VZCZCXRO0360
PP RUEHBC RUEHDE RUEHIHL RUEHKUK
DE RUEHGB #2077 1880721
ZNY CCCCC ZZH
P 060721Z JUL 08
FM AMEMBASSY BAGHDAD
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC PRIORITY 8140
INFO RUCNRAQ/IRAQ COLLECTIVE

C O N F I D E N T I A L BAGHDAD 002077 
 
SIPDIS 
 
E.O. 12958: DECL: 07/06/2018 
TAGS: PGOV PREL PTER PINS ECON EAID KCRS IZ
SUBJECT: PRT SALAH AD DIN:  I-CERP BUILDING MORE THAN 
PROJECTS 
 
Classified By: PRT Team Leader Richard Bell for reasons 
1.4 (b) and (d). 
 
¶1.  (U) This is a PRT Salah ad Din reporting cable 
coordinated with the partner Brigade 1/101 BCT. 
 
Summary 
------- 
 
¶2.  (C) The Iraqi - Commanders Emergency Response Program 
(I-CERP) has been a great success in Salah ad Din province, 
helping to quickly address critical project implementation 
needs.  While the benefits that the projects bring to 
communities are important, an upside is how the bottom-up 
process used by the PRT/BCT to obtain Iraqi project approval 
has enhanced communication between local, provincial, and GOI 
ministry officials.  End Summary. 
 
¶3.  (C) I-CERP funds are a pool of Iraqi money that Brigade 
Commanders can use to address critical needs in communities 
that were not likely to be met by the provincial governments 
due to the long lead-time required by the normal 
capital-project approval and execution cycle.  Initially, the 
bulk of the money is to be used to show local communities 
quick progress delivering basic services.  In Salah ad Din, 
which received almost USD 12 million, the I-CERP program is 
addressing a diverse range of project needs, from repair of a 
major water-treatment plant in Baiji to an asphalt plant in 
Samarra and numerous potable-water improvements throughout 
the province. 
 
¶4.  (C) The Brigade Commander agreed that all infrastructure 
projects would need approval from both the Provincial 
Reconstruction and Development Committee (PRDC) and 
local-level (i.e. District) authorities.  To allay fears that 
this requirement would slow project implementation, the PRDC 
committed to turning projects around in one week.  Except on 
large projects that it feels require modification, the PRDC 
has been true to its word. 
 
Process Builds Communication 
---------------------------- 
 
¶5.  (C) The process agreed upon among the PRDC, PRT and BCT 
is straightforward, transparent, and reflects the priorities 
of local officials.  District-level CF units and satellite 
PRT offices, in close consultation with local officials, 
choose projects to be executed with I-CERP funds.  Seeing 
this as an opportunity to improve local ability to manage the 
project-nomination process for provincial capital projects, 
satellite PRT offices and BCT leaders have stressed that 
local officials must prioritize their requests.  After 
developing a prioritized project list, the local council and 
the local ministry director general sign off on the I-CERP 
project, which then moves to the BCT for approval.  The BCT 
does not consider any projects without the appropriate 
signatures of local councils and local ministry directors. 
The prioritization of needs has been a useful exercise for 
local officials; many are now using this process and lists to 
develop their requests for capital-project funding from the 
provincial government. 
 
¶6.  (C) Once the Brigade approves the funding (NOTE: This 
step is more of a legal review then a judgment on the project 
itself. End Note.), the projects are presented to the PRDC 
for approval.  PRT and BCT officials present new I-CERP 
projects for PRDC consideration on a weekly basis.  In some 
cases, approval comes quickly; however, the PRDC has 
requested modifications on a number of proposals.  On the 
Baiji water-treatment plant, for example, the PRDC met with 
engineers and the Mayor to hash out project details and 
reached an agreement, even though this resulted in a greatly 
changed scope of work.  Additionally, local officials had a 
large say in making those changes, something not frequently 
seen in the past. 
 
Comment 
------- 
 
¶7.  (C) While the I-CERP program does not require approval of 
projects by local officials, doing so helped to convince the 
PRDC to cooperate to expedite the process and address 
frequently-voiced local concerns that the provincial 
government does not listen to their needs.  The enhanced 
communication between local and provincial officials 
facilitated by this process may be as important a result as 
the projects themselves.  Our insistence on prioritized lists 
has paid dividends as local officials are using lists 
developed for I-CERP projects to guide their development of 
provincial capital-project requests.  End Comment. 
CROCKER