Inter Agency Meeting 4 September 2015

Inter Agency Meeting 4 September 2015

AGENDA Protection update Cross-sectoral analysis of household visits Municipal coordination (UNDP) AOB

AGENDA Protection update Cross-sectoral analysis of household visits Municipal coordination (UNDP) AOB

Syrian Registration as of 25 August 2015 1,113,941 Total Due to GOL instructions to suspend new registration as of 6 May 2015, no individuals awaiting registration.

Non-Syrian Registration as of 31 July 2015 23 days waiting period 19,786* *85% Iraqi Total Registered 681 Registered in July 360 Awaiting

August Update: WFP validation Following WFP validation exercise (Jan-Apr 2015) 24,884 HH/ 95,000 individuals were not validated UNHCR Registration Unit undertook a follow-up verification exercise (June-July 2015). Results 6,000 individuals were already inactivated/closed 30,800 were reachable and interviewed or had recent activity 58,812 were unreachable after multiple attempts of contact (three calls, rescheduling, etc.) and thus inactivated

August Update: Non-Syrian Decentralization As of 1 August 2015, registration of non-syrian has been decentralized to all Registration Centers in Lebanon Registration team trained to interview non-syrian population and referral to RSD and other relevant units as needed

July Thematic Questionnaire Sample size: 961 HH randomly selected out of the HH who were renewed in July; 10% sample size Objective: Obtaining information on Marriage Registration Limitations: not in-depth survey, generates base line information only, time bound.

Snap Shot of the July Thematic Questionnaire 14% married in Lebanon. Of those, 40% were married by a certified religious leader, 28% non-certified religious leader, 28% religious court. 56% did not register their marriage in Lebanon. Of those, 35% were not aware of the procedures, 30% cannot afford the fees, 16% do not have the required documents. 44% said that they know the procedure of registering their marriage in Lebanon. 21% have a proof of marriage from religious court in Lebanon, 21% from a non-certified religious leader, 18% from religious leader, 16% registered at the Personal Status Department. 9% said they don t have proof of marriage. 90% of those who married outside Lebanon have proof of marriage on their family booklet, 4% through the family extract. 60% did not know that they could register their marriage in Lebanon s religious court if they married outside Lebanon, 28% were not aware of this process, and 12% knew it.

METHODOLOGY Page 10 Analysis based on the 75,000 household visits conducted to 63,581 unique households. 38% (24,523) of the visited households were found to be Socio-economically vulnerable 100% 80% Least Vulnerable 25% 60% Mildly Vulnerable 37% 40% 20% 0% Highly Vulnerable Severely Vulnerable 27% 11% 38%

Residency Status Trend since January Page 11 People without residency status (% of persons identified by month) 28% 39% 41% 50% 61% 9% 12% Jan-15 Feb-15 Mar-15 Apr-15 May-15 Jun-15 Jul-15 Month of household visit

Residency Status Trend across vulnerability levels Page 12 Households which have people without residency status (% of household by vulnerability level) 37% 43% 28% 29% Least Vulnerable Mildly Vulnerable Highly Vulnerable Severely Vulnerable

CSMC and KAP survey Page 13 KEY FINDINGS: Low awareness of key principles that validate the refugee status; Lack of proper knowledge of humanitarian standards; Low awareness of essential basic rights; Assistance focused; There are sites with an existing power structures with the Shawish; There are sites with heavy dependency on Landlords/owners; Rely heavily on word of mouth to seek information, which may make them vulnerable to false information; Significant gap in knowledge of service providers.

Persons with Specific Needs Page 14 Vulnerabilities factors intersect with disability, injury and chronic disease Very limited availability of care for people who cannot carry out the tasks of living, (often due to injury) Mental health issues compound and are compounded by difficulties in meeting basic needs Livelihoods a major challenge Declining options for people with chronic diseases in the old age

AGENDA Protection update Cross-sectoral analysis of household visits Municipal coordination (UNDP) AOB

HOUSEHOLDS VISITS: KEY FIGURES Page 16 83,927 Cases visited (~30% of the total population) 80,249 Cases scored 30,557 (38%) Socio-economically vulnerable 20,916 Received multi-purpose cash in July (Activity Info)

DEMOGRAPHIC PROFILE OF THE SOCIOECONOMICALY VULNERABLE (BASED ON HH ASSESSMENTS) Page 17 Babies 17% Children 28% Adolescents 18% Adults 36% Elderly 2% 63% 1 in 20 Households have a disabled person Only 1 of every 5 adults reported earning some living in the last 30 days 4 out of 5 live either in an informal settlement or in a substandard shelter (worksite/garage..) Average Family Size 7 Over half of the Household Expenditure is on Food Over 94% are in debt

VULNERBALITY AND INCLUSION IN CASH ASSISTANCE Page 18 People in need of income support 30,557 families Of them, 17,750 assisted 29,250 21,461 20,442 46% 54% 9,096 86% 41% 1% 1% Severely Vulnerable Highly Vulnerable Mildly Vulnerable Least Vulnerable Vulnerability Assistance

RESIDENCY STATUS Page 19 43% % without residency per vulnerability Group 37% % without residency persons identified per month 61% 39% 29% 28% 9% Least Vulnerable Mildly Vulnerable Highly Vulnerable Severely Vulnerable Jan-15 Apr Jul

RESIDENCY AND INCOME Average income between two groups of households Page 20 316 USD 158 USD households which have some members without residency households which have residency for everyone

