged various core physical and digital infrastructure assets, particularly buildings, hospitals and health centers, water and sanitation facilities, and transport, energy and communications networks. Exacerbated by previous trauma, this renewed round of violence having a particularly serious impact on children’s mental health as they are more susceptible to the effects of high levels of stress. Beyond the human tragedy and the subsequent immediate humanitarian relief that was channeled to Gaza, the economic impact of these 11 days of conflict has severely weakened an economy already reduced to a fraction of its potential. Gaza is one of the most densely populated areas in the world, with around 2.1 million individuals living in a total area of 365 square kilometers. For nearly 15 years, the movement of people and goods into and out of Gaza has been under restrictions imposed by the Government of Israel (GoI) due to security concerns. This isolation, in addition to multiple episodes of conflict and a damaging internal political divide, has created a severe humanitarian situation in Gaza that was exacerbated by the recent hostilities.
Link to Data Set
Citation
“World Bank; European Union; United Nations. 2021. Gaza Rapid Damage and Needs Assessment, June 2021. © World Bank. http://hdl.handle.net/10986/35968 License: CC BY 3.0 IGO.”
Associated URLs
Associated content
Other publications in this report series
Journal
Journal Volume
Journal Issue
Collections
Related items
Showing items related by metadata.
Publication Beirut Rapid Damage and Needs Assessment(World Bank, Washington, DC, 2020-08-31)On August 4, 2020, a massive explosion rocked the Port of Beirut (PoB), destroying much ofthe port and severely damaging dense residential and commercial areas within five kilometersof the site of the explosion. The disaster left more than 200 people dead, thousands injured, andmany homeless. Shocking pictures and videos from the Lebanese capital were shared widely acrossthe planet, showing a city in ruins and the suffering of those affected. Beyond the human tragedy, the economic impact of the explosion is notable at the national level despite the geographic concentration of the destruction. This reflects: (i) the demographic clustering of the Lebanese population in Beirut and its suburbs; (ii) the prominence of economic activity in the affected areas, especially in regard to commerce, real estate and tourism; and (iii) the fact that the PoB is the main point of entry/exit for the small open economy, channeling 68 percent (2011-2018 average) of the country’s total external trade. Even prior to the explosion, Lebanon was already reeling from multiple crises since 2011. These included: (i) spillovers from the conflict in Syria, which led Lebanon to host the largest refugee per capita population in the world; (ii) a financial and economic crisis that has induced systemic macrofinancial failures, including, impairment of the banking sector and risk of deposits; an exchange rate collapse; a default on sovereign debt; triple digit inflation rates; and a severe economic contraction; and (iii) impacts from the COVID-19 pandemic; Lebanon, not unlike other countries, responded with lockdowns that further exacerbated economic and financial stresses. The above add to long-term structural vulnerabilities that include low-grade infrastructure—a dysfunctional electricity sector, water supply shortages, inadequate solid waste and wastewater management—public financial mismanagement, large macroeconomic imbalances, and deteriorating social indicators. These vulnerabilities are taking place against the backdrop of high levels of corruption, political turmoil, and weak governance. Internationally, Lebanon was sub-optimally integrated into the global economy and global value chains, and the sizeable and persistent migration of highly educated human resources to foreign labor markets (brain drain) further contributed to poor productivity. As a result, the economy has struggled to reduce poverty and to generate inclusive growth, with job creation remaining weak and poorly distributed even during periods of high GDP growth. The long-run employment-growth elasticity is estimated to be 0.2,2 much lower than an estimated MENA average of 0.5.3 Meanwhile, the generated employment has been concentrated in low productivity activities as those involving higher productivity have not grown proportionally. Since foreign labor dominated low skilled (less productive) activities, high GDP growth rates have not translated into significant job creation for the Lebanese.Publication Ukraine Third Rapid Damage and Needs Assessment (RDNA3), February 2022 – December 2023(World Bank, Government of Ukraine, European Union, United Nations, 2024-02-20)This third Rapid Damage and Needs Assessment (RDNA3)—undertaken jointly by theWorld Bank, the Government of Ukraine, the European Commission, and the United Nations and supported by other partners—takes stock of almost two years of the ongoing war, estimating damage and losses along with recovery and reconstruction needs for 10 years. Beyond physical and financial impacts that are more