It is five years to the month since the 2006 war with Israel ended. The aftermath saw more than 1,100 Lebanese dead, infrastructure in disrepair and entire villages and urban neighborhoods flattened. Since, economists and the media have marveled at the miraculous resurgence of the economy, driven primarily by the reconstruction boom and an influx of foreign cash. But while the economy recovered (for a time at least), the owners of industrial enterprises bombed during the war were for the most part left with their livelihoods in doubt, massive debt and little to no assistance from the central government to get their businesses back on track. In this Special Report, Executive examines the story of Lebanese industrialists and their struggle since 2006 to build back the businesses that support both them and their communities.
A devastating toll
The scope of the destruction was devastating; in all, 192manufacturing facilities were damaged, with 114 experiencing what the Association of Lebanese Industrialists (ALI) classified as “total damage”. Owners estimated in November 2006 the value of damage to industrial production at $245 million, a number excluding any loss of stock, contract losses and work stoppages. The size of the firms hit ran the gamut, from the Bekaa’s dairy heavyweight Liban Lait, to the more modest Tricot Starlet clothing factory in Beirut’s southern suburbs. Along with these two firms, whose factories were completely leveled, Executive spoke with affected industrialists from around the country, and while a good portion received aid of some kind, all expressed disillusionment with the often misleading response of the government, whose initial pledges never materialized. Many were back in business and upbeat about their commercial prospects, but others, five years later, were emotional about their hardships and the uphill struggle still before them.
The immediate aftermath
Immediately following the end of the 2006 war, the Ministry of Industry and ALI began to collect information on the scope of the damage to factory owners. At the time, hopes were high that direct assistance would flow into the sector.
In late August, the Stockholm Conference brought together donors from around the world, resulting in approximately $900 million in pledges to assist the country, and then at the beginning of 2007, the Paris III conference followed with more than $7 billion in additional contributions. Much of this went towards rebuilding basic infrastructure and damaged hospitals, schools and residential areas. Within this package, two soft loans, one from the Arab Fund for Economic and Social Development (AFESD) and the other from the European Investment Bank (EIB), were pledged to directly assist enterprises damaged in the war, totaling $86 million and $140 million, respectively, but these required ratification by parliament.
According to an unnamed representative of the Council for Development and Reconstruction (CDR) responding to questions by fax: “After three years of signature and due to political constraints, the parliament did not ratify those loans. By the end of 2010, the EIB decided to cancel this facility, the AFESD loan [is] still at the parliament awaiting ratification. Therefore the damaged industrial plants did not get the chance to benefit from these credits.”
In a phone interview, another CDR representative who also requested anonymity said, “at the time when SMEs [small-to-medium enterprises] were in need of this assistance, parliament wasn’t functioning and no decisions were being made.”
One chunk of funding did make it out of the Stockholm Conference and was applied as originally intended — a $4.5 million grant for the United Nations Industrial Development Organization (UNIDO), in partnership with the Ministry of Industry. According to UNIDO National Project Coordinator Nada Barakat, 85 damaged industries have received assistance. But the modest budget is reflective of the endemic lack of support for industry in Lebanon. Out of a total of $45 million from European donors funneled into the United Nations Development Program-managed Lebanon Recovery Fund, just 10 percent was allocated for industrial recovery. Because of this, only small to medium-sized factories with modest needs were targeted, as each allocation had a total limit of approximately $50,000. Nonetheless, UNIDO’s contributions have been critical for the recovery of many business owners.
One such owner, Jihad Sadaka, whose pastry and sweets factory was damaged in the war when the buildings on each side of his shop in Beirut’s southern suburbs were leveled, received a UNIDO equipment donation of a generator and water sanitation system. Sadaka also took part in the organization’s “capacity building” exercises, thereby improving his workplace standards and food safety. With the framed ISO (International Organization for Standardization) certification prominently displayed on his new desk, Sadaka said, “if someone wants to come into the factory now, I’m really proud to show them. Believe me, this was the best thing of my life.”
But most of the stories from recovering industrialists have not been so bright. For companies with losses too substantial for UNIDO assistance, their only potential recourse has been through loan assistance from Banque du Liban (BDL), Lebanon’s central bank. In the midst of political paralysis, the BDL issued two circulars, in May and September of 2007,establishing mechanisms to channel loan assistance through local private banks. According to Mazen Halawi, head of division in BDL’s financing unit, to qualify “clients were required to be unable to continue work without a loan and unable to service their debts from before July 31, 2006.” Both the client’s bank and the BDL would audit the level of damage. Once a value was agreed on the BDL would effectively cover 60 percent (funneled through private banks) via a loan that was forgiven once conditions were met; company owners would have to provide at least 20 percent through their private equity and the BDL also stipulated conditions for a soft loan arrangement to meet the remaining 20percent.
However, in extensive interviews with industrialists, the loan scheme was repeatedly described as unfavorable. Ali Ismael, co-owner of Tricot Starlet, and Sadaka each said it would have required them to mortgage their homes. Furthermore, according to Recovery Lebanon’s August 2008 “Progress and Challenges” report: “The impact of this compensation mechanism has been insignificant. Banks have not shown any interest in supporting enterprises… mainly because of the pay-back period of the granted money.” The central bank could not provide details as to the number of recipients, but Abbas Safieddine of plastics company PlastiMed (who did acquire a loan) speculated that it was “only four or five large companies”.
Political payments
Then there was reconstruction funding from Hezbollah, for which the party is well known. While their donations appear to have been fairly widespread throughout their geographic heartlands, the sums hardly softened the blows to industrialists. Sadaka received a $15,000 sum and Tricot Starlet’s Ismael $100,000 — nothing to scoff at but not nearly enough to rebuild a business.
“My understanding is that they directly assisted in rebuilding or at least compensating for small merchants and supermarkets who were ‘their people’. The losses for the [biggest] companies were too big for them to compensate,” Safieddine said. “At the end it’s politics. Most of the big industries that got hit were in no way affiliated or even close politically to Hezbollah. So there was no push from this side, no push from that side; we are in limbo.”
Despite operating in an economic climate that, in the best of times, is riddled with infrastructural deficiencies and a lack of protection from imports, and in the worst of times threatens to leave family businesses in piles of rubble with little hope of help from the government, industrialists have proved resilient in their efforts to rebuild. When asked if they were concerned about the possibility of a future war, the standard response was to leave it in God’s hands. But some of the responsibility lies with the government, not with The Maker. Despite the best efforts of organizations like UNIDO, what little funding was procured for the industrial sector was squandered by political squabbling in the post-2006 years.
Oussama Halbawi, president of the Association of Industrialists for the Southern Suburbs and the owner of a mattress, fabric and textiles factory that was completely destroyed, expressed his indignation. “In case of war, it’s the government’s responsibility to help out the victims. I was paying taxes so I expect something in return.”
For a micro-economic assessment of the impact of the 2006 war on Lebanese manufacturing, Executive presents the case studies of four factories that were completely destroyed, and documents the unique challenges faced by each as they rebuilt their business from out of the rubble.