SHELTER Breakdown by type of shelter of socioeconomically vulnerable families Page 21 84% living in low quality shelter Apartments 16% Substandard shelter 46% Collective centers 9% Informal settlement 29%

SHELTER Socioeconomic vulnerability vs type of shelter Page 22 84% Informal settlement 42% 64% Apartments 29% 71% Visited 22% Least Mild High Severe 3% 23% Substandard shelter Excludes Informal Settlements 47% 43% 26% 3% 8% 13% Least Mild High Severe Least Mild High Severe

SHELTER Visits by shelter type Page 23 60% 50% 40% Appartments Substandard Buildings 30% 20% 10% 0% 2015-1 2015-2 2015-3 2015-4 2015-5 2015-6 2015-7 Informal Settlements Collective Centers

EXPENDITURE PATTERNS Page 24 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 8% 14% 22% 25% 11% 12% 11% 14% 56% 48% 42% 34% Least Vulnerable Mildly Vulnerable Highly Vulnerable Severely Vulnerable Others Registration Tobacco Entertain Hygiene Communication Household Clothing Transport Gas Electricity Water Shelter Rent Education health Food

LIVELIHOODS Page 25 Avg. debt in USD % Households in Debt 1000 900 936 100% 90% 89% 91% 93% 95% 800 700 775 717 741 80% 70% 600 60% 500 50% 400 40% 300 30% 200 20% 100 10% 0 Least Vulnerable Mildly Vulnerable Highly Vulnerable Severely Vulnerable 0% Least Vulnerable Mildly Vulnerable Highly Vulnerable Severely Vulnerable

% of working children WORKING CHILDREN: Page 26 REPORTED FIGURES From 80,000 HHs visited 30.00% Boys 25.00% 20.00% All Children 15.00% 10.00% Girls 5.00% 0.00% 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17

female female female EDUCATION: ACCESS BARRIER Female work Difference_in_Curriculum No School Area Transportation problem school did not allow due_to_work cultural_religious_reasons cost_of_education Other Page 27 15-17 Diff. in Curriculum Work Cultural Other 10-14 No School in Region Cost of Education 6-9 Transportation School Did Not Allow 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

male male male EDUCATION: ACCESS BARRIER Male work Difference_in_Curriculum No School Area Transportation problem school did not allow due_to_work cultural_religious_reasons cost_of_education Other Page 28 15-17 Diff. in Curriculum Work Work Cultural Other 10-14 No School No School in Region in Region Cost of Education Cost of Education 6-9 Transportation School School Did Did Not Not Allow Allow 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

AGENDA Protection update Cross-sectoral analysis of household visits Municipal coordination (UNDP) AOB

Map of work with municipalities Aiming at gaining a comprehensive picture of what support is provided to municipalities within and outside the LCRP. Working with municipalities = supporting the municipality to exercise its competencies in 5 areas: Support to participatory processes Capacity building Support to strategic planning In-kind & staffing support Support to service delivery

Moving the Map online Link: spongebase.org 594 interventions in 274 municipalities by 24 different partners. Including non-lcrp activities: CDR, UNIFIL, local NGOs. Overall objective: 1. Improve coordination of partners working with municipalities. 2. Facilitation of access to municipal institutions for other partners. 3. Fact-checking requests done by municipalities.

One step further: piloting partners municipal coordination in the north. Using Maps of Risks and Resources (MOSA/UNDP) as a basis for further coordination between all partners and municipalities. First process in Minieh, to be replicated in Dedde and Halba

Partners active in Minieh

RISKS PRIORITY PROJECTS-SHORT TERM WHO WHAT STATUS REMARKS Shortage of water 1 Installation of the water network for Hamdoun Qarter (1000 housing units) (CDR CONTACTED) CISP Water project in Nabi youchaa (Studying, deepening,testing and equipping of Nabi Youchaa "irrigation well" - Final installation) On-going Funded by OCHA pollution development of diseases Incapability of providing appropriate public services due to financial issues 6 complete the installation of the sewage network in specific areas of DHOUR El Minnieh: Hamdoun Ein Al Borj-and the coastal area (the project could be divided into many phases according to the beneficiaries, and emergency) 2 provide the municipality with 700 garbage bins 1000 liters and 7000 bins 240 liters provide the municipality with 2 trucks (10 tons)for solid waste disposal equipped with a crane 5 small pickup trucks (5 tons) 12 provide the municipality with a vehicle to clean the roads 13 provide the municipality with a jetting pump to clean and maintain the sewage network UNICEF - Solidarite Internationale CISP CISP UNDP Digging 2 Boreholes to reinforce the water access in Minieh Drilling and equipping of 2 wells in Minieh Area, survey of existing network, rehabilitation of water tower One sewage line Improvement of Solid Waste Management system (provision of 400 metal garbage bins 1,100 L, 1000 plastic garbage bins 240 l) Planned On-Going On-Going On-Going UNDP Provision of 1 truck 10 tons with crane On-Going UNICEF - Solidarite Intl Solid Waste Management - provision of tools needed for municiaplity. On-Going This project is being assessed through a hydrogeological survey to avoid over exploitation of aquifer. Funded By UNICEF One sewage line is taking case of by CISP out of 13 total lines. Municipality got the fund for this interventions Infrastructure

RISKS PRIORITY PROJECTS-SHORT TERM WHO WHAT STATUS Decline of the economic and of the job market fruit jam factory (food processing), rehabilitate the building, equipp it with the needed machines, fax, LCD, and generator the estimated cost includes the operational cost (communication, transportation, and managerial staff) Productive sector

Thank You!