readily quantified, the RDNA3 provides a qualitative description of how people’s lives havebeen dramatically altered since the invasion. RDNA3 builds on the previous two Rapid Damage and Needs Assessments (RDNA1 and RDNA2), which respectively covered the initial 3 and 12 months of the war.Publication Ukraine Fourth Rapid Damage and Needs Assessment (RDNA4), February 2022 – December 2024(World Bank, Government of Ukraine, European Union, United Nations, 2025-03-04)As of December 31, 2024, Russia’s invasion of Ukraine continues to have profound physical, socioeconomic, and environmental impacts, which will be felt for generations. This fourth Rapid Damage and Needs Assessment (RDNA4) - undertaken jointly by the World Bank Group, the Government of Ukraine, the European Commission, and the United Nations, with support from other partners—takes stock of almost three years of the ongoing invasion, estimating damage and losses along with recovery and reconstruction needs for 10 years. Beyond the physical and financial impacts that are more readily quantified, the RDNA4 provides a qualitative description of how people’s lives have been dramatically altered since February 2022. RDNA4 builds on the previous three Rapid Damage and Needs Assessments (RDNA1, RDNA2, and RDNA3), which respectively covered the first three months, first year, and the first 22 monthsPublication Lebanon Reform, Recovery, and Reconstruction Framework(World Bank, Washington, DC, 2020-12-04)The framework for reform, recovery, and reconstruction (the 3RF) is part of a comprehensive response to the massive explosion on the Port of Beirut on August 4, 2020. It is a people-centered recovery and reconstruction framework focusing on a period of 18 months that will bridge the immediate humanitarian response and the medium-term recovery and reconstruction efforts to put Lebanon on a path of sustainable development. The overall objective of the 3RF is to help address the urgent needs of the affected population and ensure that results are delivered through an efficient, timely, and well-coordinated recovery and reconstruction effort, with the involvement of all stakeholders and support from the international community. The 3RF is structured around four strategic pillars: (1) improving governance and accountability; (2) jobs and opportunities; (3) social protection, inclusion, and culture; and (4) improving services and infrastructure. Each pillar identifies a set of strategic objectives and priority areas across both the recovery track and the reform and reconstruction track. The 3RF is also designed to contribute to: (a) consensus-building among the government of Lebanon and Lebanese non-state actors on the required enabling policy environment and on priorities for recovery and reconstruction; (b) an agreed reconstruction and recovery framework between Lebanese society and development partners; (c) a programmatic and integrated approach across all sectors; (d) harmonized financing that aligns with the framework; and (e) a gradual transition from humanitarian response to recovery and reconstruction. The report is organized as follows: section one gives context and key challenges; section two presents 3RF scope and strategic objectives; section three presents macroeconomic stabilization as a foundation for recovery and reconstruction; section four discusses the 3RF pillars; section five gives institutional and monitoring arrangements; and section six presents 3RF financing strategy.Publication Ukraine Recovery and Peacebuiding Assessment(World Bank, Washington, DC, 2015-03)In mid-2014, the Government of Ukraine (GoU) requested technical assistance and financial support from the inter¬national community to assess and plan priority recovery and peacebuilding efforts in the conflict-affected regions of eastern Ukraine. Following these requests, and within the framework of the 2008 Joint Declaration on Post-Crisis Assessments and Recovery Planning, the EU, UN, and WBG agreed to support the government in undertaking a Recovery and Peacebuilding Assessment (RPA). This assessment follows the Post-Conflict Needs Assessment (PCNA) methodology. In view of the continuing conflict in eastern Ukraine, it was decided to undertake an initial rapid assess¬ment as a first phase of activity, which would provide an analytical and programmatic baseline for recovery efforts to inform urgent interventions and provide a basis for scaling up recovery plan¬ning and responses as the situation and needs evolve on the ground. This report summarizes the findings and recommendations of the first phase of the RPA, which was undertaken in the period November 2014 to February 2015. In light of the dynamic and fluid nature of the situation in eastern Ukraine, these findings should be considered as a snapshot in time. In particular, the assessment of infrastructure damage is limited to the damage that occurred on or before November 2014. Furthermore, the number of registered internally displaced persons (IDPs), utilized as a reference to estimate the needs of this affected population, corresponds to the official government estimates as of February 2015.
Users also downloaded
Showing related downloaded files
Publication Design Thinking for Social Innovation(2010-07)Designers have traditionally focused on enchancing the look and functionality of products.Publication Governance Matters VIII : Aggregate and Individual Governance Indicators 1996–2008(2009-06-01)This paper reports on the 2009 update of the Worldwide Governance Indicators (WGI) research project, covering 212 countries and territories and measuring six dimensions of governance between 1996 and 2008: Voice and Accountability, Political Stability and Absence of Violence/Terrorism, Government Effectiveness, Regulatory Quality, Rule of Law, and Control of Corruption. These aggregate indicators are based on hundreds of specific and disaggregated individual variables measuring various dimensions of governance, taken from 35 data sources provided by 33 different organizations. The data reflect the views on governance of public sector, private sector and NGO experts, as well as thousands of citizen and firm survey respondents worldwide. The authors also explicitly report the margins of error accompanying each country estimate. These reflect the inherent difficulties in measuring governance using any kind of data. They find that even after taking margins of error into account, the WGI permit meaningful cross-country comparisons as well as monitoring progress over time. The aggregate indicators, together with the disaggregated underlying indicators, are available at www.govindicators.org.Publication Governance Matters IV : Governance Indicators for 1996-2004(World Bank, Washington, DC, 2005-06)The authors present the latest update of their aggregate governance indicators, together with new analysis of several issues related to the use of these measures. The governance indicators measure the following six dimensions of governance: (1) voice and accountability; (2) political instability and violence; (3) government effectiveness; (4) regulatory quality; (5) rule of law, and (6) control of corruption. They cover 209 countries and territories for 1996, 1998, 2000, 2002, and 2004. They are based on several hundred individual variables measuring perceptions of governance, drawn from 37 separate data sources constructed by 31 organizations. The authors present estimates of the six dimensions of governance for each period, as well as margins of error capturing the range of likely values for each country. These margins of error are not unique to perceptions-based measures of governance, but are an important feature of all efforts to measure governance, including objective indicators. In fact, the authors give examples of how individual objective measures provide an incomplete picture of even the quite particular dimensions of governance that they are intended to measure. The authors also analyze in detail changes over time in their estimates of governance; provide a framework for assessing the statistical significance of changes in governance; and suggest a simple rule of thumb for identifying statistically significant changes in country governance over time. The ability to identify significant changes in governance over time is much higher for aggregate indicators than for any individual indicator. While the authors find that the quality of governance in a number of countries has changed significantly (in both directions), they also provide evidence suggesting that there are no trends, for better or worse, in global averages of governance. Finally, they interpret the strong observed correlation between income and governance, and argue against recent efforts to apply a discount to governance performance in low-income countries.Publication Measuring Financial Inclusion : The Global Findex Database(World Bank, Washington, DC, 2012-04)This paper provides the first analysis of the Global Financial Inclusion (Global Findex) Database, a new set of indicators that measure how adults in 148 economies save, borrow, make payments, and manage risk. The data show that 50 percent of adults worldwide have an account at a formal financial institution, though account penetration varies widely across regions, income groups and individual characteristics. In addition, 22 percent of adults report having saved at a formal financial institution in the past 12 months, and 9 percent report having taken out a new loan from a bank, credit union or microfinance institution in the past year. Although half of adults around the world remain unbanked, at least 35 percent of them report barriers to account use that might be addressed by public policy. Among the most commonly reported barriers are high cost, physical distance, and lack of proper documentation, though there are significant differences across regions and individual characteristics.Publication Government Matters III : Governance Indicators for 1996-2002(World Bank, Washington, DC, 2003-08)The authors present estimates of six dimensions of governance covering 199 countries and territories for four time periods: 1996, 1998, 2000, and 2002. These indicators are based on several hundred individual variables measuring perceptions of governance, drawn from 25 separate data sources constructed by 18 different organizations. The authors assign these individual measures of governance to categories capturing key dimensions of governance and use an unobserved components model to construct six aggregate governance indicators in each of the four periods. They present the point estimates of the dimensions of governance as well as the margins of errors for each country for the four periods. The governance indicators reported here are an update and expansion of previous research work on indicators initiated in 1998 (Kaufmann, Kraay, and Zoido-Lobat 1999a,b and 2002). The authors also address various methodological issues, including the interpretation and use of the data given the estimated margins of errors.